Archive for the ‘prognostications’ Category

#EUref Politicians who despise populism and those voting for Trump need to re-evaluate their own attitudes.

May 27, 2016
Letter sent to Daily Mirror 27/5/16:
It is a sign of our times that Jean-Claude Juncker’s aide, Martin Selmayr, felt free to comment on the emergence of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Trump and Marine Le Pen as
“a horror scenario that shows well why it is worth fighting populism”.
It reveals an ignorance of the political scene shared by the people around him.
It also suggests that he and they despise the concerns of ordinary people.
Essentially, they oppose Democracy and believe themselves an aristocracy with a superior understanding of what’s best for the people over whom they have been given power.
It is worrying that such people do not realise that it is their contempt for voters, which has led to the emergence of these three clownish figures.
It is not these three, about whom they should be concerned, but their own arrogance and its potential consequences.
It’s as if the riots in Italy, Greece, Spain and France were mere irritations, rather than portents of a future that ill fits their European dream.
Taking an analogy; it wasn’t Fletcher Christian, who caused the Mutiny, aboard the Bounty, but Captain Bligh’s arrogance and his treatment of those who actually sailed the ship both before and after he lost command.


Men and women aren’t equal and it’s nothing to do with being fair.

January 25, 2016
As someone whose guide is “fairness”, I understand the feminist angst over a male dominated society and agree that it needs to be opposed.
The Victorian attitude towards Women and the Poor was unacceptable but Feminists will never win full equality, because the majority of men and women don’t want it.
That doesn’t make it right, it’s just the way it is.
I find myself equally uncomfortable with the sight of a Pakistani patriarch striding along with his family in tow, as I do the chav female pushing her pram like a chariot, whilst she texts and her 6′ skinny man follows like a beaten cur, with no need for a leash.
I much prefer the more common sight of couples walking side by side, progressing by a mutual understanding of each other’s purposes.
But look at any couple, even homosexual ones, and you see that they complement each other.
They aren’t equals. One will be more positive, or dominant, or thoughtful, or whatever.
Where they don’t fit, they learn to accomodate.
We have evolved to be couples according to the much maligned stereotype of a muscular male built to wander off in search of game and to fight off threats to his family. The female geared to a long pregnancy and lengthy period of childcare has to be prepared to endure long periods of quiescence and readiness to submit to the needs of her mate, in terms of helping him to protect their children.
I know the stereotype is not needed in our modern life, where, at present, Society, as a whole, takes on childcare responsibilities and male muscle has been largely superceded by technology, but the basic drives are still there.
Men still prefer curvaceous, smooth-skinned females and women still look for the tall dark and handsome male.
Women, in general tend to be passive, accepting and compliant. Men tend to be adventurous, aggressive risk-takers.
My mind-set is reflected in this letter to the Daily Mirror (sent 21/1/16)
On BBC Breakfast, there’s a woman complaining that women are paid less than men, for equivalent jobs, and are charged more than men for equivalent goods.
Then I read a piece in the Mirror about Gwynneth Paltrow; being criticised for her choice of swimsuit, whilst noting that it cost £104 and that she has a hot boyfriend.
The piece had to be written by a woman, because no man (obviously not her “hot boyfriend”) would be looking at the packaging.
The piece points up the reason, for sex inequality existing, as women’s attitudes, especially towards each other.
Re-write the phrase used earlier: “women accept less pay than men, for equivalent jobs, and pay more than men for equivalent goods.”
Whereas a man looks for a better paid job, most women look for a friendlier workplace.
Whereas most men will buy the cheapest item fit for its purpose, women search high and low for that item, which will make other women coo appreciatively.
Pay inequality will continue until the majority of women are masculinised and the majority of men are feminised.
It won’t happen because men like their women pretty and women like their men butch.

The real threat of ISIS is that it will throw back civil liberties to the time of the Peterloo Massacre.

November 16, 2015

Reference the attascks by ISIS: It is the loss of our freedoms that we should be concerned with.

Hitler and Stalin would have loved the powers that our Governments have given themselves.

They can track us, individually, via our GPS systems in our cars and phones. Presumably this was why the terrorists in the previous French attack  (known by the Security forces to be dangerous, without a blanket trawl of everyone’s on-line activity) used a couple of dozen different mobile phones in arranging the attack and the escape of their families.

The power, to hack our phones, means the security services can activate the microphones in our smart phones, download all our messages. All whilst we think our phones are switched off (according to Snowden).  As many have their mobiles linked to their bank accounts, it is conceivable that they could be emptied, also.

We have more CCTV’s per head than anywhere else in The World: These can be connected to software which can identify people from faces, from a mile away (I think it’s called Sentinel).

They have been intercepting our emails for over a decade (Echelon) and even local Authorities are allowed to do so. The new legislation just makes some aspects legal.

As far as reading all those emails, that’s not necessary; they have software which, like Net Nanny, looks for key phrases and flags up suspect ones

Other liberties are in danger; in response to the recent attack, in Paris, it is likely we’ll see armed units on our streets, maybe even private militia (the government likes to privatise and has used G4S in Afghanistan etc.) with Army supervision.

We could have a generation growing up thinking that these trappings of a Police State are normal.

We could have a generation of politicians thinking that it is their right to use these power’s against people who won’t behave themselves, as was the case at the Peterloo massacre.

I re-call my “Good old Days”.

July 10, 2015

“The good old days” is a phrase often accompanied by a sneering tone.
They are always the good old days to the those, who live through them, as children and young adults, because for each generation, they refer to the golden days of youth.

That is often the only reason, they are deemed good.

In my good old days, I had holes in my shoes and trouser cheeks.

I had a perpetual cold, because my bed cover consisted of my dad’s army greatcoat and my bedroom floorboards didn’t even have a rug.
By Today’s standards my childhood was deplorable but as a child the World was a wonderful place of discovery.

For every Winter’s night that I cried myself to sleep with the pain of being cold, there was a Summer’s day of lying on the baking hot limestone slabs of the pavement, the pricking of tar bubbles on the cobbles, recently tarmac-ed over after the removal of the Nissen huts along the centre of our street.

Even our parents thought of them as the Good days.

They had survived the Second World War, when most of them had lost at least one relative, or dear friend to the hated enemy. (Huns, Nips, eye-ties)

Such a racist attitude was practically a legal requirement at the time.

Our parents had not only survived The War, they had lived through The Depression, which even my generation (Baby Boomer) can’t properly imagine.

It had been a time when parents were lucky if they could live and be employed in the same town; a time when records tell of women dying of starvation to ensure that their children didn’t.

My own father told me of walking from his home to Kirkby (5miles) to stand at the end of a queue of 200 men waiting in hope that a worker had been sick and failed to attend work.

Thousands of men gathered at the Docks hoping to be one of the hundred, or so, who would get a day’s work.

You left school at 13 and got a job, if you could, unless you got a scholarship.

My Dad got a scholarship but had to go find work instead, because his dad was killed by a dropped bolt, in the days when Industry wasn’t hog-tied by Health and Safety rules, such as supplying hard-hats for construction workers.

Post-War, I was lucky that my father was a skilled cabinet-maker, able to earn good wages in an age of piece-work.

Our neighbour’s were lucky, in that the Welfare State was born, just a short while after I was.

For the present generation, who’ve grown up well-nourished (most are several inches taller than my baby-boomer generation), with technology leaping forward, making life easier, the Internet making them more knowledgeable (less naive) these will be their Good Old Days, although the present political climate does not bode well for their future..

It’s the EU way. salami politics, or slice at a time.

June 12, 2015

According to Fullermoney:
“Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government may be satisfied with Greece committing to at least one economic reform sought by creditors to open the door to bailout funds, according to two people familiar with Germany’s position.”
Merkel’s not stupid but I don’t think Tsipras is either.

Hopefully he realises that if he takes the bait, then next time there’ll be another piece of poisoned bait and so on.

His voter’s will realise that he is allowing them to be screwed a bit at a time.

It’s the EU way.

Why does Government put onus for illegals on lorry drivers and not Ferries

June 12, 2015

written in response to attacks on British lorry drivers at Calais. My suggestion is that if Government was serious about stopping illegals, they’d make it the responsibility of those ferrying the lorries, who could actually take effective action. (but at a loss of profit)

Sent 6/6/15

The situation with our open borders has become farcical.
The recent exposure of Polish Lorry drivers, exploiting their EU rights to capitalise on the situation is making Government, of all political parties, look beyond incompetent.
We are now reading of British drivers being intimidated by immigrant gangs, partly because of our Government’s adherence to devolving State responsibility onto the private sector.
By fining driver’s, caught with illegals aboard their vehicles, they have attempted to shed a policing role onto individuals, who lack the power and authority to implement it.
If the responsibility must be passed onto the private sector, it would have made more sense to impose the role on the ferry companies, who have the wherewithall to organise and fund the role.

One can only assume that the ferry companies are in a position to refuse, whereas lorry driver’s aren’t.

Is the EU referendum a complete fake-out?

June 12, 2015

I wrote this before Cameron’s faux pas over a pretence of a free vote.

It was a letter to the Daily Express in response to what looked like misinformation by Leo MKinstry that Cameron might really favour a Brexit.

Sent 8/6/15

It would be nice if Leo McKinstry was correct in thinking that Cameron might come out against staying in the E.U. but the phrase “clutching at straws” comes to mind.
The evidence seems to be against Leo McKinstry’s conjecture and that once more it will be Hobson’s choice with only a Tory “yes” campaign and a Labour “yes” campaign: Both vilifying the “Kippers” as racists and nutters.
That the three main parties of the previous G.E. wouldn’t even contemplate a referendum argues against a true democratic choice.
The statements by Juncker and Obama added to the falsity of Cameron’s negotiating platform and the increase in tax-payer money to fund the campaign do not inspire trust in the claim that this will be a fair, or balanced referendum.
Why bother with an expensive exercise in futility, where the outcome may have already been decided.
I suspect that within a year, or two, we will have ceded sovereignty.

David Cameron will have no need to step down as P.M., because that post could well be redundant.

Oil companies will decide what happens to the Falklands.

March 30, 2015

Letter (not published ) to Daily Express (29/3/15):

Richard Madeley bemoans the defence cuts and frets that Kirchner may be girding up for an Argentine invasion of The Falklands.
It does not seem likely that Osborne and Cameron have not considered the threat posed by this woman. Either they have the defence of The Falklands well in hand, or they have some political solution in the process of negotiation.
I can’t believe that they will waste money on stationing a bigger armed force on this remote island, than we will have left on our own.
Although we are keeping Trident, it would be infantile to believe that, in the event of an invasion, we would reach for the nuclear button, or that the US would let us.
That leaves the political solution, which must derive from the oil associated with the waters off The Falklands and the dependent region of Antarctica.
The driving ideology of modern politicians suggest that some sort of Trade Treaty is being negotiated, whereby some major consortium will take charge of the whole issue and dispense profits to both Governments, in an agreed manner.
Something of this nature must be in hand, because to believe the possibility, that Osborne and Cameron would just let Kirchner send an unopposed armada to seize the islands, is to believe that they wish to anger The Nation and destroy the Tory party forever.

New court charges bring us closer to US style democracy and Justice @UKLabour

March 9, 2015

New court charges are claimed to tax the Rich but will copy US system and deny legal access to plebs.
Consider if you are seriously injured, or your home is wrecked. If you sue for damages of £200,000, then you will need to pay £10,000 (5%) into court, before you even begin to incur legal costs. If you, or a loved one are severely incapacitated, the court charges could be astronomical, by pleb standards.

Ah! but if you, pleb, have insurance, the insurance will pay, if you have an airtight case and you can afford the premiums.
Problem is that this simply means that Insurance companies will gouge you.

This is where I go off into the realms of paranoia, based on the thesis that Wall Street is making our Laws, not us.

Reflect on the legal requirement to have car insurance.
The basic requirement is Third Party only i.e. compensation for personal injury to another. Insurance companies WON’T offer this.
They will offer Third party, Fire and Theft, or fully Comprehensive.
Usually the Comprehensive is cheaper, because there’s no profit in the other two.

Insurance companies then insist that damage to your car costing less than £200-£300 comes out of your own pocket (“excesses”).
You would still have to file a claim, so they can put your premium up.
It means that if your car is more than 10 years old, then you’re car will probably be written off with minimum compensation of about 2 year’s premiums, which you’ll pay back in loss of “no claims bonus”.
This is a ridiculously unfair scheme, only possible because of The Road Traffic Act
This is a legal requirement to protect people you could injure, despite MOT requirements, modern safety features, speed restrictions and drink-drive laws that have come in since The Road Traffic Act was created.
Worst is, if you’re a cyclist, crippled by a motorist, under these new court charges, you’ll need to have a similarly ridiculous level of insurance.

Look at America and see our future.

Membership of EU makes splitting of UK irrelevant

March 8, 2015
Sent to Express (7/3/15 not published) respponse to Stephen Pollard warning against a coalition of the Left.:
If, as John Major and Stephen Pollard fear, Labour and SNP form a coalition Government, leading to a break-up of the Union, does it matter?
David Cameron will have missed his chance to lead us out of the EU and We will remain in bondage inside The European Union, because both members of that coalition are committed to rule from Brussels.
In that event we won’t be separate nations but simply neighbouring states of the E.U. and both those political parties will cease to be of relevance.