Britain and Abroad

Question Time - The BNP appearance

2009-10-23T13:55:00.004+01:00

I had been looking forward to this quite a bit. Finally the televised clash between the parties, ending the foolish and childish period of denial to the BNP to speak on a televised political platform. One may not like their politics, but they are a political party, and surely they must be treated as such. We can't have a set of rules on free speech and then not hold them up across the board.
Unfortunatly the debate wasn't all I had hoped. QT often wavers between fair to farsical, and unfortunatly this one was mostly the latter with not enough of the former.

As soon as the program began it was clear that the audiance had been selected to have a pre-prepared lynch-mob for after the show. The jeering whenever the man began to speak and the loud, highly-charged whooping and cheerign whenever another paneist contested Grifin on any matter were proof that objective decision was out the window. I can imagine someone in charge of audiance selection trying to find as many minorities, ethnic or otherwise, to throw into the aisles.
The only chap in the audiance who was pro-BNP seemed to be a loon, say of that what you will.
Unlike the normal audiance selection for QT, which is almost random, this one was carefully milled over and picked by some desk wallah at aunty. Not very sporting. Not very British.

The fact that only now has the BNP been allowed to appear on QT is evidence in itself that the BNP is just another arm of the lefty establishment and that it's objectivity in broadcasting is kaput. The debate had to happen at some point, it's only a shame it couldn't have been conducted better. There was far too much emotion in the place for sensible discussion and this is where those on both sides make their error. Especially the left. I'm reminded of the recent BNP family picnic which was almost marched on by demonstrators of the left, shouting and waving placards, getting violent and being rather opressive in their protests. That no doubt did them a lot of good in the public eye....

The debate on QT started with some guff about the BNP nicking the image of our dear Winston S. Churchill as part of their campaigns. I don't know about that, looking at the BNP's website, I can't see anything of Winnie. Incidently, the old fellow DID object to mass immigration to Britain, which I believe has something to do with BNP policy.

Then the audiance and the panelists launched in claiming all kinds of squeky clean history.
Winston, you'd think, was the grand-daddy of modern Britain, leading a huge army of fellows of all kinds of race and creed. That's their version. A crusade of free peoples of all colour agaisnt the heinous Third Reich, fighting for a future of lovely integrated-ness.

My understanding of history is painted with less gloss. Winston used the power of the Empire to defend Blighty from a hegemonic state on the continent to ensure the freedom and might of Britain as he knew and loved her; which was very different to how she is now. Strong, affluent and, dare I say it, rather monochrome. I'm sure if we asked him, Winston wouldn't have minded immigrants from all over the Empire, and who in their right mind would? but he certainly didn't expect self-maintaining ghetos, racial violence on the street, or such uncontrolled numbers entering the country, whether they be black, indian or any other. Churchill, poor chap, was bandied about a bit. According to Straw, we only won the World Wars by the huge ammount of Imperial Troops; black and Indian. He should check his history. Dubya-dubya one (As Colonel S.T Sherman called it on MASH) was won by the Royal Navy, not an army, British, African or otherwise. The Second German Shoeing, was won by American industrial might. As much respect as I have for the Imperial troops of all creed who fought in all theaters in those wars, the strategic harbinger of the Kaiser, and later, Hitler's doom, was not their input.

Sayeeda Warsi then said something about the idea of the BNP representing Churchill or the views of the British armed forces is a terrible missunderstanding.I ask, What the deuce has Churchill got to do with the services of today? The man was a politician during a war which ended in 1945. It's not as if he were a recently deceased General. Again she starts talking about all races fighting Fascisim. Well call me an old sceptic but we fought a Germany with hegemoic ambition, regardless of its politics, in the same way we went on to stand off against the Reds for 60 years.

It was who Straw started talking about the Great War. Don't know why. Not much to do with Winnie.

Moving on: a brilliant display of audiance anger from one chap, followed by American-style whooping and cheering from the audiance collective. Well done sheeple.
Mr Griffen was then challenged to deny some things he may or may not have said in the papers. At this point the suggestion that he may have been on trial was becoming rather evident.

Then we get back to Churchill. The lady from the British Museum; Bonnie Greer, says that the old buffer may have had some Mohawk Indian on his mothers sidel; excluding him, if he were here today, of being allowed to join the BNP.
I doubt Churchill would give a damn if he were part Mohawk, probably find it interesting, in fact. Doubt he'd tried to join the BNP either, though in the same breath we cannot compare the modern parties to those of yester-year. The libs and the Tories were different animals then than they are now. Both were certainly more right-wing than they are now, but certinly not so much as the BNP of today either.

This theme dragged on a bit and then turns into a lot of chaff. Mr Griffin then gets put on the spot about language and doctrine put in place within the BNP to win support. Removing certain themes like 'racial purity' and such.

More stuff on the BNPs racist selection and then an interesting statement from an audiance member.
"Im interested to know how you define an ethnic minority? when the human race is largly believed to have started in Africa. So essentially all of us are an ethnic minority"
There's no refuting her facts, though maybe she should find out what the definition of 'Nation' is, if she's going to go logger heads with the British National Party.
The fact that organically, despite some obvious differences, we're all the same, doesn't remove the variations of Culture and society which have sprung up these past few thousands of years.
Lastly; we can't all be an ethnic minority, by her logic there is no seperate ethnic groups to allow majority or minority. Much audiance support. I think they had lots of philisophy students in.
This is followed by some hollocaust-denyal stuff. The man said he now believed it happened, little point on following it up.
Then a huge bear-bating session with the audiance. One wonders what happened to the quiet, sedate, adult way of debate we once had at the BBC. Finally Griffen says he denies denying the holocaust, but worms his way out of it like the snake he undoubtably is.

Islam; finally something worth noting. Griffen is accused of saying it's a wicked and vicious faith. He then backs it up with his quotes from the holy book on how followers of Islam should treat women, infidels etc. and then talks about BNP policy on Islam.
It sounds quite tempting; leave the middle east alone and call for a truce with Islam.
A live and let live polciy which sounds sensible to me. That doesnt mean I'm going to start supporting the man, but I can agree with him that Britian is a historically christian country wth much of its roots of law, culture and so on, therein. Can't argue with historical fact in that regard.
This leads onto more religious debate. Some chap in the audience asks why Griffen is targeting the bad points in Islam, and not doing the same with the bible. Could this be because Griffen is a christian?

The labour immigration policy also came into question, which is a good thing, because immigration has to be talked about and I suppose this is the only good to come of the whole affair; debate on the issue which is where the BNP garner their support. For too long the issue has been the elephant in the room because anyone saying theres a problem would feel like they were about to be lumped together with the BNP in the public eye. About time some of these servile parties were forced to discuss such issues and put their necks out.

More chaff, then the only BNP-seeming chap talks, and he's almost the character with the handkerchief on his head and little moustache from Monty Python's Flying Circus. I suspect he was either a plant or the beeb audiance selection realised his worth and let him through.

Now this is where I wind down this correspondance. I'm taken with Bronchitis as it is and had to watch the show on the Iplayer service.
My conclusions are simple: The BNP are going to gather more opportunities to appear on the public platform now the precedent has been set. This, in my view, is a good thing. We have freedom of speech and freedom of representation. The BNP represent the views of a number of people, and therefore are legitamised by that very fact.
Personally I think that the BNP are a backward bunch, and their attainment of any real power would be a tragedy, however, they do have to be allowed to talk; if only to show them up.

The Special Relationship between Britain and the United States of America

2009-08-26T14:22:00.006+01:00

Tense one this, allways is. There's allways something in the news which makes the journalists wring their hands and cry about it. Then, the comments come rolling in. How I hate the comments. And before you know it, it's just a childish argument built on old enmity, rivalries and recent conflicts.

Quite frankly it's a little silly.

Sir Winston S. Churchill, was a big believer in it some kind of special bond between us and the Yankees. He may well have been right, too. Take a dekko at A.T Mahan's principles of Seapower and you can see much of the strategic simmilarities. We're both states of predominantly Anglo Saxon race, the US legal system inherits much from Britian, as does, surprisingly, Yankee culture.
For 200 years, America was just New England, and it wasn't called that for no reason. Despite the 17-whenever-it-was civil war, it stayed very simmilar. There was no demolishing of everyting and then rebuilding. Business practice, among other things, became only slightly
modified and over the following years evolved not too dissimilarly to that of Britain.

The language link is a bit dicey. I haven't met an American yet I could actually understand.

On the other hand, we're incredibly different as I shall now illustrate:

Britons, by that I don't mean the majority of absent minded sheeple that infest the land itself, they could be anything, but people who are actually aware of their nationality, state and history, are quite unlike Americans.

In terms of sports, we're very different. The brash commercialisation of Yankee sports is an assault on our senses, and what's more, un-sporting. Britons are sporting people, believing in fair play and magnanimity in victory. Take a dekko at that Yankee tennis player and you'll see the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. Ultimately, sport is just games. Some can be important and have traditions and rules which make them lovable, but loosing a match or winning it, is no reason to get all excited and scream a lot.

Next, we're fairly easy going, we're not intense about much at all. Fairly laid back in fact, but look at America; National Anthem in schools and sports stadiums, flags all over the shop, idolising anything in uniforms (Even cooks), fierce defence of anything American (which, being the strongest Culture in the world, isn't likely to come under-threat, now is it?), unswavering loyalty to the constitution etc etc.

Our television, theater, films and comedy are all very, very different, despite how much Yankee tv our media companies import.

Then there's the past rivalries and tensions; the Civil War of 17-whenever, the War of 1812, the Naval stand-offs during the 19th Century, the late arrival in the Second World War, the claims of victories when they turned up late, the Suez Crisis, the Falklands War, the devaluing of the pound, the housing and funding of the IRA, the sabotage of the British Automobile industry, the demand for us to join in in Vietnam. All these get brought out into the day-light when a Brit and a Yank get together. Makes you wonder where all the commonality is supposed to be. I'll tell you; in places no-one thinks about, like legal structures and things which neither populace seem to still possess; like hard work.

There's a simmilar love of freedom though, and the undoubtable fact that, well, we're both often right when we DO work together. But that doesn't mean much most of the time when it's the petty things that display. To hear an American talk about the Second World War is enough to make you wish the Axis powers had been victorious. I'd sooner speak German in the safe knowledge that even a victorious fascist enemy wouldn't be half as cocky, than have to put up with 'America's valient actions' at Gold Beach, Arnhem, Imjin, the Battle of Britian and St Nazier likely to be instilled in future generations. Most people here are too thick to defend their own history, especially against ignorant cousines across the Atlantic, adamant that things didn't happen as the did.

On the idea of the Special Relationship itself; well, I doubt such a thing actually exists. Everything above indicates a potential for such a thing, but since Korea and a brief revival with Bush and Blaire, is there much evidence to suggest that it actually DOES?
Barrack Obama certainly doesn't think so, and neither it seems, do any of his countrymen. Here, most people are in the same mindset; seeing any relationship as purely unilateral American orders and expressing indignant outrage. Well, they're more powerful than we are, so they're allways going to exert more sway, but if that's the case, and we're allways going to get an unfair deal, why go to the table?

It's only hacks that seem to think there is such a thing as a special relationship, and they're not the brightest tools in the lunchbox, never were, so we can't take their word for it.
It'd be nice to imagine we did get special treatment from the Septics, due to old historical alliances and blood ties and cultural simmilarities, but that's not something we can afford to gamble on when the one calling the shots is reluctant to do so. A cursory glance at International Relations theory will tell you what you need to know and that's that states stand alone most of the time and alliances are forged from conveniene, not such romantic concepts. Alone is how we stood in 1940 and alone is how we should learn to stand again. Some may say that the only alternative to chumming it with the Yanks is to look the other way and make bed fellows with Europe. We've got about as much in common with France as we do Liberia, so I don't reckon much to that. EU, US, they're the same. With one we can see a complete assimilation into a limp-wristed esperanto super-state, where anything British is forgotten in favour of whatever disgusting and artificial European culture they choose to thrust on us, and the other option is simmilar, but American, and instead of being assimilated, we're merely eclipsed. I don't like the look of either. The answer; sod them both. If the country can't stand on it's own two feet alone then it's in Queer Street and we'll have to sort it out. Switzerland seems allright, how do they manage? what about the wealth of other states which aren't being absorbed? Why do we have to have on or the other? If we are destined to shrink in importance, then surely we should do it as Britain, still outselves and not as USS Aircraft Carrier Northern Europe, or Eurozone Commisariat 8, whoring the state and the nation out at the expense of culture, history and honour, just for scraps from the table of whichever master our captains in Whitehall think suitable; be it the Franco-German Empire or Washington.

So, for the Special Relationship; It's fair to say it doesn't exist as relationships are a two-way thing and the US doesn't even think it's there, and nether do most us, apart from the Journalists. Despite any possibility for one; built on what I've mentioned above, we probably shouldn't seek one either, as we're only going to get a bad deal. Realpolitik is the order of the day, as long as the US is useful to us we should entertain an alliance. Because I promise you, that's they way they're seeing it.

:Comments: Tell us your vews

2009-08-26T14:02:00.004+01:00

Time was that news corporations dispensed news, carefully sought out by journalists with certain skills in that proffession. Nowadays, any fool with a computer can rank himself as a journalist. Me included. And somehow challenge the opinion of the journalist. Journalists get paid for sifting through the evidence and formulating what is supposed to be a good quality article. You don't.
On forums and blogs, I believe people should be well in their right to exercise freedom of speech. No question. But when it comes to directly challenging journalists, or starting those aweful angry debates you see at the foot of article pages these days, something should be done. It puts me off reading online articles to see about 400 posts worth of uncivilised bile; most of it on that terrible concept 'The Special Relationship'. I accept that the ammount of people who read this blog are incredibly small, and at the end, it doesn't matter one iota, but do these peopel think that their little input on the bottom page of The Times' article on say, the Lokerbi bomber, is going to slap some sense into government.

The Times, Guardian, Telegraph, all of the newspaper websites have comment options on all their stories, what's more, many of the article pages are now 'blogs' for Journalists.
I've read that people actually ADRESS Daniel Hannan on his articles....who are these fools? Hannan doesn't read replies, you cretins, if any one does it will be some secretary or IT Wallah at the Paper's online office hub.

The TV news do this too, and Mitchell and Webb, the Comedy Duo, rightly extracted the urine in a series of observant sketches. The BBC used to ask people to phone in and it would allways be the same thing; 'Mike in Croydon thinks that Tony Blaire/George Bush/Gordon Brown is to blame and that the government should've seen this coming long ago. Why was nothing done?'
I want my news from actual news proffesionals, I don't give a tinkers damn what some grease monkey from Bristol or Lanarkshire shop assistant thinks of the news. If I want to know what amatures think, I'll go on the internet and ask them, why should proffesional news agencies ask the man on the street? chances are the Sun told him what to think anyway. Can't the Beeb find its own news anymore?

Edit: Where do all the Americans come from, too? log onto The Times, or Telegraph or Guardian papers' website and look at the comments section. I guarantee there's a fair amount of yankees telling perhaps both sides of the argument, but in any case, coming into conflict with Brits and and the whole thing soon devolves into a circus with clowns of every nationality; "We saved your ass in two world wars!" "Fuck of yew nob!" etc etc. I don't go on the New York Times' website or the Washington Post and start condescending, and neither should any other Britons, inless they live in the Colonies, and likewise, Americans shouldn't go on the Times' website and start being rude. It's just simple rules to being polite.

Cricket

2009-08-26T12:49:00.002+01:00

"The IPA can only be good for the game, look how much money it brings into cricket, and gets cricket into the minds of the young"

The young on council estates probably. Commercialisation and the IPA can only be the death of cricket. I've had this argument from Smethick to Berrick upon Tweed and my opponent has allways been missing some fundemental points.

We may have just won the urn from the old opponents, but that doesn't mean much for English Cricket. Fact is it's gone to the dogs. Why would a cricketer want to play for his county or country if he can earn three times the wage in India? Instantly the future of an English team is called into question.

Take a dekko at Flintoff or any of the other riff-raff they let into Cricket these days and you could at first glance think you were watching an American game. Baseball caps, chewing gum, shirts with writing on. When did that all come in? I accept they need to raise money and show who they are for identification purposes, but can't it be done more discreetly? it's simply not British. Minh, Grace and Pilcher must be spinning in their graves so much you could hook them up to a Dynamo and power London. I saw the other month that they stopped forcing people to wear ties in the long room at Lords. Cricket's gone to the dogs.

The current attitude seems to be purely mercenary; the money is good. There's more to progress than material wealth. If we get rid of all the traditions, then it wouldn't be cricket, it'd just be another entertainment business, and not the sacred game that unites the Commonwealth and plays such an important part in England's image. Village green cricket remains the last bastion of real cricket, and not the glorified pseudo-business sport that Cricket has become on even country level. It's a crying shame that Cricket will go the way football did.

A handy guide to travelling the world Version One

2009-08-25T18:17:00.003+01:00

A handy guide to travelling the world.

Like many, I'm travelling abroad this summer. I'm not telling where as it may jeopardise my thinly veiled anonymity. There are certain rules one should follow when travelling throughout the Commonwealth, Former Empire, and indeed, Foreign Places.

In the Commonwealth and Former Empire, things are much the same as they are here, except as if seen through a fair ground mirror. Especially is the case in the United States of America, where Rounders is the national sport. Any sensible individual in these places can know what to expect and be treated fairly well. That’s WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) countries for you.

In the New World, tea and cricket can’t be had for love nor money, and in the Antipodes, the smallest specimens of fauna are over 1,000,000 times more deadly than their British counterparts. This is why Antipodeans of the Australian variety keep on the belt of the continent; the interior is fraught with spear-wielding aborigines, poisonous rabbits and Hugh Jackman, the surrounding oceans have monsters in them.
New Zealand is all together more passive, and is similar to a prosperous and picturesque Wales. Fortunatly, the actual number of Welsh is not great in New Zealand, though outposts of Gaelic and Welsh dreariness litter Ocean as they do in the Green and Pleasant Land. Animals are less dangerous there and there are no freakish rats. There are many pretty birds though.

Canada, remarked s0me chap, is closed. The Dominion gained Statehood at some disreputable point of the 20th century. Probably the 60s because that’s when everything else went to the dogs. Despite this, Canada is a very pleasant country. It has many mountains, sweeping vistas and fine modern cities. It is very European; having a Frog influence in the region of Quebec. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are famous for being able to track criminals for miles over tundra and always catch them. Canada is always under threat from invasion by both Russia (Foreign) and the United States of America (Not Foreign). However, as there’s little much going on in Canada, it’s unlikely it will be remembered when it comes to the actual invading.

South Africa used to be a grand place, but these days is bristling with crime and disease. In the 1990s, the terrorist Mandela beat the equally bad Apartheid regime and now they can’t pass muster as a half decent state. Although it has nuclear weapons and plenty of diamonds. Visitors should stay in the respectable and safe areas, which are many; upmarket Johannesburg and one very white street in Pretoria. There’s big game to be had too, such as Lions, elephants and the Cape Buffalo. All of which look handsome on the wall, but tribesmen in green uniforms and warden badges will try to interdict you.

Rhodesia is in Queer Street. Once the breadbasket of the Empire, this happy place was ruined due to violent uprising and is now a laughing stock. It’s people have fled to South Africa, fleeing cholera and the heinous tyrant Mugabe. If he was a serious problem though, we can rest assured someone would’ve settled his hash by now, though. One day, Rhodesia may be restored to splendour, there’s enough innocent blood both black and white in the soil to ensure a good crop.
America has been up and down in favour since stealing independence in the Civil War of 17-whenever-it-was. Americans are fiercely independent and no jokes can be made in their company because they either will be offended, retaliate with malicious remarks, or not understand. The United States is at the fore in matters economic, military and political, which is all right because they’re cousins and what benefits them usually benefits us.
Other potential troubles though, include guns (I’ve touched on this elsewhere) and the fact that you may be considered an obscure novelty by the Colonists. It’s best to adopt an American accent if possible. Otherwise you may at worst be shot and at least be accused of all kinds of offences; such as Communism, Homosexuality, Terrorism and being un-American. Blend in, and you can’t go wrong.

India has soldiers with Bagpipes, Ghurka Regiments, Gin, Steam Trains, and Cricket. In these regards it is more British than Britain. The only drawbacks are Religious terrorism and the Indian Premiere League; which is a crime to both Sport and Cricket. I dare say the cities have gone to pot though.

Foreign Places include Togo Togo, Mexico and France. If it’s in Africa, chances are it’s crawling with disease and corruption. The same can be said of South America and Asia. Unsafe for commercial travel and best take Malaria tablets.

Japan is highly technologically advanced and the populace have a reverence for robots; which can be seen carrying out numerous life-easing chores. With any luck electricity will fail and they will loose their economic prowess. Then they’ll be in Queer Street. Since 1939, they’ve not done much with Blighty’s interests in mind. Kill a lot of Whales.

China is a rising and powerful economy, though the menus aren’t always fit for the squeamish. Good walls. Due to its rising power, I may cover it later in a strategic context. Look at something in your room and it may well be made in China. China, along with many countries in the region, has an emphasis on community, rather than the individual. The Chinese tend to be friendly and hospitable.

Spain, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc etc. Apart from Portugal, highly suspicious. If you’re travelling to Spain be aware that it’s usually the holiday destination of cheap riff-raff in England Football Club shirts, demanding ‘Oi! Senioray! Anuva Beer!’. Why these people are allowed passports is beyond my ken. Spain has poor quality hotels, donkeys, and fascism.
South American countries are of a similar vein except less developed. Watch out for people with AK47s and berets peddling drugs. There are some volatile states, and some not so volatile. At one end there is Chile, which was on our side in the Falklands War, and at the other; Argentina and Venuzuala. Argentina claims the Falklands by proximity, even after the 1982 Shoeing. Venezuela’s almost as bad. In these places, I advise linen suits, mosquito nets and panama hats. Fortunatly most crime and politics is under the control of the CIA, so you’re relatively safe.
France is another kettle of fish entirely. Mostly civilised but they don’t boil water to make tea. Paris is full of layabout artists and Algerian slave traffickers. France is the old enemy so they don’t tolerate us too much.
If you’ve visiting a war memorial or some such thing, in Normandy say, expect to see youths in track-suits lounging about on the monument itself.
Foodwise, the lack of taste in the meat is masked by creamy sauces. French wine and food is over-rated and the welcome anything but warm. There’re some pleasant French folk though, you may find them in the North of the country. Normandy has pleasant countryside.

Belgium is a respectable place though not much happens. Do not let any language similarities let you think they are French. They won’t like that.
Belgians are kind and generous, and therefore cannot be French.

The Netherlands. Like Belgians, Dutch people are often friendly and welcoming. The Netherlands has many things like a Monarchy, Sea Power and legal drugs. Unfortunately neither Belgians or the Dutch play Cricket. Though they are our closest European friends. Special actions need not be taken in these places as they are not dangerous.

Scandanavia and Iceland: Cold, brooding landscapes. Snow. Vikings. Sweden spends more per-centage of its GDP on Military Research and Deffence than any other State. Fjords.

Germany. Like the Americans, don’t crack any jokes and don’t mention Ze Var. Germany has changed a lot since 45 though, and has many smart modern buildings. The east was under communist rule, so don’t be surprised to find socialists. There are many pleasant Germans though, unfortunately they don’t make any Heidelberg schooled, heel clicking Junkers anymore.

Italy has excellent food and good drink, good skiing to be had too. The south is in poverty though, otherwise see Spain.

The Balkans; Cold and violent. I don’t recommend travelling there innless you want your ears cut off and threaded into a necklace. Religious and national tensions make the region volatile. On the other hand, you may be greeted by kindly, fiddle-playing locals in bright national costume.

The Mediterranean: Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Etc: See Spain. Turkey is increasingly un-secular, which makes you wonder what the deuce they’re playing at. Highly suspicious. In these places, as with Africa, carry a lot of shrapnel change about to fling at the crowds of vendors which will try to get you to buy their useless tat. The Islands can be very pleasant with fine hotels and bars, and good beaches and enjoyment to be had on the waves etc.

Russia, Ukraine, Poland & etc can be pleasant, with friendly natives, growing more cold and unwelcoming as you head east. The Poles have a lively culture and the Ukrainians are telling Putin where to get off, so they can’t be bad. Unfortunately the strategic situation means wars could flare up. Don’t expect any good food in the Ukraine though. Russia has a lovely subway station in Moscow which is done out like a palace. Very impressive.

Right, that about rounds up some basic details on much of the world. Wherever you travel though, remember my golden rules of travelling:

1: Tolerance should be exercised. If you find yourself in some bizarre tribal ritual or strange local custom; smile and nod. Chances are it isn’t dangerous. If however you feel threatened, best thing is to run to the nearest British embassy or Consulate.

2: Respect the local folk. You’re the visitor, and you’re their guest. On your travels you’re representing the whole country, so behave yourself. Their laws may seem silly, but that is how they have decided to govern themselves, and you have to go along with them too.

3: You’re protected as a subject of the Kingdom, no matter where you travel; check the front of your passport for the details. Time was, if you were hampered by upstart foreign gendarmes, a gunboat would be sent to perform figure of eight manoeuvres nearby until they bucked their ideas up a bit and you could go about your business.

4: Dress suitably, if you’re female you may find yourself in breach of customs and even laws if you’re in the Arab world and not covered up. Of a similar vein; dress according to climate so you don’t get ill or something. Clothes with writing on them which may offend, or pictures, are both sartorially silly and could well get you before the beak.

Explaining some descrepencies and contradictions

2009-08-16T16:53:00.003+01:00

In posts, I generaly have a point, or at least like to think I do, but sometimes the discussion is just a light look at the arguments without a conclusion. In the case of my post on guns, note that I begin with an argument against private gun ownership, and yet end with a very basic system which may work in here in Britain, and probably only here. To explain the apparant indecisiveness further, I tell the tale of one essay I submitted at university. I devoted the whole first part to a support of the liberal view on a particular matter, apparantly showing my support, and then in the next part, showed my true colours by a systematically defeating the previous arguments I had made. I find it effective in light discussions like these, and can help set out both sides, though remmber that as I attempt to take a distant, wry look at both sides of an argument, I may not make any conclusions at all apart from those which seem most apparant whilst leaving my own view on the matter close to my chest. Though I'll probably throw a private word in at some point. This should explain the seemingly hap-hazard manner of some of the posts, which I am sure will neaten up as I progress this project.

The BNP

2009-08-15T20:17:00.003+01:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6035343/Protesters-arrested-at-BNP-rally.html

First thing's first. The British National Party aren't a 'Nazi Party' as that placard claims. Looks like the same livery as a selection of leaflets I've seen published by the rabidly left wing organisation Searchlight. Why aren't they Nazis? for one, they're not German . Nazi is a contraction of the N.S.D.A.P; the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Anyone confusing these has a bit to learn about both politics and history.

The BNP is however, a fair bit fascistic and not the kind of Bandobast I'd have much to do with; for one thing its economic policies aren't up to muster.
Never the less, how would such a party act in place? Chances are it wouldn't get in on a majority and only in crisis. As governments are allways building on what the last one did and its often too late to change previous policies, they'd be stuck to change that much in their first four-year tenure. After that, it's likely they would have proved themselves unpopular and thus loose the next election.

In regard to their little picnic, it would seem they weren't doing anything wrong and so the lefty protestors look to be in the wrong. They even engaged in minor scuffles with the police. This obviously does a lot to strengthen their argument as the right, lawful element of the conflict, and reinforce the BNP as the heinous and diabolical party they portray it. He said with mirth.
Scruffy students waving placards and throwing things doesn't do much for the anti-BNP lobby's image, now does it?

Flags

2009-08-15T16:29:00.003+01:00

There's a lot of flags to be seen in the world these days, mostly American.
Patriotism serves a purpose; it strengthens the people together for the betterment and safeguarding of the state and thus; themselves. Can't argue with such basic logic really. We could learn a lot from the Yankees in this matter, yet the matter is of course, more complicated than that:

America's a very proud state (not sure if it counts as a nation) and has much to be proud about; what with maintaining a hegemon and cultural empire spanning the whole globe and unprecedented military power. Yet even in the days of the Empire, we weren't quite so bombastic. These days you can't get so much as a Union Flag up at the Connie Club without the local guardianistas complainin' and deridin'. Then again, the people haven't got the gumption any more, they're morose and weak willed; not the type to go out and conquer places and teach the abborigines christianity and cricket. They've not a lot to be proud about; country's in queer street, as is the character of the nation. So it's understandible why there 'aint much patriotic feeling to be had.

Never the less, the Prime Minister and other Government Wallahs seem to push their new brand of patriotism at the people. This combined with this strange soccer football-connected nonsense addles the brain of everyman. Perhaps because of the nature of football related patriotism; being violent and thick as it is, the 'inglish' can't grasp the differences and the other British people like the Scots, Irish and Welsh get understandibly frustrated. I know I do.

British patriotism, when we had Aden and battleships and other goodies, was fairly innocent and pleasant compared to the Yankee Patriotism today which is wheeled out on every ocasion.
You'd never catch anyone acusing someone else of doing something 'un-British' , no matter how eccentric their behavior. Foreigners were tolerated, and if they were quality, greeted as curious but welcome guests. Acts of patriotism were treated as everyday and smirks were nowhere to be seen, but then again, they weren't intense acts. No saluting or reading of any aged documents or things of that nature; just waving the flag when the Queen or King's train passed by.

Bandooks - That's guns to you

2009-08-15T15:57:00.004+01:00

We had rifles and pistols freely available here till some level-headed fellow realised that if you can pop into a shop and buy such a thing, then it makes it a lot easier to contemplate murder.
It'd be nice to have a G36 Assault Rifle to slot any misguided chavs attempting to infiltrate the homestead, but if we allowed guns for deffence, as the Yankees do, then we'd have to limit who could have them.
This was all brought to my attention by some recent hubbub in the colonies wherein a former mayor of New York is doing some tour or other and he's a stallwart enemy (Or so it seems) of the National Rifle Association; the vanguard of the American people when it comes to the contested issue of gun ownership.
Following up my interest I strayed onto one of those comment sections that the papers have on their websites these days which allow anyone with a computer to think they're in the seem league as a journalist. (I fully accept the irony of this last statement! and make ye no apologies)
Anyway, I digress. On this comment thread there were all sorts of arguments going both ways.

Seems that its something to do with the US Constitution's second article (This is a document I have little interest in, so forgive any errors about the format) which details that the citizenry are entitled to stock up on firepower to defend home and hearth.
By some of the arguments presented I also understand that by being armed, the Yankee populace can keep check on their government. (All the more reason we should arm up here! you may think) But I fail to see what a rabble of untrained folk playing at Militia, are going to do against the most powerful government and army in the world, should that land ever become the kind of police state it would have to be before popular uprising. Sports guns wouldn't do much against Abrams tanks or Bradly APCs let alone the well-trained soldiers within.

Now say you're a young chap (or indeed lady) and you get into a confrontation with some other individual. You're probably drunk as young folk often are, of a good evenin' out on the town. Enraged you go back to your abode and adeck yourself with fully automatic weaponry, then pursue your quarry, finding him/her and then a desperate shootout ensues in which people are highly likely to be killed. If they didnt have guns, they'd just kick the excrement out of each other, with much less chance of death I wager though. So it's a puzzler, this gun ownin' lark.

Is it all a bit outdated? The idea of defending your little log cabin from 'injuns an' guvnment men' sounds a bit too Hollywood for practical application in a modern state. (especially the most powerful and wealthiest)
Also, the duece is to be done about the mentalists? you know the types I mean. The kind of weirdos that used to put mice in microwaves. Taking a cursory look at the US school shootings, which seem to be in alarmingly large number, the culprits seem to be amongst this group. The answer seems to be a development of the current British System:

Allow Sporting Guns, but widen this to include proper pistols and hunting rifles.
Make firearms only available with a liscence, handed out by the constabluary and a local Beak.
The idea that any sociopath can waltz into a Target or Wallmart (US chain stores) and purchase an automatic pistol, seems a bit ludicrous, so guns would have to be only available at the premises of gunmakers and shops such as Holland or Berretta.

Next question is; arm the police? Can't expect the Peelers to confront people who DO decide to use their guns illegally, with nothing but a baton and a stack of paper work. The idea of armed bobbies doesn't seem right to me. There's something suspiciously continental and fascistic about having a civilian police force (Which is what the police are and should allways be) trained in tactical combat beffiting a soldier and having firepower. We don't hold with Gendarmes in this sceptered isle, and rightly so; sign of the Westminster Johnnies getting too big for their boots.

The Healthcare debate

2009-08-15T15:20:00.004+01:00

The President of the United States of America, Mr Barrack Obama is trying to push through his healthcare plan for the masses. As this threatens the financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies, among others, it's got Yankee politicos and 'Joe Six Packs' (whatever they are) riled and in heated debate. This debate spilled over the Atlantic the other day, Danny Hannan (A British Conservative member of the European Parlminent) said that our health system - The NHS- was a terrible thing to burden a people with and gave the Republican opponents of the American scheme plenty of ammo. The Prime Minister and even the leader of the Opposition (Hannan's boss) stepped up to the parapit to defend the NHS from the derision and scorn of the Yankee Republicans who are using it quite effectively as a model (Along with others) of failing 'socialist' healthcare schemes.

In the US, 'night clinics' are ran for the thousands of poor folk who cannot afford the insurance they need for normal medical treatment and many die as a result. The scenes of the cues outside these places is reminiscent of South African clinics, in more ways that one too, becasue it's the unfortunate black folk who often can't afford health insurance. You're free allright, free to die in the gutter, it would seem the case may be.

The debate is increasingly a farse, reminiscent of the elections in which Obama was acused of being all sorts of things from Islamic terrorist to socialist corruptor. I don't like him either but I don't think he's comparable to Hitler, as the neocon posters seem to have him down as. What the NSDAP has to do with providing free health insurance, I don't know. There was even a scandal surrounding some unwitting Britsh women who assisted in a 'documentary' against the scheme.
The detractors say it will create some kind of 'death list' or some such, in which 'brilliant minds like Stephen Hawkings will be considered useless.' Stephen Hawkings is British, ain't he? He did plenty well out of the NHS when he lived here, and I've never heard of any kind of Nazi euthanasia system even contemplated in The House.

The website 'Twitter' has been host to thousands of absent-minded members of the populi, saying 'we love the NHS' (Via 'tweets' ....sorry, haven't the foggiest what they are) when in fact they spend most of the year berating it as a disease factory. But then again, they get their views from The Sun.
It seems that we're allowed to point out the flaws in this government ran behemoth of beaurocracy but woe betide any Colonial who does. Makes sense though, they forefitted the right to critise Blighty's internal doings when they left the Club. The long shot of it is; We shouldn't tell them how to run their health schemes and they shouldn't tell us how to run ours.

I pay for my healthcare if I find the NHS lacking, as is my right and privelage, but I'm glad I don't have to shell out hundreds for the yearly MOT, either.

Times Spelling Bee

2009-08-15T14:48:00.004+01:00

The Times Newspaper recently held its 'Spelling Bee' for some children.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/spelling_bee/article6566130.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=4270385

These infuriatingly snotty children are undoubtably good at spelling, but in ten years I wager many of them will be snorting crack through rolled up 50s off of toilet seats in SW nightclubs.
The very fast spelling youth will probably be first to go mad with fame. Spoilt little rotters, his type. Note the hooting and cheering of the audiance. One would have thought The Times wouldn't let in the coarser sort.

These sorts of competitions are very popular in the United States of America, where children with blond hair and freckles sell lemonade and home-baked comestibles outside smart suburban houses that all look alike. (They get 'em hooked on the dollar early there) Not sure if it will catch on to the same fame here though, yet I expect the Hampton school mamas will look forward to it as another competition to pit young Julian and Rosalind against the neighbour's spawn.