Saturday, 12 July 2008

Who is running the asylum?

Not actually an asylum, although you might wonder. At King's College Hospital in London, management have hit upon a money-making wheeze which involves wheel-clamping ambulances and then charging for them to be released.

Yes. Ambulances. Wheel-clamped. Outside a hospital.

Words fail me.

Parliamentary question of the week

Theresa May to Harriet Har-perzun:

Yesterday, the Prime Minister likened himself to Heathcliff. I imagine that most people would be disturbed by this comparison—as indeed it seems was Andrew McCarthy of the Brontë parsonage museum in Yorkshire, who explained that:

“Heathcliff is a man prone to domestic violence, kidnapping, possibly murder and digging up his dead lover. He is moody, and unkind to animals.”

Can the Prime Minister make a statement explaining which of those characteristics is most like him?



Source

Friday, 11 July 2008

And another victory for fairness and common sense

Congratulations to David Davis, who romped home in the Haltemprice & Howden by-election, with a stunning 72% of the vote.

I am a simple soul, and do not claim to understand all of the issues involved, but I do know that I would not want the police to have the freedom to haul me off the street, lock me up for 42 days without charge, without a trial and without me knowing precisely what I was suspected of. I do know that in other countries, such as the US (2 days) and Australia (14 days), the limits are much, much lower. What a shame that Labour did not put up a candidate to debate the issues. Broon does not seem to like elections very much. He became Prime Minister without one; he bottled out of an election last autumn; he denied us the freedom to vote on the Lisbon Treaty; he refuses to acknowledge that the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty is sufficient to kill it stone dead.

Those who cannot imagine doing anything as a matter of principle do not understand Davis. They do not understand why he has thrown away his career in the Shadow Cabinet; why he has gone against the advice of his party leader. However, the freedoms we have in this country were won by men and women who were prepared to do what Davis has done, and put liberty and principle ahead of immediate self-interest.

Thursday, 10 July 2008

Victory for fairness and common sense

I have received today the following email from the Christian Institute.

A Christian registrar from Islington who was bullied and threatened with the sack because of her religious beliefs on same sex unions has succeeded in her claims of unlawful discrimination by the council.

In its unanimous judgment, the employment tribunal found that Miss Lillian Ladele was directly discriminated against by Islington Council after she asked to be allowed not to perform civil partnership registrations.


Congratulations to Lillian Ladele for refusing to deny her faith. Jesus taught that those who are persecuted for his sake will be greatly rewarded: Jesus said, If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it. Matt. 16:24,25.

Palestinian TV

Not for the faint-hearted. In fact, not for any civilised human being at all. This is a link to a video on Youtube which was broadcast on Palestinian television, courtesy of the Hamas terrorists.

It features a song by the daughter of terrorist Reem Riyashi, who abandoned her children when she murdered four innocent people as well as condemning herself to Hell. To paraphrase Robert Burns, "this worthless body damn'd hersel, to save the Lord the trouble".

I think it is beyond the understanding of any civilised person to really comprehend the wickedness involved in brainwashing a young child to rejoice in the death of her mother and four of her fellow human beings, and for this to be broadcast on television to encourage others to die.

Jesus' teaching on this is very clear, and very graphic: It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin (Luke 17:2)

Wednesday, 9 July 2008

And passed by on the other side (Luke 10:32)

Excellent story on the BBC Website about a Methodist minister Derek Rigby who posed as a tramp on the steps of his own church. Not one of his congregation even spoke to him, other than to warn him not to go near their cars.

I wonder how I would have reacted, had our minister done that. I hope that I would have been somewhat kinder and more welcoming. In fact, knowing our congregation, I am certain that he would not have been ignored. You never can tell, though, can you?

Bear in mind that these people were on their way into church. They were not running for a bus; late for an important meeting; laden with shopping, or in any one of thousand other situations which lead to all of us at some point (and I am the first to admit it) making excuses for ourselves.

It is thought-provoking, nonetheless.

There are such things as right and wrong

Mr Cameron's abandonment this week of moral neutrality is to be greatly welcomed. It appears that he has crossed the Rubicon which millions of people in Britain have been begging a senior politician to cross for years.

Of course, atheist Nick Clegg is not happy about it. Nor is the Marxist Daily Mirror. He must be right, then.

If people are unemployed, it is sometimes their own fault. They did not work hard enough at school. They have got into antisocial behaviour which has rendered them unemployable.

If people are too fat it is entirely because they eat too much. There is no 'fat virus' which infects people: if there were, we could inject it into the millions of our fellow citizens on this planet who do not have enough to eat. We could solve the world's food shortages overnight.

If people are single parents, it is bad for their children, all else being equal. I reprint here part of a discussion which I had on another forum. It was originally about the repeal of Section 28, which I unequivocally opposed and still believe to have been wrong, and had led on to family relationships in general:

For [some] children, real family relationships are being the offspring of junkies; rapists; bank robbers; incestuous parents; drunk drivers; Old Firm fans; shoplifters; terrorists; farmyard animal fetishists; fraudsters; drug dealers; socialists; atheists; gangsters; muggers; jaikies; Glaswegians; neds; alcoholics or parking attendants.

Some may have the misfortune to have parents belonging to more than one of the above groups. Each is unfortunate in its own way.

Are you suggesting, [my interlocutor], that we endorse EVERY possible family relationship?

When I was in Primary 1, I did what the infant teacher told everyone in the class to do. I made a Christmas card 'to mum and dad'. There were only two of us in the class who were the offspring of single mothers (changed days, eh?). When I got home, my mum asked me, "Did you forget you don't have a dad?".

It was embarrassing for me. However, I do not for the tiniest fraction of a second believe that the infant teacher was wrong. Having a mum and dad IS the best family relationship. Without question. Part of my socialisation experience at school was to learn that there were BETTER families out there than my own, and that I should aspire to do better. Which I did.

What really annoys me is when white, middle class, happily married Socialist parents (including several members of the present Government) disparage the sort of backgrounds which they and their children have benefited from. Poor people's children are expected to be patronised, being told that their family's background is equal to anyone else's (when it demonstrably isn't), rather then believing that they should aspire to something better. Which is why we are seeing the sort of social breakdown that we are.



Some things are right. Other things are wrong. Some things have to be negotiated. All things should be up for discussion.

Burn the racist!

A stupid statement, I know. However, in my humble opinion, not much more stupid than some comments made by politicians.

A Conservative peer, Lord Dixon-Smith on Monday used the phrase nigger in the woodpile during a debate. Within seconds, one of his Conservative colleagues asked him to reconsider his remarks, and Lord Dixon-Smith immediately apologised. Followed by an apology to Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the House of Lords. As Lord Dixon-Smith said, 'it was common parlance' when he was younger.

Surely that should be the end of the matter? Guy says something wrong; guy withdraws it and apologises.

However, that approach does not satisfy the mean-spiritedness of some politicians. We live in a society which goes bananas when anyone says anything racist. As James McGrath, former adviser to Boris Johnson, can testify, it is not necessary to say anything racist for you to be branded a racist.

In this case, the stupidity is being led by Keith Vaz MP, who has called for Lord Dixon-Smith to lose his job and has said that it shows a lack of understanding and sensitivity to the ethnic community. I beg your pardon? We are all members of ethnic communities, are we not? Surely such an active anti-racist campaigner such as Vaz would not ghettoise black people by implying that they alone are 'ethnics', and therefore different to the rest of us?

Vaz also says that We will judge Mr Cameron on how he responds. Indeed, let us do that. Mr Cameron says the remarks were inappropriate, the apology was appropriate, and life should go on. He has resisted the opportunity to throw yet another good man to the wolves, and I am thankful for that.

Tuesday, 8 July 2008

Buggery in the shrubbery

You couldn't make it up. Or maybe you could, nowadays. Bristol City Council has been accused of discrimination, because they are trying to clear up some overgrown parts of Bristol Downs. They hope that this will encourage more visitors and provide a better environment for wildlife.

However, the local sodomites are not 'gay' about this at all. They have accused the city council of discrimination on the grounds that they use this area for carnal pleasures. They consider their 'needs' [ie to commit illegal acts] to be greater than those of local people who have apparently objected to this criminal activity taking place. What is worse, is that the local authority is now bringing itself into disrepute and wasting taxpayers' money by engaging with these people.

100 years ago, sodomites, the sort of people who are members or supporters of the Terrence Higgins Trust, and the sort of people who would be part of an authority's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender advisory group would have been banged up in prison or a lunatic asylum as morally defective. Have we really advanced since then?

Monday, 7 July 2008

Now, THAT is sleaze!

The day after Broon called for the rest of us to stop wasting food to try and combat global food shortages, I expected him to be tucking into beans on toast and eating every morsel of it. Not like Gordon to expose himself to charges of stinking hypocrisy. After all, it is all our fault that there is a global food shortage, since we all waste £8 a week.

I was therefore delighted to read that the G8 summit on food shortages is costing a mere £283 MILLION to stage. To be fair, the leaders are going easy on their menus, restricting themselves to a modest five courses at lunch and a modest eight courses at dinner.

The menu in full:


Lunch
White asparagus and truffle soup
Kegani crab almond oil foam and green olive tapenade
Supreme of chicken served with stuffed thigh, nuts and orange savoury with beetroot foam
Special cheese selection with half-dried fruits
Peach compote, ice cream and raspberry coulis

Dinner
Corn-stuffed caviar
Smoked salmon and sea urchin "pain surprise" style
Hot onion tart
Winter lily bulb and summer savoury
Folding fan modelled tray decorated with bamboo grasses

including
Kelp-flavoured cold Kyoto beef "shabu-shabu", asparagus dressed with sesame cream
Diced fatty flesh of tuna fish, avocado and jellied soy sauce and Japanese herb "shiso"
Boiled clam, tomato, "shiso" in jellied clear soup of clam
Water shield and pickled conger dressed with vinegar soy sauce
Boiled prawn with jellied tosazu vinegar
Grilled eel rolled around burdock strip

Sweet potato

Fried and seasoned Goby with soy sauce and sugar

Hairy Crab "Kegani" bisque soup

Salt-grilled bighand thornyhead with vinegary water pepper sauce

Milk fed "shiranuka" lamb flavoured with aromatic herbs and mustard

Roasted lamb and cepes and black truffle with emulsion sauce of lamb's stock and pine seed oil

Special cheese selection, lavender honey and caramelised nuts

G8 fantasy dessert

Coffee served with candied fruits and vegetables

Wine list

Le Reve grand cru champagne

Japanese saki

Corton Charlemagne 2005

Chateau Latour burgundy

Ridge California Monte Bello 1997

Tokaji Essencia 1999 from Hungary


Call me an uneducated peasant, but I don't know what half of this stuff is. Is it even food? If someone told me they had a hairy crab or a bighand thornyhead, I would call the police. Are the 13 courses served on separate plates, or just tipped into a trough? Oink, oink!

Call that sleaze? - I don't think so.

Labour MP John Mann is apparently accusing David Cameron of sleaze after adopting policies proposed by a businessman who had given him free flights in his private jet.

The policies adopted have included such sordid ideas as giving extra cash to parents of disabled children. Quite.

Political parties in this country are funded by voluntary donations. Apart from Labour, of course, which is bankrolled by unions appropriating millions upon millions of pounds of their members' money. Understandably, donors seek to influence policy, even the cuddly old unions. If this is done for personal gain at the expense of others, that is immoral. Seeking to benefit parents of disabled children does not register on my scale of wickedness, however.

Personally, I did not even see anything wrong with the Bernie Ecclestone affair. The policy that Labour changed at that point was to the benefit of British motor racing, with the only losers being foreign competitors. And why not? Clearly, donors to political parties should not be allowed to benefit one British company rather than another. However, if it is in the general interest of British industry, or in the general interest of charity, what on earth is wrong with that?

A politician receiving a trip on a private plane to a private home for a private meeting with a private donor does not bother me, frankly. Listening to what private individuals want may be an alien concept to Labour, but it strikes me as being to the benefit of democracy.