As a sideline here, we like to point out instances of "'70s hype" as we call it. You know, times when interesting events of other decades are assigned to the 1970s, thus making it seem the most dramatic and colourful decade ever? This is a very common occurrence.
Today, we find Prodicus saying:
Would it be that Brenda Dean who, with her brothers and sisters in That Great Movement of Theirs, even today the Labour Party's paymaster, held the Byzantine British publishing industry firmly by the throat until, in the 1970s, Eddie Shah, Rupert Murdoch (and in the 80s, Margaret Thatcher) finally dragged it out of the mediaeval swamp and into the modern era and broke the lethal grip of the trade unions on the freedom of the British people?
Er, would that be the Eddie Shah who had a set-to with the unions in 1982, lasting seven months? Is 1982 the "1970s"!? Would that be the Eddie Shah who set up Today newspaper, Britain's first colour national daily, in March 1986? And would that be the Rupert Murdoch of 1986 Wapping fame? Is 1986 the "1970s"?
It's bizarre. it's rampant. the '70s are everywhere! Even when they shouldn't be! But it does help people not to mention '80s. Even when they really should.
UPDATE:
Prodicus has been in touch, telling us it's "a fair cop".
"What ho. A fair cop. My mistake on the chronology, now corrected. Mrs T passed the legislation and Shah and Murdoch used it. I was in publishing in the 70s (plenty of union s**t) and 80s (more off same during the breaking of the stranglehold). I still have the scars."
Understood, matey. The relevant legislation in the Shah scenario dated from 1980 and 1982. We make a bit of hobby of spotting instances of the 1980s being rewritten to the 1970s. You wouldn't believe how often it happens! From the BBC to the UK Press Association, proclaiming '80s events are '70s is absolutely piggin' RAMPANT!!
This blog is not right wing or left wing. It is old style Socialist, true Socialist, and simply points out the facts regarding asymmetric national devolution, which is based on Edward Lhuyd's 1707 'Celtic' labelling of certain languages and historical revisionism, and how it disadvantages ALL people in the largest and most ethnically diverse UK country of all - England.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
CEP: At last, an English MP speaks up for England and English jobs
'All classes of nuclear submarines in Britain will be based at Faslane on the Clyde in Scotland from 2017'. That was yesterday’s announcement from Bob Ainsworth Minister of State for Defence. As from 2017 there won’t be a single nuclear submarine based in any English naval port. There will be no jobs for an Englishman or woman in the maintenance and service of the British nuclear fleet as from 2017.The four Vanguard class submarines, which carry Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent, are already based in Faslane. But from 2017 the remaining three nuclear-powered Trafalgar Class submarines, which do not carry nuclear warheads, will be moved from Devonport in Plymouth to Faslane. All the 10,000 plus jobs plus a similar number in the industries immediately supplying the bases will go from Devon to Scotland.
‘This is the most blatant act of discrimination against the English workforce yet carried out by this Scottish-led government in its eleven years of existence,’ David Wildgoose, Vice Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has stated in an emergency letter sent to all CEP members. ‘I urge every single member to write to their MP to object to this injustice. Britain's entire nuclear submarine fleet is to be based at Faslane on the Clyde. This government is allowing the "Scottish agenda" to threaten English jobs. Gordon Brown is taking jobs away from the English workforce of Devonport to ingratiate himself with this own Scottish countrymen and women in the hope of preserving Scottish votes in the coming local and EU elections on June 4th and the General Election next year. It is downright wrong. It is downright discrimination.
‘I agree wholeheartedly with the condemnation of the decision made by Gary Streeter, the MP for Devon South West who has said: "I fear that the Devonport naval base is going to be allowed to wither on the vine over the next five to 10 years. It has had 320 years of history. We will have the amphibious fleet, but that is three boats and not much else. That is not going to replace all these frigates and submarines". I agree with Mr Streeter when he says he is particularly angry because English jobs were being jeopardised by an attempt to appease the Scots.
And Mr Wildgoose reminded the CEP membership that for the last two years, in one press release after another, the Campaign has been trying to bring public attention to this Scottish-led UK government’s policy of transferring naval shipyard employment from Devonport, Tyneside, Barrow on Furness and Appledore to the two Scottish yards of Faslane on the Clyde adjacent to the Glasgow heartland of the government’s support in Scotland and to Rosyth right next to Gordon Brown’s own constituency. ‘We must make our objections known to our English MPs. English MPs must stand up for the English workforce'.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit,
01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
‘This is the most blatant act of discrimination against the English workforce yet carried out by this Scottish-led government in its eleven years of existence,’ David Wildgoose, Vice Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament, has stated in an emergency letter sent to all CEP members. ‘I urge every single member to write to their MP to object to this injustice. Britain's entire nuclear submarine fleet is to be based at Faslane on the Clyde. This government is allowing the "Scottish agenda" to threaten English jobs. Gordon Brown is taking jobs away from the English workforce of Devonport to ingratiate himself with this own Scottish countrymen and women in the hope of preserving Scottish votes in the coming local and EU elections on June 4th and the General Election next year. It is downright wrong. It is downright discrimination.
‘I agree wholeheartedly with the condemnation of the decision made by Gary Streeter, the MP for Devon South West who has said: "I fear that the Devonport naval base is going to be allowed to wither on the vine over the next five to 10 years. It has had 320 years of history. We will have the amphibious fleet, but that is three boats and not much else. That is not going to replace all these frigates and submarines". I agree with Mr Streeter when he says he is particularly angry because English jobs were being jeopardised by an attempt to appease the Scots.
And Mr Wildgoose reminded the CEP membership that for the last two years, in one press release after another, the Campaign has been trying to bring public attention to this Scottish-led UK government’s policy of transferring naval shipyard employment from Devonport, Tyneside, Barrow on Furness and Appledore to the two Scottish yards of Faslane on the Clyde adjacent to the Glasgow heartland of the government’s support in Scotland and to Rosyth right next to Gordon Brown’s own constituency. ‘We must make our objections known to our English MPs. English MPs must stand up for the English workforce'.
Contacts:
Michael Knowles CEP Media Unit,
01260 271139. Email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk
Times Poll On Devolution Is Seriously Flawed And Highly Misleading...
The Times has carried out a survey on attitudes to Scottish devolution south and north of the border, and its headline trumpets:
And when you consider there are around 60 million people in England, as compared to around 5 million in Scotland...
But, apart from all this, the Times poll strikes us here at WENAP as another prime example of the media in England seeking to hide the facts about devolution - the headline suggests that everything in the garden is rosy, and as the media fails to inform people in England about the detrimental effects of devolution on its citizens, surely the poll is a complete and utter farce?
This particular quote from the Times reveals how absurdly ill-informed the majority of people are, thanks to the likes of the Times and the BBC:
It [the survey] found that 65% of people in Scotland and 73% in England and Wales believed relationships between the two countries have not changed since before devolution a decade ago.
And what about this? -
The Times newspaper survey found 70% of people north of the border and 70% in England and Wales thought devolution had been good for Scotland.
We believe that devolution has been good for Scotland - unfairly so - but that doesn't mean we support the current situation, and the Times headline states: 70% of Britons Support Devolution For Scotland. This is completely skewed and misleading.
Also, if the survey was about "relationships between the two countries" - our emphasis - meaning England and Scotland - why on earth were people in Wales surveyed on this point? What position are they in to judge?
Until the media in England opens up about the facts regarding devolution, then all such polls are a waste of time.
But, even taking that into account, we are surprised and gratified that 41% of those polled in England desire an English Parliament and 52% do not want Scots constituency MPs voting on English legislation.
Read the full Times report here.
70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests
Well, I hate to be a party pooper, but as 42% of those surveyed in England desire an English Parliament, and 52% believe that Scots constituency MPs should not be voting on English matters, the poll hardly suggests that everything in the garden is lovely. Also, consider the facts that only 911 people were surveyed in England and Wales (together) compared to 500 in Scotland - suggesting, as usual, that Scots' opinions are far more important than those from elsewhere in the UK.And when you consider there are around 60 million people in England, as compared to around 5 million in Scotland...
But, apart from all this, the Times poll strikes us here at WENAP as another prime example of the media in England seeking to hide the facts about devolution - the headline suggests that everything in the garden is rosy, and as the media fails to inform people in England about the detrimental effects of devolution on its citizens, surely the poll is a complete and utter farce?
This particular quote from the Times reveals how absurdly ill-informed the majority of people are, thanks to the likes of the Times and the BBC:
It [the survey] found that 65% of people in Scotland and 73% in England and Wales believed relationships between the two countries have not changed since before devolution a decade ago.
And what about this? -
The Times newspaper survey found 70% of people north of the border and 70% in England and Wales thought devolution had been good for Scotland.
We believe that devolution has been good for Scotland - unfairly so - but that doesn't mean we support the current situation, and the Times headline states: 70% of Britons Support Devolution For Scotland. This is completely skewed and misleading.
Also, if the survey was about "relationships between the two countries" - our emphasis - meaning England and Scotland - why on earth were people in Wales surveyed on this point? What position are they in to judge?
Until the media in England opens up about the facts regarding devolution, then all such polls are a waste of time.
But, even taking that into account, we are surprised and gratified that 41% of those polled in England desire an English Parliament and 52% do not want Scots constituency MPs voting on English legislation.
Read the full Times report here.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Press Association Report On England And Britain
A few weeks ago, we caught the UK Press Association deliberately mangling facts by misquoting a newspaper report. That was due to '70s hype, the strange affliction gripping so-called journalists, who will take a concrete fact about a past event occurring in, say, the 1980s or 1990s, and rewrite it as '70s, mangling the information from the original news source - and basically telling lies.
For instance, a one-off, out-of-the blue happening in the mid-1980s according to the original news source (and all other sources!) becomes a series of happenings in the '70s and '80s, when reported by the PA.
Today, the Press Association reports:
A Tory spokesman said: "The Labour party needs to drag itself into the 21st century and start apologising to the people of Scotland and Britain for the depth of the recession it's created."
Scotland AND Britain? But Scotland is Britain, Britain came into being because of the Union of England and Scotland.
Another bizarre Press Association mangling of fact? No, not in this case, we suspect. After all, there's no '70s hype involved.
For instance, a one-off, out-of-the blue happening in the mid-1980s according to the original news source (and all other sources!) becomes a series of happenings in the '70s and '80s, when reported by the PA.
Today, the Press Association reports:
A Tory spokesman said: "The Labour party needs to drag itself into the 21st century and start apologising to the people of Scotland and Britain for the depth of the recession it's created."
Scotland AND Britain? But Scotland is Britain, Britain came into being because of the Union of England and Scotland.
Another bizarre Press Association mangling of fact? No, not in this case, we suspect. After all, there's no '70s hype involved.
CEP: Open letter to the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution and the British Government from the campaign for an English Government
We read in the Times online of 28th April 2009 that radical plans to give the Scottish government control of up to half of the income tax raised north of the Border and most of the revenue from North Sea oil and gas are being considered by economists advising the Calman Commission.
We are told that the commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, was charged by the three main Unionist parties (Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative) to find ways that the existing devolution settlement can be made to work better for all parts of the UK. We must assume that all parts of the UK includes England but most of the gas fields are in English waters so who is to negotiate on England’s behalf? Who has the authority to ensure that the interests of the English taxpayers are protected? Indeed who speaks for England?
We are further told that the commission is set to back borrowing powers for Holyrood as one of its main recommendations when it reports later this year. While not explicitly stated, the inference from other reports is that the borrowing will be from the British Government the vast majority of whose funding comes from England. With the example of the toxic assets of the Scottish banks before us should not England be consulted before its people are touched for any loan? And what guarantee do the people of England have that such debts will be administered by those with the best interests of England at heart?
If Holyrood is to get most of the revenue from British North Sea oil and gas-will the Scottish government then take on most of the cost of the failure of the Scottish Banks or will the enormous national debt, taken on by the British Government on behalf of those banks, remain a millstone around the necks of the English taxpayer for a generation?
The Calman Commission had a remit largely specific to Scotland. In a united kingdom why does Scotland gets to debate about Scotland with a Scottish PM, Scottish Chancellor, Scottish Speaker, without reference to the rest of the Union? At least Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies to argue for their interests. England as usual, is left with nothing but the bill.
It is imperative that an English Assembly or Parliament is convened in order to protect the interests of the people of England who are currently unrepresented nationally in the British constitutional settlement.
Scilla Cullen
Chairman, the Campaign for an English Parliament
Contact:
Scilla Cullen.01439 833155
Email:
scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
We are told that the commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, was charged by the three main Unionist parties (Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative) to find ways that the existing devolution settlement can be made to work better for all parts of the UK. We must assume that all parts of the UK includes England but most of the gas fields are in English waters so who is to negotiate on England’s behalf? Who has the authority to ensure that the interests of the English taxpayers are protected? Indeed who speaks for England?
We are further told that the commission is set to back borrowing powers for Holyrood as one of its main recommendations when it reports later this year. While not explicitly stated, the inference from other reports is that the borrowing will be from the British Government the vast majority of whose funding comes from England. With the example of the toxic assets of the Scottish banks before us should not England be consulted before its people are touched for any loan? And what guarantee do the people of England have that such debts will be administered by those with the best interests of England at heart?
If Holyrood is to get most of the revenue from British North Sea oil and gas-will the Scottish government then take on most of the cost of the failure of the Scottish Banks or will the enormous national debt, taken on by the British Government on behalf of those banks, remain a millstone around the necks of the English taxpayer for a generation?
The Calman Commission had a remit largely specific to Scotland. In a united kingdom why does Scotland gets to debate about Scotland with a Scottish PM, Scottish Chancellor, Scottish Speaker, without reference to the rest of the Union? At least Wales and Northern Ireland have their own Assemblies to argue for their interests. England as usual, is left with nothing but the bill.
It is imperative that an English Assembly or Parliament is convened in order to protect the interests of the people of England who are currently unrepresented nationally in the British constitutional settlement.
Scilla Cullen
Chairman, the Campaign for an English Parliament
Contact:
Scilla Cullen.01439 833155
Email:
scilla.cullen@dsl.pipex.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Happy St George's Day And Slaying Alexis!
We've recently had a couple of rather bitchy comments containing such delights as "what an amusing blog you have here!" and then picking up on issues covered on WENAP, ignoring many of the points raised, and basically wittering on endlessly in a British Unionist or Scots Bigot manner.
One such point was that the Tories originally raised the idea of community service for youngsters in England, and New Labour merely stole the idea. But that does not detract from the fact that Gordon Brown is seeking to impose this on England alone, whilst pretending it will apply to BRITAIN. Nor the fact that it won't apply to his own constituents.
We don't have time to devote to "water muddiers", a couple of whom have even become followers of this blog so that they can monitor posts and flood us with time-wasting nonsense. We are all very busy people and this blog is maintained simply because we feel that every little bit of the blogosphere devoted to the cause is worthwhile.
So, such followers have been banned. Honestly, we haven't heard bitching like it since the days of Dynasty!
This is one dragon (we imagine in pastel pink economy-sized 1980s shoulder pads) we have now slayed.
Enjoy St George's Day!
One such point was that the Tories originally raised the idea of community service for youngsters in England, and New Labour merely stole the idea. But that does not detract from the fact that Gordon Brown is seeking to impose this on England alone, whilst pretending it will apply to BRITAIN. Nor the fact that it won't apply to his own constituents.
We don't have time to devote to "water muddiers", a couple of whom have even become followers of this blog so that they can monitor posts and flood us with time-wasting nonsense. We are all very busy people and this blog is maintained simply because we feel that every little bit of the blogosphere devoted to the cause is worthwhile.
So, such followers have been banned. Honestly, we haven't heard bitching like it since the days of Dynasty!
This is one dragon (we imagine in pastel pink economy-sized 1980s shoulder pads) we have now slayed.
Enjoy St George's Day!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Google Does St George's Day And Shakespeare's Birthday
In the past on this blog, we have criticised Google for ignoring England's national day. But last year and this we have been very pleasantly surprised to see Google bucking its trend with witty and appropriate St George's Day logos. 2009 is the best yet - and the clever doubling, the joint marking of Shakespeare's birthday, makes us very happy indeed.Thank you, Google!
And happy St George's Day, England!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Sir Alec Jeffreys: DNA Database And The Innocents
It was on the 10th of September 1984, at 9.05 am, that Sir Alec Jeffreys, in his lab at Leicester University, accidentally made a world-changing discovery:
Said Jeffreys: "I was on my own in the darkroom at 9.05 on September 10, 1984, when that pattern came up and I twigged what we had stumbled upon. Just that single bit of X-ray film threw open a door we didn't even know was there. It opened the whole science of forensic DNA."
This 1980s discovery has had a tremendous influence on crime detection, and, less happily, led to the setting-up of the current UK National Database. Which, as we all know, retains the DNA of many, many innocent people.
Now Sir Alec has spoken up in an interview with the Guardian:
"My view is very clear that if you have been convicted of a crime then you owe it to society to be retained on that database for catching in the future should you reoffend. But the retention of entirely innocent people is a whole different issue. There is a sort of presumption here that if they haven't committed any crime now, then they will in the future."
He also called for improved genetic testing procedures, warning that the current system could result in a miscarriage of justice.
Jeffreys' genetic discoveries at Leicester University in the mid-1980s enabled the establishment of the national DNA database 10 years later; it is now the largest in the world, storing details on more than 5 million people.
Thank you, Sir Alec, for speaking out against the guilty-until-proven-innocent ethos of the Database. Click on the red text to read the Guardian article.
Said Jeffreys: "I was on my own in the darkroom at 9.05 on September 10, 1984, when that pattern came up and I twigged what we had stumbled upon. Just that single bit of X-ray film threw open a door we didn't even know was there. It opened the whole science of forensic DNA."
This 1980s discovery has had a tremendous influence on crime detection, and, less happily, led to the setting-up of the current UK National Database. Which, as we all know, retains the DNA of many, many innocent people.
Now Sir Alec has spoken up in an interview with the Guardian:
"My view is very clear that if you have been convicted of a crime then you owe it to society to be retained on that database for catching in the future should you reoffend. But the retention of entirely innocent people is a whole different issue. There is a sort of presumption here that if they haven't committed any crime now, then they will in the future."
He also called for improved genetic testing procedures, warning that the current system could result in a miscarriage of justice.
Jeffreys' genetic discoveries at Leicester University in the mid-1980s enabled the establishment of the national DNA database 10 years later; it is now the largest in the world, storing details on more than 5 million people.
Thank you, Sir Alec, for speaking out against the guilty-until-proven-innocent ethos of the Database. Click on the red text to read the Guardian article.
Monday, April 13, 2009
"Smeargate" - What A Lack Of Imagination!
Like many people, I've been following the events concerning Mr McBride and Mr Draper and "Smeargate" all weekend with great interest.
The only thing which dampens my interest is "Smeargate". I'm tired of "Gates". My palate is seriously jaded. We've had all sorts since Watergate - including Sharon-Gate (EastEnders) - and I now find the -Gate thing instantly boring. And is this any way to attract the interest of those even younger than myself - many of whom already have zero interest in modern politics and view the '70s as prehistoric?
Is it supposed to be evocative? Instantly put us in the picture, whet our appetites to "read on"? I was born in 1965 and I don't even remember Watergate. The -Gate thing makes the whole McBride/Draper affair seem dull, nothing new and the latest in a long series of similar events, stretching back to the early 1070s, sorry I mean 1970s, IMHO.
Whereas in reality the suggested abuse of modern technology for political gain is fascinating, worrying and "of the moment".
But "Smeargate"? Yawn...
Night, night, folks...
The only thing which dampens my interest is "Smeargate". I'm tired of "Gates". My palate is seriously jaded. We've had all sorts since Watergate - including Sharon-Gate (EastEnders) - and I now find the -Gate thing instantly boring. And is this any way to attract the interest of those even younger than myself - many of whom already have zero interest in modern politics and view the '70s as prehistoric?
Is it supposed to be evocative? Instantly put us in the picture, whet our appetites to "read on"? I was born in 1965 and I don't even remember Watergate. The -Gate thing makes the whole McBride/Draper affair seem dull, nothing new and the latest in a long series of similar events, stretching back to the early 1070s, sorry I mean 1970s, IMHO.
Whereas in reality the suggested abuse of modern technology for political gain is fascinating, worrying and "of the moment".
But "Smeargate"? Yawn...
Night, night, folks...
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Gordon Brown Tells Lies Again - England Once More Becomes "Britain"
What an absolute liar Gordon Brown is!
Here he goes again:
Writing in the News of the World, Mr Brown insisted: "It is my ambition to create a Britain in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up in Britain."
Two mentions of "Britain" in one sentence, but the dishonest toad has no authority on this matter in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland - only in England, where he is not accountable to the electorate.
We really do need an honest Government which is accountable to the electorate in England. The sooner we vote this England-hating Scots-elected dictator out, hiding as he does behind the smoke and mirrors of a fictitious "Britain", the better.
Here he goes again:
Writing in the News of the World, Mr Brown insisted: "It is my ambition to create a Britain in which there is a clear expectation that all young people will undertake some service to their community, and where community service will become a normal part of growing up in Britain."
Two mentions of "Britain" in one sentence, but the dishonest toad has no authority on this matter in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland - only in England, where he is not accountable to the electorate.
We really do need an honest Government which is accountable to the electorate in England. The sooner we vote this England-hating Scots-elected dictator out, hiding as he does behind the smoke and mirrors of a fictitious "Britain", the better.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
"I'm Being Picked On Because I'm A Woman," Says Sexist Person Jacqui Smith
Well this made us smile.
No, Jacqui, you're not being "picked on" because you're a woman.
You are being scrutinised because there are certain questions being asked about your integrity.
You are being heavily criticised because of your dictatorial nature, enforcing illegal measures like the DNA Database - on this blog we call you "Hitler In Knickers". The Hitler mentality, of course, is not gender specific.
Here you have been criticised because you are sexist - your recent speech to a women's group in which you stated that "violence against women and girls is unacceptable in any form" - inferring that violence towards men and boys is fine, was completely unacceptable. We grew up in an area where a lot of the women were very prone to initiating acts of violence.
This latest whine of yours reveals just how desperate you are. Are we supposed to say, "Ah, poor Jacqui, how un-chivalrous we've been?" Do you want the old fashioned pedestal chivalry as well as equality? You have a highly paid top government job. Your behaviour should be above reproach.
It doesn't wash. Equality means you take the brickbats as well as the bouquets, without screeching: "Oh, poor me, I'm a woman!" After all, you have a Women's Minister to look after you, and various initiatives we men could only dream of.
But then that's "equality".
You really are a scoundrel.
No, Jacqui, you're not being "picked on" because you're a woman.
You are being scrutinised because there are certain questions being asked about your integrity.
You are being heavily criticised because of your dictatorial nature, enforcing illegal measures like the DNA Database - on this blog we call you "Hitler In Knickers". The Hitler mentality, of course, is not gender specific.
Here you have been criticised because you are sexist - your recent speech to a women's group in which you stated that "violence against women and girls is unacceptable in any form" - inferring that violence towards men and boys is fine, was completely unacceptable. We grew up in an area where a lot of the women were very prone to initiating acts of violence.
This latest whine of yours reveals just how desperate you are. Are we supposed to say, "Ah, poor Jacqui, how un-chivalrous we've been?" Do you want the old fashioned pedestal chivalry as well as equality? You have a highly paid top government job. Your behaviour should be above reproach.
It doesn't wash. Equality means you take the brickbats as well as the bouquets, without screeching: "Oh, poor me, I'm a woman!" After all, you have a Women's Minister to look after you, and various initiatives we men could only dream of.
But then that's "equality".
You really are a scoundrel.
Monday, April 06, 2009
CEP challenges Ed Miliband's opposition to devolution for England with a call for a national conversation for England
Writing for the new ‘Labour Space’ website Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has come out with strangely contradictory opinions on devolution. On the one hand he has endorsed devolution for Scotland and Wales because, he says, ‘devolution provides democratic accountability for decisions in Scotland and Wales which used to be made centrally’ On the other, when it comes to England he demands that decisions should still be made ‘centrally’ by UK Parliament MPs like himself. ‘He is still very Establishment,’ says Gareth Young of the CEP, ‘unable to live with a UK that is rapidly changing before his very eyes. He’s a captive of yesterday still, there is a lack of political imagination. The world has moved on.’
Replying to Miliband on the same Labour Party website Gareth Young put it to him straight. ‘You say you do not see a parliament for England as the answer to the lack of democratic accountability which is probably the main constitutional and political problem England is now experiencing; and your Labour colleague Jack Straw very predictably has joined you stating that ‘I am wholly opposed to an English parliament.’. Fair enough. But the two of you – you might not quite see this- are just two people out of 50 million English men and women. Just two. No more.
‘What are the facts about public opinion on this matter? Your government’s Ministry of Justice, headed by Jack Straw, has never commissioned any research into the level of support for an English parliament or English votes on English Laws. And by never, I mean never; not once, not ever.
‘However, all the following polls have found a majority in favour of an English dimension to government, whether it is an English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws, English independence or a combination of the three: ICM for the Telegraph December 2007, ICM for the Campaign for an English Parliament April 2007, YouGov for the Sunday Times April 2007, BBC Newsnight Poll January 2007, Daily Mail ICM Poll January 2007, ICM for the Sunday Telegraph November 2006, IPSOS MORI for the English Constitutional Convention June 2006 and YouGov for the English Democrats Feb 2004.There can be doubt that what has galvanised the outcomes of those polls, which you should have the openness of mind to consult, is the degree to which the people of England resent with justifiable bitterness the way in which devolution has benefited the Scots and the Welsh while doing nothing whatsover for them.
‘Mr Milband, it all amounts to evidence of public opinion that you and your government colleagues should not ignore. You are happy to declare support for democratic accountability for Scotland and Wales.yet oppose it for England. The outcome of the coming General Election might well give you cause to change your mind. We call on you to support a National Conversation on England; we call on you to come out from the Westminster bubble and give a hearing to the people of England'
Contacts:
Gareth Young -
http://ourengland.labourspace.com - joint co-ordinator the CEP website www.thecep.org.uk
Email: gpy1973@yahoo.co.uk
Replying to Miliband on the same Labour Party website Gareth Young put it to him straight. ‘You say you do not see a parliament for England as the answer to the lack of democratic accountability which is probably the main constitutional and political problem England is now experiencing; and your Labour colleague Jack Straw very predictably has joined you stating that ‘I am wholly opposed to an English parliament.’. Fair enough. But the two of you – you might not quite see this- are just two people out of 50 million English men and women. Just two. No more.
‘What are the facts about public opinion on this matter? Your government’s Ministry of Justice, headed by Jack Straw, has never commissioned any research into the level of support for an English parliament or English votes on English Laws. And by never, I mean never; not once, not ever.
‘However, all the following polls have found a majority in favour of an English dimension to government, whether it is an English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws, English independence or a combination of the three: ICM for the Telegraph December 2007, ICM for the Campaign for an English Parliament April 2007, YouGov for the Sunday Times April 2007, BBC Newsnight Poll January 2007, Daily Mail ICM Poll January 2007, ICM for the Sunday Telegraph November 2006, IPSOS MORI for the English Constitutional Convention June 2006 and YouGov for the English Democrats Feb 2004.There can be doubt that what has galvanised the outcomes of those polls, which you should have the openness of mind to consult, is the degree to which the people of England resent with justifiable bitterness the way in which devolution has benefited the Scots and the Welsh while doing nothing whatsover for them.
‘Mr Milband, it all amounts to evidence of public opinion that you and your government colleagues should not ignore. You are happy to declare support for democratic accountability for Scotland and Wales.yet oppose it for England. The outcome of the coming General Election might well give you cause to change your mind. We call on you to support a National Conversation on England; we call on you to come out from the Westminster bubble and give a hearing to the people of England'
Contacts:
Gareth Young -
http://ourengland.labourspace.com - joint co-ordinator the CEP website www.thecep.org.uk
Email: gpy1973@yahoo.co.uk
George Orwell: It was 1980. It was 1982. It was 1984. It's 2009...
According to the Penguin Modern Classics edition of George Orwell's 1984, the author was originally going to set the action in 1980. Then, as the years and the writing of the book went on, 1982. And finally he decided on 1984.
And here we are now, with our database and CCTV State in 2009. Seems a far more appropriate setting than what, in reality, turned out to be the era of Thatcher, Reagan, shoulder pads, Spitting Image, Greenham Common, The Miners' Strike, Rubik's Cubes and Apple Macs, doesn't it?
Is the Government and, indeed, the EU, using Orwell's 1984 as a guide?
I simply can't believe what's happening. And as I start today knowing that all our internet movements are now being monitored... I can't help wondering...
What the fuck is going to happen to us?
Where is it all going to end?
And here we are now, with our database and CCTV State in 2009. Seems a far more appropriate setting than what, in reality, turned out to be the era of Thatcher, Reagan, shoulder pads, Spitting Image, Greenham Common, The Miners' Strike, Rubik's Cubes and Apple Macs, doesn't it?
Is the Government and, indeed, the EU, using Orwell's 1984 as a guide?
I simply can't believe what's happening. And as I start today knowing that all our internet movements are now being monitored... I can't help wondering...
What the fuck is going to happen to us?
Where is it all going to end?
The DNA Database: Jacqui Smith - She Of The Hitler Mentality - Simply Doesn't Understand "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"...
Yep, here she is again Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, old Hitler in Knickers and Ms Honesty-Plus herself.The National DNA Database has been declared illegal by the European Court Of Human Rights and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.
But Jacqui Smith doesn't want to know. This woman, who has charged some of her husband's porn viewing to the taxpayer and been called into question over her accommodation expenses, makes vague burbling noises about some changes being made at some point. Not enough. The UK DNA Database is immoral and illegal and Jacqui Smith and this government should be sued by every person currently on it who has not been convicted of any crime.
Oh, and Jacqui Smith should be fired for having aroused suspicions about her honesty and worthiness to hold public office. Guilty until proven innocent does, after all, seem to be a notion she strongly favours. When it comes to others.
And today is the day that internet snooping begins.
It's all totally unacceptable.
The evil that men do. And persons, too, of course.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Tommy Sheridan, The Daily Record And Socialist Unity - Rewriting Poll Tax History
Ugh, this makes me seethe! An article appearing in The Daily Record and Socialist Unity once again rakes up the Poll Tax - and in a not-very-clever reworking of history, we are led to believe that it was the Scots who "spread" the Protest Campaign to England and Wales! Yep, apparently we English were bleating around like a load of sheep, as usual! It took the brave and noble Scots to energise us.
Rubbish! The arrogance of it!
I find this particularly offensive as I joined an anti-poll tax group in England in 1988 and we were going great guns by the beginning of 1989. Indeed, there were similar groups all around England before the end of 1988.
But was it worth it? After all, with history being rewritten at the Daily Record and Socialist Unity, one can hardly believe that the English had any gumption on the matter at all before the Scots showed them the way.
Drivel!
Rubbish! The arrogance of it!
I find this particularly offensive as I joined an anti-poll tax group in England in 1988 and we were going great guns by the beginning of 1989. Indeed, there were similar groups all around England before the end of 1988.
But was it worth it? After all, with history being rewritten at the Daily Record and Socialist Unity, one can hardly believe that the English had any gumption on the matter at all before the Scots showed them the way.
Drivel!
And let us not forget that the Poll Tax was the brainchild of Douglas Mason, a Scot!
Here's some stuff about the campaign in England in 1988 and 1989 -
https://www.1980sactual.com/2010/02/poll-tax.html
This one by Maria
Here's some stuff about the campaign in England in 1988 and 1989 -
https://www.1980sactual.com/2010/02/poll-tax.html
This one by Maria
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thatcher's First Term Began Thirty Years Ago! That's Not AT ALL Remarkable...
I am so bored with the likes of the BBC and just about everybody else wittering on about Margaret Thatcher coming to power in 1979.
I mean PURLEASE! What was so remarkable? The only remarkable thing I can recall was the fact that she was a woman, Britain's first female PM. Labour and Tories were in and out like fiddlers' elbows in those days.
It was Thatcher's alliance with Reagan (elected in 1980), the Falklands (1982) and two subsequent re-elections that made her truly memorable. This attitude that 1979 was such a watershed is entirely inaccurate.
History is being rewritten.
And the changeable, turbulent years of Thatcher's reign dim beside the absurd assertion that a Conservative hegemony until 1990 was assured in 1979.
I mean PURLEASE! What was so remarkable? The only remarkable thing I can recall was the fact that she was a woman, Britain's first female PM. Labour and Tories were in and out like fiddlers' elbows in those days.
It was Thatcher's alliance with Reagan (elected in 1980), the Falklands (1982) and two subsequent re-elections that made her truly memorable. This attitude that 1979 was such a watershed is entirely inaccurate.
History is being rewritten.
And the changeable, turbulent years of Thatcher's reign dim beside the absurd assertion that a Conservative hegemony until 1990 was assured in 1979.
BBC Anti-English Bruce Robinson Article Altered - But It's Still Anti-English!
The BBC British History on-line article about the Great Fire Of London has been altered after complaints -
With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife.
"Of the period" has been inserted after "familar English trait". But this is still wrong to my mind, still anti-English. Did Bruce Robinson have a Tardis so that he could nip back and do an Esther Rantzen-style vox pop? And even if paranoid xenophobia was rife, surely it was not confined to the English alone in the world?
The article's better. But still not right.
With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife.
"Of the period" has been inserted after "familar English trait". But this is still wrong to my mind, still anti-English. Did Bruce Robinson have a Tardis so that he could nip back and do an Esther Rantzen-style vox pop? And even if paranoid xenophobia was rife, surely it was not confined to the English alone in the world?
The article's better. But still not right.
BBC Decides That Bruce Robinson Is Fine - The English Do Have Paranoid Xenophobia - Absolutely, Without A Shadow Of A Doubt!
All of us that have ever complained to the BBC recognise the pro-forma, with a few relevant points inserted just to show our pathetic protestations have been read, that the BBC sends out when rejecting complaints. And the Cross Of St George forum reports that this is just how they are treating the complaints about their designation of the English as paranoid xenophobics.
With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife.
(click on red text for BBC British History article by Bruce Robinson)
So this trait is always around, but rife at certain times.
And it's peculiar to the English.
Can you imagine the BBC referring to the Scots, Welsh or Irish in such a way? Or indeed anybody else?
The BBC are once more treating the English - and England - with contempt, and attempting to incite hatred of anybody professing to be English.
With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife.
(click on red text for BBC British History article by Bruce Robinson)
So this trait is always around, but rife at certain times.
And it's peculiar to the English.
Can you imagine the BBC referring to the Scots, Welsh or Irish in such a way? Or indeed anybody else?
The BBC are once more treating the English - and England - with contempt, and attempting to incite hatred of anybody professing to be English.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Gordon Brown - Stamping Out England: The British Language
‘So should there be a citizenship test that is stronger for people who want to be part of this country? Should the rules that we apply for citizenship take more aspects of British culture, British history, [the English] language into account?’
That's Gordon Brown, banging onto Matthew d’Ancona, editor of The Spectator on his pet theme of "Britishness". To Matthew d'Ancona, the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula, Brown's unaccountability to the English on a vast range of issues, don't seem to exist. But then Matthew is a confirmed Brit, dedicated to ignoring anything that may stand in the way.
Like equality.
However, Mr d'Ancona does step in and insert [the English] into Gordon's blethering about "Britishness". The squared brackets indicate that "the English" is a writer's insert. So what Gordon Brown actually said was:
‘What are the responsibilities of citizenship in the modern world?’ he asks. ‘So should there be a citizenship test that is stronger for people who want to be part of this country? Should the rules that we apply for citizenship take more aspects of British culture, British history, language into account?'
The British language? Gordon's determination to stamp out England and Englishness is becoming plainer by the day.
And once again Gordon refers to Britain as a country. It is not, it is a so-called union of countries - England, Scotland and Wales, as the devious Prime Minister knows very well indeed.
That's Gordon Brown, banging onto Matthew d’Ancona, editor of The Spectator on his pet theme of "Britishness". To Matthew d'Ancona, the West Lothian Question, the Barnett Formula, Brown's unaccountability to the English on a vast range of issues, don't seem to exist. But then Matthew is a confirmed Brit, dedicated to ignoring anything that may stand in the way.
Like equality.
However, Mr d'Ancona does step in and insert [the English] into Gordon's blethering about "Britishness". The squared brackets indicate that "the English" is a writer's insert. So what Gordon Brown actually said was:
‘What are the responsibilities of citizenship in the modern world?’ he asks. ‘So should there be a citizenship test that is stronger for people who want to be part of this country? Should the rules that we apply for citizenship take more aspects of British culture, British history, language into account?'
The British language? Gordon's determination to stamp out England and Englishness is becoming plainer by the day.
And once again Gordon refers to Britain as a country. It is not, it is a so-called union of countries - England, Scotland and Wales, as the devious Prime Minister knows very well indeed.
Friday, March 27, 2009
March 1989 To March 2009 - 20 Years Since The Invention Of The World Wide Web
An historic document.
It's twenty years since Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web at CERN, in Switzerland.
Well done that man!
The genesis of Mr Berners-Lee's Web idea can be traced back to June to December 1980, when he built ENQUIRE, his first computer program for storing information, whilst working as consultant software engineer at CERN, the European Particle Physics Laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland.
He left CERN, returned in 1984, and in 1989 invented the World Wide Web.
He wrote the first web browser in 1990 and soon many of us who had eyed the rise of home computing in the '80s with unease, were happily surfing the Web.
From 1989 invention to today - a world unimaginable without the Web.
Pretty amazing, isn't it?
Adrian Sanders (Lib Dems) and Ken Purchase (Labour), Glib, Smart-Mouthed Hatred Of England
Marsha Singh has tabled an Early Day Motion to make St George's Day a public holiday.
Ken Purchase, Wolverhampton, Labour, and Adrian Sanders, (Torbay) Lib Dems, then leapt in with two daft amendments, which make plain their smug hatred of England.
These MPs are rotten to the pips. Health apartheid? Who gives a damn? The West Lothian Question? Ditto. The Barnett Formula? You guessed it. What the hell are their constituents doing electing these people who wilfully work against their best interests and pour scorn on their country?
Adrian Sanders is probably the most pathetic of the two (it's very close run) as he comes up with an alternative bank holiday to "benefit the UK tourist industry" - obviously unaware that Scotland and Wales are far better provided for, having retained their own tourist boards and representation through the "British" site whilst England, once again, is the poor relation.
When it comes to sneering, smug and out of touch people, not fulfilling the roles expected of them, Adrian Sanders and Ken Purchase are difficult to beat. But then I suspect that they are very typical indeed.
Toque has the whole story here - and remains far calmer and more eloquent than myself!
Ken Purchase, Wolverhampton, Labour, and Adrian Sanders, (Torbay) Lib Dems, then leapt in with two daft amendments, which make plain their smug hatred of England.
These MPs are rotten to the pips. Health apartheid? Who gives a damn? The West Lothian Question? Ditto. The Barnett Formula? You guessed it. What the hell are their constituents doing electing these people who wilfully work against their best interests and pour scorn on their country?
Adrian Sanders is probably the most pathetic of the two (it's very close run) as he comes up with an alternative bank holiday to "benefit the UK tourist industry" - obviously unaware that Scotland and Wales are far better provided for, having retained their own tourist boards and representation through the "British" site whilst England, once again, is the poor relation.
When it comes to sneering, smug and out of touch people, not fulfilling the roles expected of them, Adrian Sanders and Ken Purchase are difficult to beat. But then I suspect that they are very typical indeed.
Toque has the whole story here - and remains far calmer and more eloquent than myself!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
"Being British" - Gordon Brown At It Again!
Here's Gordon Brown pursuing his Britishness agenda again - this time in relation to the recession. He never misses an opportunity, does he?
From The Guardian:
Without a clear sense of national identity, "we give ourselves a false sense of who we are", said the PM. "We define ourselves by race or ethnicity – which would be a disaster for a country that has many people with different backgrounds as part of it. Or we just describe ourselves in terms of unchanging institutions, which would mean that we were frozen in the past."
Um, actually Gordon signed the Scottish Claim Of Right in 1989 - a pledge to put the people of his native Scotland first in all he did.
So, why is simply being "British" not good enough for himself and his own people, the Scots? Why did he pledge to put the Scots above the rest of the British? Also, "British" means, basically, English, Scottish or Welsh. It is a synthetic nationality born in the days of Empire.
I can't help wondering why Gordon Brown describes Britain as a "country" - it is not, it is a (so-called) union of countries, England, Scotland and Wales.
And English, Scottish and Welsh are nationalities - not races - so inclusive civic identities in each of those countries would not see people fragmenting into "race or ethnicity".
Gordon Brown is a Prime Minister without a mandate, representing a constituency in Scotland, which has its own parliament. This means that around 75% of the legislation his government passes does not affect his own constituents. Mr Brown is such a liar and twister. He fair takes my breath away.
The forthcoming BBC Radio 4 documentary on Britishness by the editor of the Spectator, Matthew d'Ancona, sounds like more New Labour propaganda, especially designed to keep the people of England under-funded - and under the Scotsman's thumb.
From The Guardian:
Without a clear sense of national identity, "we give ourselves a false sense of who we are", said the PM. "We define ourselves by race or ethnicity – which would be a disaster for a country that has many people with different backgrounds as part of it. Or we just describe ourselves in terms of unchanging institutions, which would mean that we were frozen in the past."
Um, actually Gordon signed the Scottish Claim Of Right in 1989 - a pledge to put the people of his native Scotland first in all he did.
So, why is simply being "British" not good enough for himself and his own people, the Scots? Why did he pledge to put the Scots above the rest of the British? Also, "British" means, basically, English, Scottish or Welsh. It is a synthetic nationality born in the days of Empire.
I can't help wondering why Gordon Brown describes Britain as a "country" - it is not, it is a (so-called) union of countries, England, Scotland and Wales.
And English, Scottish and Welsh are nationalities - not races - so inclusive civic identities in each of those countries would not see people fragmenting into "race or ethnicity".
Gordon Brown is a Prime Minister without a mandate, representing a constituency in Scotland, which has its own parliament. This means that around 75% of the legislation his government passes does not affect his own constituents. Mr Brown is such a liar and twister. He fair takes my breath away.
The forthcoming BBC Radio 4 documentary on Britishness by the editor of the Spectator, Matthew d'Ancona, sounds like more New Labour propaganda, especially designed to keep the people of England under-funded - and under the Scotsman's thumb.
Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farrage Tell It Like It Is. Gordon Brown Grins.
Daniel Hannan tells Gordon Brown a few home truths at the European Parliament.
Nigel Farrage follows it up. No mandate dictator Gordon Brown is amused.
Jacqui Smith - Very Devious...
Jacqui Smith, old Hitler in Knickers herself, is at it again: not content with an illegal DNA Database and CCTV everywhere, etc, she now proposes training people, like shopping centre managers, to inform on "suspicious" types.
Shopping centre and store managers will be among 60,000 British workers trained for action on a new frontline against terror.
The workers' army is at the centrepiece of a new government anti-terror strategy unveiled today by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, who said police, security and intelligence agencies could not be “solely” relied upon to tackle the threat.
The strategy will involve enlising the "widest range" of people and making other citizens more vigilant about the threat of an attack, Ms Smith said in a round of broadcast interviews this morning. It could also see official funding withdrawn from organisations that flirt with extremism, even if they remain within the letter of the law.
Jacqui Smith plays on the terrorism threat, plays on fear, to enslave us. I know I'm out of step with the vast majority of people on this subject - but you see, I'm not keen on EastEnders, reality TV shows and the latest "It" people. And I can't stand Big Brother.
Shopping centre and store managers will be among 60,000 British workers trained for action on a new frontline against terror.
The workers' army is at the centrepiece of a new government anti-terror strategy unveiled today by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, who said police, security and intelligence agencies could not be “solely” relied upon to tackle the threat.
The strategy will involve enlising the "widest range" of people and making other citizens more vigilant about the threat of an attack, Ms Smith said in a round of broadcast interviews this morning. It could also see official funding withdrawn from organisations that flirt with extremism, even if they remain within the letter of the law.
Jacqui Smith plays on the terrorism threat, plays on fear, to enslave us. I know I'm out of step with the vast majority of people on this subject - but you see, I'm not keen on EastEnders, reality TV shows and the latest "It" people. And I can't stand Big Brother.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Bruce Robinson Of The BBC - The English Are Paranoid Xenophobics
The BBC likes to slur the English. It calls us racist, narrow-minded, snobbish, yobbish - you name it, if something slurs the English, the BBC loves it.
Recently, we've heard the BBC's anti-English hatred on the Welsh-produced Dr Who and we've heard it on BBC Radio One's The Surgery. I'm sure there are many other examples. But the CEP Media Watch has come up with a staggering example.
Here's the BBC's Bruce Robinson, writing about The Great Fire Of London on BBC British History:
With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife.
Yoiks - so paranoid xenophobia is a familiar English trait?
Why? When? After all, England has seen many waves of immigrants. Why are WE in particular regarded as being paranoid xenophobics by the BBC? Sure, there are some problems, but there are in Scotland and Wales, too. In fact, in most places.
I've written to hate-filled old Auntie:
I was shocked at this comment on the BBC's "London's Burning: The Great Fire" article by Bruce Robinson:
"With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife."
At times of war, paranoid xenophobia is, regrettably, often rife - and this is not confined to the English. I find this article offensive in the extreme, it is at the very least an example of anti-English bigotry and one unlikely to endear English people to the readers of the article.
I request that this comment is removed. I cannot imagine that this would have been written about the Scots or Welsh, although the BBC has often had cause to report outbreaks of xenophobia in those nations - including racist attacks on the English.
The BBC is gaining a reputation for anti-English bigotry, and now seems to be attempting to inflame public opinion against the English. I am very concerned.
The BBC truly defies belief at times.
Recently, we've heard the BBC's anti-English hatred on the Welsh-produced Dr Who and we've heard it on BBC Radio One's The Surgery. I'm sure there are many other examples. But the CEP Media Watch has come up with a staggering example.
Here's the BBC's Bruce Robinson, writing about The Great Fire Of London on BBC British History:
With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife.
Yoiks - so paranoid xenophobia is a familiar English trait?
Why? When? After all, England has seen many waves of immigrants. Why are WE in particular regarded as being paranoid xenophobics by the BBC? Sure, there are some problems, but there are in Scotland and Wales, too. In fact, in most places.
I've written to hate-filled old Auntie:
I was shocked at this comment on the BBC's "London's Burning: The Great Fire" article by Bruce Robinson:
"With the country also at war with the French and Dutch, paranoid xenophobia - a familiar English trait - was rife."
At times of war, paranoid xenophobia is, regrettably, often rife - and this is not confined to the English. I find this article offensive in the extreme, it is at the very least an example of anti-English bigotry and one unlikely to endear English people to the readers of the article.
I request that this comment is removed. I cannot imagine that this would have been written about the Scots or Welsh, although the BBC has often had cause to report outbreaks of xenophobia in those nations - including racist attacks on the English.
The BBC is gaining a reputation for anti-English bigotry, and now seems to be attempting to inflame public opinion against the English. I am very concerned.
The BBC truly defies belief at times.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Education For Simon Walters, Daily Mail Writer: Tony Blair Is SCOTTISH Not English...
The recent story in the Daily Mail about the Labour party bod who said "I don't speak Glaswegian" and was accused of racism, was laugheable.
Being half-Scot myself, I'm often hard put to it to understand my Glaswegian relatives. English speaking Welsh folk are perfectly clear to me, as are most English accents, but give me broad Norfolk and I'm lost.
But the Daily Mail article writer, Simon Walters, seems to want to use the article to soap box a little and a peculiar anti-English chip on the shoulder, a desire to malign and stereotype, creeps in:
"It is not the first time a prominent English figure has been accused of racism against another part of Britain. Tony Blair faced a police investigation after allegedly bawling ‘******* Welsh’ when Labour did badly in an election there."
Um, Tony Blair is SCOTTISH, born and bred in Scotland, and of mixed parentage. Here's Tony talking about his grandfather:
"If we were naughty," he said recently, "he'd come after us with that stick and say, 'Ah'll gie ye a richt skelpin.'"
Despite Tony's own attempts to blur his origins for political purposes at times, the fact remains that he was born in Scotland and that makes him Scottish. Unless, of course, his background doesn't stand up to ethnic purity tests in the eyes of Simon Walters? But then, surely, Scottish is a nationality, not a race? Any other assertion is racist.
But what really sticks in the crop about Simon Walters is the fact that he can write a load of inaccurate nonsense, but true examples of racism in the UK - including the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question, both levelled against the English, don't seem to exist to him.
Being half-Scot myself, I'm often hard put to it to understand my Glaswegian relatives. English speaking Welsh folk are perfectly clear to me, as are most English accents, but give me broad Norfolk and I'm lost.
But the Daily Mail article writer, Simon Walters, seems to want to use the article to soap box a little and a peculiar anti-English chip on the shoulder, a desire to malign and stereotype, creeps in:
"It is not the first time a prominent English figure has been accused of racism against another part of Britain. Tony Blair faced a police investigation after allegedly bawling ‘******* Welsh’ when Labour did badly in an election there."
Um, Tony Blair is SCOTTISH, born and bred in Scotland, and of mixed parentage. Here's Tony talking about his grandfather:
"If we were naughty," he said recently, "he'd come after us with that stick and say, 'Ah'll gie ye a richt skelpin.'"
Despite Tony's own attempts to blur his origins for political purposes at times, the fact remains that he was born in Scotland and that makes him Scottish. Unless, of course, his background doesn't stand up to ethnic purity tests in the eyes of Simon Walters? But then, surely, Scottish is a nationality, not a race? Any other assertion is racist.
But what really sticks in the crop about Simon Walters is the fact that he can write a load of inaccurate nonsense, but true examples of racism in the UK - including the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question, both levelled against the English, don't seem to exist to him.
Clive Anderson And Alfie...
Alfie has been in touch with TV and radio personality Clive Anderson about a disparaging and inaccurate remark he made about Englishness on the Loose Ends show:
When on Loose Ends Sarah Miles raised the question of Englishness, somewhat tangentially to the main thrust of our conversation, I attempted an off-the-cuff and, I hope, amusing explanation as to why England or Englishness might be unpopular.
If I had specified 200 years of imperialism I think your point, as far is it goes, would have been a fair one, as perhaps I would have been confusing England and Britain (or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , or in later years the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)– an error that almost everyone risks falling into from time to time – but one which I would have wanted to avoid in the context of the conversation we were having, however light-hearted.
In fact according to the BBC transcript of the programme I said
I think it’s a few hundred years of imperialism that have made England very unpopular.
This is vaguer, but I think more apt. In any event , I had in mind not just the years of the British Empire but also the centuries before that in which English kings, queens and state attempted, with some success, to acquire dominion over the rest of the British Isles and elsewhere. All in all I think there is a perception that Britain, and particularly England, has over long periods of history sought to rule parts of the world beyond its borders. While there is much to be proud of in England’s history it is perhaps understandable that this has provoked a certain amount of resentment in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and overseas.
"Amusing"? "Off-the-cuff"? Surely his remark was simply a typical example of the determination of a certain type of person to make the people of England feel guilty? To make us shoulder the blame for all that is now perceived as "wrong" in the British Isle historically? It's a familiar ploy, but not amusing or "off the cuff". I've read such nonsense at least a thousand times over the years.
Clive Anderson is a fine example of what is wrong in England today. There he sits, on his tumpty, loads of dosh, unaffected by health apartheid and the Barnett Formula, convinced that the people of England deserve the West Lothian Question and that the English alone in the British Isle have been aggressive. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - not so.
Nonsense.
And as for imperialism... didn't Scotland bankrupt itself during a colonial venture BEFORE the Act of Union?
Mr Anderson, it seems, belongs in the same bed as Jack Straw. What he says sounds priggish, ill-informed, bigotedly anti-English and hopelessly 1990s.
And, in view of the Barnett Formula, health apartheid and the West Lothian Question, very uncaring indeed.
Mind you, this is the man who even upset the 60s/70s/80s pop group The Bee Gees. Judging by his latest ill-informed outburst, he's enough to make anybody shriek.
When on Loose Ends Sarah Miles raised the question of Englishness, somewhat tangentially to the main thrust of our conversation, I attempted an off-the-cuff and, I hope, amusing explanation as to why England or Englishness might be unpopular.
If I had specified 200 years of imperialism I think your point, as far is it goes, would have been a fair one, as perhaps I would have been confusing England and Britain (or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland , or in later years the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)– an error that almost everyone risks falling into from time to time – but one which I would have wanted to avoid in the context of the conversation we were having, however light-hearted.
In fact according to the BBC transcript of the programme I said
I think it’s a few hundred years of imperialism that have made England very unpopular.
This is vaguer, but I think more apt. In any event , I had in mind not just the years of the British Empire but also the centuries before that in which English kings, queens and state attempted, with some success, to acquire dominion over the rest of the British Isles and elsewhere. All in all I think there is a perception that Britain, and particularly England, has over long periods of history sought to rule parts of the world beyond its borders. While there is much to be proud of in England’s history it is perhaps understandable that this has provoked a certain amount of resentment in Scotland, Wales, Ireland and overseas.
"Amusing"? "Off-the-cuff"? Surely his remark was simply a typical example of the determination of a certain type of person to make the people of England feel guilty? To make us shoulder the blame for all that is now perceived as "wrong" in the British Isle historically? It's a familiar ploy, but not amusing or "off the cuff". I've read such nonsense at least a thousand times over the years.
Clive Anderson is a fine example of what is wrong in England today. There he sits, on his tumpty, loads of dosh, unaffected by health apartheid and the Barnett Formula, convinced that the people of England deserve the West Lothian Question and that the English alone in the British Isle have been aggressive. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - not so.
Nonsense.
And as for imperialism... didn't Scotland bankrupt itself during a colonial venture BEFORE the Act of Union?
Mr Anderson, it seems, belongs in the same bed as Jack Straw. What he says sounds priggish, ill-informed, bigotedly anti-English and hopelessly 1990s.
And, in view of the Barnett Formula, health apartheid and the West Lothian Question, very uncaring indeed.
Mind you, this is the man who even upset the 60s/70s/80s pop group The Bee Gees. Judging by his latest ill-informed outburst, he's enough to make anybody shriek.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
UK Government Fails England AGAIN! Please Sign The British Heart Foundation Petition
The British Heart Foundation website brings interesting news. The UK Government has yet to commit to a new plan for tackling heart and circulatory conditions in England over the next decade. Typical, eh?
More here. Please read the info and then sign the petition.
More here. Please read the info and then sign the petition.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Jacqui Smith: Violence Against Women Is Unacceptable, But Who Gives A Stuff About Men? I Know, Let's Have ANOTHER Database!
I thought this Government was supposed to look after ALL our interests? Not so.Earlier, Ms Smith told the meeting violence against women was unacceptable whatever the circumstances.
But violence against men is perfectly acceptable, eh, Jacqui Smith? Years ago, I knew a poor guy who was regularly beaten by his wife. On one occasion, she actually broke his nose with an unplugged iron. He daren't protest, daren't go to the police for fear of ridicule, daren't do anything. He experienced years of misery. But that doesn't matter, eh, Ms Smith? He's a minority (but don't you usually make a particular point of looking after minorities?), and he's male. The scumbag!
And now old Hitler in knickers wants to introduce another database to combat the problem! Oh, Jacqui, you controlling, sexist, power mad person, you!
Jack Straw - Mr Anti-English/Anti-England: England Needs Watching Because The English Are So Violent...
Jack Straw, via Toque:
"Is big brother watching you? Are you – innocent and law-abiding – kept awake at night for fear that your door will be kicked in by agents of the state?"
Yes, if a good friend of this blog, a care worker in his early forties, with no police record, arrested on the piffling accusation of one other person, without witnesses, treated like a criminal at Parkside Police Station, Cambridge, released without charge, but now on the DNA Database for life (and, we suppose beyond) is anything to go by.
Jack Straw hates the English. He hates England. Remember this, from the BBC?
Home Secretary Jack Straw says the English had used their "propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland" on the Radio 4 programme Brits.
(Click on red text for more).
The comment shows more than anything Jack Straw's contempt and hatred for England and the English. The fact that he sometimes attempts to muddy the waters by describing himself as "English" is simply a ploy. Jack Straw is British. Nationality is largely a state of mind in the UK and he is British. An English-hating, deceitful, slime-ball Brit at that.
But it seems that Mr Straw thinks the Police State, the loss of individual freedoms in England, is justified. Accept he will never admit there is a Police State. According to him, crime is falling.
Obviously making Orwell's 1984 reality and keeping the people of England, with their "propensity to violence" (the entire English population, according to Straw in his BBC quote) in a Police State, and then denying there is one, is justified.
"Is big brother watching you? Are you – innocent and law-abiding – kept awake at night for fear that your door will be kicked in by agents of the state?"
Yes, if a good friend of this blog, a care worker in his early forties, with no police record, arrested on the piffling accusation of one other person, without witnesses, treated like a criminal at Parkside Police Station, Cambridge, released without charge, but now on the DNA Database for life (and, we suppose beyond) is anything to go by.
Jack Straw hates the English. He hates England. Remember this, from the BBC?
Home Secretary Jack Straw says the English had used their "propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland" on the Radio 4 programme Brits.
(Click on red text for more).
The comment shows more than anything Jack Straw's contempt and hatred for England and the English. The fact that he sometimes attempts to muddy the waters by describing himself as "English" is simply a ploy. Jack Straw is British. Nationality is largely a state of mind in the UK and he is British. An English-hating, deceitful, slime-ball Brit at that.
But it seems that Mr Straw thinks the Police State, the loss of individual freedoms in England, is justified. Accept he will never admit there is a Police State. According to him, crime is falling.
Obviously making Orwell's 1984 reality and keeping the people of England, with their "propensity to violence" (the entire English population, according to Straw in his BBC quote) in a Police State, and then denying there is one, is justified.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Harriet Harman - WOMEN'S Minister - Highly Sexist?
Harriet Harman is Minister for Women and spends a great deal of time pontificating on "unfairnesses" to the female gender and how wonderful and put-upon she and her gender are.Now, as this is a non-sexist society, may I ask where is her opposite number, the Minister for Men, to pontificate on "unfairnesses" to the male gender (like International Women's Day) and how wonderful and put-upon he and the male gender are?
Knowledge Of The Barnett Formula Did Not Reach Public Domain Until July 1980!
Early knowledge of the Barnett formula stems from a public session on 7 July 1980, atwhich George Younger MP, then Secretary of State for Scotland, gave evidence to theCommittee chaired by Donald Dewar MP3. Some of the durability of the Barnett formula maybe attributable to information about its existence having reached the public domain in thisway. This knowledge allowed the Scottish Affairs Committee to regularly ask the Secretaryof State for Scotland whether that year’s public expenditure changes had been settled bymeans of the Barnett formula. Defence of the formula, against what was suspected to be theTreasury’s desire to change it, became one of the key tasks of the Secretary of State forScotland4. Although reliable information about the formula’s operation was slow to reach thepublic domain, there was clearly a substantial amount of newspaper briefing
Click on the red text for more on the "origins and role of the Barnett Formula". The what?! You know, that little formula whose creator, Lord Joel Barnett, has declared unfair to England. You know, that little formula which discriminates against all citizens of England, creating a so-called "Celtic" elite in Scotland and Wales. You know, that little formula which decrees that they can have and you cannot.
Click on the red text for more on the "origins and role of the Barnett Formula". The what?! You know, that little formula whose creator, Lord Joel Barnett, has declared unfair to England. You know, that little formula which discriminates against all citizens of England, creating a so-called "Celtic" elite in Scotland and Wales. You know, that little formula which decrees that they can have and you cannot.
Friday, March 06, 2009
The Labour Party, The Conservative Party, The Liberal Democrats, The British National Party - Racists All
We all remember the referendum in the North East of England which voted 78% against regionalisation. Sadly, the rest of us weren't given a say and New Labour continued the break-up of England regardless. Gordon Brown's last act as Chancellor was to swipe £2bn from the English NHS:
From the Financial Times:
However, Mr Brown avoided equivalent cuts to the Scottish and Welsh NHS budgets even though the funding formula for the UK nations suggests they should have shared the pain. That decision leaves him open to criticism that he favoured patients in his home country
Gordon Brown's first act as Prime Minister without a mandate was to create regional ministers in England, and now regional select committees. But those given a say in the North East said a resounding NO to regionalisation. That doesn't matter. The people of England are not allowed to live in a democracy.
Now, the Lib Dumbs are screeching over Labour "unfairness" in the composition of the new Regional Select Committees. Note, NOT over the fact that the people of England don't WANT regions. The Lib Dumbs go even further, stating that their article here "refers to UK" - which it doesn't. Scotland and Wales have their own national governing bodies. The article refers to ENGLAND.
So, lower public spending in England - via the Barnett Formula, health apartheid, the West Lothian Question... and MPs of all parties remain quite unconcerned about the people of England. Keep 'em quite. Put in more CCTV. Keep the DNA Database. Tell 'em it's to combat terrorism. Fool the people. Crush the people.
As charges of racism can brought on grounds of nationality/country of origin, it seems that the major UK political parties - New Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dumbs, and the BNP are ALL guilty of racism.
Now, isn't that a spooky factoid?
From the Financial Times:
However, Mr Brown avoided equivalent cuts to the Scottish and Welsh NHS budgets even though the funding formula for the UK nations suggests they should have shared the pain. That decision leaves him open to criticism that he favoured patients in his home country
Gordon Brown's first act as Prime Minister without a mandate was to create regional ministers in England, and now regional select committees. But those given a say in the North East said a resounding NO to regionalisation. That doesn't matter. The people of England are not allowed to live in a democracy.
Now, the Lib Dumbs are screeching over Labour "unfairness" in the composition of the new Regional Select Committees. Note, NOT over the fact that the people of England don't WANT regions. The Lib Dumbs go even further, stating that their article here "refers to UK" - which it doesn't. Scotland and Wales have their own national governing bodies. The article refers to ENGLAND.
So, lower public spending in England - via the Barnett Formula, health apartheid, the West Lothian Question... and MPs of all parties remain quite unconcerned about the people of England. Keep 'em quite. Put in more CCTV. Keep the DNA Database. Tell 'em it's to combat terrorism. Fool the people. Crush the people.
As charges of racism can brought on grounds of nationality/country of origin, it seems that the major UK political parties - New Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dumbs, and the BNP are ALL guilty of racism.
Now, isn't that a spooky factoid?
The Mandelson Green Custard Incident - Smells Like 1980s Spirit!
The Daily Mirror, 1984.Ooh, the Peter Mandelson green custard incident brought back fabulous memories of the 1980s and Margaret Thatcher's "go to work with an egg" days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)