Pageviews last month

Follow by Email

Monday, 8 June 2015

The realisation of the con job Cameron pulled on the British sheeple has just hit home.

I have to admit I've been laughing myself silly over the last couple of weeks at how disgusted people are with how much back peddling David Cameron has done since winning the election. Just one month in and he has already gone back on his word about getting rid of/reforming the Human Rights act; then, just today, threatening his ministers to vote with him on accepting ANY new EU deal or resign.

Dear sheeple, who believed all the negative GE campaigning and swallowed all the rubbish and over exaggerated promises made, TOLD YOU SO! Not that that actually helps the country now. We are all stuck with this cretin and his weak and pathetic government. I must admit, the morning after the election I have rarely felt such anger and bitterness towards my fellow countrymen (UKIP voters excluded). We had the perfect chance to change things and to take the country in a new more positive 'common sense' direction, but, as usual, we caved in and bottled it. That is the one HUGE flaw in our cultural make-up. Our stoic, stiff upper lip, don't take a chance mentality has stopped us time and time again from breaking free of the shackles that have held us captive since the war. It's exactly the same mentality that keeps abused wives/girlfriends going back to their abuser, just so they can give them 'one more chance'. The results are always the same, more abuse, more suffering and hardship. As far as I'm concerned the only true saying in politics is this one: 'The people always get the politicians and the governments they deserve.'

For those of you who are wise enough to read Peter Hitchens' column in the Mail On Sunday, he had been saying for months (actually years) that the Conservatives weren't real Conservatives anymore and that Cameron as the 'heir to Blair' was exactly that, a wet, liberal progressive who whole heartedly agreed with Blair's policies and political direction. Mr. Hitchens also correctly pointed out that all the pledges and fanciful promises made before the election were done precisely because the Tories never expected to win an outright majority - indeed, they probably didn't expect to win at all. The look of shock and dumbfounded surprise on the faces of Dave and Gideon the morning after told the real story.

The thing which has REALLY made me laugh though, was talking to some true die hard Torries, pre election, who firmly believd that Dave couldn't enact true Conservative policies because he was shackled to the Libdems. However, with this ultimatum today, he has once and for all shown his true liberal progressive colours and completely killed any possible doubt that he has any real Conservative leanings. I just know that the Conservative supporters I spoke to previously, will be spitting feathers and asking for blood pressure pills today. Oh there are non so blind as them who will not see.

Also, regarding Cameron's promise to get Britain a better deal and repatriate powers back from the EU. As I have said many times, he can't do that. The fundamental law of the EU is Acquis Communautaire, which clearly states that once powers, control and sovereignty has been handed over to the EU, that can't be handed back, renegotiated or repatriated unless the member state enacts article 50 of the treats and completely leaves the EU. Also, with the considerable and fundamentally deep rooted changes Cameron is seeking from the EU; it would require ALL members sates to vote on them and accept them. That would be like turkeys voting to have three Christmases a year - will NEVER happen. Therefore, all of the waffle coming from Cameron is pure spin and bullshit. In any case, Cameron is so pro EU there is absolutely NO WAY he wants us to leave. Any little bits he can get (which will be meaningless) from the EU will be lauded as a HUGE victory and spun as a great deal for Britain and then his party will be forced to accept that and fight tooth and nail to keep us shackled to another (even more powerful) abuser.

I just pray that after being so badly screwed in only a month, the sheeple of this pathetic island will for once vote NO in the referendum and get us out of the stinking, undemocratic, federalist, shit-pit that is the EU.
You've been fooled once, DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN!

Monday, 27 April 2015

Labour's Education Minister wants to re-educate you.....Be Afraid!

As the Election lumbers on with only a few days to go; I was watching the Daily Politics election debates on education the other day. The first thing that struck me was again how biased the BBC's  Andrew Neil was when it came to giving air time and space to talk to the party representatives. Both UKIP and The Greens were basically pushed to the sidelines, whilst the other 3 parties were given loads of time to prattle on with basically the same policies. To be bluntly honest I can't really remember what the Lib/Lab/Cons were wittering about because it's essentially the same crap they have been spouting for decades. I was particularly scared when Labour's education representative, Mr. Hunt said (albeit tongue-in-cheek to Andrew Neil) "Labour will re-educate you, Andrew." Shudder! We had 13 years of Labour's vision of Education, Education, Education and it was a hollow, data driven, politically dogmatic indoctrination of our young people.

As I have made very clear in other blog posts, I am a supporter of UKIP. I think they represent real and genuine positive change for this country. They (at least for the moment) don't come across as a slightly red or blue shade of vanilla. They tell things how they are and they are saying the things that lots of my friends, family, and England in general, have been saying for a LONG time. Granted, to the progressive, leftie-liberal, PC brigade they may sound racist and an anathema to their multi-cultural, morally relativist, utopian and metropolitan wet dream. However, these are the people who have insulated themselves from the harsh realities of life in modern Britain. These wet-ends are not the ones who have had to watch their cities change completely as more immigrants swamp them, making things incredibly difficult for a village, town or city's infrastructure and essential services to cope with. I am always aware of the words of Andrew Neather, advisor to Tony Blair, who published memos several years ago, which clearly showed that Labour deliberately and callously threw open the doors to uncontrolled mass immigration because they wanted to change the cultural and societal landscape of this country; in order to simply 'rub the right's nose in diversity and make their arguments redundant.' For that betrayal alone, Labour and their warped, failed ideology and corrupt dogma should NEVER be given the keys to Number 10.

However, I digress.

As a now ex teacher/lecturer I have seen firsthand the incredible damage that both Labour and the Conservatives have done to our education system, with their stupid fantasies about the benefits of an egalitarian one size fits all approach. To my mind, their dangerous meddling and inability to see that the comprehensive model of education simply does not work, is essentially child abuse. They have stolen opportunities and chances from generations of children, whose parents can't afford to send their kids to private schools, or move house to get into the catchment areas of good schools. Ask yourselves this question: If their education policies have worked so well and improved the lives of children for generations, why do politicians virtually always send their kids to private schools instead of even the good/outstanding comprehensive schools in their own constituency? Indeed, as was waspishly pointed out by Andrew Neil, all three representatives of Lib/Lab/Con in this debate had been privately educated and gone to top universities. They waffled some meaningless guff about this and moved on quickly. Often you have to look at what these idiots don't say, or how they act in tricky situations to get a real picture of where they are coming from, rather than the vague, wordy, spun out 'on message' drivel they come out with.

The answer is simple. Politicians know full well that the education available for the masses of this country is fucking shit. It has been dumb down and raped of practically any worth. Schools don't really teach children anything nowadays, at least not in the way that we think of teaching. All they do is put kids on an assembly line in a great exam factory, fill them full of things they need to pass exams and make sure that the school can get an acceptable A-C pass rate and have great looking data for Ofstead and league tables. God help any child if they are not academic and not able to contribute towards those A-C grades. My job for four years was working with pupils like that who weren't academically inclined and who struggled like crazy with reading and writing and so couldn't engage with the narrow and biased curriculum. On a practical level, they could have run rings round me when it came to sports or trade based work. However, those things are frowned upon in this country and are treated like the bastard child of education. Consequently, there is so little provision available for students like that. In my experience, it is only when they get to year 10, have been totally turned off by school, got a reputation for disrupting lessons (because they are so bored with academic stuff and can't understand it) that they are begrudgingly found a place at a local F.E college and allowed to go and do trade subjects. Where, lo and behold, they flourish and end up doing really well.

This has been our problem since the 60s, when schools were hijacked by trendy leftie progressives with their idiotic views about how humans and societies were basically a collective and stopped seeing humans as individuals with different skills, abilities and needs. And began promoting the need for a completely comprehensive model of education. Actually, to be fair, Marx himself realised this and knew that society wasn't totally collective. However, this piece of common sense is largely ignored and frowned upon by Frankfurt school, 'Common Purpose' idiots.

Therefore, as a result of our own snobby ignorance and a refusal to accept that different types of learners require different types of schools and education, we have condemned scores of highly practical children to five wasted years of torture, wasting their talents and abilities and just for an added bit of fun, made them feel useless, pathetic, thick and worthless. Great job.

Furthermore, when there are deep, vested interests, these powers that be will cling onto their failed, corrupt and broken ideologies/systems and fight to protect them. The way they do that now is by using meaningless stats and data about pass rates in G.C.S.E exams to back up their claims that we have one of the best education systems in the world. They will tell you how the exam success shows that our young people are getting a great education and that they are able to compete with children all over the world....Trust me, they are not and they can't!

Mind you anyone with some common sense can see the reality is not like that at all. We get countless stories from employers who say that when they try and take our young people on, they can hardly read, write or use basic maths skills. They complain, that our young people don't have a depth of knowledge or a good enough understanding of skills to function in most workplaces. As I mention above, this is because in schools we rarely teach children these skills or equip them with the required knowledge because 90% of the focus is simply on passing worthless, dumb down exams. It is a disgrace.

This is why I support UKIP because they are the only party with the balls to want to smash through all this progressive bullshit and want to bring back selection by ability and want to challenge our snobby belief that only academic qualifications count. They are following Germany's approach to education. In Germany (I know this because I have friends who teach over there) they have basically always believed that different types of learners need different schools and that selection by ability is the best way to bring out the abilities of their young people. However, unlike us and our pompous bias towards academic subjects at the cost of vocational trades - which is what created a very unfair and unbalanced two tier education system in this country from the 1940s until the 70s - Germany spends vast sums of money ensuring that all types of education and schools get the best equipment, teachers and facilities. That is the vital difference. It is this ethos that UKIP are seeking to copy and I know that if they succeed it will improve the education system in this country beyond belief.

That is the key reason that I support UKIP. They are the only party, who have a genuine idea how to improve the education for our young people. Selection by ability and having different school for different children is the best way to improve things. The other three parties hate this idea and won't even consider it. However, just remember that although they are happy for things to stay the same and for your children to attend crappy schools, if you don't happen to live in a good catchment area. They have the money and the connections to get their children into the best schools in the country. That is the worst kind of hypocrisy and I hate them for it. They are scum!

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Libya migrants and a few thoughts on UKIP

This post is going to be a collection of my thoughts in relation to a number of recent social and political events. It does contain some bad language, so you have been warned.

First, regards the horrendous sinking of the migrant ship off the coast of Libya. No one who has a heart could fail to be moved by the images and pictures that emerged over the weekend. Those poor people fleeing persecution, torture and most probably death end up trapped on a sinking ship. It's almost beyond comprehension. God knows what they must have gone through, especially given the fact that it has emerged that IS are now slaughtering large numbers of prisoners on the beaches of Libya. God help us. I hope that Mr. Cameron feels deep, crippling pain at his decision to bomb Libya and help overthrow Gaddafi. It was his actions, along with our western allies and their lust for power, coupled with a dreadfully misguided belief that the much lauded 'Arab Spring' could/would bring democracy to a part of the world that has shown, over and over, that it will NEVER be fit or able to live under our moderate, liberal democratic values which has helped to bring about the evil of IS. Yes, our elites ARE ultimately responsible for the recent horrors that has befallen that part of Africa and the Middle East - thank God Cameron didn't get his way when he wanted to bomb Syria.

I'm not saying that the rulers of that part of the world: Gaddafi, Saddam or Assad are/were good people, they were/are not and they did terrible things, but whichever way you look at it, things were better under their control than ever they could be under IS. Sometimes it really is better the devil you know. Oh yes, Mr. Cameron, you sir have buckets of innocent blood on your hands. I make no wonder swathes of our politicians  were stunned into silence over the weekend and unsure how to handle the situation. The reason being is that these migrants and their horrible deaths represent the very embodiment of their tragic and utterly misguided actions. I would further argue that they were slow to respond because they genuinely don't know what to do to make things right in those parts of the world, now that their feeble and insufficient military interventions have failed and created far more problems. In modern times the problem with all our military exploits has come about because there simply hasn't been enough thought give to the post-war stage. We have attempted to install 'friendly' governments and structures - such as in Afghanistan and Iraq - which won't work because of the deeply fundamentalist natures of the tribal systems. Again, I've said this many times but our version of democracy can't and won't ever be achievable in those parts of the world because their whole culture, history and societal make-up is the very antithesis of democracy. That's why it has failed so spectacularly in Iraq and Libya and I believe is on the points of failing in Afghanistan.
In reality, it would have been far better if America and to a much lesser extent ourselves, had reverted back to and adopted England's model of colonialism. If they'd realised that once military action was over, they were going to have to be there for at least 50-70 years and set up full colonial administrations, systems and governments; I honestly believe that would have avoided a great number of the problems we have seen in recent decades. The problem with our modern, short-term intervention approach is that it usually leaves one hell of a vacuum, coupled with those basically pre-feudal, fundamentalist, tribal structures it is recipe for unimaginable disaster.

So what should be done with these stranded migrants? This is a really tough question because ultimately we are responsible, in large part, for the troubles that are raging through that part of northern Africa and the Middle East. I hope to goodness I never find myself in that situation, because in that eventuality I would hope that another country would be kind enough to take me in. Having said that, my gut reaction is to treat them at sea the best we can and then send them back. That is not an easy decision and I say that with a sad and heavy heart. However, as awful as their situation is, there is probably a good chance that amongst those migrants is a number of purely economic migrants and quite possibly a number of sleeper IS spies/terrorists. Furthermore, if we go soft and take in one boatload now, then in the near future countless more will try the same again and again, until we'll be swamped. Today Paul Abbott, the Aussie PM, has urged Europe to do what they do and turn back refugee boats. They have a zero tolerance approach to migrants who try to enter their country. From what I have read this hard and tough stance does seem to work and it stops many would be illegal migrants trying to get to Aus. It must be nice to live in a country where the politicians have balls and are not afraid of putting their own people first. At the end of the day we can't save the world. Yes, we may have caused this but we and the rest of Europe can't take in masses of migrants. The more we take in the more we will be viewed as soft and also the greater the chances of being infiltrated by terrorists. This is another reason why over the last few weeks/months I have become so incredibly angry with our pathetic government for allowing back people who left this country to join or try and join IS. They should NEVER be allowed back. You've made your bed now lay in it. Ok, many of them have come back with absolute horror stories of depravity and barbaric cruelty beyond imagination, but how do we know they are not agents of IS who have concocted all this stuff? We don't.

I make no apologies for taking such a hard-line view. If you hated this country so much that you were willing to go off and join a group so inhumane and who detest and hate everything we stand for and want to bring the same around the western world, why the fuck should we take you back? In my opinion anyone who is blinded enough to go and do something like that, when the horror of what awaits them is very well documented, then they can happily go and die for all I care. They deserve everything they get for being so stupid. I have zero sympathy. Also, I would bet money that allowing these people back into our country will eventually prove to be a massive mistake. (Please let me be proved wrong on that.) I just have a horrible feeling that we are walking into a HUGE trap by doing this. Again, bleeding heart, PC liberals have been spouting crap in the media about how we need to let them back and give them a second chance. Am I the only one who hopes that if this does prove to have been a trap, that the people who get taken out first are these same do-gooders with their bleeding heart views?

I'm supporting UKIP.
As many long time readers of this blog will remember, I am a huge supporter of UKIP. I think they are a breath of fresh air in a very stale political system. Yes, I know they are not perfect and their supporters/activists sometimes make huge gaffes and come out with some views that I don't agree with (although sometimes I do.) However, that just shows that they are real. They are not made up of 'on message' sheep, who are so disconnected from the real world that real people can't relate to them. I find their gaffes and there unrehearsed and sometimes clumsy approach endearing. After decades of polished, spin and evading of questions I love their honesty. I particularly back their policies on leaving the EU, immigration control and more specifically on Education, as they are the only party who champion the virtues of bringing back selection by ability.

The three main parties have all sold this country down the river. They are all wedded to the increasingly dangerous federalist super state dream of Europe. They are all indoctrinated with this evil progressive, liberal, PC dogma that has allowed ethnic minorities to get away with abusing young girls and unrestricted mass immigration from the EU and the Middle East, which has made large sections of certain cities no go areas for white Brits. For that I lay the blame firmly at Labour's door. God help us if they get elected again in May; we've already had umpteen glimpses of their 'big state' socialist driven, controlling hell that awaits us should people be stupid enough to vote for them. I find it so incredibly hard to understand how people can have such short memories of what we ended up with after 13 years of that quasi-socialist rabble. By 2010 they had all but bankrupted the country, everything was controlled by meaningless targets, data and quangos. The PC brigade had pretty much made every form of free speech a crime and we were ruled by an ideology that thought the state new best. Not to mention all the taxes and borrowing and back door privatisation of both the NHS and education through the use of PFI. Gordoom Clown and his cabinet (some of whom are still very much in charge with Milliband, Ed Balls for chancellor, anyone.....SHUDDER!) were the most hated and despised political leaders we'd virtually ever had. And yet the sheeple of this country still seem set to vote them back in to finish off the job. It beggers belief!

I know UKIP won't win, I'm not as delusional as some supporters who comment on the Express stories. Our FPTP system will make sure of that. However, I suspect they will do better than expected and win a number of seats up and down the country. Then, I hope we will begin to see some real choice in our politics with a party who isn't afraid to tell it like it is and offend some people. A party for the people who believes in its people and wants to but their values and culture first. The biased BBC really will have a problem then; all their wet end lefties must be crapping themselves. Although, actually, knowing how the left think as well as I do, they are usually insulated by their self righteous sense of always being right. I hope all that is going to change on May 8th.
Best of luck UKIP, kick some arse and say it like it is!

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

How to deal with the feckless underclass and stop them breeding

Aside from all the election nonsense that has now kicked into overdrive; one of the most interesting and perhaps worrying stories over the last week was that of Mike Holpin. The jobless, feckless person who has 40 children and has been named as Britain's worst father. Good grief!
In the past I wrote a great deal about the underclass scum and how you deal with them. I also still believe that in order to understand them, you have to practically get down in the gutter with them; then and only then can you truly appreciate the depravity and the level to which this small yet significant sub-set of human pond life have sunk.

As I used to say, these people, the real core of the underclass (not the ones on the periphery, but the real, rotten stinking core) can't EVER be helped and DON'T want to be helped. Nothing you do will benefit them or change them or make them into useful members of society. The ONLY way to stop this cancer from spreading through our society is to stop them breeding. Not cut child benefit, not put more resources into 'helping' them, not give them another social worker - stop them breeding. End of.
However, the first thing we as a society would need to do is to stop seeing having children as a 'right' but see children as a 'privilege'. Once you change that mindset you can then build on the premise that, like all privileges, they must first have to be earned. By earned I don't mean spend more time in the bedroom, I mean demonstrating first that you would make good, loving, supportive and committed parents before being allowed to have children.

My starting point for this belief came from experience of a family member who went through the arduous and challenging process of adoption. The hoops and criteria they had to jump through and pass to prove and demonstrate that they were the right sort of people for adopting a child was unimaginably difficult and pushed them to the very limit. Ultimately, this process proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they were exactly the sort of responsible, loving and dedicated parents suitable for adopting a child. Non but the most committed, strong, loving and serious could ever have passed those criteria. Thankfully, now, they are the loving, amazing parents to a beautiful little girl.

My point is that if we have those strict criteria in place for adoption, similar criteria should be placed on everyone who wants to have a child. They should have to earn the privilege of having children. If we had the guts to do that you would rule out ALL these feckless, scroungers, who just see children as a bit of fun and a potential cash cow. The reason being, that the really feckless, ner-do-wells wouldn't have the commitment, dedication, selflessness or even the motivation to pass all those criteria. It would be too much hard work for them. The irony being that - as my family members pointed out - no matter how hard those tests and criteria were to pass, they were nothing compared to how hard it is to actually raise, support and love a child properly. Hopefully, you get my point here.
At this stage, I realise there will be those screaming Nazi and totalitarian arsehole at the screen. Ask me if I give a chuff. I don't. I make absolutely no apologies for taking such a hardline, draconian approach.

I have experienced first-hand, countless times, the damage, pain, suffering and destruction of a child's life that can occur because of our progressive, morally relativist, bleeding heart dogma that has infected this country more and more since the 60s. Worse still I have heard horrendous, heartbreaking accounts from family and friends who work for social services. Accounts so disgusting and evil that I would give anything if I could have them eradicated from my mind.  So, if you think my views too extreme, too right-wing, tough shit. I am totally unapologetic and stand by them. You won't hear these views and solutions expressed by our politicians and our media, but I promise you this; if we did have the guts to go down this road, our society would be a hell of a lot better and we could stop a great deal of the suffering of unborn children, because they would no longer to be born to underclass scummy families.

So how would I achieve this?

1. Contraception would be compulsory from the age of 13/14 (and we also need to hurry up and develop a pill or contraceptive implant for males, too). Then, girls/women/men could be given the privilege of coming off contraception once they have signalled that they want to have a family and that they have passed a certain number of criteria. These criteria would be:

 2. A set level of educational attainment, probably A'Level and/or vocational equivalent and/or higher. This would do two things. First, it would at the very least give prospective parents an adequate level of education/skills/training to be able to find a decent job so that they could support themselves and their family. Secondly and more importantly, it would help to demonstrate that these prospective parents had a sense of delayed gratification and a certain level of 'stick-ability' which shows they can be committed and work hard for something. They are not just going to quit when things get difficult (vital for the pressures and stresses that a child brings)

3. Prospective parents must prove that they have been in a loving, supportive and committed relationship for a set number of years. Again, this demonstrates a high level of working towards a shared goal and a sense of delayed gratification. They aren't just going to split up once the pressures and stress kick in.

4. Prospective parents must have held down a job for a set number of years and can demonstrate that they are financially independent and can support themselves and their children without state handouts.
Once all these criteria had been met, then and only then could the contraceptives be removed and the couple could either have a child of their own or adopt.

Now, I hold my hands up and admit that this plan is not fool proof and could be open to abuse. Even with these strict criteria in place, children could still end up in abusive and unloving homes. Yes, true, I can agree with that. Nothing is ever going to be 100% successful. However, as I've argued, it would stop large numbers of innocent children being born to people who don't deserve to have such a wonderful and amazing gift as a child in their lives. It would certainly put off, these lazy, feckless good for nothing, underclass scumbags from fathering so many children and then all but destroying their lives and ruining that child's chances.

As totalitarian and draconian as this idea sounds, if it stopped children being born into such horrendous environments, then I'm all for it.

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

A response to Winston Smiths post about Socialism and why I respectfully believe he is wrong

This week saw the return to the blogosphere (I hate that term) of Mr. Winston Smith and a much welcome return it is. Winston was one of the shining lights when it came to highlighting the disgusting and fundamental problems for young people in care. His accounts often harrowing and heartbreaking in equal measure were written not from a perspective of hate and loathing of the underclass, rather from, I believe, a genuine desire to highlight the issues in an attempt to make things better. You always got the impression that even when he'd experienced a great deal of abuse from the young people he was caring for, Winston still wanted the best for them, he still wanted to help - to me that is the mark of a genuinely decent and generous person.

His newest post is about how, now that he's had some time away from writing and away from the battlefield as it were, he has been able to reflect on his views and the things he wrote. To do something like this takes tremendous courage and strength to see one's own faults and to admit when you've perhaps made mistakes. There are a number of points where Winston has done this and tried to explain his reasoning and thoughts at the time. Again, I applaud, Winston for this and I admire him for holding his hands up and having the balls to say I made a few mistakes.

I know in the past we haven't always agreed (my comments about what should be done with the London rioters he thought were too extreme). I also know that our social perspectives are very different;  I'm a VERY hard line right-winger where he comes at things from a left-wing, socialist perspective.  Even though I do not agree with his point of view; I still respect him greatly for having a strong direction and a genuine passion and a desire for things to be better.  From that perspective, I believe we have some common ground. We both want our society to be better, we just come at it from opposite ends.

Now, in his post he has talked about why he is still a socialist and how his principals and views are shaped by left-wing ideas. I will admit, as an ex lefty/socialist myself, his arguments are very persuasive and they do have some merit to them. For example he blames the system of extreme liberalism combined with excessive neo-liberal economic policies for the growth in the underclass and increased inequality that has led to the marginalisation of the working and lower working class. I also strongly agree with his point about middle class teachers, social workers and other professionals making excuses for working class anti social behaviour because of the fact that they are working class. As I used to say many times on this blog, that is a perfect example of miss-placed bleeding-heart, progressive dogma, which tries to excuse behaviour by making these people out as victims of the system. As Winston says: ' New Labour actually exacerbated the existence of the underclass because they didn't understand that the values you instil in people are just as important as the money you put in their pockets.'  I would actually argue that New Labour knew exactly what they were doing by fostering and promoting this unthinking, no need to take responsibility for your own actions, victim mentality through their use of social policy. They vastly increased the size of the underclass and threw open the doors to untold poorly skilled and educated migrants so that they could shore up their voter bases. I honestly believe that this experiment in social engineering was done deliberately to secure votes for their party. Winston, also, rightly, I believe, points out that the capitalist system will never serve the interests of the working class, nor is it designed to help them out of the mire. Quite so.

However, I part company from his arguments  when he says: 'I have come to believe once again that a fair, just and equitable societies can only come about when people embrace a sense of collective purpose and work together for the common good.'

The problem with this belief is that for it to work you have to have people working together 'collectively' for the common good - won't ever happen on a large scale for an extended period of time. Here's why. Human beings are all individuals, we are not and never have been a true collective species. Admittedly, we do form into small tribes and even possibly extended kinship groups; however, that has always been done to help further and improve the chances of our groups, to pool resources to enable us to strive and attain more than the next group. I know that there is the argument that because we are so advanced now we have the capabilities of sharing resources so that nobody need struggle or suffer. Indeed, that may be so, but the reason it doesn't happen is because some people in their very DNA in their genetic makeup will ALWAYS want more, will always want to exploit and control. Again, human beings are not a true collective or altruistic species. We have glimpses of that, when we can unite for the common good, but because of our competitive, individual natures, we can't sustain that for very long. Another way of highlighting this is the old example of hypothetically sharing out all the resources evenly (let's just take money for this example) some people would spend it in a matter of days on silly frivolous things and be left with nothing in a matter of weeks, whilst others would save it or invest it wisely. We have been genetically pre programmed to be that way and that is ultimately why a society based on a large collective macro system is ultimately doomed to failure. These systems, theoretically, be it capitalism or socialism, liberalism et al always work brilliantly, because they see society functioning pretty much (there are a few spaces open for divergent behaviour) as a homogenous mass. However, these systems only work if basically every human is functioning to the best of their ability and working collectively for a common goal. That is unrealistic, again because of our individual natures. Now, I know that people will say yes but we put laws, rules and regs in place to counter that and make people conform. True, those rules and laws do help to curtail the problems and force people to comply to a given system. For example, let's take a popular theme of the last few years the fraud and illegal dealings of bankers that have left us all up shit creek. We do indeed have laws, rules, sanctions and legislation to stop bankers playing fast and loose and these should in theory have prevented the bankers from getting us into such a terrible mess. However, as J.P' O Rourke correctly put it: 'When buying and selling becomes regulated and legislated, the first things to be bought and sold are the regulators and the legislators.' In other words, humans will always find ways to bypass and get round laws and rules if they go against their individual goals and ambitions.

Another important factor why these macro systems can't ever work properly is because they don't actually exist. They are societal/economic/cultural constructs that work through the use of shared goals and aims. This is all well and good and very noble but as I mentioned above when you factor in the intrinsic, individualism of human beings every grand narrative that relies on something as weak as this is always bound to come a cropper. This is why it would ultimately be pointless to try and change one collectively driven system (capitalism/neo-liberalism) for another (socialism).  This is the great irony of socialism because it can't or perhaps doesn't want to see that the same factors which prevent capitalism from working effectively would, ultimately, stop it from working properly, also. Again, I know people will argue  that all you need to do is put in more sanctions, laws and regs to make it (the chosen system) work better and more effectively, but that is the same as treating the symptoms of an illness, rather than the cause.

I honestly believe that until we have the technology to eradicate intrinsic human faults, such as greed, our need to dominate, our need to control and other negative individual traits on a genetic level, nothing is going to improve. In the same way that we are now increasingly screening embryos for genetic defects and illnesses, we are not that far off being able to eliminate those negative characteristics, prenatal and replacing them with desirable characteristics such as; greater compassion, a sense of collective responsibility, love, kindness and gentleness et al. Until we are able to do that our society will never become a more fair, equal and harmonious place, because no matter the system, our individual drives and our detrimental human faults will always win out over the long term and stop that needed sense of collective and uniting social cohesion. That might sound pessimistic, but when you consider the history of our species at no time have we EVER been able to sustain a fair and just collective society. Furthermore, even today when we could easily do that, it isn't possible because the ones who rise to the top because they have that ruthless drive and ambition, will fight tooth and nail to preserve what they have. Ultimately, at the moment, genetically we are not an altruistic or collective species and that is why these grand systems can't ever work. 

Finally, I just want to stress that this is not meant as an attack on Winston in anyway. I admire him and I respect him and his writings greatly. I hope that he will take this post in the friendly and warm spirit in which it is meant - because that is sincerely how I hope it comes across. I urge anyone reading this to pop across to his blog and have a read of his excellent post. There is much in it to applaud and, as I pointed out above, I agree with lots of the points he has made. Thanks, Winston.

Thursday, 26 February 2015

Teacher banned from teaching for kissing an 18 year old ADULT student. It's the Nanny State gone mad

So a teacher has been banned from teaching for life for kissing an 18 year old student at a leavers' party. Good grief!

Yes, ok, Ruth Vaughn also had sex with the lad during his second week at uni, but so what?
I know this is a topic that polarises people one way or the other and in the midst of our paedophile obsessed culture this has stirred strong feelings. As a ex teacher/lecturer myself, I know all the rules and regs and let me firmly stress that I have NEVER engaged in sexual activity with any of my students and that I in no way condone or make excuses for paedophiles.

However, I do think it's time we started using some common sense in these matters. Yes, there are arguments about Ms. Vaughn being in a position of trust, but at the end of the day, the lad was 18, therefore, as far as I'm concerned that rule no longer applies. Furthermore, as the age of consent is 16, I think that is the age at which the rules about being in a position of trust should no longer apply. You can't have one rule for most of society and another rule for other sections. Although, I am tempted to put in the caveat that at 16 there should be no more than a 10 year age gap between the two CONSENTING parties.

Again, let me make it ABSOLUTELY clear that I would not support nor condone sexual activity with anyone (any child actually) under the age of 16. That is sick, evil and just totally vile. I hope I've made that clear. However, I do feel that from the age of 16 they are mature enough and able to make decisions about having sex for the first time. Hence why this is the age of consent

Having worked in a number of schools/colleges I can honestly say that very few 16 year olds are as innocent as we would like them to be. They know what the score is and they should not be treated as children. Trust me, 16 year old girls are nowhere near the gullible, sweet little lambs they are portrayed to be. I can't think of one that I've worked with who didn't know exactly what she was doing. Regularly, I saw them flirting very overtly with male teachers and I've heard many talking explicitly about what they would do to certain male teachers.....and believe me, they meant it.

However, in this specific case we are not talking about a 16 year old, but an 18 year old ADULT and a 24 year old woman. Regardless of the fact that he was still at school (albeit for another few days) he was legally an adult and at that point all they had done was share a kiss - so what? Big deal. Unfortunately, now because of our over protective nanny state society, Ms. Vaughn has been banned from teaching in Britain for life (although she can appeal this in 5 years time). I honestly think this is too harsh and it just demonstrates how silly and over reaching our rules and laws have become.

20/30 years ago it was quite common place for teachers to date and marry their sixth form students. Indeed I  heard of someone who did just that in his mid 20s and she was 18 - granted this was a long time ago, the guy is now in his 70s. Furthermore, when the head teacher found out that the pair were together, he invited this person for a 'chat' and tried to give the then young teacher advice on getting a mortgage together and setting up a home. In my opinion that is how it should still be. We should be using common sense in these matters. If both parties are over the age of consent (and it is mutually consenting) and certainly if they are both 18 and older, then it can't and shouldn't in anyway be thought of as abuse.

Absolutely, we must do all we can to stop CHILDREN being abused - God forbid nobody wants that. ( Again, let me state that I view anybody under 16 as a child). However, to sack someone and ban them from teaching for simply sharing a kiss with an 18 year old is simply stupid (the issue of being in a position of trust is simply immaterial.)

We all need to loosen up, use some common sense and live and let live.

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Islington bans pork from all primary school menus. Give me strength!

Horrifying story from The Standard.

For goodness sake, stop this madness!

And surprise surprise, Islington is under the control of Labour. The party that thrust multiculturalism on us so they could 'rub the right's nose in diversity' seems ever more intent on pandering to our Muslim brothers. Stop it! It is still our fucking country. If they want to live here then they should have to live by our culture and values, not theirs.

The claim is that it costs too much to label and monitor which children are allowed to eat it and which aren't. No, it bloody well doesn't. You make it perfectly clear to parents of those religions who aren't allowd pork, that it will be served at those schools and if they don't like it, tough shit. They can always find another school.

Conversely, I wonder if halal/kosher meat is being served to non Muslim/Jewish children without them realising it?

We are far too soft in this country, we pander and bow down to other cultures and faiths at the expense of our own. I make no wonder large parts of London, Birmingham, Bradford et all are little more than segregated ghettos. How much longer before these places impose Sharia (if they haven't done so informally already) on those towns/cities?

It is wrong and our spineless politicians and ruling elites are stabbing white English/British people in the back and selling us out. It has to stop or in a matter of only a few years I would bet (though I hope I am proved wrong) there will be a civil war here. I am sick to death of this pathetic experiment in multiculturalism. It hasn't worked and it is destroying our once great country because of some failed, perverse ideological dogma.

I really hope UKIP storm through at the GE because if they don't I fear this country is lost.