Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Windrush debacle.

It seems very clear that the people caught up in the Windrush problem, or their parents should accept some level of blame for the issues coming home to roost this week.

You'd think the parents of the children coming to settle in the UK would at some point ensure their children were able to stay in the UK legally, rather than leaving it up to chance and whimsy...

But then the children themselves: If someone choses to live in the UK for 50 years or so, why the heck haven't they gone through the process of applying for a UK passport? That simple task would have solved all of the issues now appearing.

50 years, so several Jamaican passports would have had to be renewed in that time. maybe 5 opportunities to think "maybe it's time I actually put down roots here and got a UK passport".  Maybe 5 opportunities where they were told "you really need to get naturalised you know....".

But no, for some reason during 5 decades of residence they decided to stick with a Jamaican passport despite as they have stated having no ties to Jamaica.

The mind boggles.

And although I'm not entirely devoid of sympathy (after all being hauled away at the crack of dawn under the threat of being deported is no fun), at the back of my brain something is saying come on, accept some responsibility yourself.

Post-Winter Potholes

There is much debate at the moment about the state of Britain's Roads.

After the winter, quite a few roads have been affected by quite deep potholes. Of course it's been said that the fault is the lack of maintenence. It is in a way, but it isn't a lack of maintenance, but the wrong type of maintenance that has caused the problem.

Across the country in previous years, tarmac roads have been resurfaced using a method of spraying tar on the road surface and then a layer of chippings laid into the tar.

I've seen it up and down the country, usually afterwards there's a 20 or 20 mph speed limit until the road sweepers come through and hoover up the piles of chippings that line the road. Councils have been conned by contractors into thinking this will extend the life of the road by decades. It won't.

So there has been maintenance, but only to the surface of the road. It's cosmetic and doesn't repair the deeper fabric of the road surface.

Water is able to get into the deeper layers of tarmac and over time and a few winters frost will start to push the stones apart. Eventually you have a patch of loose stones just waiting for another frost to push them out and onto the road surface. You can see it on roads everywhere: a pothole surrounded by loose tar covered chippings. Eventually the frost recedes, the loose chippings fall back into the hole and then traffic starts to erode the edges of the pothole, adding more loose chippings to the area surrounding the hole and in the process enlarging the hole.

Eventually the surface around the hole crumbles away, producing a full-blown pothole.

So, the cosmetic resurfacing over the past few decades has come home to roost with a patchwork of deeper potholes in roads this Spring.

Filling the potholes with tarmac is only a temporary mesure because the fabric of the road surrounding the hole is weakened and eventually the patch is expelled as the area around it loosens.

The only way to fix it permanently is to dig the road up and start again. Very costly and probably more costly than doing proper meaintenance in the first place rather than the cosmetic tart-up job that's been going on. Not quick and not cheap. But done by the same people that promoted the cosmetic resurfacing as a permanent solution. Win-Win for them.

Maybe we'll be good in time for next winter....

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Captain Picard would Piss on Poor People

It seems that the actor patrick Stewart who played Captain picard in Star trek and Professor Xavier in X-Men (not gender neutral) says his charatcters would have voted for Remain.

Just like he would.

Stewart, a labour supporter typifies the sort middle or upper-middle class "sticking with Labour for virtue-signalling purposes" sort of Labour supporter that I'm coming to hate more and more.

Their fame gains them a mouthpiece for Labour, but what comes out of their moths has absolutely nothing to do with, or has any chance of improving the lot of the working man or woman.

We get lots of plattitudes about social conciousness, helping the sick (usually in other countries) helping immigrants (in or from other countries) nad bugger all about helping those low-paid and exploited working class people in this country.

Zero hours contracts? Not a peep.

In-work benefits? Nope.

Nope, lots of virtue signalling though: save everyone and everything else other than working class people. Import lots of immigrants, have open borders to depress wages. Lets make more money for fat-cat managers thanks to depressed costs.

Thanks.


Thursday, 5 April 2018

I. Don't. Care.

One of my bugbears is when people start spouting off that government should care about something, about ethnic minorities, about gender, pay equality, the list of things the government should care about is aparrently endless.

I think entirely the opposite. Goverenment shouldn't care. It is not in the business of caring, it's in the business of governing.

It's Parliament's job to go about the business of running the country. Without (one of my favourite phrases) fear or favour. It should not care what colour you are, it should not care what class you are, it should not care what background you come from, it should not care what religion, neither should it care what race, its shouldn't care what sex you are or what gender you identify as.

It should govern in the name of all people equally. It should govern to the benefit of all people equally.

There is an arm of government that is all about caring and that's the NHS, but they don't control policy, Parliament does. They care for the nation in so far as health both physical and mental and they only advise on policy. It is up to government to take or reject that advice after careful consideration.

Of course politics doesn't allow impartiality. From the get-go, we have left and right, Labour and Conservative. The system is adversarial and polarises the country against each other, rather than unites them.

We have seen this very recently in the Brexit debates, and the last election. We're now seeing it in the Labour party and their anti-semetism.

What is need ed is a new force in politics, one that unites rather than divides, one that doesn't reward priviledge or benefaction.

The more I see of modern politics, the less I like about it.

There needs to be change and that change is to care less and to govern more.

Wednesday, 4 April 2018

Thanks to Khan London now more Dangerous than New York.

Despite Sadiq Khan promising to put more Police on the streets (which he hasn't) during his mayoral election campaign violent crime in London has spiked, which he also promised (and failed) to reduce.

London is now officially a more dangerous city than New York. Why is it that Khan isn't being taken to task abiout this in the media? Certainly a Tory Mayor would be hauled over th coals about this and quite rightly too. But a labour Mayor should not be immune to criticism. Is it the Muslim factor I wonder? You know, the factor that stops Police investigating thinsg like child rape and grooming?

Anyhoo, crime is on the up in the capital, and a weekend frenzy of shootings of young people has hightened the complete failure of the Police to deal with criminal gangs in the capital.

Of course it's all political. The Metrolpolitan Police are a political animal these days, more intent on promoting an image rather than letting statistics speak for them.

Instead Cressida Dick come out shooting from the hip (excuse the pun) with Social Media firmly in her sights.

It's all the fault of Facebook and Snapchat aparrently. Not the fact that gangs of armed youths can drive around the streets of the capital with impunity and with little risk of being stopped and searched.. Of course the standard response as to why the Police isn't doing the job they are supposed to is it's all the fault of cuts. Not the actual problem which is the rampant political correctness that stops Police from stopping and searching gangs of youths because the majority of them are from ethnic minorities.

The Politicisation of the Police has effectively stopped them from doing their job. If they ceased to be political, then there's an argument for letting them get on with Policing, which means harrassing and arresting the mainly ethnic minority groups which are carrying out these crimes. Being apolitical means that there is no argument of bias, they are simply Policing: doing their job, without fear or favour.

Politicisation has brought with it the paralysis of political correctness. The Police are afraid to act in case they are called out as rascist. Policticisation has brought with it favour: only those that toe the political line get promoted into prominent places, irrespective of their ability actually to do the job.

Cressida Dick is a prime example of this, a classic Common Purpose placeperson. proven totally useless and caowardly during the DeMenezes affair, she was still promoted after making a hugely public fuckup that should have had her barrelling back down the ranks.

Instead of getting on and eliminating the threat from ethnic minority gangs i.e. actyually doing the job, she comes out with politically motivated attacks against social media. Straight out of the Common Purpose Marxist comminications control doctrine.

The more I look the more I see what's needed to sort this country out. Political correctness be damned: if a minority is causing a significant amount of crime, then the full forceof the Police and Judicial system should be brought to bear against them.

Without Fear or Favour.

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Free Spech and the Nazi Pug Story

It seems Free Speech is dead in Scotland. Well, it's dead in the UK, but South of the border the authorities aren't brave enough to actually prosecute and set a legal precedent. Yet. They just deport foreigners whose viewpoint they don't like.

We don't have free speech, it's qualified or approved speech, but now it's worse because any Passing snowflake that is hurt by your harsh words can get redress through the courts and get you banged to rights. Got to protect those poor Snowflakes. By in the day we used to omit the word snow and just called 'em flakes, nutters or window-lickers.

But in not-so-Bonnie-anymore Scotland, you can now be convicted for making an offensive joke. The evidential bar for hate crime has been set so low that anyone that says they are offended by your words is enough to get you prosecuted.

So you post up on YouTube and all someone has to do is go to the Old Bill and say they were offended, and off to chokey you go.

No qualification as to whether this is something someone "should" be offended by. No, all you do is to state you are offended and your collar will be felt. No defence of "It was just a joke m'lud". Nope, context is ignored.

I think Peugeots and Citroens are shit cars and for saying this if Peugeot or Citroen were to take offense to that statement and notify the Police, I would be in court.

The thing is with the Scottish case is the comedian that posted the Nazi Pug video posted the reasons for making his pug salute, but the court decided (and this is the important point) to ignore that context and prosecute him for the words he used, taken out of context.

To be honest, this video by Jonathan Pie the comedic spoof reporter just about sums up the idiocy of it all.
 
 
But as he says, where are the other comedians? Why are they not up in arms about this? Will they be boycotting the Edinburgh festival given that any offensive jokes they make could land them in court? After all, any words you use will be taken down and used out of context and there is now a legal precedent. The court doesn't care you were just making a joke....




Friday, 23 March 2018

Absolutist Feminism Exposed

I've long had a bugbear with feminism, I have blogged about it in the past. I don't have a problem with the promotion of female equality, but I do have a problem with the feminist agenda: promoting certain restricted ideals of what it is to be a female.

The best way to get into a heated debate with a feminist is to discuss female rape fantasies and whether a female should act out those fantasies with a male. Very entertaining.These are the feminists that promote limited ideals of feminism. They can't compute the freedom of a woman to chose to act out a rape fantasy. They'll say "Well rape is rape...." Well, how can it be rape if the woman choses to be "raped" as part of a fantasy scenario, it's not rape if she requests to be willing part of a scenario that looks and feels like rape.  But that's me digressing....

The latest implosion of feminism is the issue over Labour party all-female selection lists and the fact that Labour are to allow Trans females onto the shortlists.

Of course this open up a whole can of worms now, because feminists are obcessing about the fact that the females were once men. In their eyes they still are men and shouldn't be allowed on all-female lists.

But.... If that male has transition either fully or partly, and they express female identity, female ideals and to all intents and purposes are female, why should feminists stand in judgement? Because they do, on anything that does not conform to "their" idea of feminism.

It's an interesting moral dillemma around positive discrimination and gender identity.

Not that discrimination in any form positive or negative should be tollerated.

If you fully subscribe to equality of any flavour, then discrimination of any type is intollerable. The best person for the job should be doing it, whatever their background, sexuality, gender or ethnicity.