Hatred sells?

Via Waking Hereward comes this declaration of hatred towards England by AA Gill writing in the Sunday Times:

I don’t like the English. One at a time, I don’t mind them. I’ve loved some of them. It’s their collective persona I can’t warm to: the lumpen and louty, coarse, unsubtle, beady-eyed, beefy-bummed herd of England.

...

The thing that seems impermeably English is, in fact, anger. Collectively and individually, the English are angry about something. The pursed lip and the muttered expletives, the furious glance and the beetled brow are England’s national costume.

A simmering, unfocused lurking anger is the collective cross England bears with ill grace. I can see it in English faces, in the dumb semaphore of their bodies. It’s how they stand and fold their arms and wait in queues. It’s why they can’t dance or relax.

I hate England - AA Gill, Sunday Times, 30th October 2005

The man is not at fault for writing this article if that is what he really believes. People can and should be able to write pretty much whatever they want and then take the consequences. His editor is not at fault if he believes that the newspaper is a suitable platform for this kind of declaration of hatred, though he too should be prepared to take the consequences. What I can say is that this kind of view of large groups of people is not unique in the World and certainly not unique to England. There are those that declare their hatred for the Israelis or the Palestinians or the Muslims or the Christians. You name a large group of a few million people and there will be someone who hates the lot of them.

So where does this leave the Sunday Times as a platform for this kind of opinion piece? Will they accept articles from the many capable writers that produce nonsense about the Scottish, Irish, Asians, Americans, black people, white people and any one of a number of religions? Will they give the nod to any capable writer who wants to declare their hatred of a people as a group in the pages of the Sunday Times? I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't given that they clearly find this kind of material acceptable.

But will they? Is it to be just the English who are subjected to this kind of attack in a once respected national newspaper? If it is they we must ask the question "why just the English?" If it is not then we must ask the question "what has happened to the Sunday Times?" Either way we must now ask the question "do I wish to continue paying for it?"

Welcome to the club

Welcome to the club of politically incorrect minority groups. It's not a happy club, but at least it's ours. Smoking within its walls will be permitted for a short time only.

This is the way of things these days. You either have to be well inside the majority (and sometimes this doesn't help) or a member of one of the approved minority groups to get on.

I know full well how Eric feels here. Being a shooter since childhood I have been on the cutting edge of this kind of treatment from the government for decades. It has made me the man I am today.

Just think about this next time you jump on the ban this or ban that wagon. If people cannot stand up for the liberty of others the moans and groans that they will ultimately utter when they fall under the spot light will echo off empty walls.

What's that I hear you say? Airguns and replicas should be banned? Sure, why not? I'll see you in the member's bar soon enough.

Finally....

...a use for cats.

Just grin and bear it

It's money in the bank

NO2ID notes within the Guardian that:

“A national ID card for the UK is overly ambitious, extremely expensive and will not be a panacea against terrorism or fraud, although it will make a company like mine very happy,” said Roberto Tavano, a biometrics specialist for Unisys, a US technology company that has worked on national identity schemes in South Africa and Malaysia.

In his own mind

Photographing the police

Here's a story about the lengths that some police officers are prepared to go to when a photographer witnesses them practicing various Vulcan death grips.

The foot soldiers of tyranny

People who frequent pubs and who are demanding that smoking be banned have already made a value judgement about the health risk to themselves. They have decided that the risk to themselves is so low that they have continued to frequent smoky pubs probably for many years if not for decades. These people are supporting anti-smoking legislation not through any overriding health issue but because they find themselves inconvenienced. They are suggesting that it would be appropriate to seriously inconvenience other individuals because of a personal misunderstanding of their own position and a failure in their moral judgement.

History has shown us that people like this have always existed. They are easily manipulated. They will buy any line if they can see that they will get something out of it and they are often happy to damn others for their gain. They are the weak, the foolish, the useful idiots. They rely on any codec that the state can provide them with for their own moral framework.

Dad, what did you do...

Via wonko comes this rather nice poster from the Campaign for an English Parliament:

Oh, that's interesting

So there I was, at the Carlton club in London, to celebrate the Trafalgar victory. Surrounded by the inner enclave of a Tory stronghold I decided that this was probably an opportune time to bring up the Tory party support in principle for ID cards. They looked up from the rather marvellous and well presented lamb briefly and a couple even decided that it might be worth giving this oik a little charitable attention.

I began and a found myself subjected to a half hearted attempt at heading me off at the pass with some particularly inept use of emotive keywords. “Don’t you think that your wife and child should be able to prove their identity and not have it stolen by someone else?”. ”No, not really. I already know who they are and so do they. We’ve know for quite some considerable time and have got by rather well so far?”. Well, what’s sauce for the goose and all that.

My time was short, that I could see even through the haze of a not insignificant amount of celebratory beer. Oh, and the wine.

”The thing is, what history tells us is that the machinery of the state is only ever rarely rolled back. That’s one of the reasons why when it comes to things such as ID cards we have to be very careful. To support ID cards is to not only state that you trust this present government but that you effectively sign up to trusting every subsequent government that might come to power. I simply cannot make that commitment and I am surprised at the Tory support. If the Tory party should be about anything it is about support for the smaller state.”

”Well”, was the response from a rather amiable councillor sitting on my right, ”it’s always nice to hear an alternative point of view.”

Indeed, it was as if this was the first time any of them had heard that particular proposition and that, dear readers, is the most shocking thing of all.

By the way, here's something interesting. This is a photograph of the fire surround in the member's bar. A photograph that I was not permitted to take but one I took anyway. My, I could feel the eyeballs on my back.

It shows the damage caused by an IRA bombing of the member's bar some time ago and was caused by flying debris from the initial explosion at the opposite end of the room. It's a rather strong piece of marble surround with quite a large piece missing.

Terrorism. Nothing new to the Tory party.

Violent crime up 6%, but don't worry

The Home Office said the figures for violence reflected better recording of crime and more proactive policing.

Snap happy now sadder

Even the snap happy are noticing the emerging authoritarian Britain:

Having been a photographer for around 30 years, I am getting concerned that police and the £5 per hour security 'jobsworths' are exceeding or misusing their authority under the catch all of terrorism.

Just what on earth is happening?

Against ID cards? Not in principle and not in person

Following on from Andrew's propagation of Nosemonkey's fine work, these are the Tory MPs that were not present at the recent ID card vote. The vote that passed the damnable things by a margin of 25 votes:

David Davies (Monmouthshire), Quentin Davies (Grantham & Stamford), Roger Gale (North Thanet), Michael Gove (Surrey Heath), Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham), Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury & Atcham), Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden), Michael Mates (East Hampshire), Richard Ottaway (Croydon South), Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex), Anthony Steen (Totnes), Gary Streeter (South West Devon), Ian Taylor (Esher & Walton), Edward Vaizey (Wantage), Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald), George Young (North West Hampshire).

I have sent the following to Peter Lilley MP:

Dear Peter,

The blogosphere is awash with the names of the Tory MPs that were
not present at the recent ID card vote in the commons. The vote that
passed the damnable things by 25 votes. Your name is on that list.

I let my membership of the Tory party lapse last year on the basis of
Tory support for these cards in principle and I see that, in spite of
subsequent talk, nothing has changed.

I am in your constituency and I am also the Chairman of the 1952
committee details of which can be found here:

http://www.theenglandproject.net/1952committee.html

Please let me know when a Conservative Party rises like a pheonix
from the ashes of the present shambles.

Many thanks.

I have received this response from Christine who was, apparently, personally asked by Peter Lilley to respond to my email:

Peter Lilley has asked me to thank you for your email. He voted against the ID Cards Bill at every stage prior to the Report Stage last night even when he was whipped to vote in favour. Last night, he left a dinner he was addressing to vote against the Bill at 9 'clock, but regrettably he did not manage to get back in time to do so at the 10 o'clock vote. I attach a copy of a recent pamphlet he wrote on the issue. I would be grateful if you could let me have your address in Mr Lilley's constituency.

It's a real shame he didn't make it to the vote on time. It's a question of priorities I guess.

As for my address I see no reason why it is necessary. Indeed, to remain anonymous seems to be a pre-requisite of political blogging these days. Most of us do not trust the state with sensitive information (hence our stand against ID cards) and, though you are in opposition, a general position of non-cooperation seems the order of the day.

However, if your request was based around the desire for me to prove that I am indeed a member of the constituency you should look no further than the list of invitees to a soon to happen "speak to your MP" house visit/dinner in Harpenden. I am on that list though I will not be attending.

I have also written Mr. Lilley numerous letters. Look to a letter of Peter's with a very terse response to one of my more polemic letters to him. I suspect it will be hard to see the woods for the trees.

I understand this is not absolute proof of anything, but it certainly has more of a provenance than the lies and half truths the government is feeding us about ID cards. If that's good enough for the House of Commons........

We feel very let down. Peter was too late to the vote. I would feel bad about that if I was an MP. I would certainly apologize rather than send a pamphlet.

(Blogged to 1952 committee members.)

Vincent Cable MP and his English dream

Vincent Cable MP is funny. I mean peculiar funny. In a response to a legitimate complaint about his own abusive language he wrote ”We have argued for elected regional government in England”.Fair enough and perfectly in line with Liberal Democrat views. These regional assemblies by their very nature (or so we are told) will work with the local community and make policy in areas devolved to them that will affect the region they represent. There is no surprise there other than the politicians complete ignorance of the fact that the one and only public referendum on the issue showed without a shadow of a doubt that people don’t like the idea thank you very much. Pffft, since when did an MP take notice of such things.

Anyhow, back on track. These devolved regions are seen by Cable as good and as no threat to England or the Great British Union even though they have devolved powers.

Enter Cable’s second statement. ”Nationalism calls for independence, which is not something that I support for England.”

So there we see once again a manifestation of Cable’s peculiar notion of nationalism. He believes it is a black and white area with no room for anything between one extreme of no nationalism and the other of nationalism with an agenda for total independence from, presumable, the Union.

On the one hand we have regional assemblies with devolved powers that are no threat to anything (according to Cable) and on the other hand we have an English Parliament that is a Nationalistic threat to the very foundations of all that is good in Cable’s world. Both these sides of the issue involve devolved powers. Both these sides involve representation of a group of people by a drawn boundary on which they can organise their needs and their politics. Both these sides are touted to be democratic. Yet one will be the cause of independence from the Union and the other will involve no independence from anything whatsoever. How can this be so?

It can be so on one condition and that is that regional assemblies are not given devolved power to make decisions and implement them independently of any other regional assembly or of central government. If they can make independent decisions then that is a form of independence. It is a form of independence that allows one area of England to make decisions that are different from another. This independently working England is all that is good and Holy in Cable’s mind.

And yet…and yet a form of independence that allows one area of Great Britain to make decisions that are different from another area is a Nationalistic menace. A danger. Something to be avoided and something deserving of Cable’s language in which he groups people with such desires along side white supremacists and Islamic fundamentalists.

Of course he his pedalling his regional views for England only. Scottish devolution is fine. Welsh devolution is dandy. You English!

The true story is one that Cable will not admit and that is that Regional Assemblies will not afford the people they represent the level of devolution that is offered to the Scots. It’s devolution light. It is his answer to a question that no one is asking. The one thing it will do is create a framework of obstacles that will make proper English devolution even harder to achieve than it is at present. It will do this by breaking up England into pseudo political areas. That, he thinks, is how to deal with the problem of England.

So there the English will be. With Scotland and Wales employing their political machinery to do what is best for their respective populations. Prescription charges, availability of life saving drugs, funding for education, national sports funding, legislation, policing, crime and crime prevention. You name it, eventually they’ll get it.

And there will be the various regional assemblies in England. Discussing bus routes.

Prescott plays with fire engines

Mark wonders if this fire brigade reorganisation is political and motivated by a regional agenda. If it's got anything to do with Prescott we can conclude two things. Yes, it is an attempt to further build upon an English regional framework and yes, it is doomed to failure.

Treetography?

Coming down on one side of the light debate

Someone once wrote, and I think that it might have been Don McCullin, that there’s “no such thing as bad light” where photography is concerned. I think I agree with him. All light is good, it’s just that sometimes there’s not enough of it to go round.

Blatant Liar

I agree with Guido here. I simply don't believe Stephen Byers. His apology to the House for providing "factually inaccurate" evidence to the transport select committee does nothing to change my opinion of him. It seems to me that the price for lying in public office these days is to have to stand up in front of your peers and say sorry. Sometimes. If you're caught.

It's a remarkable coincidence that an anagram of Stephen Byers is Blatant Liar.

Earlier I wrote that an anagram of Stephen Byers is Blatant Liar. This was incorrect and was an inadvertent error on my part. A proper anagram of Stephen Byers is Lying Tosser. Oooops, it happened again. Sorry.

Youth seeks girlfriend, love

Gareth points out that English Blogs seems to have been hacked. The message left on the front page indicates a certain xenophobic mind set ("f*ck english") which, frankly, harks back to the bad old days of the school playground where anyone with an unusual skin tone would likely be subject at some point to similar verbage.

In this progressive age it seems that someone has been left behind.

The wrong arm of the law

Those zany coppers and their New Police Powers:

She was arrested under the Terrorism Act for walking along a cycle path in the harbour area of Dundee.

Blogging the oldies

If Daniel can put up an old photograph of a family member in response to Gareth's mouse feature then so can I:

Take that Gareth. Your mice, though pretty and probably very useful given the right circumstances/laboratory, come with no provenance. And no turning the photos into black and white and posting them again.

Hmmm, ok, I wonder if we can kick off an Old Family Photo blogging style Mexican wave. The less politically correct the better but anything will do.

No mice. Dogs allowed.

Upturned open field mushroom

I photographed this upturned open field mushroom this morning when I took the dog for a walk using my D70 with a 105mm fixed focul length Sigma macro lens:

View larger image

Woodland picture

It was a dull day last week when I decided to take my lunch break in a park local to my work. I decided to bring the camera anyhow and I'm glad I did because no sooner had I got there than the weather decided to brighten up a bit.

I took this photograph over the top of a wire fence and through the thin line of trees and hedges that open up into a lightly wooded field. I was in the dark but the field was lit by bright sunlight.

To produce the picture I cropped the photograph, ran it through a seasonal filter and blew the highlights deliberately to enhance the difference between the place where the viewer is standing and the open field.

It looks great full size and, I think, would make a good print at 12x8.

When the tools are available

...they often have many uses:

The fuzz have taken down all the particulars – and are probably, even now putting out an A.P.B. on the slap-headed desperado…..

Whoa! There's more:

"Whoa there Tiger", I replied. A standard ‘sorry you were offended, but the phrase was taken out of context’ letter simply would not do. Cable made an outrageous comment – and I require satisfaction. If this were 18th century France, I would be dressed in a frilly shirt, with my faithful Second at my side and tooled up with a pair of duelling pistols demanding satisfaction from that snivelling wretch of a LibDem..

The ideology of multiculturalism

Nick Seddon (Civitas) on multiculturalism:

...there is a difference between multiculturalism as a lived experience and multiculturalism as an enforced ideology. There is a difference between living alongside people who have different customs and outlooks, and the state forcing us all to retain these differences, using its muscle to do so – through financial aid to ethnic minorities, prioritising foreign festivals and language teaching in state schools, and so on. What in its inception was a tolerant ideal to encourage mutual understanding ends up emphasising difference and acting as an agent of separatism.

In the old days a common phrase used to discourage racism or cultural intolerance was "they are exactly the same as us" which is true. This has morphed in more recent times to "we must celebrate our differences" which is also true in many ways. The fact that both these seemingly opposite statements are true in one way or another just helps to highlight the complexity of the situation. Of course the first statement refers to the humanity of individuals and the second to a way of life but these concepts and realities are not completely inseparable.

The real problems come when there is an artificial acceleration in the dilution of the things that define an accommodating culture due to an enforced ideology.

A little something on the same theme from Guido:

The law is being abused to the point of farce by the people who set up and run these centres for one purpose only - to be able to justify their blatant discrimination on the grounds of gender and colour in order to meet meaningless targets and address what they perceive as “wrongs” from the past, by imposing discrimination now and in the future. Where does it end? In an apartheid society - precisely what Mr Phillips of the CRE has been sounding off against.

The results of cultural friction from Gandalf.

Arrrr, to the boardroom! Quick!

I don't pretend to understand Blog Shares but I do wonder why Gareth is attempting what looks like a hostile takeover. He owns 60% already.

Bah! Now Wonko has bought up the remaining shares. I suppose I should issue more.

Ban, Ban, Ban!

Sweet Mother! Reading down a list of RSS fed news sources these days is an alarming activity. Smoking Ban this, Airgun Ban that, Hunting Ban the other. It's like reading the back cover of a book about a "dark and dismal future, where nothing and no one is safe from the ever tightening grip of a state bent on controlling everyone and everything" - "A gripping read" Stephen King, "I almost shat my pants" - Harold Pinter, "Educational" - T. Blair.

You only write when you're winning! Write when you're winning!

An interesting moment occured last night during the match between England and Poland. Wright-Phillips, a black player, who had worked his socks off during the game was replaced by another player who just so happened to be white. The booing from the crowd when the substitution was made was incredible. From what I could tell it was simply a reaction to the incredible commitment and hard work shown by Wright-Phillips but I couldn’t help but think that it was a missed opportunity for some of our more ‘colour sensitive’ columnists. Perhaps I am being unfair but if the substitution was the other way round and the booing just as obvious what a target rich environment that would have been.

It was a good moment. A completely colour blind crowd of people showing appreciation for a player based upon his skill and hard work and nothing else. Frankly it’s the common face of English football and only deserves a mention because of my musings about the lack of material for some.

But...but...but, the crusades!

Via Krip comes this excellent article from Mark Steyn, a promising columnist. You know, anyone who believes that the English should change their national flag because it is offensive to one demographic or another simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word offensive.

In one way, I suppose, I hope they give it a go and start a campaign to have the Cross of St. George changed. Just imagine the look of complete dumfounded shock on their faces when the real meaning of 'offensive' is revealed to them. "But...but...but, the crusades!". M'kay. As this Steyn fellow suggests:

Would that be the 11th century that ended nine and a bit centuries ago? When a fellow's got hang-ups about things that happened a millennium ago, there's no point trying to assuage them; he'll only unearth some earlier grievance, demanding the Natural History Museum be dismantled because some stegosaurus was disrespectful to Muslims back in the Jurassic era.

Artist's impression - Trex on canvas

Not me guv

Actually, this is wrong:

I don't often agree with the England Project (let's face it, they want to destroy the Union)

However, if the maintenance of the Union requires that one nation is deliberately treated differently with respect to the political representation at the national level then one has no choice but to kick up a fuss. Call it a duty or a trial. Either way, if you are a believer in the strength of British Union it is an issue that must not be ignored. To do so would be to allow the Union to crumble of its own accord.

In short: one UK parliament, or a UK parliament with a parliament for each member nation. Anything else is the political establishment undermining the Union not this humble blogger.

Federal Britain

Gareth has put up an excellent post on devolution at Albion's Seedling.

Another one bites the dust

The New Labour party is like an excitable child with a new toy. They see a problem, get all excited, shout about what they are going to do, start spending our money, then a grown up comes along and tells them to calm down.

England by the slice

"We wish to share our wares" you said
“Abroad with common man”
“Sounds fine to us” we all replied
That’s how it all began.

“England by the slice?” you asked
Oh, what a Saintly row
“England as a whole” we said
You sliced it anyhow.

With issue we once gathered
Outside your stately throne
But now we’re left with choices
Arrest or stay at home.

“What is the fuss and bluster?”
“It’s all for you” you’ll crow
Why is the law in disrepute?
Ask Tom Hill he’ll know.

Our nations once united
A Union’s central truss
Devolved to all and sundry
Devolved to all but us.

You think we’ll sleep forever
And truth be told we would
Except for all the prodding
You think we really could?

“England by the slice?” you asked
No, England as a whole!
We know that you won’t listen
We know what has your soul.

And so the sleeping masses
Begin the longest wake
Not for themselves you understand
It’s just for England’s sake.

Steady on, old chap, we Brits are actually rather exciting

When is an article about Britain not an article about Britain? When it's an article about England.

Already, most of my friends do not bother to vote

Dr. Gabb has his latest Free Life Commentary up. In it he discusses the shame of it all and the current political vacuum left by the failure of the Tory party. On the up are regulation, illiberal legislation, increased police powers, decreased individual liberty and responsibility and an increasing propensity for people to consider all politicians as pretty much the same. All from the same tribe with the tribe 'elders' showing over and over again an utter hatred of the English people and their ways. Dr. Gabb thinks that things may finally reach a breaking point:

England today is very similar to England in the 1630s, or to France before the Great Revolution, or to Central Europe before 1848. We have a ruling class that has carefully stifled all peaceful means of dissent. The result is a crust of placidity over a mile depth of superheated magma.

If Rebecca is right, the sandpaper on the skin will eventually begin to hurt. But the resulting convulsion will not be limited to the ejection of the Blair Government from office. The force of the convulsion will be proportionate to its previous containment. We are looking at an explosion of anger such as England has never seen.

When will this start? Perhaps tomorrow. Perhaps next year. Perhaps after one more failed placing of faith in a Conservative Government. What will be its immediate cause?

As with other revolutions, it will be some issue of such local significance that the more plodding historians will forever shake their heads over it in wonder. But unless some real party of conservatism can emerge in short order, and establish itself as a government in waiting, there will be a revolution.

Now, because I do not wish to become a victim of one of those new police state laws we were assured the Government needed to contain the threat of Islamic terrorism, I will say here that I do not advocate overthrowing the established order. I am certainly not the kind of person able to lead such an overthrow. Instead, I am only observing what seems to me an obvious truth. Because the rulers of this country will not read the letters and e-mails of respectable complaint, they will be forced one day to listen to the roar from the streets.

That is why Rebecca and I did not discuss who should be our choice to lead the Conservative Party. That is why I will not even raise the matter with Dr Tame. It seems now irrelevant who is to lead the Party of the Quisling Right. We may live at present in a political vacuum. Assuredly, though, some unstoppable force is about to fill it.

We live in comfortable times and although many people agree that all politicians are effectively the same they will generally remain comfortable with being comfortable.

Judgement is clouded by the local weather. By that I mean that what is close to your heart, what you are exposed to day in and day out, what you spend much of your time thinking about, all these things tend to lend an air of importance or significance to issues that don't register with most other people (at least not to the same degree). That doesn't mean these issues are not important, it may just mean that not many people know how important they are yet.

Take, for example, my own views on the deconstruction of the nation of England brought about by unfair devolution and the tendency for many in the political elite to consider England as a minor concern when stacked against the might of one minority or fantasy interest or another.

It's a big issue for me. The local weather is stormy. However, the further you move away the better the weather. It annoys my wife. Some of my friends have a clue. Some people shrug. Most don't know a thing about it.

If Dr. Gabb's revolution does come any time soon I doubt very much that it will come directly from the people. Most trust the police. Most have never been on the end of an illiberal policy. Most have not had their property taken away by the state. Most simply do not take an interest. CCTV rocks and ID cards, well, sounds good to me.

There is a political vacuum sure enough, but it's one that the people are not in any hurry to have filled. Why? Because all politicians are the same. You see, the market is saturated. There's no demand these days.

I like the cut of this man

Peter Dale, Controller of More 4, said the film exposed a Government that had “curtailed our liberties more than any administration since Cromwell tried to ban Christmas”.

Police on 'Standard Form'

"This was a genuine mistake and I am writing to you to apologise for the distress this may have caused you."

Obviously the guidelines for the issuing of this particular template requires that the 'cameras present at time of arrest' checklist item is ticked.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a flag?

The wearing of St. George's Cross tie pins might be misinterpreted somehow. The right fix is obviously to correct those doing the misinterpretation.

Witan Blog Roundup #3

Gareth sucks in the blogosphere and exhales the latest and most humungous Witan Blog Roundup. We are the borg, resistance is futile.