jump to navigation

The New Roman Empire? 26 February 2007

Posted by David in Europe.
add a comment

Boris Johnson thinks the reason so many are against Turkey joining the EU is because they are mostly Muslim. He quotes the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey: “Surely a European Union has to be more than economic? It has to have common values and so on…” So hey, I think, why have a European Union at all? Let’s just have free trade, like Switzerland and Norway. I don’t want common European ‘vales’ and ‘so on’ – whatever ‘so on’ is.

Boris also thinks the EU is like rebuilding the Roman Empire, which he seems to support (?). Oddly, quite a few see the EU like this. But why rebuild the Roman Empire, can’t we all be free? Bring back Boudicca I say.


Jade Goody Of India 26 February 2007

Posted by David in Comment.
1 comment so far

When the Jade Goody racism row was in full swing, I was alone among anyone I knew in saying that Jade wasn’t ruined yet and would be rehabilitated. I predicted lots of tears on chat shows, and a TV programme in which Jade visits India. Jade today arrived in Delhi. Apparently a private visit, but the British media seemed to be bizarrely in force over in Delhi. I thought she’d need her own programme to cover the visit because the media would shun her, obviously not.

Next prediction. Jade will be a guest on Shilpa’s new chat show.

A Tax On Happiness 26 February 2007

Posted by David in Funny.
1 comment so far

Britain’s rate of happiness poverty has soared according to a new report by the UN, with Britain’s rates among the highest in the World.

Those suffering from happiness poverty are most often characterised by depressed facial expressions, a slouched walk and tendancy to complain about four wheel drives, which theBrowny refer to as “gas guzzlers“. They feel it their right to complain about people richer than them, better looking than them, with more friends than them, and with brighter kids than them.

“The gap between the happy and sad has grown to a huge level never before seen,” according to the report’s author, Professor Liebstrum of the Centre for Envy, Jealousy and Hate, “seeing people so excessively happy just makes the sad even sadder. There is so much inequality.”

Michael Meacher, the Labour leadership challenger, went further. “We have got to redistribute happiness,” he told reporters, “there’s nothing else for it, happiness must be taxed.”

The government believes the happiness tax would fit well with plans for reformed council tax. “We’re already going to tax conservatories, double glazing, views, good schools, local shops and ‘peace and quiet’; happiness will fit perfectly,” said a Downing Street spokesperson, “we’re especially going to tax smug gits called Gordon sitting in the backs of cars [see pic].”

There are fears that taxing happiness will simply be giving in to miserable, jealous hate-filled Victor Meldew types, but no one is listening. Envy is in fashion for 2007.

“A Shame They Missed The…” 19 February 2007

Posted by David in BBC.

“A shame they missed the…”

I shall not repeat the final word of this quote about Margaret Thatcher, attributed to a BBC News producer during coverage of the IRA Brighton Bomb in the new book Can We Trust The BBC, as this blog has far too much respect for our Iron Lady and higher standards on language, too.

It does however show the absolutely disgusting attitude of BBC leftists. To wish that murdering terrorists had killed a democratically elected Prime Minister is unbelievable. We cannot believe a word they say. They are so politically motivated it’s hard to comprehend.

So too is the seemingly acceptable hatred of Mrs Thatcher. Just last week comedian Mark Steele joked how he leapt from his seat and cheered when he saw the news and thought Mrs T had died (in fact it was reporting her stroke). Could we imagine a similar ‘joke’ being made about Jim Callaghan or Harold Wilson?

There was a good article just the other day, revealing how Carol Thatcher is “always trying to convince Mum just how much affection the public still has for her, but she isn’t convinced.” But then when Carol was asked to open a local street fair and Margaret went to watch: “When we arrived, she was greeted with tremendous warmth, a round of applause, people gathering round taking pictures with their mobiles and parents telling their small children who she was. It was lovely, and Mum was so excited. She was genuinely chuffed, because when you are out of politics you are very out. I said to her: “Mum, you are an icon.”

The BBC is out of touch. Lest they forget she won three general elections despite tough opposition and an eventful policy programme.

The War On Drugs Hasn’t Been Won, It Never Started 19 February 2007

Posted by David in Comment.

Iain Dalehas quite a busy thread dealing with the Independent’s frontpage story that heroin should be prescribed to long-term addicts to prevent them from committing crimes to feed their habits, the head of Britain’s police chiefs has suggested. The main theme everywhere these days is thus: “the war on drugs hasn’t been won, so we should focus on damage minimisation by prescribing drugs to addicts.” What utter rot.


The “war on drugs” hasn’t been won, because not a single shot has been fired. It’s an entirely phoney war on drugs. If the government was serious about having a war on drugsthere would be compulsory residential rehab for all users (with prison as the optional alternative), tough mandatory sentences for all dealers, and condemnation if not financial punishment of those promoting drugs culture (i.e. celebs such as Pete Doherty).


Instead, celebs happily condone drugs use, while minor dealers are let off in return for information on other criminals (often non-drug related). If minor dealers were always being arrested, the “big fish” further up the drugs hierarchy would be forced to move downwards and in turn get caught. In short, we would be destabilising the foundations upon which it is all built instead of taking hopeless pot shots at the leadership.

Not Significant Enough Says Tessa Jowell 18 February 2007

Posted by David in Comment.
add a comment

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes books, is “not significant enough” to merit the Grade-I listing of his home in Surrey. According to Wikipedia, Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed fictional character on film, having been played by no fewer than 75 actors in 211 movies since 1900. Whilst this is apparently not a significant enough contribution to our culture, Tennyson’s was enough for the Department of Culture, Media & Sport to list his Grandmother’s home. Below is the greatest picture of Tessa Jowell ever taken.

Tessa Jowell

Free Speech Forever 15 February 2007

Posted by David in Comment.

The Germans wish to bring in a EU-wide law banning denial of the Holocaust. Now, anyone who denies the Holocaustis a total lunatic, and denying the evil mass genocide of millions by the German National Socialists is a disgusting thing to do. In fact, anything to do with the Nazis is disgusting. I would hate people to go round saying pro-Nazi things, it would be awful. But there’s something worse than letting people say Nazi things, and that’s having a Nazi style law banning people from saying things.

Freedom of speech cannot be limited. If it can be made illegal to say one thing, then it can be made illegal to say others. Where does it end? Illegal to criticise religion (tried just a short while ago), or the governing party? It ends in a Nazi style police state, where speech is controlled. I’d rather let a few nasty people say Nazi things, than live under a Nazi law. Unless you’re inciting a crime (i.e. encouraging murder), or misleading people in a manner to cause danger (i.e. screaming “gun” in a packed theatre to cause a stampede), we should be free to say what we like.

I don’t defend what people say, but I defend their right to say it.

Off The Tele? Or Just Switch. 15 February 2007

Posted by David in Comment.
add a comment

I have a rather split view on television censorship and complaints, which has been reawakened by the complaints about last nights Brits Awards. I didn’t watch the programme – I cannot stand awards shows – but have heard all about it thanks to our celebrity obsessed media.

My initial reaction to the complains is simple: if you don’t like it, vote with your remotes by turning over. But then I think that it was before 9pm, and bound to attract large numbers of children keen to see their favourite stars. In this case, bad language is not acceptable, nor is crude humour (which I do not like anyway, particularly against the dead, Armed Forces and the Queen).

I was angry in particular recently with Little Britain. Series by series it had become ever more crude; even after being rated favourite comedy in a poll of primary school children. Although not aimed at children, when you know they are watching, you have to take that into account. They certainly took it into account with merchandise…

But then where does censorship end? It’s wide open to the political correctness loonies, and is far too much power for the State.

I’m drawn to the conclusion that we have to let it go, but that bad language and adult humour shouldn’t be broadcast outside of restricted channels or very late hours. Broadcasters should be more responsible, and viewers more demanding. We – the viewers – must take the lead. They need us more than we need them. So, pick up the remote, and switch.

Britain’s Unhappy Children? 15 February 2007

Posted by David in Comment.
add a comment

The Times has a rather sloppy, largely nonsensical and utterly pointless article by someone called Oliver James. Mr James makes a few real points – for instance that the SureStart State run nurseries are awful – but then loses it all. Sadly Mr James is the author of a book called “Affluenza: How to be Successful and Stay Sane”, which sounds truly boring. It also presuposes he is sane himself, which is rather contestable.

Like so many deranged, loony left crazies, he blames everything on Margaret Thatcher. He writes of the recent Unicef report which placed Britain as worst of all developed nations: “This problem is, to a significant extent, an unfortunate byproduct of Thatcherism…it increased the proportion of children raised in low-income families — from 19 per cent in 1979 to 31 per cent by 1981.”

This cheap allegations matches that of the Unicef report’s co-author, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw: “Between 1979 and 1999, children were relatively neglected in Britain, child poverty rates rose rapidly, those living in workless households soared and the numbers not in education or training also rose.”

So child poverty only really started in 1979? What planet are these people on? Oh that’s right, Planet Leftist. On Planet Leftist poverty isn’t measured by what you haven’t got (absolute poverty), but by what others have (relative poverty). So if everyone’s salaries go up but in different amounts, they say there’s more “poverty” because the lower salaried person is “relatively poor” compared to the higher paid one. Under their measure, there’s lots of poverty in the UK but none in North Korea (they have the Leftist dream of full equality).

I am not convinced by the Unicef report, which puts most of its focus on fully subjective measures from surveys and the loony “relative poverty” measure. We have many problems in the UK – drugs, alcohol, crime – but this report is just mad. No-one can make families eat together, stay together and live happily ever after, least of all the State.

Newsflash: Gordon Brown Is Evil 14 February 2007

Posted by David in Labour.

If you needed more proof that Gordon Brown is evil, Ellee Seymour has it on her blog. It turns out Mr Brown – that apparently jolly figure known for visiting and for pretending to be helping African children in order to look good on TV – refuses to waive his latest tax for the Chernobyl Children Life Line charity, which brings children who’s lives are ruined and health plagued by the disaster on short holidays to the UK. I very much support this excellent charity.

The airport tax, £40 per child, is the latest of the Chancellor’s money grabbing schemes. It was introduced behind the screen of environmentalism, whilst the hypocritical Chancellor stealthily aided and abetted the growth in aviation by encouraging the expansion of Stansted (which will use compulsory forced purchase laws).