Category Archives: PC Corner

Unfair Stereotype?

Posted on by

Greater Manchester Police were forced to make a formal apology earlier this week after carrying out a realistic training exercise designed to protect its citizens against the threat of terrorist attack. Now before you read any further just pause and ask yourself where the threat of terrorist attack is likely to come from. Yes, I know, silly question, the answer is more than obvious. Though not to some, evidently.

During the exercise the role-playing terrorist shouted out “Allahu Akbar”, as those real-life deranged fanatics tend to do before they open fire indiscriminately and blow themselves up, killing all around them.

According to Dr Erinma Bell, described as a “Peace Activist” the police were guilty of unfair stereotyping since, as she said, a terrorist could come from any group. True, a terrorist could come from any group but from where does the average person in the street think a terrorist attack is most likely to come?

As this blog has said before, not all Muslims are terrorists; of course they’re not. That would be a ludicrous and grossly unfair thing to say but nobody can deny that, at the present time, the majority of terrorists are Muslims.

If we cannot, or refuse to, identify our potential enemies we make it a lot harder to eventually defeat them. Our hard-pressed (and no-doubt demoralised) police and security forces need all the help they can get in keeping us all safe. Making their training exercises as realistic as possible with no detail spared is an obvious priority and no more than common sense. Political correctness and liberal sensibilities should have nothing to do with it.

Mere Semantics

Posted on by

There’s evidently been a bit of a to do Down Under following the decision by lecturers at the University of New South Wales in Sydney to no longer refer to Captain Cook’s voyage of exploration and its aftermath as a “discovery” but as an “invasion”. Some have accused the University of  political correctness but I’m not so sure.

I think we in the West can occasionally be guilty of viewing our past through rose-tinted spectacles although it is a natural human trait to try and paint ourselves in the best possible light. Using the British as an example (though it applies equally to France, Holland, Germany, the USA or any other imperialist power) we were taught that when things happened to us it was bad and when we did it to others it was good.

Thus, the Romans did not “discover” Britain, they “invaded” it. The Vikings did not “discover” the British Isles, they “conquered” large parts of the land following their sea-borne raids. However when the British sailed across the world to Australia or parts of Africa and then settled the land following their military defeat of indigenous peoples it was referred to as “discovery”.

It is no more than mere semantics with different words used to describe the same action and effect. It is also rank hypocrisy and political correctness has got nothing to do with it.

Heroes?

Posted on by

It’s odd how often the word “hero” is used in modern parlance and how a word, described in the Oxford Dictionary as meaning “a person…….who is admired for their courage or outstanding achievements”, has become so commonplace.

For example it seems that every time reference is made in the media, or by politicians, to members of the armed forces that reference has to include the word “hero” even if no heroic act has actually taken place.

Now don’t get me wrong, any man or woman who makes the decision to serve his or her country is worthy of our respect, gratitude and even admiration but just because they have decided to make a living as a soldier, sailor or airman that decision alone does not make them a hero. There is nothing “courageous” or “outstanding” in making a career choice, however noble that choice may be.

An act of heroism surely involves a person making a decision (spontaneous or otherwise) to perform a positive act, usually against all the odds, putting that person’s life at risk.

Thus, a soldier who, in the heat of battle, ignores enemy gunfire to rescue a wounded comrade is a hero. A fire officer who disregards the flames to rescue a member of the public in a burning house is a hero. Any member of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution who leaves the comfort of dry land and voluntarily takes to a boat in stormy seas to rescue a sailor in distress is a hero.

In all of these cases he or she has actually made an active decision to put his or her life at risk to save others. There are many heroes in all walks of life worthy of the name but we must not devalue the acts of real heroes by using the term so liberally.

Health and Safety at Agincourt

Posted on by

This Sunday sees the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt, October 25th, 1415 a battle won by the English (and Welsh) against all the odds.  I wonder what would have happened if a similar event had occurred in these politically correct days………….

King (to his troops) – “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers….”

Health and Safety Official  – “Hey you, what do you think you’re playing at?

K. – “Well, I’m just about to give battle to the French and I thought I’d try and rally the men.”

H.S.O. – “Really, and what do you think you’re doing with all those bows and arrows? Where are the safety guards for those sharp points?

K. – “We were going to fire them at the French.”

H.S.O. – “What! Have you any idea how dangerous those things are? Have you issued safety goggles to your bowmen and have you carried out a full risk assessment?”

K. – “I beg your pardon?”

H.S.O.  – “And what about those wooden stakes?

K. – “Er, we were going to put them in the ground so we’d have some protection if the French cavalry decided to attack us.”

H.S.O. – “Are you stupid, have you considered what would happen if the horses suddenly stopped and threw the riders on to those stakes? They could do themselves a nasty injury.”

K. – “That’s the idea!”

H.S.O. – “And these soldiers of yours, are they on minimum wage contracts?

King – “What?”

H.S.O. – “How much do you pay them?”

K – “Pay them?”

H.S.O. – “And have you made any provision for sick leave, parenting leave and fulfilled all the criteria regarding gay rights, religious discrimination and sex discrimination? Do you employ any female employees or people from ethnic minorities”.

K. – “Eh?”

H.S.O. “Are your employees incentivised? Do you give them targets?

K.  – “Oh yes, of course. We train them to aim for the head or the heart. Well the heart really because you can still cause serious damage if your aim is a bit off centre.”

H.S.O. – “Who are you anyway?

K. – “I’m King Henry V”

H.S.O. – “Yeah, yeah and I’m Julius Caesar.

K. – “No, I really am the king and I’m the undisputed leader of this fine body of men.”

H.S.O – “They don’t look very fine to me”

K. – “That’s because we ran out of supplies and they’ve been living on nuts and berries for the last few days and most of them have got dysentery.”

H.S.O. – “Alright, that’s it. I’m afraid I’m going to have to close down this operation  without further notice. There’ll be no more invading of  France for you, sunshine.

K. – “Sergeant-at-arms. I’ve no idea what planet this jester is from but, methinks, it’s certainly one unfamiliar to me. Take him away, remove his head and let’s start this confounded battle! Cry God for Harry, England and St George!”

(With apologies to William Shakespeare)

No Care for our Heroes

Posted on by

On Saturday it was reported in the Independent newspaper that “Britain’s oldest POW is now living off handouts”. I read the story and was horrified to learn that ex-World War II soldier and Nazi prison camp survivor, Robbie Clark, aged 97, registered blind and in a wheelchair, is surviving off charity handouts and is in danger of being evicted from his home by Brent Borough Council, north London.

Evidently, Mr Clark used up his savings of £50,000 in paying his £960 a week care bill and now the council have said they will only pay a contribution of £451 a week, meaning that he could be forced to live in a care home, a prospect that the former prisoner of war views with dread.

Why, I wondered? Even in a country that generally treats its ex-military with indifference and scant respect , how could this happen?

I decided to visit the website of Brent Council and there discovered that, of its 63 councillors, 1 is Liberal, 6 are Conservative and 56 are Labour, the party whose new leader is an avowed socialist and who refuses to sing the National Anthem. Further, the Council boasts on its website that “Brent  is the second most culturally diverse borough in the UK”.

Now it makes sense, an ex-soldier of the detested former empire? Certainly not a priority and certainly not diverse enough for the politically correct rulers of Brent Borough Council.

Never mind that, we should expect nothing less from a socialist run organisation proud of its ethnic and cultural diversity.  We should be more concerned about what it says about our country as a whole. A country that expects  its young men and women to risk their lives in time of war but then, if they are fortunate enough to return, is not prepared to look after them in old age and infirmity.

More PC Nonsense

Posted on by

Just imagine if the England men’s  football team did well in the World Cup – difficult, I know, but please try to suspend reality for the purposes of this short blog! On their triumphant return  home the team are greeted by the following tweet from the Football Association –

“Our lions go back to being fathers, partners and sons today, but they have taken on another title – heroes”.

Would anybody regard that message as being sexist? I doubt it.

However, earlier this week, a Football Association spokesman (sorry, person – or is it spokes? I can’t keep up these days!) tweeted a similar message about the returning England women’s team –

“Our lionesses go back to being mothers, partners and daughters today, but they have taken on another title –heroes”.

All hell was let loose and social media was ablaze with the PC brigade indignant over such a  “sexist and patronising” comment causing the no-doubt bemused “offender” to quickly apologise and remove the offensive tweet.

Such nonsense!

Rewriting History

Posted on by

I recently read an article in the Independent newspaper on the subject of the battle of Waterloo and the forthcoming celebrations to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the British and Allied victory of June 18th, 1815. The writer said that the victory was of little importance, argued that the British (and particularly the English) played a small part and went on to say that the winning general was Irish.

It is of course fashionable, particularly among the country’s liberal elite, to question Britain’s achievements and wherever possible to belittle them and even to rewrite history, so it’s worth looking at those statements.

Waterloo, as Wellington himself said, was a “near run thing” and if Napoleon had won who knows what might have happened?  The whole of Europe was ranged against Napoleon, and his plan, born of necessity,  was for a quick victory in Belgium over Wellington’s British Allied army and Blucher’s Prussians before turning east to face the armies of Russia and Austria.

He almost succeeded and the fact that he didn’t was down primarily, in the opinion of most military historians, to the abilities of Wellington, the quality of the 20,000 British troops and 6,000 troops of the King’s German Legion under his command (totalling less than one third of his forces) plus the eventual late arrival on the field of battle of Blucher’s Prussians.

If  Napoleon had won the battle who is to say what the effect would have been on the morale of the Austrians and Russians? Would they have fancied their chances against his undoubted military genius? Might they instead have sued for peace? What would have happened to Europe? Who knows? It is, of course, mere conjecture

As for Wellington’s nationality, he was of Anglo-Irish protestant stock, born in Dublin and educated at Eton. He regarded himself as English and when referred to as Irish, due to his place of birth, he is alleged to have replied “If I had been born in a stable would that make me a horse?”

None of that is to derogate the Irish who contributed mightily to the history of this country and her former empire but it would be nice if certain modern commentators could at least give the English some credit.

NOTE: On the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar I half expect some revisionist to declare that Nelson wasn’t English either – actually, when you think about it Horati O’Nelson does sound a little suspicious!

Ordinary?

Posted on by

On Friday some national newspapers ran a story about two “ordinary Yorkshire lads”, Hassan Munshi and Talha Asmal, who recently left the UK for Syria, presumably to join Isis.

At the risk of sounding racist (since anyone touching on this delicate subject is usually deemed as such) I would hardly think that “ordinary Yorkshire lads” would place high on their to-do list the act of joining a group of Christian-murdering, child-raping Islamic psychopaths.

I would have thought that “ordinary Yorkshire lads”, irrespective of colour or ethnic background, would be more concerned with drinking Tetley’s bitter, chasing girls on a Saturday night and playing cricket, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned.

The Truth, at Last

Posted on by

I enjoyed, if that’s the right word, hearing a former apologist for multiculturalism in Britain admit last week that it had been a failure. He said, in a television programme presented by him,  that the policy, carried out extensively by Tony Blair’s New Labour government had not just failed to bring different races and communities closer together but, conversely, had led to greater segregation culminating in atrocities such as the July 2007 London bombings by Muslim extremists and other outrages across the country.

The man concerned was Trevor Phillips, the prime architect of multiculturalism under Blair. He concluded that they had got it all wrong and that it was, after all, acceptable to admit to racial stereotyping and indeed necessary if society is to come to terms and deal with its undoubted differences. He admitted that it is alright to tell the truth and to state racial facts such as, most London pickpockets are Romanians and most victims of murder are black and most of the perpetrators are black also. Of course, he was only saying what anybody with a slight degree of common sense and honesty has always said.

Phillips said that this overriding desire to force multiculturalism on the British people had backfired and in some cases had led to suffering and even death. He gave several examples, one being the case of the poor black child, Victoria Climbie, systematically tortured to death because none of the social workers had the courage to highlight the abuse because the child’s guardians were black. In other words, political correctness and the fear of being accused of racism trumped the life of a child.

Similarly, he admitted what we all know but rarely say (although this blog has referred to it on more than one occasion), that the UK child grooming scandals are the result of sexual and violent crimes committed overwhelmingly by Pakistanis on young white girls. Again, he stated that the fear of accusations of racism prevented authorities (politicians, police and social workers) over a period of as much as ten years from taking action to prevent the commission of the crimes. Yet more innocent lives ruined because of political correctness.

At last, a politician and a decent one at that, with the courage to speak the truth and the courage to (finally) put truth and common sense above political correctness. It helped that Trevor Phillips is black because I suspect that the liberal, left-leaning media would have been outraged if the programme had been presented by a white man. Still, at least it’s a start.

Setting the Record Straight

Posted on by

No decent, right thinking person could fail to have been incensed last week when apologists for the brutal beheadings by IS extremist and British citizen, Mohammed Emwazi, sought to blame MI5 for his actions.

According to political activist, Asim Quereshi, the cold blooded murders of aid workers and journalists were carried out not by a sadistic psychopath but by “an extremely gentle” and “kind” man. The fault, he said, lay not with Emwazi but with MI5, who had been tracking him for a number of years and in so doing had “radicalised” him.

The reaction of our Government was predictably lame so it was heartening to hear the response of London Mayor, Boris Johnson to Mr Quereshi in a radio phone-in. Boris Johnson, clearly in touch with the majority of the country, said –

“The focus of your indignation and your outrage should be on people who go out to join groups that throw gays off cliffs; that behead people who do not subscribe to their version of Islam, that glorify in the execution of innocent journalists and aid workers.”

By setting the record straight, Johnson clearly demonstrated that he is a man both with cajones and the courage to speak his mind; rare traits in a politician.