Category Archives: Current Affairs

Back to Rationing?

Posted on by

With all the political shenanigans of this week it was almost a relief to pick up a newspaper and read about fat (sorry, obese) Britain. Of course, the obesity crisis has been in the news for at least as long as the war against terrorism but it has understandably taken something of a back seat recently.

The latest proposals by senior nutritionists to help us lead more healthy lives were revealed  yesterday.  A Cambridge University Professor of Behaviour and Health, Theresa Marteau, is of the opinion that it would benefit us if we reverted to the 1950s when both plate sizes and food portions were considerably smaller than they are now and so, consequently, were the British people.

Her suggestions make sense since there is always a tendency (and I’m sure we’ve all been guilty of this, from time to time) to eat whatever food is placed in front of us at the table.

Yes, smaller portions on smaller plates could well work but I hope the eminent professor wasn’t suggesting that we go back to the other food related feature of the 1950s, namely rationing, which, after 14 years (beginning in the early days of World War II) only ended in July 1954.

Actually, taking a look at some of the sights on the average British high street, that might not be such a bad idea!

Wise Counsel

Posted on by

Our national news continues to be dominated by the threat of Islamic extremism while our leaders talk of sending in the RAF to join in the bombing of Isis in their Syrian and Iraqi strongholds. As if bombing alone will sort it out.

On the contrary, a campaign of bombing is likely to exacerbate the problem since when, inevitably, news is broadcast of the deaths of innocent civilians killed in the raids, it will act as a further call to arms to yet more extremists and potential extremists from within our midst. The problem from within is the most challenging of all issues facing not just the UK but all other countries who were foolish enough to open their borders to all and sundry without proper screening.

This is the problem that even our most liberal minded politicians are at last beginning to comprehend. They cannot say that they weren’t warned since, nearly 6 years ago, Nigerian author and Nobel Laureate, Wole Soyinka, who divides his time between Nigeria and the UK, spoke of the consequences of our misguided tolerance by stating  –

“England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist ­Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence. And yet England allows it.”

We in England and elsewhere in Europe have had experience of that “apocalyptic violence” at first hand, with undoubtedly more to follow.

Well over 100 years ago, a 25 year old Winston Churchill (whose birthday it is today) serving as an army officer in both India and Africa, gave prophetic warning of the dangers of Islam in his book “The River War”. Churchill had gained wide experience of  Islam both fighting with and against Muslim soldiers in India and Africa. Whilst he had a favourable view of the individuals who served under him he feared the religion and the “fanatical frenzy which is as dangerous to a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog”.

He further warned that “the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Nothing has changed in that time except that the danger has increased and has now come to our doorstep.  Only a fool ignores the counsel of the wise but, unfortunately for us, it seems we have been governed by fools for quite a few years now.

Time for Action

Posted on by

Tragically, the world witnessed another entirely predictable slaughter over the weekend, 129 dead and counting. There will be others, of course, and next time it could be London, Manchester, Berlin, New York or maybe even Paris again, in fact anywhere in the world inhabited by we “unbelievers”.

Well, what are we going to do about it? Naturally, Western leaders have expressed outrage, President Obama has talked of crimes against humanity, Prime Minister Cameron has talked about sharing the pain and all have talked of solidarity with France which is all very well and good, but, to repeat the question, what are we actually going to do about it?

This is deadly serious, literally, and the only sensible statement I’ve heard from any politician has been the response of French President Hollande, who said that we are “at war”. We are, the whole of the civilised world is at war with the extremists of Islam whose self-proclaimed aim is to destroy us.

The United Nations, according to its own charter was set up to safeguard the security and liberty of sovereign nations and their citizens. Sadly, we all know that the UN is worse than useless and so it has to fall upon the civilised world, namely us and all our freedom-loving allies, to unite and defend ourselves.

There is no choice but to form an armed coalition and put men on the ground in Syria and Iraq, in fact, anywhere where these psychopaths congregate, and neutralise the threat, whatever it takes. At home we have to be more vigilant than ever and must sadly abandon our failed policy of tolerance and get tough with those who live within our midst and whose self-avowed aim is our destruction.

This will inevitably bring forth allegations of breaches of human rights from the liberal politically correct elite who have such a big say in Western government but, too bad. As long as the authorities act rationally and in a cool measured manner, safeguarding the rights of law-abiding citizens, we have nothing to fear.

If there is another realistic alternative then, I for one, have yet to hear of it. This is not a game, this is deadly reality. Our leaders have talked too much, now they must act.

The Mob Speaks

Posted on by

The behaviour of the estimated 100,000 mob, who attempted to disrupt the Conservative Party conference in Manchester earlier this week, should surprise nobody.

Claims that they were demonstrating against “austerity” (aka responsible government) were contradicted by their angry, snarling faces and mouths foaming with venom amidst shouts of “Tory scum” directed at anybody wearing a suit. This was nothing less than anarchy in its most raw form.

Unfortunately, our country now seems to be divided between those who work, or wish to work, and those who do not. This is the sad downside of the Welfare State, a system set up with the noble intention of providing a safety net for the vulnerable and disadvantaged in society and designed to prevent them from falling below acceptable economic standards.

The system has however allowed itself to be abused by those lacking in responsibility and with no intention of contributing to society. The good news for the taxpayer is that, at long last, we seem to have a government prepared to try and do something about it.

Our national mind set needs to change and hard work should be prized, encouraged and rewarded. Those who cannot work through disability and those out of work not through choice must always be safeguarded and maintained. That is why the Welfare State was set up.

It was not set up to provide an alternative lifestyle for those whose only wish is to sponge off society and contribute nothing. If these people feel hard done by they should travel a bit and take a look at the rest of the world. They might then just realise how lucky they are to live in a country like the UK.

Sugar Tax

Posted on by

Like many of us, I’m not a believer in the Nanny State and feel that people should be able to live their lives and regulate their behaviour without recourse to the State, subject, of course, to compliance with the laws of the land.

However there are occasions when a government does need to take action for the protection of the more vulnerable members of society and a good example of this seems to be the proposal by celebrity chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver for a “sugar tax” on soft drinks.

This, of course, is in response to the country’s obesity crisis, particularly in relation to children.  A problem shared with most parts of the western world, it has to be said.

Oliver’s argument is that by raising just an extra 10 pence in tax on a can of fizzy drink a further £1 billion a year can be added to NHS coffers to combat the illness and disease (diabetes being one of the biggest concerns) caused by consuming too much sugar. Naturally, the big food and drink industry corporations have objected to such a blatant attack on their profits but then they would do wouldn’t they?

In an ideal world parents should be trusted to pay attention to the dietary welfare of their children and most parents do this perfectly well. However, some parents are not so responsible and some, whether ill-informed, uncaring or just plain stupid, are causing untold damage to their offspring by allowing them to eat and drink whatever they want without thought for their health and well-being.

Tales of the NHS

Posted on by

Two news stories concerning the NHS caught the eye last week.

The first was the proposal that ex-smokers should receive e-cigarettes on our National Health Service to help them overcome their cigarette addiction. In other words the already overburdened British taxpayer (that’s you and me) is being asked to subsidise people who voluntarily started smoking and now want to give it up.

This is wrong on a number of levels, not least the fact that a smoker having given up his 20 cigarettes a day (at a cost of £7 per day or £49 per week) is now well able to afford his own darned e-cigarettes!

The second was the suggestion that doctors should be punished for over- prescribing antibiotics  without giving due thought to the needs of the patient. I understand what the critics are getting at but it would be very hard to prove and also seems a little harsh on our overworked doctors. That said, I don’t doubt that there are some doctors who prescribe medicine to certain bothersome patients just to keep them quiet!

It reminds of the story about the doctor who rings his plumber in the middle of the night complaining that his toilet is flooding. The quick-thinking plumber tells the doctor to throw some aspirins down the toilet and then to give him a call in three days time if the symptoms haven’t cleared up!

Crisis in Calais

Posted on by

Many of the last week’s news headlines related to the ever-present and, seemingly ever-worsening migrant crisis in Calais where thousands of people, mainly young men, are attempting to enter the UK illegally via the Channel Tunnel.

It is undoubtedly a serious and sad humanitarian crisis and one cannot fail to have sympathy for those people fleeing war, oppression and torture in their own countries to seek a better life elsewhere. However, not all migrants are political refugees and many are clearly opportunity seekers who see the UK as a soft touch where successive governments have handed out taxpayers’ money, housing and medical care to all and sundry.

The present government, at last, are showing a more sensible approach and are seeking to reduce benefits and, at least partially, to close the door. It is a difficult problem, of course, and as a civilised nation we should not (and must never) turn our back on the suffering of others. That has to be balanced with a tough and pragmatic immigration policy where those seeking to enter should be individually screened and interviewed and each case decided on its merits.

The fact that thousands of potential immigrants are seeking to force or trick their way into the UK is a sad indictment on the lack of policy and direction of both the United Nations and the European Union. If the United Nations had done its job in taking action in the world’s trouble spots then half of these humanitarian crises would not exist in the first place. The only utterance made by the UN last week on the escalating crisis was the less than helpful criticism by a politically correct spokesman/person of our prime minister for accurately describing potential immigrants as “swarming” over the barricades at Calais. Apparently, this was akin to comparing the migrants to insects!

The UN and the EU should cut the rhetoric, stop prevaricating and do something about the crisis and accept that it is a world problem and certainly European rather than just something to be resolved by the UK and France alone. In the meantime, we should continue to tighten our borders and deliver a message that the UK, whilst fair and civilised, is not El Dorado and those found to have entered illegally (and without passing all tests for political asylum) will be fed and briefly accommodated before being shipped back to whence they came.

That is undoubtedly politically incorrect and some might say it is brutal or ultra right-wing but it is not, it is common sense, pure and simple.

Essential Experiments?

Posted on by

At the end of last week the Government gave permission for the construction, in Yorkshire, of what was termed “a puppy farm”  where Beagle dogs are to be bred for scientific experiments and  research.

In response to the National Anti-Vivisection Society’s contention (unarguable, you would think) that the decision will condemn the dogs to “a life of suffering”, the Medical Research Council stated that dogs were still “essential” for some medical experiments.

I remember, years ago, that Beagles were used to test the effects of smoking  (as if tests were necessary to demonstrate that smoking is bad for your health!)  but I had no idea that dogs were still used in medical experiments. Evidently “research” was carried out on 3,554 dogs in the UK  in 2013.

Although I find it hard to believe that there is no alternative to using dogs in medical experiments I really have no knowledge of the subject and I suspect most of us are the same. Surely, this is something that needs to be brought up for expert debate and public discussion, if only to learn the meaning of “essential”.

Does it mean essential in the sense that experiments on dogs could lead to the saving of human lives or essential for the safe use of women’s make up and the subsequent enrichment of cosmetics manufacturers?  One might be acceptable but the other not so.

It was only a week ago that our national newspapers were full of headlines featuring public demonstrations against foxhunting. Let’s hope the public  feels equally strongly about dogs.

Reaching for the Sky

Posted on by

It’s good to know that, in spite of our still-present class system and the difficulties for many in getting on in life, there are still those who manage to make it against all the odds. However, there can’t be many more eye-catching examples than that of the young boy from a rough inner city estate in Newcastle  who recently managed to bag himself a scholarship to Eton.

Tyrese George, aged 11, apparently watched a television programme on England’s premier public school and decided that he would quite like to go there, irrespective of the £34,434 yearly fees and the fact that the estate he lived on had nothing in common with the kind of family estates from where most Eton pupils originate!

He sent off an application for a brochure and then, amazingly, was asked to visit for an interview and some preliminary exams, which he waltzed through. Evidently his dancing and singing skills as a rapper impressed the interviewers too!

Tyrese will move down to Eton as a boarder when he reaches 13 which, not surprisingly, has filled his mother, a care worker struggling to make ends meet, with great pride although she did say she wasn’t particularly surprised at what her clearly gifted son had achieved!

If that story doesn’t give encouragement and confidence to those seeking  to advance themselves and reach for the sky then nothing will. A story, possibly, to warm the hearts of even the most embittered socialists –  but probably not!

No Celebration

Posted on by

It was sad that the US Air Force felt the need to cancel its 4th of July celebrations due to take place at its base at RAF Feltwell, Norfolk over the weekend. The US Air Force spokesman said “The decision was made due to the most current local threat assessments” which of course, is a coded way of saying they feared a terrorist attack on the airmen and their guests.

Such caution is understandable and no doubt sensible but, on the other hand, if Western armed forces (particularly those of the US)  cannot protect themselves, their loved ones and their guests on their own base what hope is there for the rest of us?

Another victory for the bad guys,  I would say.