Labour MP, yes, Labour MP, David Lammy, has called for a return to Victorian laws on discipline, and basically condemns Labour Governments for their namby-pamby approach.

One day, even Labour MPs will realise that traditional values are/were better, such as effective discipline, traditional marriage, UK independence, Judeo-Christian-based laws, the right to life of the unborn, etc., but I fear that by the time it has seeped through their thick skulls it will be too late.

One day, they will realise that they actively allowed our precious country to be ruined through their own stupidity and cowardice. They will have to accept that they stood by as millions of unborn children were killed out of convenience. When the deceptions conjured up by the feminists evaporate, they will have to accept the truth that these human beings were murdered and that a woman doesn’t have the ‘right to control her own fertility’ while she is carrying another.

When society has finally collapsed in on itself, politicians will have no other option but to admit that their family-destroying agendas involving quickie divorces, sex ‘education’ and ‘gay rights’ were major contributory factors.

And when all our remaining freedoms and money have been siphoned off to pan-European and global institutions and on waging war for regime change to benefit big corporations, they just might consider how badly they misjudged this ‘New World Order’ they thought would solve the world’s problems, but instead brought increased repression and deprivation.

Jack Straw has also been talking sense. I know, I can’t believe it either, but he wants to implement Gordon Brown’s idea from 2003 (while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer) when he, “argued strongly for the repatriation of EU structural funds. When the economic and social, as well as the democratic, arguments on structural funds now and for the future so clearly favour subsidiarity in action, there is no better place to start than by bringing regional policy back to Britain.”

Apparently, Gordon Brown thought it was a good idea to keep our money and spend it here on regional development programmes rather than laundering it by the £billions through the EU. And you thought he was completely bonkers, but he wasn’t. Not completely.

Even Alan Johnson also argued in 2003 that regional policy ought to be “resourced domestically in richer member states, like the UK, with the institutions and the financial strength to do it. This would end the unnecessary and inefficient recycling of funds between richer member states, like the UK, via Brussels …”

Clearly, this incredibly obvious thing to do wasn’t done. That’s because the agenda has been for the EU to be allowed to gain as much power and influence over us as possible, making our escape all the more difficult the more we become entangled in its web. The UK (and the other 26 children in the EU) get their pocket money from the EU and the EU flag gets put on documents and signs so that people think of it as a generous giver of money, when all this time we could have done everything ‘they’ have funded, plus a whole lot more had our funds not been funnelled through the corrupt EU bureaucratic system first.

But of course, a politician’s default position is to toe the party line and that often involves a dereliction of duty to his country and constituents. When the politician is also a numbnut, we get the likes of Charles Kennedy:

Kennedy makes it clear that Cameron must never again isolate Britain as he did at last month’s summit when he wielded the British veto. The former Lib Dem leader, who is president of the European Movement, tells the Guardian: “We want to see the British government work with our EU partners to make the EU a vehicle for growth and employment. If we are to keep our place in the world we must regain our competitiveness and we can do that better when we work together. Britain’s place is at the centre of where decisions are made.”

Were we really “at the centre of where decisions are made” the EU might just be a tad more tolerable for us. It might be good for British business rather than strangle it with regulations.  

Kennedy is one of 18 pro-European MPs and peers from the three main parties who have signed a letter in the Guardian in support of the EU. Signatories also include the equally pointless ’Sir’ Menzies Campbell and ‘Lord’ Kinnock.

It is worth remembering that the Kinnocks have personally made enough money out of the EU (i.e. us) to fund a major regeneration programme which would benefit thousands of people.

It is clear why he loves the EU. He’s not daft, is he? He is living proof that socialism can be good for some people.

So, here’s hoping that this wave of sense continues to the point where feminism goes the same way as the T-Rex, political correctness is considered something out of the Dark Ages and the EU becomes as dead as a dodo.

I’m not holding my breath, but I’ll be on the lookout for more outbreaks of political sanity.

There have been many different reactions to the news of the planned referendum for Scottish independence, from both sides of the border. There are many Scottish Unionists (even though few vote for the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party) and fancy there being so many English people who are pro-Scottish independence. Not because they think we can find success alone and they wish us all the best and ‘let’s stay friends’, but because they perceive that they subsidise the Scots and they are driven by spite over the issues of free prescriptions and tuition fees and they see Scotland as an albatross around their sassenecks!

But the whole world should appreciate us and lavish us with gifts for making life better over centuries. Everyone knows about the great inventions of the telephone, television, and deep-fried Mars bar, but did you know that?….

We scored the best ever World Cup goal? (Yes, in football!).

Invented chicken tikka massala (at least Glasgow chef Ali Ahmed Aslam lays claim to it).

James Simpson knocked the world out when he invented chloroform.

James Maxwell’s ‘three-colour method’ led him to present the world’s first colour photograph in 1861.

Golf was invented in Scotland. Everyone knows that, but did you know that James II banned it as an unwelcome distraction from learning archery?

Without Glaswegian engineer James Watt, “the Industrial Revolution might never have happened. He developed a way of making steam engines efficient, to speed trains along.”

Lord Kelvin discovered and named ‘absolute zero’.

Scotland can also boast of these:

Driving on the left (1772)

Peter Pan (J M Barrie).

‘Fax machine’ (1846)

Sir Thomas Lipton (of Lipton’s Tea fame) organised the first World Cup in 1909 (the first FIFA tourney was in 1930 of course, as every schoolboy should be able to tell you). West Auckland who represented England won. I say this to remind ourselves that England sometimes do well at things too.

First patent for a flush toilet by Alexander Cummings (1775).

Gin and tonic (don’t know who invented ice and a slice).

First hypodermic syringe by Alexander Wood (1853).

King James authorising his Bible.

Treasure Island (Robert Louis Stevenson).

Paraffin.

Penicillin.

Pneumatic tyres.

Postage stamp adhesive.

Radar.

William Cullen demonstrated the first method of artificial refrigeration in 1748.

Elvis was Scottish?? “Yes, even the father of rock was a Jock, as a fan discovered when he traced his idol’s ancestors back to Lonmay in Aberdeenshire in the 1700s.”

Tarmac.

Criminal fingerprinting.

Umpteen football managers who have led English clubs to victory.

Davy Crockett (apparently).

The Thirty-Nine Steps (John Buchan).

US Navy (founded by John Paul Jones).

US Presidents – “An astonishing 23 presidents of the United States have Scots or Scots-Irish heritage, including many of the most distinguished: Theodore Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. The George Bushes, senior and junior, also originate from Scotland, though obviously it was Texas that made them that way.” 

Vacuum Flask (Sir James Dewar “made the invention in 1892 but failed to get a patent and so did not profit from his ingenuity”).

David Livingstone.

Burns Night.

You get the picture.

There is ample consolation in all the above successes to counter the blow of finding out that the haggis, bagpipes and tartan were not Scottish inventions.

Unfortunately, we also gave the world bad things. The article lists some of them:

‘Scottish Mafia’ – “The advent of New Labour brought to the frontline rather a lot of old Scots, from Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling to John Reid, Derry Irvine and Charlie Falconer.” New Labour, of course, was responsible for immoral wars for corporate empire; dumbing down education so much that McDonald’s needed to give school-leavers lessons in basic arithmetic before they could serve up a burger in a bap; did away with Section 28 so that children could have homosexuality promoted to them ad nauseam (no wonder they didn’t have time to learn how to count) and of course, the traitor with a face like a bag of spanners, Gordon Brown, sneaked off to sign the Lisbon Treaty, despite his party promising us a referendum.

David Cameron – another traitor and liar (EU referendum?) - is of Scottish stock.

Billy Connolly – used to be funny.

What happened to us?

Savour Archie Gemmill’s goal from 1978 when he helped defeat the Dutch 3-2.

The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.

The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.”

The full wording is: Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief.

You are probably thinking the same as me: why are Muslims wanting to make an international law that will criminalise more Muslims than anyone else? Which ‘religion’ is as intolerant towards others as Islam? Which ‘religion’ is responsible for the murders of thousands of people of other religions throughout the world every year? It’s Islam, of course. But this law won’t apply to Muslims, because only Islam can be disrespected.

I cannot see such an ‘international law’ being adhered to in countries like Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, where Christians by the hundred have been murdered recently just for being Christians (there’s religious hatred for you), but I can envisage the trembling hands of the ‘infidels’ in the West signing up to this in order to criminalise their own people for speaking out against Sharia law, arranged marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killings, Muslim rape gangs, poppy-burners and the rest of the sickness that goes wherever Islam goes.

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step foward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.

As I have said so often before, the same agenda is being put in place all over the West.

The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.

They even want our ‘democratically elected politicians’ to be silenced (those few who still speak up). And the last thing the leaders of the Islamic world want is integration. That’s not how their global caliphate will come about. They must remain separate in order to dominate.

To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.

I am just going to reproduce these examples of what has already happening in Europe after people have done nothing more than told the truth about Islam…

In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.

In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting racial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.

Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.

Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.

In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason’ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

So, you would think that criticising Islam is already a crime in Europe without any further effort by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The United Nations is still seen as a highly reputable and invaluable organisation to most people, rather than what it really is. If our politicians lack the strength of character to deal with the EU on most matters, how do you think they will react when expected to adopt laws that try to prevent us saying things like, ‘Well, actually, I don’t think it’s right that Muslim girls should have their genitals mutilated’?

If this happens, what a devastating blow to freedom. We will literally become dhimmis in our own country. Even more so than we are already, with the halal food being dished up to an unsuspecting public and the dismantling of our Judeo-Christian values and culture.

If we don’t stand up for our country and our freedom and commit ourselves to the values of our fathers and grandfathers, we will fall to Islam. And soon. It doesn’t matter that Muslims are a minority in Europe; the powers that be have dealt them a winning hand. At least, this is what they want us to believe, but it will only be a winning hand if we fail to realise that they are bluffing, therefore we must not throw in our hand because this rotten game is there for the taking if we stand strong against this tide of insanity.

FURTHER READING: ‘Proud to be a British Muslim’ (a lesson in mind-control)

The agenda is exactly the same all over the Western World: make people feel afraid of expressing opinions that are “off-message”. It’s globalism; global tyranny. It is just developing at slightly different speeds depending on the success of the opposition by decent, aware people. The threats to our freedoms – very basic freedoms, at that – are increasing all the time, as evidenced by this story: Footballer sacked over homophobic tweet aimed at Gareth Thomas.

Mike Ford, manager of the Southern Football League Premier Division club, said the decision was taken in response to Steele tweeting about Thomas’s appearance in Celebrity Big Brother. Steele wrote: “I wouldn’t fancy the bed next to Gareth Thomas #padlockmyarse”.

And that is it. Out the dressing room door you go, Steele.

Ford told the BBC: “On this occasion Lee’s had to pay for his error of judgment. He’s made a homophobic comment, [but] that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s homophobic.”

But Mr Ford, manager of the diddy team playing three divisions down from the Football League, gives Steele no chance to make amends. He is an outcast and forced to wear a metaphorical yellow star in the football world.

Steele, 38, had a long career in the Football League playing for clubs including Shrewsbury, Oxford United and Leyton Orient, and was part of the Brighton squad that won the old Division Two in 2001-02.

Some careers end because of broken legs, illness and accidents. Mr Ford ended Lee Steele’s career because of a quip on the internet.

Reacting to the sacking, the Justin Campaign against homophobia in football said: “While it is never pleasing to see someone lose a position in a club or company, we fully applaud the club’s decision to terminate the player’s contract.

Fancy that; no mercy from the ‘gay’ lobby. No calls for a bit of common sense and sense of proportion. They don’t even realise that to show forgiveness and clemency would further their aims no end.

“For far too long homophobic comments like the ones Steele made have been defended using the erroneous argument that such remarks as simply harmless ‘banter’. However, we no longer accept racist ‘banter’, and likewise, we must never accept homophobic ‘banter’.

To help answer that tired old comparison with racism, and other points, I will turn to this interesting analysis on the Guardian Watch blog entitled, Homophobia – The Gays’ Secret Weapon.

The writer has some sympathy for the club’s position, but then states,

So for the footballer in this case to be sacked for expressing what is a very very common feeling amongst straight men [‘latent homosexual tendencies’], especially straight men who find themselves in environments surrounded by other men, such as football, seems incredibly unfair. He was basically sacked for being a man!

I think this tells us exactly what is going on – and deserves to be in bold text:

This increased use of ‘homophobia’ as a ‘criminal’ offence is all part of the Big Gay Project. Again as Simpson has so clearly explained (back in 1996 in his book Anti Gay for example), the ‘gay’ identity has developed in part through the development of the concept of ‘homophobia’:
‘So, in the As [After Stonewall] epoch, homosexuality, with its nasty medicinal odour, was now an increasingly redundant term. Instead, ‘homo-phobia’, a word with a nasty medicinal odour, was coined to explain the origins of the obviously mentally imbalanced idea that gay wasn’t good. While the innocent BS [Before Stonewall] homosexual was the victim of pathologisation and prejudice, the guilty AS [After Stonewall]  homophobe was obviously deserving of pathologisation and prejudice. ‘

Now onto the comparison with ‘ racism’:

I find this conflation of racism with homophobia troubling, in part for the reasons I have stated above. If ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are in fact an aspect of nearly all men, then ‘homophobia’ does not relate to an ‘other’, separate from the ‘homophobe’ as racism does.

However, there are ways in which ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ DO function in similar ways as discourses. The ‘born this way’ version of gay identities suggests that being ‘gay’, like having a certain skin colour, or being from a certain place, is innate, natural, fixed. But, as is often the case with identity politics there is an irony here. It is, in part, using Simpson’s ideas,  this ‘fixed, natural, innate’ gay identity that enables ‘homophobia’ to exist.  Without ‘homophobia’ ‘gay’ may not be here at all, and this is why gays use ‘homophobia’ so strategically in their crusades.

As James Baldwin has put it so eloquently:

“People invent categories in order to feel safe. White people invented black people to give white people identity. . . . Straight cats invented faggots so they could sleep with them without becoming faggots themselves.”

– James Baldwin to Nikki Giovanni

I might add to that statement – ‘faggots invented homophobia so they could continue to exist as a distinct identity group in an ever-changing world’.

So if we want to get rid of homophobia (and indeed racism, for whilst skin colour is something we are born with, the ‘black’ or ‘white’ identity is not), we need to challenge the categories on which it is based. And that means challenging the notion of a ‘gay’ identity, especially challenging the idea that ‘gay’ is particularly special, particularly oppressed, and particularly, to use Simpson’s word: ‘fabby’.

I don’t know where the writer gets the idea that ‘homo-anxiety’ and ‘latent homosexuality’ are an aspect of most men; it would be interesting to read any believable research. Certainly, there has been a major shift in what is considered normal and acceptable behaviour. As the writer indicates, homosexuality was the mental illness of the past, but now not thinking that ‘gay’ is good is considered its replacement clinical condition.

The extra danger now to freedom is that once something has been labelled a mental condition, it makes it easier for ‘dissenting’ individuals to be abused by the state, as happened in the USSR:

Soviet psychiatric hospitals were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally. This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.

Many people wonder why one or two percent of the population has so much influence in how our society is evolving, or rather, being re-engineered, but in my opinion the main reasons for the promotion of homosexuality are these:

1) as a divide and rule tactic;

2) for the weakening of traditional family life, society’s basic unit of strength;

3) as one part of the agenda to erode the West’s moral values and culture;

4) to aid in the control of thought and speech.

It has nothing to do with equality, fairness and justice and everything to do with control of the masses. The Tories promised to reverse this madness of political correctness, but it keeps marching on. Of course it does; they are party to it. They wouldn’t be allowed to form a government if they weren’t keen as mustard. It’s a global phenomenon. It’s also surely one of the reasons we didn’t get our EU referendum. The EU is one of PC’s major steering groups and 27 countries are subject to its diktats, so that isn’t something the globalists will sit idly by and watch disintegrating if they can avoid it.

This picture isn’t about the pros and cons of Scottish independence, but the cons of Alex Salmond as the politically correct, EU-loving future leader of a Scotland which has ‘independence within Europe’: an oxymoron, as even those two wee eejits in the lower right could tell you.

Diane Abbott. Or is it Robert Mugabe?

Firstly, I think the woman is horrendous, particularly for her campaign to have abortion legalised in Northern Ireland, despite the protestations from all parts of the community there. Typical socialist: we don’t care how you want to live or what you hold precious, we’re going to tell you what to do.

However, this doesn’t imply she is a racist. I’m sure she despises the unborn equally, regardless of colour. I wonder what she makes of the fact that black unborn babies in the USA (not sure of the UK figures) are more likely to be aborted than white ones, in what some term the black holocaust. They say that US abortionists kill more blacks every three days than the Ku Klux Klan has done in its history. I doubt she cares. ‘Rights’ to feminazis of her ilk do not include the right to life (surely the most basic right of all), but the ‘right’ of a woman to ‘control her own fertility’, blah, blah. Similarly, to the feminist mind, the father has no rights in determining the future of his unborn child, just the woman. There’s only one thing worse than a feminist woman like Abbott, and that’s a man who shares her feminist beliefs.

Leg-iron wrote a piece with which I largely agree and raises several valid points,

As a honky myself I took no offence other than to observe that it is not white people, but politicians such as herself, who are using the ‘divide and rule’ principle these days.

Cue some excerps from the post on this blog I link to most,

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett has announced that:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather wrote: “Earlier drafts [of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit] I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

And as we know, multiculturalism is about dividing the population into pockets of ‘communities’ and the ‘equality and diversity’ brigade can then stir them up with all the phoney ’rights’ nonsense to get them at each other instead of fighting our common enemy: the social engineers.

As Leggy writes, her comment was racist, as it ‘defined an entire ethnic group within one derogatory statement’, but he doesn’t believe she is. I just don’t know, but as most of her white colleagues would appear to be racist against the native Brits, why should she be any different? I also don’t know if her subsequent twittergaffe (if this isn’t a word, it should be) in which she suggested that taxi drivers are inclined not to pick up black passengers, is based on reality or if it is just her that they don’t pick up, and who could blame them, especially as she looks increasingly like Robert Mugabe (see picture above for proof!) and they are probably fearful that if they let her in their cab she’ll take their home and land from them.

BBC Bristol sacked their presenter, Sam Mason, in 2008 after she called a taxi firm to collect her 14 year-old daughter and requested an ‘English’ driver. I wrote to the BBC at the time to complain about the dismissal and, of course, received the sort of standard reply I expected. Is Sam Mason a racist for wanting to protect her daughter from a (perceived) heightened risk?

So is it just proles who deserve to be sacked for being ‘racist’ whether or not they really are?

As Leg-iron concludes,

Diane Abbott was part of the government that brought about this equality. The one in which the politicians despise us all equally.

She was one of those who made this happen. She was one of those who created these laws.

They are ridiculous, but they are laws. Should she escape them?

One rule for the proles, another for the Politburo. Let’s see if that’s true.

Many, many people are about to find out just where they stand.

Is she racist?

Who knows?

Is she stupid?

Undoubtedly.

Should she be sacked?

She should never have been elected.

1. Enforcement: These ladies agree: we should worry about those crazy people who don’t want to pay vast amounts of tax so that the EU can afford to orchestrate all our lives.

2.  Animal Rights: “The bats in the roof are protected, so we were unable to fix the hole and the rain came in.” [This one probably is a regulation already.]

3. Enforcement: An EU inspector rides into town incognito.

4. Animal Welfare: Poultry are forbidden from smoking.

5. Child Welfare: The moment an obese parent has to say goodbye to his child. The girl will be returned if he manages to lose 15 stone.

6. Animal Rights: Bears are reintroduced into Scotland, and as they are a protected species you have to let them eat you.

7. Health & Safety: Skeletons on bicycles must wear top hats and be accompanied by another cyclist at all times.

8. Environment: Children must dress up as penguins once a month to drill into them the need to pay lots of green taxes to stop global warming or all the real penguins will die of sunstroke.

9. Animal Welfare/ Health & Safety: When approaching a panda, it is best to do so wearing a Newcastle United strip as it will think you are also a panda and not be alarmed. [Although you do have to hope the panda isn’t a Sunderland fan.]

10. Enforcement: Masked EU Enforcers abduct this child for refusing to dress up as a penguin.

11. This picture has been removed because everyone is now complying with this particular law.

12. Animal Welfare:  If asked by poultry to help move a plank of wood, you must come to their aid.

13. Eugenics: Humans will be genetically modified to grow no higher than sixteen inches, to “save the planet”.

14. Eugenics: This boy is already thirteen inches high and knows that he must not exceed the maximum of sixteen, so has started smoking as he has heard it will stunt his growth.

15. Women’s Rights: Women are encouraged to whack their husband when they talk back. This one  is really serious as she has already dressed for his funeral even before he has returned from the pub.

16. Animal Welfare:  Pigs must be kept dry while writing their Christmas cards.

17. Climate Change: This is what will happen to you if you don’t pay green taxes. Lots of them.

18. Climate Change: This is the future if you don’t pay all those green taxes to stop global warming – temperatures will soar so high that you’ll need to take off all your clothes – then all your skin.

19. This EU directive is no longer necessary. Those who disobeyed it have all now been dealt with.

20. Equality & Diversity: A blind person may now shoot deer, but must have two people shouting “woo-hoo” so he knows where to fire. [NB There is a serious conflict of equality vs health & safety here. Commissioners are working on a solution and need more money to help them think.]

21. Eugenics: People will be allowed to keep wild animals as pets as a method of population control.

22. Eugenics: This girl is 17 inches tall and must be shot. She smiles and willingly accepts her fate – as a blood sacrifice to Mother Earth. She will be awarded the EU Medal of Honour (posthumously).

23. Climate Change: Climate experts studying data believe that 105% of the body’s heat is lost through the top of the head. The combination of a helmet and kitten reduce this heat loss by a staggering 134% and may help stop global warming. Experts believe trousers may help too.

24. Health & Safety: Very tall people are not allowed to carry children in their arms due to new height restrictions. This law will be rescinded once nobody exceeds 16 inches tall.

25. Science: “There is nothing to fear from genetically modified humans,” said Kenneth, who looks like a raven.

26. Roads: Bob knew that once the EU had changed all the road signs into Latin the chances were high that he would become lost.

27. Animal Welfare:  Alcoholics Anonymous for dogs was set up despite the failure of a similar scheme for newts.

28. Power Hungry Nazis: Ladies love the EU Commissioners. The fact that they are dead from the neck up doesn’t seem to bother this woman.

29. Animal Welfare: While old people were laid out on trolleys in the hospital corridors coughing up blood, Glenda made sure that the goats were contented.

30. Eugenics: Although less than 16 inches tall, the little Chinese man is the eldest.

31. Health & Safety: Smoking causes wrinkling of the skin and turns you into a dolphin with long pointy fingers.

32. Health & Safety: After the banning of beards, those who refuse to shave have to wear deep sea diving helmets to keep in the bacteria.

33. Health & Safety: Swimming pools have been banned altogether. Major swimming events are still permitted, but take place on the athletics track with the participants inserted into barrels of water at the start. EU Commissioners feel this is a fair compromise that will satisfy everyone without ruining the sport.

34. Women’s Rights: At beauty pageants, women will be allowed to remain anonymous to preserve their dignity as they wiggle their bodies around for the pleasure of shabby little men with thick glasses.

35. Eugenics/Snitches: “Well, you look over 16 inches tall to me. Let me measure you –  make my day! And I pledge allegiance to the other flag – the one with twelve stars.”

36. Eugenics/Snitches: A 17-inch giant is marched off after a valiant and true EU citizen sneaked up behind him with a tape measure then called the snitch hotline.

37. Health & Safety: Elephants must travel in the back seat. Rhinos in the front.

38 Women’s Rights: To end the male domination of sport, women are encouraged to play rugby. To get the hang of it, office managers must help them kick marrows about the office.

39. Nutrition: Young Welsh male voice choir singers must be given access to fresh watermelons.

40. Eugenics/Snitches: “You see, my dear, this little chap is an example of the perfect EU citizen: he is very small – even smaller than you, does not have a beard and is stupid enough to believe the propaganda.”

41. Eugenics/Law & Order: Prisons in the future will be very small and most people will be in one.

42. Freedom, they mean. Freedom is slavery.

43. Health & Safety: This bearded man was caught not wearing his deep sea diver’s helmet, so as punishment, he is forced to go around for a week with a fox’s head glued to his groin.

44. Health & Safety: French horn ensembles must not play on a railway line in front of an oncoming train.

45. Health & Safety: This woman is being comforted after her companion was shot dead by the blind woman just after shouting, “Woo-hoo”.

46. Employment Law: The EU’s unemployed are being retrained as blackboards.

47. Health & Safety: Another reminder of the terrible consequences of playing the French horn in the path of an oncoming express train. Even though he has no lungs, the woman is taking no chances and has blocked up her ears with cotton wool, just in case the cat can play.

48. Public Decency: It is against the law to be in public with a bear behind.

49. Health & Safety: After an energy-saving fluorescent light bulb explodes spreading toxic mercury all over the carpet, these ladies find a couple of pillocks to act as a bridge so they can escape to safety.

50. Eugenics: This girl, terrified of the EU’s growth restrictions, is preparing to saw off her own legs so that she doesn’t need to worry about it anymore and can be free to love the EU with all her heart.

Please leave your own in the comments, but ensure they comply with every EU directive. Thank you.

Basically, the length of a year according to the Julian Calendar was too long, and after thirteen centuries of use, the actual vernal equinox had slipped to 10th March, so Pope Gregory XIII and his astronomer, the Jesuit priest Christopher Clavius, devised the more accurate Gregorian Calendar. This involved Gregory decreeing that the day after Thursday, 4th October 1582 would be not Friday, 5th October, but Friday, 15th October 1582. According to Wikipedia,

The switchover was bitterly opposed by much of the populace, who feared it was an attempt by landlords to cheat them out of a week and a half’s rent.

Fearing a Papist plot, it took Britain and the colonies about 170 years to ditch the Julian for the Gregorian, which happened in 1752, by which time, they were eleven days out of synch. Wednesday, 2nd September 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, 14th September 1752. 

The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (c.23) (also known as Chesterfield’s Act after Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield) is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. It reformed the calendar of England and British Dominions so that a new year began on 1 January rather than 25 March (Lady Day) and would run according to the Gregorian calendar, as used in most of western Europe.

Although the calendar in Scotland also changed in 1752, we had already changed the date of New Year to 1st January in 1600. I expect this was so my ancestors could celebrate New Year twice. Nowadays, the supermarkets encourage us also to celebrate Chinese New Year, so perhaps the Scots were 400 years ahead of their time in celebrating more than one New Year! Not that I’m suggesting that everyone would have also celebrated in March, but I’m sure the temptation must have been there.

However, 25th March as New Year’s Day only dates from the 12th Century. The Roman year began on 1st January even before the introduction of the Julian Calendar in 45BC. 1st January was dedicated to Janus, the Roman god of beginnings and transitions and also of gates, doorways and so on.

I find it bizarre that so many Christians (and many others, including ‘atheists’) celebrate the day which was consecrated to a Roman god and was resuscitated by a Pope – one who aided and abetted Catholics to subvert Protestant rule in Britain and Ireland.

The calendar attributed to Romulus, the founder of Rome around 753 BC,  contained ten months with the vernal equinox in the first month, March, and the days between the end of December and the beginning of March not assigned to any month. Numa Pompilius, the second of the seven traditional kings of Rome, added January and February about forty years later.

The first day of the consular term, effectively the first day of the year, changed several times during Roman history, but finally changed from 15th March to 1st January in 153 BC.

Many cultures celebrate their New Year in the springtime, which seems to make more sense as the land becomes renewed, whereas it is still one dark, cold, damp day after another for weeks after 1st January (in the Northern Hemisphere). How is the year “new” exactly?

Exodus 12:2 describes the month of Abib (in the Spring) thus:

This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

And while I’m on scripture, Genesis 1:5 says that “the evening and the morning were the first day.”

So midnight isn’t even the beginning or end of a day, let alone a year.

To summarise: the year 2012 (supposedly AD, in the year of our Lord) began in the middle of the night, in the middle of Winter, to honour the Roman god, Janus.

The only comfort is that all of this should drive ‘atheists’ scatty.

So, Happy New Year, whenever it is.

I hope you are all having a nice festive season. I got a box set of 21 Laurel and Hardy DVDs for Christmas, so that’s my viewing sorted until the Spring. I’m not sure what to make of the colourised footage. At first, it seemed almost like blasphemy, but I’m not so sure now. One thing that colourised black and white films seem to have in common is the proliferation of brown suits of a most peculiar and unnatural shade. I think for this reason alone, the originals are better.

If anyone is still tuning in to this blog, please tell me what has been happening in the world!

This award goes to every MP who voted against the people of the United Kingdom.

Q. What is the difference between Denmark, France, Ireland and the United Kingdom?

A. The politicians in Denmark, France and Ireland rejected the votes of the people on matters concerning the European Union and the people of the United Kingdom are rejecting the votes of the politicians on Monday night.

The mainstream media gives the impression that there were 111 ‘rebels’ who voted for a referendum. I say that there were 483 who rebelled against the British people by denying us a vote.

I could write about how the richest countries in Europe are outside the EU or the damage that EU regulations cause British industry or the dangers in losing our sovereignty or a hundred other issues, but frankly, it would be a waste of time because it has all been said already and politicians just won’t listen.

I think some MPs are traitors, while others are far too naive for the positions they hold. The only solution that I can think of is to start trials to determine which ones are the traitors and remove them and deal with them in an appropriate fashion and send the naive ones onto pastures new where their ignorance of economics and history can no longer threaten the rest of us.

Already, there is a new petition for a referendum with nearly 4,000 votes in a day. Here is a list of how the MPs voted on Monday.

MPs really must learn who it is they work for.

[Picture by Max Tasker]