The Islamist problem.

Whilst many Muslim’s are suffering from suspicion and hatred, they cannot expect sympathy from the non-muslim masses, whilst Islamist continue to corrupt young muslim minds.

As none devout christians, most of us know very little about our own religion, yet alone the intricacies and branches of Islam…and quite frankly, why should we?

Millions of people born “christian” are completely fed-up with religion, and have chosen to denounce their religious affiliations in favour of a more “humanistic” approach to life.

500-years ago, such “heresy” would have resulted in grave consequences, including death or burning at the stake, but with increased levels of religious freedoms, and the separation between God and State, religious penalties are no longer applicable for “civilised” human beings.

Of course, the story of Christ and the spread of Christianity, is very different to the Story of Mohammed and Islam, with the Christian story of peace and benevolence – although through history many of christ’s followers have abused their powers – is greatly different to not only the Koranic teaching, but vastly more peaceful than the teachings of those who came after Mohammed.i.e the Sunnah and the Hadith.

I confess to being no theologican scholar, but you can not expect any non-devout Christian, or Atheist, to listen to those who preach from the Koran, or quote from the Hadith, and agree with the hatred aimed towards non-believers and infidels.

Indeed, the vast majority of muslims, are not devout, and can never be devout, in a way which satisfies the strict extreme beliefs of the Islamist or Wahhabist. This is why so many christians, who mix with none or less devout muslims, insist on repeating the mantra “the religion of peace”.

Islamic teachings do not present themselves as peaceful towards non-muslims, the idea of spreading islam “by fire and the sword”, may well have been pertinent to a middle eastern, war-lord in the 7th century, but it holds little relevance in today’s global society.

Moreover, whilst the marriage of a child to a “War-Lord” , and the consummation of such a marriage MAY have had some relevance in the 7th Century Arab World, when life expectancy was little more than 25-years old, but with today’s life expectancy of 70-years plus, such practices are totally alien to modern, civilised man.

Or these things should hold little relevance today!

Sadly, for both Muslims and non-muslims, the oil-wealth enjoyed since the 1970s by Wahhabist fanatical followers in Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern “Kingdoms”, has been used to keep the majority of Arabs and other Muslims in poverty and ignorance, and use this engineered ignorance to promote the Wahhabist agenda!

Make no mistake, the world renown, historic, trading ability and cunning of Arabs was perfectly exhibited in the way that oil-rich Sheiks, kings and Princes, used western leaders and oil men, to ensure foreign governments supported the Wahhabist agenda. With American might being blatantly used to prop-up these anti-infidel rulers.

Indeed, since the 1970s, there has been a steady swing away from giving isolated Israel 100% support, to now making the isolated Jewish state of Israel the villains in the Middle East.

There can be no question that the west’s dependence on Arab Oil and subsequently, Arab money, especially since the fall of the Shah of Iran, has led to an immoral amount of support for countries whose practice of human rights remain based in the Middle Ages.

Moreover, we have seen American, European and UN force, used against anyone who represents a threat to the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. i.e. Saddam Hussein.

Islam was for many decades a unified religion, when western colonialists were the common enemy. But since these countries achieved independence – and wealth –  cross-border and civil war aggression between Sunni and Shia factions have escalated leading to millions of deaths.

Localised, these “tribal-conflicts” had little affect on the western world, but the cunning use of western power by Saudi Arabia, and others, has led to the “Christian” western world being seen as an enemy of Islam. With the oppressed or suppressed people being influenced into becoming fanatics and taking their battles to Europe, in the name of Allah.

Wahhabism is not part of early Islam, indeed, it is a 19th century innovation, basically a religious cult, based on the ideas or Islamic interpretation of Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and supported by the house of Saud. It is an ultra-conservative movement, which believes and promotes the domination of all people and countries, and the enforcement of strict islamic or sharia laws.

Like any extremist religious movement, we would expect that it would be controllable by the masses and ultimately defeated. However, it is estimated that Saudi Arabia has spent over 60-billion dollars since the 1970s, promoting the aims of this “sect” throughout the world, and its millions of devotees are at the forefront of many of todays muslim terrorist attacks.

At a social level, it is not difficult to understand that the practice of Wahhabism, within the muslim mindset, and against a background of suppression, poverty, and poor education, can be made attractive, especially when intertwined with religious and intra-religious persecution.

Nor should it be difficult to understand that, it is in the interest of those who believe in Wahhabism to want continued wars and political upheaval across the Middle East, as illiterate and poor people, constantly surrounded by aggression and intimidation, are easily influenced and recruited by religious bigots and extremists!

But we in the west are not so clever either.

We look at Arab wealth, we look at places like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and we see material success, giving it almost celebrity status. We want to have a piece of it or be part of it, and we care little about the social or long term damage our personal advances will have on our own societies or the world as a whole.

We will willingly allow ourselves to be influenced by Muslim extremist propaganda, listening to Taqqiya – Legitimate lying to non-believers for the betterment of Islam – and ignore the suffering and human rights abuse we see with our own eyes.

At a government level, our leaders will send our soldiers to die, defending people whose whole belief is the destruction of the western world and christianity, and our schools will teach our children that we started the aggression against Muslims during the crusades, when the truth is, Christians were being persecuted and enslaved by muslims, long before the crusades began!

Yes history is being rewritten, in order to validate the notion that Islam is a “religion of peace”. The truth is, whilst many human beings who practice Islam are peaceful, the religion has never been a peaceful one. How could it be, it was created by a war-lord!

Like any successful religion, Islam has “acts of charity” woven in it, as well as promises of a better after-life, if you devote your time on earth to its teachings. But unlike christianity, which focuses heavily on preaching and converting, Koranic teaching focuses heavily on the violent implementation of Islam superiority and the destruction of all non-believers.

Arab wealth since the 1970s have greatly accelerated the spread and influence of Islam, outside of the Middle East, and the recent “flooding of Europe” of Muslims from the Middle and near east, as well as Northern Africa, represents a massive, unstoppable threat, which may lead to the annihilation of the Christian world.

Indeed, there is no alternative to Islamic global dominance if we look at the current trajectory.

Firstly, we have progressive socialists, which have been hoodwinked into unknowingly supporting the EU’s goal of instigating the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan, ie interbreeding between races to create a subservient race of humans to be controlled by the elite.

Mrs Merkel’s invitation to untold millions of unknown, unchecked, foreigners, is a massive step to this long term plan. (Indeed, Merkel has been honoured with the Coudenhove-Kasagi Prize. the EU’s highest award)

In the UK, we had Tony Blair opening the borders to anyone and everyone who wanted to live in the UK, and all across west Europe we have seen the same events occurying.

We can call them refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, any term we like. The fact is vast majority of those flooding into our countries are mainly Muslim men of fighting age!

Those of us who wish to question this invasion, are called racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, and every other nasty name you can think of. But whilst politicians and the Mainstream Media make efforts to fool us into believing what is happening is OK, and represents no problem for our societies and cultures. The evidence clearly shows otherwise. Increases in terrorist attacks, increases in rapes of our women and children, a blatant abuse of our tax-money for their benefit, and whole towns being taken over, where sharia courts are being installed and passing out Koranic judgements and penalties.

Adding to this tradegy is our own people’s reactions.

Whilst many young girls are being raped and gang-raped, we find many of our girls and women fall prey to the “Taqqiya” and willingly having children with these men, and many converting to Islam. We see woman in their hundreds at our borders claiming refugees are welcome, claiming that any effort to stop the invasion is a crime against humanity.

The reality is that most of the people in the west, especially the young, have no idea what is going on in the real world. And whilst they concern themselves with “unearned” freedom, civil rights, and equality issues, our enemies, i.e. those out to destroy us, train their children to kill, attack and abuse. Whilst increasing numbers of European young men are being told to accept their female side, to understand it is OK to be homosexual, to accept that it is OK to self identify as a female, Muslim men are told homosexuals should be thrown off of buildings and woman are second-class citizens.

What chance does the west have of finding men to defend it in the future.

Moreover, when will women realise that their consistent assaults on exhibitions of masculinity by European men, is making “foreign men” more attractive to them.

I understand the feminine view, I understand the equality issue, and I understand the maternal protective view, but that is going to be of no value, when those against us do not share the same outlook.

Our law courts have become a laughing stock, an embarrassment, when it comes to dealing out penalties, and our police-force are doing little better in applying our laws to practicing muslims.on

Gangs of Muslim men preyed on tens of thousands of young, vulnerable, predominantly christian, girls for over 15-years, and this was ignored because it was deemed “not politically-correct”.

Female genital mutilation has been a crime since the 1980’s, and yet, whilst thousands of cases are known about, not one person has been arrested for commiting this crime…because it is “not politically correct”.

In Sweden, and more recently in Germany and Austria, the rape and assault of indiginious women, girls and sometimes young boys by muslim men, has become widespread, and if not hushed-up by the authorities and the media, the criminals are rarely awarded adequate sentences, often getting acquitted or a slap on this wrist.

Contrast this with the growth in Sharia courts in our countries, and contrast these penalties with those handed out by Sharia courts, beheadings, stoning and amputation, and you will see that acceptance of Islamic practices in the western world are incompatible….yet they continue to flourish, and we continue to say nothing!

I have dug deeply into the expansion of Islam in western, christian countries, not because of a dislike or hatred of practicing muslims, an insensitivity towards refugees, or any xenophobic or racist feelings (Islam, like all religions is practiced by people of all colour). And I will admit, the vast majority of Muslims I have met, are just normal peope trying to get on with their lives without any hassle. But we cannot ignore what is really happening as extremist muslims increase their influence over their own religion AND our countries!

It is incumbent on people, to speak out about what is really happening across the western world, to battle extremism in all forms, and to redress the ridiculous lies coming from governments, the mainstream media, and worst of all, our stupid and ignorant educationalists!

For the muslim, the problem many have with criticism such as mine, is the language is painting a whole faith with one broad-brush. And when that criticism covers 1.5 billion people, there is no end of examples put forward to denounce such criticism.

But as a “non-believer”, why am I expected to know the difference between Sunni and Shia, or between Hanbali and Jafari, it should have nothing to do with me, any more than knowing the difference between Catholics and Protestants, or Baptists and methodist, should be important to Muslims..It doesn’t or shouldn’t be a concern. To the Muslim we are all christians…to the radical muslim we are all infidels. So lets not get hung-up on terminology.

The bottomline is, we know not all muslims are terrorists, but we also know, too few good Muslims speak out against radicals, too many children of good muslims become radicals, and too many believe the western world owes them in one way or the other.

Too many Imams, not only in the Middle East, but elsewhere speak too divisively towards non-believers, and too many speak badly about our cultures and our women. This you will not find in a christian church, indeed, I have been very angry to go to a Christmas mass, and over half of it was about being kind and accepting Islam, when the sermon should have concerned the birth of Christ and the celebration of our own religion.

The major worry is not the intention of radical muslims and wahhabists, the biggest threat comes from Christians and atheists in our own communities, who turn a blind-eye to the truth, who wish to ignore the evidence played out daily, in-front of their faces, and accept the freedom of Islamic expression and practices, whilst venomously attacking those who choose to speak out.

We, the concerned, may not be politically correct, but we are also not the enemy of muslims, radical islamist are!

If good muslims, and there are over 1-billion of them on this planet, do not do something about the evil being committed in the name of Allah, they have no choice but to accept that those cultures and religions feeling under threat or being threatened, will remain suspicious and continue to paint most followers of Islam with the same broad brush!

Furthermore, it is very important to understand, whilst not all muslims are terrorists, not all christians are ass-kissing politicians, businessmen, or indeed, socialists!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why England and UKIP owe so much to Scotland

It’s a strange thing to say, especially for a English member of UKIP, who is happy the NO vote won in Scotland, but over the past 48-hours, the Scottish referendum has opened a “can of worms” which can ultimately, only benefit the English and UKIP.

Here is why.

Westminster party leaders, Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, made a last minute, desperate vow to the Scottish people, which none of them want to, or will, deliver. This reneging on a vowed promise, will ultimately show the existing parties for what they are: Self-interested, Liars whose only interest is their own position in parliament.

The knee-jerk vow of “more powers to the Scottish parliament”, which included tax-raising powers, has opened a massive question, not for the Scottish, but for the English, who are the only group of “nationals” in the UK, which DOESN’T have their own government or assembly. Indeed, as a people, the English are one of very, very, few people’s, in the World, who do not have a government specifically for their own country.

The way the UK is governed is not understood by many non-British, but intrinsically, Scottish and Welsh MP’s can vote on ALL laws pertaining to England, but due to the devolution of power, English MP’s cannot vote on a host of laws which affect Scotland and Wales.

This is obviously unfair, especially when we see, per head, more public money is spent in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland, than spent in England on the English.

This is clearly neither democratically and financially, fair, nor equal.

Realistically, the spending issue is secondary, because in ever country some people get more than others from the state. But democratically, denying the English their own voice in the UK, whilst giving more of a voice, in their own country, to the Scots and Welsh, is clearly wrong.

David Cameron, immediately stressed this point in his speech after the Scottish referendum, and vis’a’vis his “vow” to Scotland, he tagged the English issue, known as the “Midlothian question”, on to giving the Scottish want he promised.

Ed Miliband, who has a massive problem, because 40 of his MP’s are from Scotland, immediately argued against more power for the English, whilst continuing to want his Scottish and Welsh MP’s to vote on all English related matters.

Miliband and Labour have badly managed this issue, and now whichever way he or they turn, they are going to be placed under pressure. But this is not a surprise, as the current Labour Party is obviously “rudderless” and lacks direction, indeed, the socialist ideology is clearly being questioned everywhere.

Admittedly, much of the criticism of Labour is based on past performance, therefore not directly the responsibility of Miliband. However, he has been leader for long enough, and his leadership is proving to be weak and his “poorly spun” policies are out of sync with what the UK wants and needs (IMHO).

EU-membership, Immigration, Multi-culturalism, Political Correctness, are all issues supported by Labour, and are all under heavy criticism from the vast majority of the British public. And Labour’s defence of these issues is not convincing anyone, except for die-hard lefties.

There is no denying that support for Miliband and Labour is dying, and the support of UKIP is a clear indication England is moving towards the right of the political spectrum, whilst in Scotland we have seen the Scot’s have lost patience with a Westminster Labour Party, who went into “coalition” with the Conservatives and Liberals on the matter of Independence.

The winner out of this “fiasco”, is UKIP, who are already, very much, in the ascendancy, at least as far as England is concerned.

UKIP were not part of the “vow” made by the other 3 parties. Yet is has long been UKIP party policy, that powers should be more devolved to the people of Scotland, Wales, N Ireland AND England!

Leader Nigel Farage, whilst admitting that UKIP did not support Independence for Scotland, was able to criticise the vow to the Scottish people, as rightly, it was using English money to buy Scottish votes. Moreover, by offering this vow to the Scottish people, it was making “the English”, who are the biggest group of people in the UK, by far, second-class citizens, as far as having a voice in the UK democratic process was concerned.

Personally, I am a little concerned about UKIP making the “regionalisation” of the UK, a big issue at the present time, because it is too in-line with the aims of the EU. Moreover I do believe we need a unified government in Westminster, to give us a referendum and to take us out of the EU, and therefore an internal row, over who rules who, amongst the “Home Countries” is a potential distraction. However, now the “cat is out of the bag”, there is no way of putting it back.

Whether UKIP opponents like it or not, UKIP continues to be on the right side of every topical debate in British politics, and this is continuing to drive more support to a Political Party which was far too long considered simply as a “protest” party.

The left of British politics continues to underestimate the influence UKIP is having on the British psyche, and Labour’s tactic of “unjustly” insulting UKIP and its members with racial slurs, is back-firing on them, just as much as it is back-firing on the Tories, and the almost extinct, Lib Dems.

The route Labour is taking, under the leadership of Miliband, (and his fellow millionaires who run the Labour Party_, is seen as increasingly out of touch by the majority of British workers, and if Labour lose the support of the “working-man” – or, as is probably the situation, lost the support of the working-man – their chance of being re-elected as a government is very slim.

As for UKIP, there is very little chance, under a “first-past-the-post” electoral system, that they will achieve more than 25 MP’s in next years General Election. However, should they win next months Clacton by-election, which looks almost assured, the momentum will accelerate even faster for UKIP. And perhaps the impossible could be achieved.

Whatever happens in next years General Election, it would be political suicide for the next British government to deny a referendum on the EU to British voters, now that the Scottish have been given a referendum on the United Kingdom. Moreover, it would also be wrong to deny the English their own government. Which means the whole structure of how the UK is governed is going to be completely changed over the coming years.

TOWER HAMLETS COCKNEYS ARGUE.

Sister Christine takes down an offensive Muslim Flag in Tower Hamlets.

As a Cockney boy from Poplar and the Isle of Dogs, I am a member of various East London, Face-book groups – Groups mainly populated by traditional cockneys, and also very few new East Londoners. i.e. very few Muslims.

This is not by design, as these groups are open. But it happens because us old cockneys have a joint history; we can share the memories we have of East London, and we can recall events and people who were part of our history.

It should be obvious to anyone, that the new East Londoners, just do not have the same references in their life. They simply have no understanding of the memories we share, or much of our culture. Nor, in all honesty should they be expected to.

However, it is worth mentioning that, for hundreds of years, East London has been an immigrant melting pot: Germans, Polish, Jews, Irish, West Indians, Sikhs, Hindu’s, have all established themselves in East London. But in my knowledge, none of these people or cultures have had such a cultural and political impact, as the present Muslim community.

Tower Hamlets, once famous for its Jewish Market, Cockney Villains and Pie’n’mash, is now infamous for its corrupt Town Hall, rigged-democracy, and no-go Sharia areas. This may be unfair, but it is the general topic of conversation when Tower Hamlets is mentioned.

Now I am not saying the Muslim community is bad, there is good and bad in any culture, and of any colour. But I am saying that whilst many of the past immigrants, assimilated themselves into their new neighbourhoods, and made themselves open to their new neighbours, (to a greater or lesser extent), there is a vocal and large number within the Muslim society, which is intent on completely changing the make-up and culture of East London… and they do it without any respect for the views of the majority of non-Muslims who also live within the borough.

So-called Multiculturalism is now irreversible in East London, and some people welcome it. But not everyone is so happy about this “socialist experiment”, especially those who are traditionalists and extremely nostalgic about the old days. ie Many members of these face book groups.

Indeed, for many, what is called “multicultural Tower Hamlets”, is not multicultural at all. For many it is their view that the Muslim culture is taking over their part of London:, a part which has always BEEN multicultural.

This change in the make-up and indeed political control of Tower Hamlets, is causing serious debate between “Cockneys”, with the older generation speaking out against the changes, and the politically-correct “progressives” accusing everyone who criticizes Muslim political activities as “racists”. (albeit that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology).

The recent actions by Sister Christine, and the subsequent facebook debate/discussion is a prime example of the division we are seeing within the cockney, community.

The good Sister, removed a flag in Poplar High Street, because SHE KNEW it would offend certain people, within the community. (There can be no question of this, or she we have left it flying!)

Moreover – and it goes without debate – this flag was raised by Muslims, and the people who this flag would offend (remember it was Sister Christine who thought the flag was offensive) was the non-Muslims in East London.

Despite what anyone wants to suggest, the “offensive” flag was flown by members of the Muslim community. That is the act which those who are offended, are complaining about…its quite simple!

Now, having been offended, there was some, as we say, “tit-for-tat” exchanges and comments, with old fashioned Cockneys asking, “who the hell do these Muslims think they are?” Indeed, as a nostalgic cockney, that was my own view! – “You are not going to have “a pop” at my people and get away with it”.

Like it or not, Cockneys are not known for backing down when insulted, its just how we are!

However, as expected, the “progressives” in the group, including the person who posted the article, started to tell people to “shut up”, and call those who complained about being offended, and made retaliatory comments, “racists!”. The “progressives” in true socialist fashion, even stated the unnecessary obvious: “you don’t speak for all of us!”, which lets be honest, must equally apply to the views of the progressives themselves.

Worse than that, the poster of the article claimed “it had nothing to do with race or religion”.

Race maybe not, but the article was titled “ (Christian) Nun takes down (Muslim) Jihadists Flag!” You can take away my brackets, but if you do not think “Nun takes down Jihadist Flag” is not about religion, then you are on a different planet.

Sister Christine is undoubtedly a beautiful person, whose strong “Christian” belief, gives her a generous helping of understanding and respect for all people – and their various views.

She as a Christian Sister is amply qualified to lecture us lessor mortals on freedom of thought and freedom of religion. But I do believe, out of respect for her, us lesser mortals should not be telling those we disagree with, to “shut up!”

Sister Christine does good in our East London community, and she reaches out to everyone peacefully and without any attempt to offend.

But THAT flag was flown to offend people.

Indeed, seeing this flag flying in East London, at the exact same time as a group of Muslims flying the exact same flag, were committing genocide against a whole community of Christians, Kurds, as well as murdering other Muslims, could be nothing other than cause grave offense…

Other progressives suggested that the flying of this flag, which Sister Christine knew would cause offense, was the same as flying the “Union Jack” or the “Cross of St George”, because the BNP have used it.

Well, I am against racists and abhor the BNP. And I will accept in our distant history certain attrocities were carried out under the Union Jack, by ignorant or uneducated people… But the BNP, to my knowledge, have never flown our nations flag whilst beheading people, or selling women in Slave-markets. So please do not make comparisons where there are none!

In a similar vein, we as Christians do not go about the world killing people in the name of our God, and then threaten to kill more people, just for criticizing the translated words of their God or their prophet.

Let me reel this in by stating openly, and with a great amount of knowledge, the vast majority of Muslims, like in every race and culture, are good, honest, hard-working people.

This is also the same for the vast majority of “Cockneys”. Indeed, as a proud cockney, I will happily state that we have more of these attributes than most!

But there are two major differences becoming apparent between our cultures:

Firstly, Cockneys normally support and encourage the Freedom of Speech by all individuals, and try to learn from different opinions.

Whereas, Muslims believe the only opinion which counts is that written in the Koran, as translated by Imams. No matter whether the Imam is good, or a hate-preacher, no other view but the imam’s is important.

The other is pretty obvious from the recent exchanges on Face-book…

Muslims will stick together at all costs. (it wasn’t a Muslim who took down the offensive flag). Whereas, progressive “Cockneys” are quite prepared to criticize “their own people”, and happy to divide their own community and culture. If it is deemed “Politically-Correct” they will support another group – no matter how offensive the actions of that “other” group may be.

It is these differences which explains why  “Cockneys” no longer run multicultural, Tower Hamlets. And why one exclusive culture, which represent less than 40% of the borough – have complete control over how it is run!

Oh what a week it’s been!

Whilst the CBI have come out with a recommendation that the UK stays in the EU, its ex-Chairman, the respected Lord Digby-Jones, has called Cameron’s idea of renegotiation “insane”, and has stated clearly that the UK will continue to lose jobs if the UK does not get out of the EU!

A senior UKIP representative has informed people, once again, that if the UK doesn’t stop immigrants coming into the country, it is the working man who will suffer. Normally, the socialist media would come out blazing, with accusations of racism and xenophobia being splattered all over the main stream media, however, the senior member in question was— who is an immigrant himself!

At the EU level, we have numerous issues to report on.

The EU budget has been looked at again, and once again it was not given a clean bill of health. The auditors signed, but not without pointing out that upward of 800 million Euros’ could not be accounted for, and had been lost in fraudulent activities.

This is the 19th year in which the EUs accounting procedures have come into question and it is clear we may never get to find out how much of our money has fraudulently “disappeared”.

UKIP’s attacks on the EU’s “open-border” policy continue relentlessly, with the poor people of Romania being heavily put in the spotlight.

Both the Romanian government and the leader of the Roma people have “demanded” access to all UK benefits and welfare, and claimed “if they do not receive it they will be forced to live on the streets of London and make money illegally!” Politicians are trying to play this problem down, but with the backing of the ECHR, the Roma will win every time.

The argument is really a lost cause, as the Romanian’s and Bulgarian’s will be able to enter the UK, (and other West European countries) from the 1st January 2014.
We are now seeing the other 3-parties coming out and saying “the UK must manage its immigration more responsibly – but we all know this is not possible, whilst the UK remains a member of the EU.

This problem has been further highlighted by predictions published this week, which states the UK population is set to increase by 10-million over the next 25-years: due in the main part to immigration.

So far many have missed today’s ruling by the ECHR which states that “African homosexuals” are persecuted in their own countries, and therefore the EU member states must offer them asylum!

Without attacking African migrants or homosexuals, this judgement is clearly flawed, and will cause massive problems for our border guards.

The EU’S decision makes it lawful for any Homosexuals from Africa and MENA to demand Asylum and European residency. However, there is absolutely no test on earth to prove whether a person is homosexual or not!
This is a massive, massive, mistake by the EU, and potentially opens the doors for 100s of millions of people to enter the country…all they need do is “hold hands” when they cross the border – something which is culturally normal and acceptable for heterosexuals to do in these countries.

But these are not the only problems the ECHR has caused. Earlier in the week, the British government was informed it must allow prisoners: including Murders, rapists and paedophiles the right to vote in elections. Something we have our own laws against!

British Prime Minister, David Cameron stated clearly, in Parliament 2-months ago, this will not happen. But the ECHR has threatened to fine the UK if it does not change the law.

How this resolves itself is yet to be seen, but it is very clear: if the UK doesn’t give its prisoners a vote, they can take the government to European court, and will undoubtedly win and be awarded large damages.

Of all the institutions in Europe, the ECHR is the one which causes the UK the most problems, and everyone, even the Europhiles in Parliament have had enough of this organisation passing judgements against the UK. Indeed, no one would be unhappy if we left the ECHR, but it is written in European laws that without signing up to the ECHR, a country cannot be a member of the EU.

Taking these constant problems into consideration, we have seen other statistics this week, which shows that the UK is one of the most important members of the EU, and clearly suggests that the EU’s arrogant treatment of our country, because we refuse to join the Euro and follow their edicts blindly, will need to be addressed by them.

The UK is the second largest donor to the EU, after Germany, and despite having a smaller population than France. The UK also adheres to European laws and commitments better than any other country.

The UK, albeit through the back-door, also helps finance a large chunk of the problems within the Euro-zone, of which it is not a member, and therefore is not obligated to provide.
Taking this into consideration, the attitude towards the UK from the EU Commission and from with the EU Parliament is very poor.

EU growth has greatly “watered-down” the influence of the UK in Europe, and as votes have been adjusted in the Parliament, we are in a situation where, although the smallest 16-countries in the EU have a combined population which is smaller than the total population of the UK, the combined vote of these countries is actually twice that of the UK…so much for one man, one vote!

Obviously, as a UKIP member and strong opponent of all things to do with the EU, I am happy to have events happen which allow me to criticize this organization, but sadly, many in power and influence in the UK, still support the EU, because of the “bribery” the EU offers to gain their support.
We know most politicians side with the EU, because they hope to get well paid, tax-free jobs if they lose their positions. And it is no secret the British media gets heavily supported by EU funding.

This week we learned of millions of Euros being paid into a BBC Charity by the EU. In all honesty, the socialist BBC doesn’t need much encouragement to support the socialist EU, but the fact the BBC pathetically lied and denied any link between the corporation and its charity, just endorses our knowledge that the EU, now runs editor policy at the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Sadly, the EU is also running the monetary policy of the European Central bank (ECB), who this week, prematurely, decided to lower interest rates from 0.5% to 0.25%.
I say prematurely, because the figures which may justify this decision will not be available until next month’s meeting, and considering there is only 0.25% left, or the potential for only one more cut, you would have thought the ECB would have been a little more prudent. But Draghi needed to step up his rhetoric, or the EU’s rhetoric. For the need of more fiscal consolidation, which is EU code for to create a fiscal union. (F.U.)

The opinion in the “Ivory Halls of Brussels” is that, Europe is significantly “poor enough” to encourage most countries to vote in favour of a Fiscal Union, and they believe once this vote is won, the EU dream will be achieved: it will become a supra-state, and all of its members will be demoted from “countries” to being little more than “provinces”.
Fiscal Union means Taxes will be set by the EU, and each “province” will collect taxes on behalf of the EU, who will then spend it where they deem “fit!” – Probably supporting German industry and French Farmers!

Once again, as it still has its own currency, the UK could stay out of this Union, but it will not be easy.

The biggest problem is going to be the Lisbon Treaty.
As with most EU legislation, few have actually read it, including those who placed their signatures on it!
The Lisbon Treaty comes into full force in March 2017 (which is the reason David Cameron has offered a referendum AFTER this date). However, it commences its restructuring activities in November 2014. Therefore, by the time a referendum is offered, most Euro-zone countries will have already surrendered their sovereignty under the Lisbon Treaty.

The UK will also have to start conceding more of its sovereign powers to the EU from next year. So where we stand and what we can do, by the time 2017 comes is still very much open to the strength of the opposition in the UK: The opposition are not the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat Parties, the opposition are the electorate – those people who, along with their decedents,  have the most to lose!

“British” people –and many other across Europe – are being deterred from seeing the broad picture, because of the heavy focus on the extremely emotive issue of immigration.
It is hard to understand, especially for those who come from an ethnic minority background – that controlled immigration is not a racist or xenophobic issue, and many people who are concerned about immigration are finding it hard to underline the real problem, which is one of economic management: How can a country cope with have a massive overnight increase in its population; i.e. providing housing, schools, medical care to all these “new” people, without it affecting the current population.

I am going to make my views very clear on this.
I find it totally obscene and incredibly unfair, that migrants can walk into a country and claim “benefits” which are intended for British people and have been paid for by British people!
Moreover, it is totally wrong for a “foreign organization” to insist we have to provide these services, or face fines!

Nigel Farage is famous for saying “Just who do these people think they are!” and in concern to who the British allow to use their benefit system; this question is not without merit.

British people have long enjoyed having a “safety-net” which could be made available to those who needed it. And whilst this system is constantly being abused by too many British and foreign people, it is not something any foreign body has a right to legislate for.
We do not have a “Free for anyone to abuse” Health Service, we have a National Health Service: A service we, the people of our nation, support through “our” National Insurance and taxes. Similarly, our unemployment payments are also paid for by us, and intended for us and us alone!

Whilst people can, through coming to the UK and working, obtain access to our system of “safety-nets”. It is completely unfair that people can get on a boat or plane, and immediately demand access to these costly services without having made any contribution whatsoever.

Lets be clear, the EU does not pay for, or control, the provision of welfare across Europe. (Indeed, even our own representatives in the EU do not pay towards maintaining our benefits system).

The fact is, we “penalize” our own people if they are found to be “abusing” our system, because it is considered extremely “wrong and immoral”  to be taking money “unfairly”, from those people who pay into the system!

People must understand, we – through our national insurance – pay for this service. It is our insurance. AND LIKE ANY INSURANCE: YOU HAVE TO PAY THE PREMIUMS, BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM!

The EU is failing our country through its constant interference, it is blatantly penalizing our country for being successful, and it is legislating for millions of Europeans to come to the UK, and making it legal for them to “steal” the wealth we have sacrificed to build and maintain!

I do not want to stop providing these services to people who need them, but we need to realize that “these services cost money and they have to be paid for!”
Moreover, the money which goes into these systems is always going to be limited, so to ensure the service can be maintained, we have no choice but to limit the number of people who have access to it.

Think of it this way: If our National Health Service and our nation’s welfare and benefits system is to be open to everyone, why don’t we just pay for hospitals and benefits to support China and India! Obviously, the answer is we couldn’t afford it!
But is it right not to? Just because of geographic reasons. Why should we allow it for a Romanian or a Croatian, and not an Australian or a Brazilian?

We must prohibit the use of a national services to anyone who is not a national…A British National! and despite what those in the EU think, or want, there is no such thing as an “EU national”!

UKIP and Lord Digby-Jones are 100% correct: the UK cannot afford to stay in the EU, because we cannot afford it!

Whilst socialists in our country continue to “bleat on” about have a European Union for everyone’s benefit, they have yet to come up with a system of how we are going to pay for it – or who is going to pay for it! Their belief in “collectivism” and sharing, may be morally attractive to many, but it is an economic impossibility to create and maintain.

Surrendering further, to the pandering of the EU, is only going to result in the “UK giving away more of our limited wealth”. It will lead to the complete collapse of our NHS and welfare systems, and at the same time, it will cause massive housing shortages and unemployment to rocket.
Indeed, if we stay in the EU, we will go bankrupt, and then it will be impossible to support our own people. (yet alone send any money overseas to people who may really need it!)

The EU has already failed many poorer countries in Europe, and with a further expansion of powers, it will mean those countries “who are still afloat” will be sunk.

By now it must be completely obvious to everyone, that this “political” EU project, is an economic failure.
Not only is the financial cost too high for both northern and southern European countries, the “red-tape” cost to our industries killing our competitiveness and hence jobs, and the constant legislation interfering with our democratic rights are diluting our personal freedoms and liberties, to a degree which has not been seen outside of a communist state.

The “Law of the Land” is no longer valuable!

When over 50% of the people disagree with a law made by government, the term “the law of the land” cannot be applied.
Moreover, when the law involves “stealing” something from individuals in the majority – to give to others – be it wealth, power, or freedom: this is “theft”, and is therefore, illegal and unconstitutional.
Good intent, is arbitrary, and laws can be changed, but freedom of the individual (providing it is exercised within accepted moral boundaries) must always remain paramount!

All government legislation, when it’s passed “solely” on the grounds of a political ideology, and not taking into consideration the interest of the majority, which means most law’s made ignore the individuals human right to pursue happiness and freedom, Well, this is clearly wrong and is, in too many cases, an abuse of power.

When I support the concerns and views of the majority, I am not promoting “the rule of the mob”, but I am condoning the “over-use and abuse of executive power” by our supposed “servants” in government!

Laws are needed to protect us, at the base level, they are – or should be – created to ensure that our human rights and individual freedoms are not stolen.
Therefore, when laws are created which facilitate “theft” from us “as individuals”, these laws – albeit made with “good intent” – cannot be “constitutional” or wholly respected as “the law of the land”, simply because they inevitably infringe on a lot of peoples basic human rights of freedom and liberty.

All people have a right to have food, water, and shelter, but they do NOT have a right to make someone else pay for it!

All people have the right to work, but they do not have the right to FORCE me to employ them. Moreover, they have the right to be paid for their work, but not the right to FORCE me to pay more than I want to pay or for longer than I need them.

For our basic defence and protection, Government have a right to charge me for providing physical security for my family and my nation. However, they do not have a right to charge me to finance their political ideologies and projects, nor to provide support structures to those beyond my nation.

In return, I have no right to live my life based on effort made or wealth owned by others!

of course, I do have the right to be charitable, I do have the right to work with others for “mutual benefit”, and I do have an obligation to act within societies accepted basic moral codes and boundaries.

But these “moral codes” must be based on the non-infringement of the human rights and freedoms of other individuals. i.e. no murder, no physical damage, no theft and no abuse or intimidation.

Governments focus too much on creating laws and guidelines and we have become adjusted to accepting this, but It is not the “law of the land” which creates growth and happiness.

It is the relationships created between people with “shared moral values” which facilitates friendships and encourages commercial activity; with a major emphasis on “shared” rather than government “imposed!”

“Collectivists” who oppose this argument, will immediately use words like “unfair” and “inequality”, which actually have little to do with anything! ( for example, I do not know of a single law against being “unfair”; but there are 100s of laws against theft!)

As I see it, beyond their political claims, “Collectivists” (Socialists or Communists) do not have faith in the “morality of the individual” and whilst they espouse the words freedom and democracy, they do it at the same time as they ask for a government to make more laws, in order to impose their political agendas and to enforce a moral code which suits their vested interests.

The problem with this is that “government imposed” morality, by its very nature, always erodes someone’s personal freedom!

These “Collectivists” will also make the extreme claim that: “if no one paid taxes, many people would suffer and we would have wide-spread anarchy!”.

This argument is flawed, because it ignores the fact that the vast majority of people have –  as is generally accepted – higher moral codes than those with strong political agendas.

We, as individuals, are willing to pay taxes to protect our personal liberties and to finance basic security provision.
We, as individuals, want to live in a decent society, and I firmly believe if we did not have governments stealing vast amounts of our wealth – to waste on political projects – most of us would be supportive of our “less-fortunate” because we have decent moral values.

We all want to live in a “decent” society.

Unlike “Collectivists”, Libertarians trust that the vast majority of people will act as responsible human beings, because it is in their own interests!

And it is right to expect that those with good morals will succeed in life, because they will have better relationships and more relationships, than those people whose moral values are questionable.

Also. those with more freedom will succeed, because they have the freedom to do so, and ultimately, it is individual success which permits individuals to be more supportive of others!

This is not a revolutionary, new, or original, way of thinking.

But as the framework of our societies continues to implode, due to an unsustainable creation of laws, – laws which too often have a heavy bias towards fulfilling a “political agendas”, and not the rights and freedoms of the billions of people who ARE our “society” – it is a good time to reiterate the need for our citizens to responsibly protect their most valuable right, the freedom to exist and flourish, without being dictated to or stolen from!

Throughout history our freedoms have be taken from us quickly and violently, and we all hate the idea of colonisation, wars, and slavery.

However, in the 21st Century, guns and threats of violence have been replaced by tyrannical law-making to which we can offer little resistance.

The reason we do not resist such laws is that a group of party faithful will make each law into an argument between right and left wing politics, and through the propaganda media, we will get sucked into this political debate, instead of questioning the actual need of the law.

This is a well rehearsed sales tactic: i.e. you are being encouraged to make a choice between buying red-paint or blue paint, and with the “help” of the sales man, you are so busy deciding which colour you prefer, you actually forget you do not want ANY paint!

Lets see how honest you can be with yourself?

Are you happier to pay a bit more tax, if the government promised to only spend it only on welfare and housing for “British” passport holders, and not on new immigrants from Europe?

Give yourself a second to think about it and decide.

It doesn’t matter about your answer, whatever it was, you just justified for the government to steal more of your income, and spend how it seems fit!

The really honest answer is probably : I work hard for my money and I want to pay less tax so I can better support my own family.

The fact is politicians never give you a proper choice, so you can never make the right decision. They twist words and pose questions which will get your arguing against each other, instead of turning around to them and saying “stop making laws and start removing the ones we have!”

We do not need more laws, we need more morality. And as Politicians are less moral than most citizens, they are not the one’s too decide.

Quite frankly, government is too big, and it needs to be diluted.

I often tell people who support the monolithic EU,

“God, in his infinite wisdom, only made 10-laws. Yet, in 15-years, the EU has managed to make 134,000! … AND THERE IS MORE CRIME TODAY!”

Those who say “its the Law of the Land” miss the point!

Today we have untold 100s of thousands of laws. Many do more damage than good, and everyone (almost) unfairly takes away your personal rights and freedoms!

it has to stop!

Has Ed Miliband lost the plot? – He is obviously too young to remember the 1970’s!

I think Ed Miliband delivered his speech very well – but that is where the compliments stop!

British people, except for the blind socialist faithful, are not as stupid as the Labour “Spin-Doctors” believe. Whilst his speech may have sounded great when they practiced it in their Labour Party “bubble”, the content and policies are completely insane, unworkable, and beyond  economic reality.

Let’s look at the BIG issue: Freezing energy prices.

This is not only extremely dangerous – as it will have repercussions for the nation’s energy security – it is focused on the wrong people.

Energy companies only control 20% of the price of energy that the consumer pays, the other 80% is made up mostly of taxes. i.e. 12% of your energy bill is a tax to support green energy – those ridiculous windmills which supply less than 1% of your electric.

UKIP has proposed leaving the EU and removing this 12% cost: which is a simple saving for consumers and one which is easy to see and justify. This simple saving would equal 60% of the total amount energy companies’ control.

Ed Miliband must be crazy, if he believes energy companies can afford to cut their income by 60%. Or if he believes they can keep the lights on with such a decline in revenue. Obviously they can’t!

Anyone who lived in the 1970’s and saw what happened during the “Oil Crisis”, knows only too well that the price of energy is not dependent on what happens in the UK. Anyone who doesn’t remember the early 70’s, we did not have electric for a long period of time – and some people died!

You simply cannot promise people something you cannot deliver, and Ed Miliband’s promise is undeliverable!

He went on to promise the building of new towns to help with the housing shortage. “200,000 homes!”

Okay, so we are supposed to forget that it was Labour’s “open-door” policy on immigration which has caused a shortage of houses and the stress on all our social services: including school places and NHS waiting lists. We are asked to ignore the fact that under Labour we built almost zero social housing for 13-years.

But where is he going to build these 200,000 new homes – on Green-belt! And how is the government going to pay for these new towns, as far as I know, we are already heavily in debt!

The fact is Labour have lost the plot, Ed Miliband is not liked, and in their desperation they are making promises which they can’t keep! Luckily, the vast majority of people know this!

Our country’s problems are economic: brought about by 13-years of Labour over-spending and poor policy making. We simply cannot have our country led by Ed Miliband’s Labour Party, and his well-delivered speech clearly indicates why! …On economic matters they don’t have a clue!

I know people will like what he said. Indeed, it would be great if energy prices stopped going up and if everyone could find a nice new house – but we don’t live in a socialist Shangri-la, we live in a socialist created recession!

How many workers will lose their jobs if we freeze energy prices, how much will this increase our benefits bill and reduce tax-income for the treasury (both from loss of workers income tax, and tax on Power companies profits?). Worst still, if the lights do go out, how much income will the country lose when business’s no long function? How many companies will go bankrupt? how many 100s of thousands of jobs will be lost?

I know life isn’t fair, and I can appreciate that when our energy bills go up and we see big profits for private energy companies, people get angry. But we cannot allow our anger prompt us into making absolutely stupid decisions… like voting for this moron!

 

A quick take on this morning’s “State of the (European) Union”, speech

This was Barroso’s last SOTUS (State of the Union Speech) and he was introduced by Martin Shultz – the guy who intends to get his job!

The main thing that stood out was his continued false “optimism”, his continued demand for more EU, and his continued attempts at blaming everyone else for the problems in Europe.

“It is not true that Greece is a victim of European policies. Greece is the victim of the irresponsible behaviour of the governments of Greece” Barroso then added, predictably – “Europe is not the creator of the problems. Europe is the victim of the problems, and it is part of the solution”.

He denied saying last year that the “crisis was over” and this was underlined by Guy Verhofstaft, who said “the crisis wasn’t getting worse, because we have hit rock bottom”…(in the trading environment, when people talk of a bottom, very often others mention that they might find a hole)

Whilst more fiscal union was placed high on the agenda, Barroso also tried to appease those who are asking for a repatriation of powers. But somehow his comment “the EU should be big on big issues and small on small issues” left many people scratching their head as to what he meant.

He did mention work was needed to address the problem of having 25-million people unemployed across Europe “The current level of unemployment is economically unsustainable, politically untenable and socially unacceptable”. He added “Europe needs to avoid a jobless recovery”, (skating over the point that the euro-zone’s relentless austerity programmes are blamed by many for causing the unemployment crisis).

Barroso went on to say that “the people of Europe would vote on the EU’s success in next year’s elections”.

Not only is this completely untrue – as we are not given the option to close this organisation down – But it seemed a bit “rich” that a President who was NOT ELECTED by the European electorate, talks of the importance of getting a mandate from the people.

The response to his speech from many MEPs, especially those from southern Europe, pointed out that his optimism was greatly overdone and that he, and many of his buddies, had no idea of what was happening in the real world.

Cyprus’s MEP, Takis Hadjigeorgiou, also criticises Barroso’s optimism over the European economy. “He can only be so upbeat because he lives in a different Europe than the rest of us…In my country, where the decisions taken by the troika destroyed the economy, the commission is now associated with the economic crisis”.

Laurence Stassen of the Netherlands is blunter, challenging Barroso to take his message that ‘things are getting better’ onto the streets of Europe. “What planet are you on?” she asked.

On more topical issues, he discussed Ukraine’s entry to the EU, which will annoy the Russians, and Europe’s unified view on Syria (which is only unified at the politician level). Moreover, he appeared to slap himself on the back for the EU sending 1.5-billion of European tax-payers money to support Syrian’s, which many poor across Europe may not be too happy about.

Farage had a few words on the eventual collapse of the Euro, but sadly, he wasn’t his normal cut-throat self. He applauds Barroso’s consistent support for federalism — “you probably picked it up as a Maoist” (Barroso was a communist in his youth)…It’s been a good time for some people, Farage says, but it’s been “a disaster” for poor people.

Overall, it was a speech which was thoroughly predictable, which was more noted for the responses it earned, than its contents.

Why Syria must not be attacked by UK forces.

Ever since Tony Blair decided to go into Bosnia, the British government has embarked on numerous wars in foreign lands, and it is impossible to point to any single benefit for the UK.

It is well known that Tony Blair was George W Bush’s “pet poodle”, when it came to foreign invasions, and this ridiculous aim of attacking anywhere in the world in the name of “a war on terrorism” has not gone away.

I am finding it highly suspicious that William Hague, Cameron, Miliband and Blair, continue to promote the need for British military action in a country, which for all intensive purposes, has absolutely nothing to do with the UK…or any other Western country.

Assad is not a saint, and if his people chose to remove him: fair enough! But what has that got to do with the UK? On what legal basis do we have the right to “bomb” a foreign country, even if we do not approve of the actions of its leadership!

We screwed up before, when our politicians told us about a need to strike first, because of “Weapons of mass destruction”, until today, the weapons have never been found!

Now we are using the new excuse of “Chemical Weapons” when we have no absolutely zero proof of who used them.

I know lots of people rightly abhor the idea of any country using chemical weapons on its people, and I am one of them. But this war in Syria has been happening for 2 ½ years: during which time 100,000’s of people have been killed or injured and over a million Syrians have fled to the neighbouring countries. So I don’t really understand this moral argument which implies “it’s okay to kill with bullets and rockets, but not to kill with Chemicals!” – In my book killing is killing!

Syrian politics is not understood by most of us in the west, and the more we hear about what is happening and who is involved, the more evident it is that we do not have enough knowledge to pick sides – therefore it is wrong to do it!

We have to be honest with ourselves, this romantic idea of America and the UK acting as “Global Policemen”, coming over the hill at the last minute wearing white hats, is a bit absurd in the current global environment. And let’s also admit we have not been very successful in the Middle East, as we rarely apply the laws of engagement equally. – (As far as the USA and the UK are concerned, the Saudi’s walk on water!)

I will accept, that whilst the Cold war is over, the new global conflict is increasingly between the western democracies and Political Islam, but “bombing” another Islamic country is not going to do anything to address this problem nor reduce the ever increasing divide.

If we look at the problems in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan or Pakistan, it is evidently obvious that whether the West send money or rockets, we never seem able to solve the problems in these countries, and, as in Afghanistan – where we have had troops for more years than the second and first world wars combined – we never leave any of these countries with any form of good-will for what we have done, or tried to do for the people.

Russia and China have the right idea: Let the people sort it out themselves and in the mean time we will try and bring people to the negotiating table. And I have to agree.

We all know that politicians do their jobs because they like power, and the wimpier our technocratic governments become, the more they like to flex their puny muscles. But flexing for the sake of flexing is crazy, and for a government to do it in such an open way, it must have some moral justification, and broad public support, which this attack on Syria doesn’t.

Europe and America are weak, because of our historic wealth and lowest common-denominator democracy. We have education, and we might like the freedom our societies still provide us, but nonetheless, our affluence has made us weak, in comparison to less prosperous societies.

Moreover, we cannot ignore that less-educated, or should I say differently educated people, do not look at life in the same “Fairy-tale” way as we do. Inequality and living in unfair societies is for them the norm.

In many Islamic countries, beheading and stoning is acceptable;, woman do not have rights, yet alone equal rights; and leaders rule is by the gun and intimidation, not the ballot box.

As a westerner, I do not like this type of society, and am strongly opposed to the imposition of “Sharia Law” in my own country. But, and it is a big but, “people get the government they deserve”, and I am afraid, in many Middle East countries, this also applies and we in the west will have to accept it and accommodate for it.

Military action in Syria will only strengthen the aims of the people which we today call “terrorists”. As soon as the first child or woman is killed by a western bomb, hundreds of young boys and girls will join a radical Muslim organisation and start to hate us, this is a fact!

Why do our governments seem to hate Assad so much?

The guy is obviously a tyrannical leader, but he is in control of a country in which, for years: Muslims, Christian’s and Jews have lived in relative peace. I know we have a deep dislike of those accused of being grotesque tryrants, but it is going to do nothing to further western aims, or make a more harmonious society in Syria, by removing a strong leader, Look at Egypt, Libya etc

Strong leadership is not wrong in itself – even if in Europe we don’t like it – Strong leadership is only wrong if it is bad! And then, it is up to the citizens of that country how they are going to change it! Surely, for those of us who believe in democracy, it is for the people to decide, not “foreigners!” And definitely not one of the worlds old global colonists!

Geographically and culturally, Syria is a Middle East problem, and needs to be solved by the peoples of the Middle East.

It is wrong for certain Middle East powers to bribe western politicians into doing their “dirty work”, and it is wrong for our governments to provide such help for financial promises – which can be the only reason our governments are getting involved, (just forget the spin our media is flooding us with!).

There is no moral reason for us to attack Syria, and as much as I condone the use of Chemical weapons, we should not be leading the charge on Assad, or indeed, as the EU suggests, provide military muscle to the fractured opposition.

It is painful for us to see women and children dying, just like it is painful to watch our loved ones suffering from a deadly disease. But we are not the doctors, we don’t have the cure, and if we continue to meddle in things we don’t understand, the chances are we will only succeed in making things worse.

Indeed, our risk is becoming “contaminated” by this conflict, and bringing it home to our own people.

No need to qualify…But!

Almost 30-years ago, when I was living in Africa, I met a man, who has since remained the person I consider not only my best friend, but also the guy I respect and trust the most.

We come from different cultures and different continents, and we have different political views on quite a few issues. Yet, most of the things I have learned, concerning many difficult to discuss subjects; such as race, religion, and what it is to be patriotic, I leant from my many serious chats, albeit over a few beers, with my friend.Image

Our friendship was forged in the days before “Political Correctness” became an issue, and during our various conversations, we used words that today would be completely “taboo”.

We never intentionally wished to offend each other and had to rely on our own morality, our appreciation of each other’s point of view, and our sense of humour, to overlook transgressions which occasionally occurred in the heat of the debate.

Yes, mistakes were sometimes made, and when I made them, I recall it hurt me realise I had inadvertently offended my friend, possibly more than he was actually offended. However, I also recall, because we are friends who can trusted each other, any transgressions made were quickly overlooked.

My friend, who is vastly more educated than me, has spent the last 25-years, dedicating his life to improving the situation in his country, fighting for justice and democracy, and working against the “crony-capitalism” which once plagued his country – and in this he has been extremely successful.

I, on the other-hand, have returned to greedy European life-style, and although less opinionated than I was in my youth (many of you won’t believe that!) I have chosen to join a “Patriotic” political party, who wants to take my country out of the EU and have chosen to make comment and enter into debates, regularly, in an effort to support of my party’s objectives.

Sadly, less intelligent people, mistake my patriotism for nationalism, i.e. they accuse me of hating foreigners instead of loving my own country – you see the difference?

Worst still, they mistake my lack of “political correctness” and regularly accuse me of being racist or sexist, of which I am neither. But hey, people have the right to say whatever they want! (Unless it is me: according to my critics!)

It is many years since I first sat under a mango tree with my friend and openly debated political issues, and I do miss our once regular “face-to-face” conversations.

Today, we have these wonderful things called internet and social media, on which everyone can voice their opinions – valid or not – to millions of people, and invariably criticise the opinions of others.  – And because of the way this media works, we can do it without any need to consider whether we are causing offence or not. People forget their moral obligation.

I am extremely lucky, because my friend taught me many years ago, that as long as my morality was sound, i.e. I did not intend to do anyone harm, or have preconceived prejudices against anyone, the freedom to speak out, debate and comment, (even if occasionally not completely “politically correct”), should be a freedom everyone can enjoy.

I also learnt from my friend the necessity to protect one’s own culture and country, and indeed, the value of belonging to a tribe and a family – Something which has always stuck with me.

And finally, I learnt that religion was a good thing – no matter what the religion was called – as long as people practiced the religion according to their holy book, and did not “use” their book to cause harm to others.

All these things were valuable lessons learnt from someone who in many ways was different to me, and yet, in so many other ways is very similar. He taught me that it is never about the differences, it is always about having respect and understanding!

Now, why am I writing this today?

ImageSomeone in UKIP has used a term which, before “Political correctness” was in general use. And instead of people debating the issue he was discussing, they focused on his terminology, which many of his opponents have high-lighted and used, to accuse him, and other members of my party of being racist!

To be honest, I don’t know what the guy’s views are on racism, I don’t know him personally, but in my opinion, the term used was extremely mild, if it was racist at all.

What I do know, is it is the kind of term me and my friend might have used in our debates, and definitely a term we would have used when telling each other jokes – and we would have occasionally used terms which are considered today a lot worse.

Out of common decency and respect, we would never use certain derogatory terms, and I shudder today when I hear certain words used.

However, if, as was often the case and still is, he called me a “honky” or something similar, I would consider that a term of endearment, and why shouldn’t I – in the real world this kind of banter goes on between trusted friends and colleagues all the time.

Yesterday, I wrote in defence of the foolishly used “Bongo-Bongo” statement, because certain sectors of the UK press made a big issue out of it. I can appreciate that a politician saying such a thing, is foolish, especially in “politically correct” UK. But the way the press “jumped all over this statement repeating it endlessly on our televisions, making it a massively divisive and racial issue: for me, because of my personal experience, seemed unjustifiably wrong and quite pathetic!

I admit I don’t have much time for this PC stuff, and whether you agree or not, yesterdays media coverage was a clear indication that, when it gets to a stage when “political correctness” – like anything else – is used by fanatics for political gain, and use it to create division, then it is “no longer fit for purpose”.

We can argue about the abstracts of politics, we can argue the facts of economics, but the media have a responsibility not to create further division in our multi-cultural society, especially over a foolish or inappropriate term used in a hour-long statement. This does nobody any favours!

This morning, following my comments, my friend sent me greetings from “Bongo-Bongo Land”, my response was to invite him to visit his favourite “Honky” … I do hope he accepts!

The media would have a field day reading our communications.

TBH I don’t know if he is a little “pissed off” with what I wrote, I do know he thinks the guy at UKIP was foolish, and also as my mate has socialist leanings, he doesn’t like UKIP because of what he reads about the party…

But I do know, that whatever is said, we both know and trust each other’s morality, so if he agrees with me or not, it will not change or affect our affection and respect for each other, and at the end of the day,  isn’t that what it’s all about!

Many of my critic’s would not write such a personal observation or blog, because they are curtailed by a potential lack in their own morality or because they fear that what they say, might be misconstrued and lead to them getting attacked publically.

I have no such fears. I know what I believe in, people may disagree, but I know where I morally stand.

Moreover, unlike many of my critics, I do not attack individuals, but I am willing to address difficult issues, because no subject should be taboo. (Okay, perhaps I do attack a few EU officials, but they are fair game!)

So, providing you are happy with your own moral values, you make an effort to not personally offend anyone, and you are “as honest with yourself as possible”, I see no problem with a person putting their opinion across … and the occasional bit of Political incorrectness, just adds colour to the argument!