"I'd like to thank..."

Well, Tony Blair and his Labour pals have already accepted the award for "fattest country in Europe", despite me not blaming the government directly but merely the people, we cannot take away the fact that Tony Blair would have to accept the award on our behalf...Well not only that, we also have some of the worst services in Europe, one of the worst rates of drug abusers, the highest teenage pregnancy rate and the highest number of students per classroom..Well, Tony Blair and his kronies best prepare another acceptance speech because today it was reported Britain is the most heavily surveillanced (A.K.A spied on) country in the free world...Oh did I forget to mention that the people doing the spying is of course our own Government?.

Now in a day in age where we have hospitals closing, people being refused treatment, people selling their houses for care and sitting in their houses without the heating on during the winter because they cannot afford it and many other things we spend money on What? Well, watching those very same people being refused treatment, selling their homes for care and shivering from the winter cold because they cannot afford heating.

They don’t know, for instance, that a record is kept of every internet site they visit. They don’t realise that when identity cards come in, there will be a record of their movements and every time they have engaged with any public service.”

Reported in The Times today (29th October)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426874,00.html

Now, I do see both sides of the argument here. One side being the very bland and simple "if you have nothing to fear then you need not fear"...Which I suppose is true on basic terms without ethical consideration. I mean, it's true if you have nothing to hide then they cannot find it. If you don't go on child porn websites or terrorist websites then you wont be convicted of going on them. So the overwhelming majority need not fear anything right? Just don't do the crime, simple...

“It’s not just unwarranted intrusions into privacy, it’s also the dangers of inaccurate information, of mistakes being made, of information being held for too long,” Thomas said. He cited an example of a schoolgirl whose playground banter resulted in her father being refused work because he had been classed as a suspected paedophile. “The little girl was overheard saying, ‘My dad bonked me last night’. A dinner lady heard this and reported it to the school authorities,” Thomas said. Social services discovered that the girl was referring to her father tapping her playfully on the head with an inflatable hammer. The file was closed, but five years later the father discovered he was still a suspected sex offender.

Reported by The Times (29th October)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426874,00.html

Ok, so maybe we do have something to fear because with this watching, recording and interefence comes inaccruate data which really can harm our way of life. But still, there is that glaring factor that if we are not monitored then neither are those who actually are commiting crimes which means that by objecting to this we may well be preventing a paedophile getting caught...So I really do see the logical side but I do have hesitations on it and even more so, I have this undescrible gut feeling which makes me just dislike the idea of being watched, tracked, photographed and monitored despite how much good it can do.

It's a toughie, I suppose this is an independent decision where the person must use their own ethics to decide whether they agree with it or not. Personally, given the option to vote for or against it right now I would vote against it as a breach of civil liberty and right to privacy. I would accept a watered down version of this but I believe that as it stands, this is just too much and no doubt costs an arm and a leg which could be better diverted to more needy causes, like keeping the population alive for starters.

"It is dangerous to be right when your Government are wrong." - Voltaire

That is the kind of country we are creating I fear, a country where the state takes an authoritarian role, watching us and telling us what we can and can't do even in our homes.

"Yes, we are biased, so what?"

Welcome to New Britain my people. Recent revelations have ousted the heavily suspected fact that the BBC are heavily biased towards non white, non Christians and is anti-American. Now remember people, tax payers pay for this service...This means many people pay to be misrepresentated and preached against. The BBC should undoutbly be a source for unbiased information given that all sorts of people, different backgrounds and different views are paying for it...This act of open and proud bias is totally disgusting.

"During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran."

"They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities. "

"It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside. "

+ They are happy for Islamic women to wear veils on the news but objected to Fiona Bruce wearing a small necklace with a cross on it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

Voltiare used to say;

"If ever I smell of a Resurrection, or come a second time on earth, I will pray God to make me be born in England, the land of Liberty..."

I'm sure he'd change his mind if he were to come a second time on earth nowadays!

I thought Britain had evolved from it's racist nature and had moved into a position that it could be proud of, where the majority of people stood for actual equality because all races and religions...Now thanks to Blair and the growing fashion of "positive discrimination" we've sleepwalked right back into it, but this time against the "unconventially targetted"...Never the less, it's still wrong and even more so that its being openly practiced by a publically funded News agency.

"A baby, a baby, my kingdom for a baby"

Well...We, [British] have low birth rates and an aging population. The EU predicts that (for the EU as a whole) the aging population will increase from 14% (1995) to 22.4% in (2025)...Britain's over 65 population currently stands higher than the EU average at 15.8%.

Let me put Britain's dependents into a figure for you:

Labour force = 30.07 million
Total population = 60.2 million
Dependency = 30.13 million

Now with an increase on expected life length and a decrease in the birth rate...Things look a bit glum, wouldn't you say?

Britain's dependency level is growing and more are retired individuals rather than educating individuals who will enter the economic world in the future. Therefore, in the future the problem will escalate unless action is taken. The reasonsing for this is we have an increasing number of dependents who will not contribute in the future (retired) and a decreasing number of dependents who are preparing to enter the economic world and contribute (children). What may this lead to? Quite simply it will inevitably lead to a decrease in public spending and therefore decrease of the quality of services, as our Government tries to battle the problem and then another increase of the retirement age to try decrease dependency levels and finally the loss of the pension, it's starting to happen now.

Our immigration policy is clearly not working on the social side and it's not a long term sustainable scheme, in fact, it's a disgrace. People have yet to realise that importing masses of workers may be working for now (economically) but what happens when they don't have children because they're working just like the rest of the population?...Well, it means it further increases our dependency level in the future. In 2004 the increase of population by immigration (number of immigrants coming in minus the number of Britons leaving) was 223,000. That's 223,000 people who will be dependents on our ever decreasing wealth producers. It's merely making problems much worse for the future which our Government is a master of. Currently we are a naturally growing population of 0.58 children/1000 (127,00o people) which is a perfectly sustainable situation, but this figure is magnified by the population increase of ~ 233,000 (2004) by immigrants. With only a natural population increase of 127,000 people per year you can clearly see the strain that our mass immigration policy has on this problem...A new born is already 'assigned' two dependents when they begin to work through immigration population increase of that year alone. Obviously though, other factors contribute to how many people are depending on one person's wealth such as more immigrants which also work and the number of British that are depending on people. If soon this is not solved then in the near future we will have a population with well over 50% depending on the workers and this will inevitbly harm our country and it's people's standard of living. Another problem is that our major sources of immigrants are China, India and Eastern Europe, all of whom are developing and once they have accomplished such a step, the amount of immigrants will rapidly decrease thus plundging us into a massive problem. It is better to work out a solution now and work towards solving the problem than simply delaying the problem until it reaches crisis point and our welfare collapses. Immigration must be tightly controlled and quotaed atleast until we have increase the birth rate for a prolonged period of time.

Given all of this pessimistic talk I believe it's time to start thinking of ways to solve this problem.. Yes, we have to think of a solution, a long term one and that is to increase the birth rate. How do we do that? Family planning and encouragment may well be worth while but not sufficient. We need decrease work hours and adopt a policy such as France's genius system, their production has even increased. Give it 50 years without doing anything real except the stupid and illogical idea of bringing in masses of immigrants and people wont be able to have pensions, it'll just be impossible for the Government to spend so much money. The problem is even starting now. Recently we saw the pension age increase from 65 to 67 and encouragment on life savings...Soon the age will get higher and higher until it's just pointless and they'll say that if you're below a certain age you must save and live off that when you retire. The logical solution is to tighten immigration the year after these ideas are implemented, encourage families and decrease work hours.

I hope I have brought you around to my way of thinking.

Premeditated murder...How long?!

What the Hell is going on in this country? We've had some sick twisted individual actually sit down for weeks and perfectly plan a trap for his desired victim. Then when his evil plan comes to form he executes it with precision and savagery. He brutally beat his victim with a frying pan and then stabbed him multiple times. Once his victim was deceased he calmly wheeled the corpse of the slain innocent and model child to the park half a mile away, where he hid it. Don't fool yourself, he had that part planned aswell. He killed for the sake of killing, for the violence, for the hate...He is truely the type of person that we should make sure never walk the streets of the the United Kingdom again. I would hope the courts would agree but today he was sentenced to life which actually means he'll be out in 12 years...12 years for a premeditated murder with no remorse. How sickening. He was 14 at the time...So what? He sat and planned this, including a letter he wrote to lore his victim. He deserved to be sentenced as an individual with a sound mind and understanding of what he did and therefore he should recieve the maximum sentence with no mimimum requirement serving.

Today's justice system is a farce, we've had 1000 people tagged, 500 reoffended, 1 including a murder. We've got prisions filled to the brim...And why? Because out of 80,000 spaces, 11,000 are filled with non British nationals who any other country would have deported! So, instead of deporting the criminals who should be we either keep them or pay them £2,500 to leave...Like some kind of flipping reward for commiting a crime in Britain!...We must certaintly come across as a global joke. This is not a matter of pro immigration vs anti immigration. This is about logics vs illogics and the logical explanation is that we can deport them, we need to deport them because our prisions are so full that we're releasing dangerous criminals early and therefore we should deport them.

Labour have degenerated yet another system, spoilt it despite their five years of warnings. So yes, add the prision services to the long list of institutions ruined by our Labour government.

...12 years for premeditated murder...What is that, some kind of sick joke?...

Do your bit...

The EU as a whole spends €59 billion dealing with obesity...


What would you say if I told you that, I know how £2.5 billion more could be spent on improving health care, finding cures for major killers such as cancer, helping the elderly, bettering children's education and possibly many other things that need critical funding in Britain? I'm sure that you would reply with something a long the lines of "Awesome, how!?"...Well it's this simple, do your part and stay fit...Strange eh? "What has staying fit got to do with money and why by staying fit am I helping all of these people?" You may ask, well, it's simple. Currently Britain spends about £2.5 billion a year on treating people with health issues caused by obesity. So, what if the population of Britain just stayed a little healthier, ate a little less junk food or exercised a little more? It's really not that hard and it can be done and it really doesn't take that much to do...Individuals are willing to do their bit for the enviroment through insignificant life alterations which combined make a massive difference. Why can't we apply the same logic to health and do our bit by staying healthy? Thus saving masses of money which can be diverted to services that need this crucial extra funding.

...Allow me to put that into context for you, currently 50,900 people suffering from Alzheimer's are denied the necessary drugs to help hold the awful deterioration at bay because it's too expensive. The drugs only cost £2.50 a day...So let me do the maths for you:

50,900 x £2.50 = £127,250 = The cost per day to give all needing the drugs their drugs.

£127,250 x 365 = £46,446,250 out of a possible £250000000

Now you may see just one possible route of the massive savings, savings that really could make a massive amount of people's lives better. Do your part and make Britain a better place.

Well anyway, now i've talked about the economic side of our actions, maybe I can talk about the part regarding state intervention. Now, our poor government (yes, I do feel sorry for them despite them being Labour) are stuck between a rock and a hard place. When our government did intervene and encouraged schools to stock healthier food they were attacked by the press and refered to as being a "nanny state" whilst mothers bought McDonalds' and passed them through the school gates to their chubby children. However, contrasting this with the release of the information that Britain is in fact the fattest country in the EU the first questions asked was "Well what are you going to do about this Tony?"...Let me get this straight right now, our health is our personal responsibility and it's really not that hard to look after. If you insist of eating masses of unhealthy food well then...Exercise! How pathetic has today's society gotten that we even rely on the state to keep us slim? Do people honestly feel that they are not responsible for any of their actions?...Truely pathetic and somewhat saddening that our society has degenerated to such a low point...And no Daily Mail, you cannot blame immigrants for this problem no matter how hard you try, this time, we're to blame.

Well, now the question is asked, if the state is not to blame...Who is?...Well of course you are. At the end of the day, if you are an adult then you have choices and you can make these as informed choices if you care to bother. Yes, McDonalds' may offer two for one or Burger King may advertise on TV but does that mean that you have no control over such? Can you not switch channel if you are so weak to adverts, can you not decide against going to McDonalds' to get that two for one? Can you not decide on your children's diet? Can you not educate your children from an early age that fast food may taste nice but is awful for you and it should be used as a treat not a norm? Can you not quiet down your children when they whindge to go to a fast food restaurant? The real truth of it all is that the individual does have control over this matter and they have the abiltity to just say no. This may not be what you want to hear but by dammit I am going to say it. I will write the words Politicians dare not to say and that is because they fear a backlash from their electorate, well I'll say it and know why?.. Because it's true.

Now come on people, do your bit, stay healthy and help save funding thus allowing it to be spent on other sectors, by dammit it's more than certainly needed.

Nuclears...

Those pesky weapons...You know the ones; one bomb and everybody's dead...Real nice stuff eh?

The first question which arises is who gets them? Well personally I feel only strong, stable and democratic countries should be able to get them and they should have to apply through the U.N. In my great opinion, only those who have them now are suitable to have them within the near future atleast. However, it's predicted that by 2050 the "nuclear nations" will rise from 9 (including N.Korea) to 20. Is this what we really want? Do we really want powerful Nuclear weapons in the East, such countries having them may not be a threat to us, but in fact to other countries who do not possess the military power that we have, or the nuclear weapons. The core five countries that have actually vowed to try combat any threats to world peace (UK, USA, China, Russia and France) must make sure that our voice is heard and that such nations which are classified as "threats to world peace" should not possess the ability to launch nuclear weapons until they are "stable".

Well today we've witnessed N.Korea test their nuclear weapons despite world wide objection to such aswell as internal objection. Am I worried? No. Of course I totally object to a totalitarian state having Nuclear weapons and like I said in the paragraph above, they should be heavily challenged and heavy sanctions put in place. But back to the issue as to whether I am worried or not about N.Korea. N.Korea are an isolationist state who don't possess the ability to overthrow a nation (knowing that they will face Western intervention if they invade S.Korea). I am safe in the fact that such Nuclears are only to be a "fear factor" to try disuade any United invasion to bring democracy to N.Korea...However they should not be afraid given that it is clear that the Coalition did not invade Iraq for such but instead because of discontent of Saddam's paticular regime. I believe that such Nuclear testing may even result in positive actions, such being a revolution of some sort where the masses (who have nothing short of hate for King Jong il) rise against him...However, such is very unlikely given their stronghold on the media etc, but one can but hope.

So, rest assured people, do not fear N.Korea, maybe discontent of their actions but not fear. They most certainly should feel the wrath of Global united reprocussions (sanctions), I do not veto such actions. I am just not satisfied with the media saying "this is a global peace issue"...I honestly believe that it is not...Let's just hope that I am not wrong.

12 roses for ' Straw...

Thank God.

Talk about relief, finally a prominent political figure has finally dared to say something that some Muslims may not like. Of course what he is saying is perfectly true and should be abided. The outfits (niqabs or burkas) come across as aggressive, fundamentalist, are considered against British standards of politeness and are an out right disgrace and two fingers up to the rights of hearing impaired of the country. They are not required to wear such extreme outfits by the Qu'ran and such outfits are only worn to make an explicit statement and not for any religious value. Jack Straw is 100% corrrect to say that such outfits only make proper intergration and community relations harder. Myabe it's worth remembering that this is not a Muslim country and it is their job to intergrate and such strong, explicit outfits are not attempts at intergrating however a humble headscarf (which is sufficient in Islam) is more than tolerable and i'm of no doubt that the overwhelming majority of non Muslims in the UK would have no problems with such.

"It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm

Selective discrimination? Utter tosh! This is a move forward for creating better non Muslim - Muslim relations in such turbulant times. Not only that, it's a a step towards giving the hearing impaired their true rights, it's a step towards politeness and by dammit, it's a step towards a better Britain despite this being something of a "trivial matter".

"Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live. "

(Same link)

Utterly pathetic, compromising the faith?...What an idiot, and this man is the chairman of a Mosque? Maybe he better study his religion a little better because such extremes of covering are not required and are not worn by the majority of Islamic women. He was in no way compromising their faith.

In my belief this outfit should not only be discouraged but legislation passed to ban it in public for the sake of the people's comfort and the hearing impaired. If these women had any decency at all they would understand that such outfits do make people feel uneasy especially in the era of the "Islamic terrorist threat", that it makes it incredibly hard for people to read lips and it's intimidating to not be able to see somebody's mouth when they speak. Maybe if they applied a little bit of British politeness they'd take the damn things off and wear the sufficient outfit of the Hijab or one of the other styles.

Positive discrimination, an utter disgrace.

Racism

"Prejudice or discrimination based on an individual's race. It can be expressed individually or through institutional policies or practices."

Sexism:

"Bias against a certain gender."

"Ahhhh", take a deep breath, what is it that you are inhailing, morally clean air or the air of a country that seems to forget that it's generally moved through the primitive stage of racism and sexism?

Racism undoubtably haunted the non-white population of this country for centuries and to a degree, a stigma is still attached to them by the morally primitive racists that plague this country. However, we seem to be finding ourselves on a new trend, a new "in thing" for politicians to talk and spin about. This new thing is "positive discrimination" however our political 'buddies' don't usually like to say those words. They prefer less harsh words such as "positive action"...Yes well, welcome to the world of politics.

Yes, it's undoubtable that ethnic monorities and women are unrepresented in institutions such as the police force and our very own Westminster Parliament. However, instead of just looking at this with a blank face and speak the words "institutional racism" why not actually ask "why so?"... The words on our politicians lips should not be "let's tackle this by 'positive action'" but instead "let's tackle this by advertising the occupations, help training for these institutions and encouraging these unrepresented people to stand up and persue this career"...That's what we should be hearing from our politicians lips. That's the answer to under representation of ethnic minorities, not out right racism to the white population or out right sexism to the male population, how is that fair?. When asked how a fair, democratic and morally sound country should run it's job application process, we should be able, as the United Kingdom to stand up straight and say "meritocracy" where the best applicant for the job...Get's the job.

Just look at the definitions I presented at the start and tell me that denying a white person of a job because s/he is white is not racism, and then tell me that denying a male of a job because he is male is not sexism. You tell me that in a credible and logical way and i'll tell you the meaning of life my friend. The truth is; no matter how well our politicians gloss it up it's still out right racism and/or sexism. This country needs to progress by meritocracy. Discrimination of all kinds should be extinguished with a firm 'fist of justice' and we should not tolerate it of any kind to any race or any gender. By creating an acceptance of "positive discrimination" and therefore in truthful words "discrimination of caucassions" and/or "discriminaiton of males" we are sending out the message that such is acceptable and if we do that for a prolonged period it will become the business norm and then the white male population in paticular faces real problems. We cannot afford to revert back to our primitive ways of racism and sexism and that's what positive discrimination is.

"Cash incentives are being offered to local Liberal Democrat parties who recruit women and people from ethnic minorities to stand for election. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5354548.stm

Acceptable? If you think so, replace' women' with men and 'people from ethnic minorities' with white and then maybe you'll realise how actually racist and sexist it is. Here, in fact i'll do it for you:

"Cash incentives are being offered to local Liberal Democrat parties who recruit men and people from the white population to stand for election"

Now, is this acceptable?...I don't think so and if you do, then you're a racist and/or sexist.

Is this acceptable?:

"Gloucestershire police force has admitted illegally rejecting 108 job applicants because they were white men. The Police Federation said the force has been trying to recruit more female officers and more people from ethnic minorities to meet a government target."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/5369876.stm

They are just two of many examples, I truely hope that you all agree that "positive discrimination" is an awful awful solution to a delicate matter. Encouragment along with strict meritocracy is by far the best way for now and for the future of businesses and for race relations in the United Kingdom.

David Cameron...Just be yourself.

"Hmmm", that about sums up my feelings. As a young Conservative party member myself I feel some what disinclined to jump on the band wagon and scream "Cameron, you're the young face to politics, something we need, a fresh new breeze!" I genuinely feel that Cameron is a nice guy, a good guy and equally as important, a good politician. I have seen him speak in the Commons on a "Prime minster's questions" and the way he acted I felt resembled that of just a "normal guy" who really did care (oh yeah, here's a quick policy suggestion. Please, for the sake of people's knees refurbish the gallery, what's up with the lack of leg room!? I'm like 6ft which is about average I suppose and, wow, it was painful and some man kept tapping my foot with his crutch...What the hell? Weird I know, anyway, i'm rambling so i'll stop.) Back on a serious note Cameron really needs to drop the P'R' acts and just be himself, that will be the new fresh breeze that British politics needs. Like I said, he comes across as a genuine and nice guy but with such desperate attempts to reinforce such he just comes across fake and the spin that is being pushed down people's throats will inevitably annoy people and turn people off him. The webcast is a good idea but it's so fake, it's so staged and it annoys me because I can see that he really is just a good guy but such desperate attempts are just off putting. So David Cameron, just be yourself.

I have a friend who lives up in Liverpool. I spoke to this friend (who is just not into politics but keeps an eye on things) and I said something along the lines of "would you ever vote Conservative?" She replied, "no, never", I explained why she should and how Conservative views can in fact help the north and she replied along the lines of "I know, I know, but I can never vote Conservative because that's how i've been raised and that's how it is up north" and that's spot on. That's exactly how it is and she is exactly the type of person that the Conservatives need to sway. You can't sway a devout Labour party supporter but you can sway somebody who believes in you but just wont vote for you. Now how could be this be solved? P'R' schemes like now? No! We need to focus our political attention on the north and explain to them why politically the Conservatives are the best choice and drill through to them that the Conservatives won't ignore them again politically. People who fear voting for something do so because they are afraid that history will repeat its self, now no mater how many bikes David Cameron rides or how many webcasts he posts, he will never get rid of that fear and that's why Cameron has to step up and do his job and be a politician.

My third and final paragraph. I wont attack him for not publishing his policies now because it's what, 3 years until the next election? Maybe people who keep attacking him on such basis should be quietly reminded of that fact. Also, maybe Cameron shares the same view as me which is if you make public your policies now, history will repeat its self and voila, Labour will whack out a brand new fantastic policy that seems to "resemble" that of the Conservatives.
P.S, attacking rap was groundless. I listen to rap and I have yet to stab somebody, shoot somebody or take drugs. If you want to ban rap then ban "death" metal, ban violent films, ban violent T.V and ban the teletubbies (not because it's violent but because it's drivel!).