Shooting in the dark

This whole incident with the fox shooter and the wildlife watcher is tragic, of course, and just goes to show just how careful one must be when out shooting. Bird may fly and beast may flee, but never shoot where you can’t see and all that. However, one question continues to nag at me. You see, the hunter had been given permission to shoot on the farmers' own land and it seems reasonable to me that the farmer would not give this permission if he knew that out there, somewhere in the undergrowth perhaps, was a wildlife watcher.

Now this is a complete guess, but I suspect that the farmer had no idea that someone else was using his land at the time that he gave permission to the hunters to go on their shoot. This leaves two scenarios that I can think of. Firstly, the wildlife watcher was trespassing or, secondly, he was using land that had some kind of public right of way imposed upon it either by the modern state or by some tradition in law. Now, I have not heard a single mention of the word trespass in all the reports that I have read so I am tending towards the second choice which begs a number of questions.

Is it common and lawful practice for farmers to give permission to shoot across land that may legitimately contain members of the public, say dressed in camouflage at night whilst hiding in the bushes? It would seem an extremely dangerous practice to me if this were the case, putting unreasonable pressure upon both the hunter and the public. An accident waiting to happen if you like.

If this isn’t the case, and the farmer gave his permission in error, then should he be held at least partially accountable for the incident? Also, what alternative pest control methods could a farmer use in such public access cases? Would he have to abandon his land to various pest species due to the burden that public access would have upon his possible pest reduction methods?

Of course, all the above is written without full knowledge of the incident but if I am right in my guess that both the shooters and the member of the public were all lawfully (not legitimately IMHO) rummaging around in the dark wearing the best stuff they could find to make them as invisible as possible then this will happen again. Maybe not this year, or next year, or even over the next two decades but nothing has changed to prevent it from happening again so in all likelihood it will.

Of course to me the answer is written large. The property of the farmer should be fully private. Sporadic access by any member of the public at any time to this bit or that bit should not be enshrined in law but that’s just me talking; some guy on the Internet with a passing interest in property rights, bullets and public safety.

Off license ripped off by leather booted gang

What happens when HM Customs doesn't get its way first time? Yes that's right, they put together some cock-and-bull story and get you a different way:

Britain's first offshore off-licence is out of business after part of its cargo was removed for a second time.

When they came into port, Customs officials said the vessel was not secure and the cargo had to go into a bonded warehouse. Mr Berriman refused and his part of the cargo was seized.

Gun debate

So, this is the kind of thing that I find in my email inbox on occasion:

You are invited to attend a debate on private firearms ownership on Wednesday, 1 September

The American National Rifle Association (NRA) returns to London on Wednesday, 1 September to run a major televised debate on private firearms ownership.

Key to the event will be the NRA’s top man, Wayne La Pierre, and Rebecca Peters of IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms). La Pierre will be speaking in favour of private firearms ownership and Peters against.

The debate takes place in Central London, at the Western Room of the King’s College Library, to start at 1900hrs. The debate will last 90 minutes.

I'm assuming that by televised they mean "televised in the USA". Fair enough I suppose and I am sure it will help the NRA in the US in their arguments against their own gun grabbers. However, besides providing some anecdotal reference material for us to refer to over here I doubt very much that it will have any effect whatsoever.

Now, a UK televised debate devoid of the usual media bias, man that would be progress.

Me is livin on da streets

Ali G has been kicked out of the house.

On leave

The England Project family are on leave starting tomorrow. Off to the new forest, we are. Blogging will resume Tuesday onwards.

Obviously after the flurry above.

So what am I to think?

I read the BBC news web site. I also watch the news on TV (BBC, ITV, CH4, CH5). On my way to work I listen to the news on BBC radio. I read the online versions of the Times and the Guardian (the latter as a sanity check only you understand). These are my traditional media news sources and, I believe, not uncommon sources for the population of Britain.

So then, what am I to make of this:

Those occupying and desecrating the holy shrine are almost all completely alien to the city and with faces unseen before by the real locals. Some are not even Iraqi and do not even speak the Arabic language. I tell you this is the truth. Vicious aliens, whether foreigners or criminals and thugs from other provinces, have invaded the great Imams' resting place. Heinous crimes have been perpetrated against the Najaf people including murder, mutilation, kidnapping and arrest of ordinary people policemen and religious leaders; and please note that this was not done by the Americans, or by the IP or the IDC. That is the truth as God is my witness.

It seems so……what’s the word? Contrary.

And this holy shrine key business, you know, Sadr offering to hand them over yet still somehow managing to retain them?

Sistani seems to have given instructions to his office in Najaf not to accept the keys to the holy shrine unless a neutral committee inspects the contents of the shrine and an inventory is made to ensure nothing is missing from the treasury of the shrine.

This treasury which is located inside a safe locked basement beneath the shrine contains historical artifacts, priceless manuscripts and a significant amount of gold and gems. These have been gifted and donated to the shrine by Shia from all over the world for centuries. No one has ever dared touch that treasury except the family that holds the keys to the shrine. Radhwan Al-Rufai'i was forced to give over the keys to one of Sadr's aides last April.

I mean, who do I believe? How can I make a judgement? Should I just wait for the Hollywood movies to come out in the hope that, for the first time in history, they represent more credible testament to what actually happened than the media?

England Project seeks dog

So, the England Project family are currently considering taking on the services of a dog. The main requirement is that the dog should be suitable for suburban family living without being too poncy. My current favourite, though Mrs. England Project is unaware, is the Canaan Dog:

…a recently domesticated breed derived from a specific type of pariah dog that inhabits remote locations of what is now the land of Israel. These tough desert born survivors are resilient, intelligent and independent dogs. This is not a man-made breed, but that of one evolved for thousands of years by the harsh environment of this region.

And, apparently, good with children, requiring moderate exercise and not too fussed about being left alone for an hour or so on occasion.

Any other non-poncy suggestions gratefully received. And nothing with curly or wavy hair or a requirement for extreme sports.

Daily Ablution “scare quoted”

You know those dogs? The ones that collect the morning paper from the letter box and then savage them before delivering them to their masters feet. Well, that’s how I view Scott Burgess of the Daily Ablution. I mean that in a good way.

Anyhow, Scott has received an email from Paul Brown of the Guardian who is concerned that Scott makes a habit of fact checking peoples asses:

Dear Scott Burgess, Reporting the man from Microsoft seems to you to be somehow remiss, yet he is the man from America talking about his fellow Americans. You on the other hand seem free to "report" on what the press says and then add comments, a luxury news reporters are not allowed for good reason, because it leads to distortion of what people say. All the best Paul Brown

It might come as a surprise to Mr. Brown but Scott not only seems free to report on what the papers say and then add comments but he actually is free to do so. It is astonishing to me that Mr. Brown describes this situation as a luxury and I think it ridiculous that, somehow, news reporters are not allowed to behave in a similar manner. Frankly I thought they already did.

I mean, can you imagine the consequences of newspaper reporters writing articles that fact check the asses of their competitor papers? Heaven forefend that such a situation should exist in the 21st century. A situation that could only lead to….well what? Fact checking is about establishing facts and showing where paper spin has distorted those facts and I suggest that a little concerted ablution based reporting by our esteemed paper reporters would eventually lead to the emergence of a lot more facts, say, over breakfast when reading the morning paper.

We read Scott’s stuff because he provides an invaluable service to his visitors, doing all the hard work for them and reporting back the results. That does not mean that he can’t or won’t make mistakes but it is reporting, it is not a fecking luxury and I refuse to even entertain a Guardian reporter’s suggestion that Scott’s methods leads to a distortion of what people say.

Stop fact checking us because we are not allowed to fact check each other. That seems to be the measure of the correspondence.

Sheesh.

Quote of the day

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C. S. Lewis

Whose business is it anyway?

So Digby Jones, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, thinks that MPs are a bit dopey when it comes to checking out new EU legislation. You see, some of these new laws are interfering with British business which, Mr. Jones thinks, is a particularly un-groovy thing to happen:

Parliament was not equipped to stop new rules from marching the UK "valiantly towards the 70s".

In response the government says that “they are on the case” and that it’s all down to the "honourable tradition" of faithfully implementing EU laws. Presumably being on the case will mean implementing the laws in an unfaithful manner, or in part, or perhaps in another way that slips my mind.

Of course all this is nonsense. Just a couple of Disco Stu’s arguing over the moves for a particularly naff dance.

The approach to fixing these issues properly is in fact two fold. Firstly, as a preliminary measure while waiting for the implementation of the second stage of this plan, each new legislative document handed to us from the EU should be greeted with a frown and an impatient wave of the hand whilst, at the same time, saying to the messenger in a particularly loud voice ”what is this nonsense?”. The documentation should then be taken and glanced at for no more than about twenty minutes, paying particular attention to the front cover. Then a few simple questions should be asked: ”Is there any similar British initiated legislation awaiting approval? No? Then we clearly have not identified a need for this…..this thing.” It should then be stamped:

REJECTED
RETURN TO SENDER
BRUSSELS
OVERSEAS

Of course, if there does exist some similar British legislation awaiting approval, an immediate inquiry should be held into the appropriateness of the British legislation on the grounds that it bares a passing resemblance to some legislative SPAM that we have recently received. It should then be stamped:

UNDER HM GOVERNMENT REVIEW
RETURN TO SENDER
BRUSSELS
OVERSEAS

If, of course, we already have the legislation and it’s simply a case of someone else stumbling upon our good ideas we should stamp the document:

WE’VE ALREADY GOT ONE
RETURN TO SENDER
BRUSSELS
OVERSEAS

The second stage of the plan, which we should implement as soon as we feel comfortably prepared for the spitting and shouting and general all round grumpiness it will cause in foreign parliament buildings is, of course, to eventually stamp all received documentation thusly:

UNSOLICITED MAIL
RETURN TO SENDER
BRUSSELS
OVERSEAS

Hmmm, I'm sure there's a T-shirt slogan in there somewhere.

There's more to earning wealth than PAYE

When I left home it was to live in a shared room in a rented house occupied by six other people. It was a risk, living there, as the distractions that it offered were hardly conducive to the attainment of a reasonable degree but it was affordable and it was close to the polytechnic, the pub, the kebab house and the cinema. We saw the first Highlander film at that cinema. Then we went back and saw it again, this time with plastic swords.

After leaving college I moved, with my wife to be, into the house of a friend who had kindly offered us room and board. We were there for six uncomfortable months while we worked hard to find and secure our first home, a dull little place in a rather rotten area of a rotten town in Bedfordshire. It was the right sized house for a price we could afford and we took a risk, hoping that the depressed area we had bought it in would not remain so for very much longer.

We were there for five years or so, scrimping and saving what we could to ensure that we could move on to the next rung of the property ladder, at the time probably a smaller property in a nice area of a nicer town in Hertfordshire.

You see, it was a plan we had. A plan shared by millions of people in the UK. A plan to improve our lot, over a period of many years, through hard work, careful planning and some not too small risk taking.

We suffered the crime, the vandals, and the noise but we knew all about it really before we bought the house. We’d also seen that some of the houses in the road, old council houses, had been improved by their owners and it was a trend that we hoped would continue. New windows, new drives, nicer gardens. Some of the signs were there and gradually, over the next five years, we saw further improvements. We thought things were going to pan out and that it would be reflected in the value of our home, allowing us to eventually sell up and move to a less affordable location.

However, before we were able to move we were devastated by the high interest rates caused by the ERM debacle. Our mortgage suddenly took more than the bulk of our wages leaving us to spend what little we had left on rice and the TV license fee. Our plans were in tatters and the risk that we had taken in buying the property that we did, at the price that we did, when we did had failed. If risk was a dog, ours had just turned around and bit us hard on the backside.

Some properties near us were repossessed and the road seemed to free fall. We lost nearly one half of the value of our home and there seemed no chance of recovery. Such a tale of property woe you would be hard pushed to beat I can tell you.

And there we were, floundering in a mess not wholly of our own making, but accepting the fact that not having taken account of government mismanagement in our risk assessment was our own lookout. It was us who stood to gain had our plans panned out, and it was us who stood to loose if they did not.

So what did we do? We tightened our belts, worked hard and took more risks. We spoke to our employers about our great worth to their companies and negotiated more appropriate pay packages, fully aware that we were taking a risk in a depressed employment market that could probably fill our positions with cheaper (though I would say paler) young hopefuls had our employers seen matters differently. We could not afford the luxury of laying low.

We then formulated another plan, to turn our liability (a house we could not sell for what we bought it at) into an asset. We rented it out. It was a family home in very good order near a couple of rather large industries and the gamble paid off. We had tenants.

At the same time we rented a house in the area we wanted to live in, the extra required each month covered by our increases in pay.

We were no richer, but we still owned a property (investment failure that it was) and had eventually ended up where we wanted to be though not in the position we wanted to be in ie home owners in that area.

Then, a couple of years or so and a pay rise or two later, my good lady was flicking through the local property newspaper when she noticed a house for sale. It was derelict, without heating or even a gas connection, it had a sink for a kitchen, powder for plaster and spiders for company. But it had potential and, more to the point, we could see that potential. It was near a main road, the interior was a horror to behold and it needed everything doing to it but we were convinced it could be turned round into a lovely place to live.

Yes, it was a risk. Another one. But we decided it was one worth taking.

We eventually ended up in a bidding war with three other potential buyers when it got to the point when the estate agent (and the bank through which the house was offered probate) said enough is enough! Tomorrow is the weekend; on Monday morning we want your final offers in sealed envelopes delivered to us. We will let you know who has secured the property on Monday evening.

We were buggered, we thought. We had secured the maximum mortgage that we could and only managed to get one at all due to a rather astute business plan put together by my wife, necessitated by the fact that we already owned a property and, consequently, had a mortgage on that. Getting banks to take into account such things as rental income was very difficult in those days.

So what did we do? Well, we took another risk. We got our credit cards together, worked out how much we could take out in cash and added that amount to our brown sealed envelope bid. Thousands of pounds. In cash. From our credit card accounts. To spend securing a derelict property on a gamble that we could turn it around. These people who take risks on property investments these days have no idea of the meaning of the word.

We popped the envelope into the estate agents and waited for Monday evening.

Imagine, if you will, the mixture of emotions someone might go through when they realise they have won a bidding war on a derelict property secured using cash from credit cards while living in rented accommodation due to the fact that they hate living in the house that they already own, which can’t be sold, is worth less than the mortgage they have on it and is only affordable due to a rental income that could end at any moment.

That’s risk baby.

So, we had debt to pay, a derelict house to do up and not enough money to cover the project and our living expenses. So what did we do?

That’s right. We gave up our rented accommodation and moved into the derelict house freeing up the monthly rent. It was the middle of winter and we were bitterly cold but we were paying back what we owed on credit card. Each month. Every month. Month by month. Without fail, every penny we had went into paying back the cards. Luxury spending was buying coal to keep the small open fire in the lounge burning. Then eventually, one fine summers morning, the credit cards were clear.

That’s hard work baby.

It was then that we started on the project. Heating, roofing, electrics, kitchen, bathroom, walls, carpets, gas, windows. doors, garden. Hard work, but all part of the plan. All part of the risk.

And we were right. It made a lovely home. It was everything we ever wanted and it was also an investment success. Not by the terms of some, perhaps, who would not contemplate going through the difficulties that we went through but each to his own I suppose.

And then the property market started improving, which added to our feeling of success because this was part of the plan. Part of our risk assessment and something we most definitely were counting on in the project long term. We had manoeuvred ourselves into a position where we had two properties, both increasing in value, one paying for itself through rental income (though gradually requiring more and more repair) and one worth much more than the mortgage we had on it.

We owned both these houses through a combination of hard work, careful planning, imagination and risk taking. Not a single person (except family and friends) would have wept a tear for us if we had been left financially ruined and destitute by the failure of our decisions and that, I can tell you, was well and truly on the cards.

So then we started a family and guess what. We decided we needed to move. Why? Because we both wanted my wife to stay at home and bring up the kiddie. Yes, I know, how quaint.

This meant that we could not afford the house we lived in. Well, we could, but only just and it would have meant going back to the bad old days of rice and TV. No thanks. So we looked for a less expensive place in a quiet part of the same lovely town and put our pride and joy up for sale.

It sold and we found a decent place that we thought was undervalued because there happened to be an unusually high number of similar houses on the same road for sale at the same time for a long period. We took a risk on that, buying a house in a road where it seemed like no one wanted to buy a house and it was another one that panned out. We saw a rapid gain in its value as soon as the slack was taken up. I wish I’d bought two, even though it would have meant bread and woodlice for tea for a while.

We eventually sold the first house, receiving a few thousand more than we paid for it. It was not a financial success but I think that we eventually recovered most of what we put into it. We dug ourselves out of negative equity on that one by effectively forcing ourselves into the buy to let market before anyone, including the banks, had even heard about it.

So here we are and there we have it. The story of how we have ended up in the home that we find ourselves in today. Why, you might ask, am I telling you all this? Well, because some socialist freak in the Guardian says that my family and I did not earn the fruits of our investment in hard work, planning, frugal living and risk taking. You see, the government deserves to take a 40% share in a substantial amount of our hard earned rewards as inheritance tax because:

Unlike PAYE, it is mainly a tax on unearned wealth, since it results from the fortuitous recent rises in house prices caused by too much money chasing too few houses.

You know that old adage, don't believe everything you read in the papers, well I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious how generous that adage really is.

Insidiously from within

Well, here’s something interesting. According to shadow trade and industry secretary Stephen O'Brien, Britain is responsible for increasing the burden of Brussels initiated regulation by adding a little extra value of its own:

"The UK Government will gold plate by multiplying the burden of regulation by over three times from the original directive," said Mr O'Brien.

He pointed to a 12-page EU directive on abattoirs which had been cut to seven pages when implemented in France but increased to 96 pages in Britain.

"There are lots of examples like that where they build on things as well as over-interpret and over-implement," he said. "It's a menace to British business."

This brings to mind Sean Gabb’s free life commentary number 59 - A Case Against the European Union (recently posted to the Out of EU yahoo group) in which he states:

In October 1995, it became a criminal offence to use English measurements in a wide range of commercial transactions. There was an outcry in the media and to some extent in Parliament, as people were forced to stop using measurements the very names of which are part of our language. The outcry was silenced by the explanation that this had been forced on us by "Europe". A Directive from 1989 was produced which required standard units of measurement throughout the Union.

The explanation was false. The Directive did require standardisation, but was silent about the outlawing of other units of measurement, or the use of criminal law to ensure compliance. Indeed, a Directive of the European Union is not a law. It is simply a wishlist sent out by the Commission to the member governments, which can be treated very largely as they wish. I am told that in Spain and Italy and Holland, I can still legally buy a gallon of petrol and even a scruple of vitamin C - assuming I can find anyone there willing to deal with me in these units.

The forced metrication of this country happened not because someone in Brussels decreed that it be done, but because the relevant officials at the Board of Trade have tidy minds that are offended by the illogicality of the English system of weights and measures; and because the big food retailers could see a means of increasing their already large market share by imposing conversion costs on their smaller competitors that they themselves can easily afford. These people used the excuse of Europe to avoid the political reaction that might have frustrated their design had they relied on a law made entirely in this country.

People are beginning to join up the dots you know and the picture, though not yet clear, seems pretty sordid. Perhaps there is no real picture, just a bunch of self important people manipulating what they can for their own petty gains. Don’t like the imperial system of weights and measures? Never mind, here comes one of those EU thingies we keep getting. Let’s tag something onto that and blame the Belgians.

Frankly I’m a bit dazed. I mean is it really true that our own government adds so significantly to EU regulation? Is Sean Gabb right that the EU regulators never required the witnessed level of assault on our Imperial measurement system?

Are we really that surrounded by our enemies?

Icky

I have been unwell
My blogging was not immune
Delli belly sux

What excuse could there be?

Big media has no excuse for not specifying their sources, especially in their online publications. If a blogger, for instance, were to say something along the lines of "8 out of 10 cat owners are a bit dull" or "the public supports a ban on big media using the words The public" other bloggers would expect (nay, demand) that proof be shown, cat owners referenced and the public poll presented in all its misleading glory.

Why should it be any different for big media?

Let's take today's little propeller rant by the Guardian's Polly Toynbee. If you manage to make it through the first few paragraphs before your eyes droop too far or you are swept away by a cataclysmic weather related phenomenon you will come across the following statement regarding wind farms and wind turbines:

Campaigners call the turbines an eyesore, but polls show public opinion strongly favours them - and they like them better the closer they live to them.

Polls show.....but which polls? Where? When? What questions were asked? She may be right, she may be wrong but that's just it isn't it? All she has to do is provide a link to her poll, any poll, and we will have something to go on.

It's frustrating.

Someone requires an ablution and I know just the man.

Quote of the day

Yes, another one:

LIFE, they say, is a lottery. But life has taught me that some things, other than death and taxes, are dead certainties. It seems a safe bet, for instance, that as soon as newspapers stir up public outrage over something, the Home Secretary will promise a law to ban it. When it comes to new legislation, David Blunkett’s knee jerks so fast and often that his guide dog might need to wear a riot helmet. - Mick Hume

From this Times online article.

Quote of the day

In France it is rude to let a conversation drop; in England it is rash to keep it up. No one there will blame you for silence. When you have not opened your mouth for three years, they will think: "This Frenchman is a nice quiet fellow." Be modest. An Englishman will say, "I have a little house in the country"; when he invites you to stay with him you will discover that the little house is a place with three hundred bedrooms. If you are a world tennis-champion, say, "Yes, I don't play too badly." If you have crossed the Atlantic alone in a small boat, say, "I do a little sailing." - Andre Maurois (1885-1967), Three Letters on the English

From the CEP quotation page which is most definitely worth a visit.

Good show

Well done to the Campaign for an English Parliament and the Cross of St. George for being included in the BBC's Your Choice of Political Sites (Part II) nominations.

The lottery

Laban Tall fills us in on the lottery winning rapist story. For those that don’t know the long and short of it is that a convicted rapist has won 7 million of our British quids on the lottery. The big issue on BBC radio five live the other evening was should the criminal be able to keep the cash? The news this morning on the same station was that David ‘Nailer’ Blunkett (our dear Home Secretary) was thinking about introducing new legislation to deal with the situation and, presumably, others like it. Man, that guy. Is there nothing he can’t fix?

The real story though is, of course, why was the fucker allowed out of prision in the first place? I mean, as Laban Tall shows us, at the man’s final reckoning the judge said:

Paramount in my mind is that every moment you are at liberty some woman is at risk and I believe it to be my duty to protect, so far as I am able, women from the risk you represent.

This is the last in a long line of appalling offences committed against women and the only sentence I can pass is one of imprisonment for life.

Every moment you are at liberty. I wonder what the judge meant by that? Every moment except the weekends, perhaps? We should be thankful, of course, that the hoo-ha is about something as trivial as a cash win on the lottery rather than about, well you know the story. It’s called the Offender in the Community lottery. That’s where members of the public get a shot at victim hood courtesy of the British criminal justice system. Unlike the National Lottery the Offender in the Community lottery offers the chance of multiple winners each and every day.

The best odds in Europe, some say.

Read the whole thing

Did you ever think that you would get to read something like this?

Politicians like Estonia's Prime Minister Juhan Parts, Slovakia's Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, Hungary's once and future Prime Minister Victor Orban and Poland's next Prime Minister Jan Rokita are at the forefront of a group of young politicians that will try to bring Eastern Europe's revolutionary free-market conservative beliefs to Brussels.

My emphasis. Like the author says, Together, they will be in prime position to push Europe's agenda in a different direction - less Sweden, more Texas. Yip.

Unclear? How?

From this BCC article on Richard Madeley's use of the word dyke on air:

While the origins of "dyke" are unclear, it was coined between the wars by straight-folk as a put-down to lesbians.

I don't know about you but I thought that the origin (in the "why is dyke sometimes used to describe lesbians?" kind of a way) of the word is as clear as crystal and not, as this article suggests, as murky as the mud on a leaky water retaining landscape barrier into which one might stick ones finger.

We were terrorists once, and stupid

I wonder who these two British traitors will blame when they finally get to face the reality of the situation in Najaf? I mean, you can hardly blame them for thinking that they might be fighting a successful campaign against the Americans from what we get to see in the press. When they finally receive the spanking they so richly deserve I hope that their 72 virgins (or whatever the number is these days) speak to them with that traditional BBC news broadcaster accent as a permanent reminder of their foolishness.

We're sick of it

From Michael Howard's speech on law and order delivered today:

Ask these people what they think is at the root of many of the problems we face in society today, and they will say obvious things.

The things many politicians have been too frightened to say for far too long.

Why do some parents allow their children out until the early hours?

How does it help parents instil discipline if they are told that they cannot smack their children?

Why can't teachers discipline disruptive pupils any more?

It is to the people who ask these questions, who have been resolute but silent for so long - the backbone of our country - that I am addressing my comments to today.

Conservatives will stand up for the silent, law abiding majority who play by the rules and pay their dues.

We will put their rights first.

Like them, I have had enough of the culture of political correctness - which is designed to blur the distinction between right and wrong.

And like them, I have had enough of excuses for poor behaviour and crime.

This is exactly the kind of talk that traditional conservative party supporters want to hear. Why? Because it is the truth.

The current liberal social experiment is failing and has been gradually ruining Britain. I'm not just talking about New Labour though who are, if you like, just the tip of the yoghurt. It’s more systemic than that. Systemic in our policy makers (except, perhaps, the Home Secretary who is beyond classification), educators and in those that would like to and try to make policy through their media broadcasts and news commentary. You know, the politically correct brigade.

So much liberal poison has been injected into society that it is hardly surprising that some of it has been absorbed and to make matters worse there has been hardly any opposing message. Now, for some, the whole notion of taking responsibility is unimaginable. They already think that they are responsible. They feed their kids. They send them to school. What more can they possibly do?

But that is only part of the problem. There are many, many more people who understand the true meaning of responsibility. Responsibility for themselves, for their children and, in part, for the actions of those around them. But understanding responsibility and actually taking responsibility are two very different things and that is where the failure is felt the most.

Taking responsibility has been made almost as difficult as one can imagine by the state and by an small army of well placed people who have absorbed a mind set that they think is compassionate but which is actually a cancer, eating away at the very things that made Britain a great place to live.

Respect, responsibility, justice.

Respect, these days, can be bought for the price of a handgun, taking responsibility for your own safety is a well lit path to prison and justice continues to confuse the criminal with the victim.

We need more opposing messages, like the one delivered by Howard today and I have a feeling that the time is right for such messages too. People are fed up of being told what they may and may not do only to see an increasingly large criminal element enjoying life at their expense.

"Don't smoke or eat cake but do install that burglar alarm".

We're sick of it.

History lessons on steam

That incident with the steam at that Japanese nuclear plant puts me in mind of a history lesson I once had. My teacher, whose name I forget and whose reasons for recounting the story also slip my mind, got chatting to the class about his time aboard a naval vessel. ”Steam”, he said, ”is a very nasty thing indeed” and he then went on to recount to us an episode from one of his voyages when he was involved in tracking down a high pressure steam leak. The technique employed for doing this involved, basically, a bunch of crew members wandering about with large pieces of cardboard in hand, extended out in front of them as they walked passed various pipes etc.

”Impossible to see, these leaks, and terribly dangerous. Could cut a man in half, hence the cardboard. When it starts to slice, you’ve found the leak” he said, or words to that effect.

I don’t know how much truth there was in what he told us but the cutting in half and the slicing sure held the attention of the class. It was a fascinating lesson in something, though I am not sure what.

Ahh, Mr. Milton, the name just came to me. I thought him a fine teacher until we had a falling out just before exam time. Another story that one, but suffice it to say it was the first time I realised that teachers were capable of a serious lack of judgement.

Bird may fly and beast may flee.....

According to this Guardian article (supposedly reporting on the Good Shoot Guide) one must never:

Carry an open shotgun

Experts say "that's complete bullshit" and that the Guardian is "seemingly advocating extremely dangerous shooting practices". "They should be taken out and flogged".

A member of the shooting community remarked "They just want to encourage accidents in the field so they can call us irresponsible. They've always hated us.

The Sexual Exploitation of Men

From Gareth, we have a little news item which appeared in the Cambridge Evening News:

Just lately there has been a regrettable rise in the number of knobbly-knee contests held at local fetes, galas and even vicarage garden parties. This gross debasement of the male body, using the knees for amusement and titillation of the purient or perverted, treats men as mere objects for others' pleasure.

Defenders of these sad displays say the men who enter knobbly-knees contests do so of their own reasons. This pathetic argument fails to note the social pressures impossed on reluctant men to expose themselves in this way. Driven by the "dare" culture and fear of appearing wimpish, men are coerced into enduring the humiliation of knee nakedness. In the worst cases they do it for drugs - the promise of a pint of Abbot sucks them into a downward spiral in which they become playthings for a gawping public.

This cattle market should be spurned by all politically correct persons.

- by Christopher South, Cambs Evening News, 6/8/04

We should think ourselves lucky that wet-trouser competitions have not caught on yet.

Quote of the day

“Really, the last hundred years have been f***ing horrendous, haven’t they?” - Francis Fulford

The increasingly obvious choice for all discerning victims of crime

This story seems to be doing the rounds at the moment (appearing at The Englishman's castle and at Laban's place):

A farmer was being quizzed by police today after shooting at a suspected burglar.

Police said the farmer, 73 - who has been burgled twice in recent months - had spotted a burglar at a detached garage at Keys Farm, in Ockbrook, at 6am.

A Derbyshire Police spokesman said: "The offender fled from the farm. During the incident the farmer fired a shotgun and a 22-year-old man was later found a short distance away, suffering from minor pellet injuries to his left leg."

The victim was taken to the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary for treatment. Both the farmer and the victim are now under arrest.

Detective Supt John Briggs said: "We are carrying out extensive searches at the farm. We know already that the farmer had been subject of at least two previous burglaries in recent months.

"We have discovered that a car stolen from Leicestershire has been driven to the farm and abandoned. We now have to find out how it got there."

I hope that the victim is ok and that he doesn't suffer too much at the hands of the UK's criminal justice system (which seems to have a thing against farmers).

Anyhow, there is a moral to this story that I don't think has been mentioned yet and it is this. If you decide that it is necessary for you to take responsibility for dealing with a crime in progress, and if you feel that circumstances require you to use force while dealing with that crime, then you should try not to involve the authorities. Their notion of what constitutes a victim and yours are unlikely to coincide to any great extent.

Your tagging problems solved

Hey fella! Feeling down? Ashamed? Embarrassed?

It’s not easy being an electronically tagged offender these days, especially to a fashion conscious streetwise person like yourself. Grey plastic is so suburbia.

Your mates are looking at you like you are some kind of office worker or something. Your girlfriend has left you for your best mate. The people you meet down the pub have stopped giving you the kind of respect you deserve. Man, the government was right; being a tagged offender is no walk in the park.

Here at StreetWise Industries we understand the problems faced by a player such as yourself. We know all about the shortcomings of the standard government issue offender tag and have poured all our resources and best people into solving the problem for you.

Introducing the StreetWise Industries - RESPECT MKIII Street Tag.

It has a click counter so that you can keep tabs on the number of offences you commit in any particular day, indexed to an integrated personal information management system. A diary, so you never miss that appointment with your community personal liaison officer. A foldable knife cleverly hidden in the strap and yes, it can even be used to tell the time.

Why not take the plunge and order your very own StreetWise Industries - RESPECT MKIII Street Tag today? It’s a snip at only £120 (any denomination, used notes only please).

StreetWise Industries - Stylish tagging for the 21st century offender.

Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, a few monkeys and some Britons

Raul Diaz reports in The Mercury News:

GIBRALTAR - For 300 years, the people on this rock at the tip of the Iberian Peninsula - Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and some Britons - have been subjects of a monarch in London.

So multicultural, Gibraltar, and extremely friendly. You can tell by the way over 12,000 of Gibraltar's inhabitants held hands recently in a chain that circled the rock. I'm assuming they did so in celebration of their Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and simian heritage.

Fred Flintstone invented the Bessemer converter...

...and Roger Rabbit defeated the French at the battle of the Somme.

You know, there is definitely something wrong when statements like the two above do not seem particularly out of the ordinary when compared to the results of a poll on history run recently by the Beeb.

Almost half of 16- to 34-year-olds questioned in a BBC poll did not know that Francis Drake led the English fleet against Spain. One in five 16 to 24-year-olds thought it was Columbus, while one in 20 said it was Gandalf, the wizard from Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

Crazy no? Some of the respondents had no idea that the Romans ever set foot in Britain and others thought that the Battle of Britain was fought against France in the Hundred Years War. Phew, there were a lot of planes involved in that one I can tell you.

Peter Furtado, the editor of History Today magazine thinks he knows what’s going on:

Since the collapse of the grand Whig narrative that Churchill was talking about in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and which went out of favour with the rise of multi-cultural Britain, it's been very difficult for anybody to construct a large story of Britain.

It’s an interesting take on the matter though I am not sure how much it actually contributes to the current mess.

Of course, the solution is to get The Simpsons to do a few episodes a year on the History of Britain. After all, they did a grand job of keeping us informed when the Cylons last attacked the Earth.

Continuity

Back in the mid 1970's who would have thought that this kind of thing would be going on today. It's the 21st century baby, and storm troopers still rock.

I still remember the feeling, coming out of the ODEON cinema after seeing the first Star Wars film. I didn't want to reconnect with a reality that seemed strangely distant and which took a few minutes to come back into stark focus. Having to wait for the second instalment seemed like a huge injustice to an impatient Sci-Fi addicted kid like me.

Of course, things are different now. The film no longer impresses me as much as it did then; how could it? But I just love the fact that the franchise is still going after all this time.

If a 21st century photograph like the one linked to above was shown to a kid of the mid '70s and a similar '70s photograph was shown to a kid of the early 21st century their reactions would be pretty much the same I would think. So what? It's just some kid with a couple of storm troopers. That's how good the Star Wars franchise is.

As grown ups we might moan and groan about the newer films but let's not forget our past. My mother, who saw the first film with me thought it was a nice film and it hardly registered with my father at all. Kids taking photo ops with storm troopers in 2004. That's success.

The dubious English nation

Oh this is so very stupid it’s hard to know where to begin:

While the vast array of mysterious Neolithic monuments - most famously Stonehenge - are testimony to a history which stretches back as far as 4000BC, the indigenous people of England had been overrun by invaders many times before the 19th century, therefore making any concept of an English nation dubious.

That’s how UEFA thinks of the English. A dubious concept. It’s almost a tiny little Europe in its own right, what with all the invading and the like. Look, there, a Lambretta in London!!! See!!!

And Poland is nothing but a little Germany.

And France is nothing but a little Italy.

And Australia is nothing but a little England, which it can’t be because England is a little Europe. Man, imagine a UEFA official sitting in a bar in Sidney trying to explain to the clientele the ins and outs of how very French they really are. Australian nation? No bloody concept mate. Thwack.

The fact is, UEFA, the English are very much aware of their heritage. The English know what the Romans have done for them. They know all about William and his mates shooting off their arrows and the like. They know about the Vikings and their pillaging and they sure as hell know that they are not a people untouched by the bloodlines of the invader.

But of course UEFA feels the need to use this as a slur. Just like they do when they introduce all the other countries that took part in the Euro 2004 football competition. You know, all those other countries that have also had their populations blessed by a healthy dose of international loving. Except that they don’t do they. Why, I wonder?

When considering the English nation UEFA cries “dubious!”

When English thugs and vandals invade a football pitch UEFA cries “Look, the English! Again!”

What UEFA fails to understand is that a nation is not defined by the specific combination of DNA that makes it up. There is no standard red line of purity that sets apart those nations that are ‘dubious’ from those that are not.

They acknowledge the mix as ”the great casserole of Englishness” which is something I suppose, but there is nothing dubious about it.