Fear God and Dreadnought

So advanced was the 6th Dreadnought that her name became the generic term for the modern battleship. Exactly 100 years after her launch, the retirement of the Royal Navy sea harriers has left Britain lacking the maritime ability to act independently without coalition assistance - for the first time since the 16th century.

A once unrivalled institution; intrinsically intertwined with the nation's fortunes and subconsciosuly embedded in the Brtish soul, it is now emaciated, another victim of social democracy and the drive for abstract human rights.

The Modern Face of Britain

Six jailed for life for the murder of Mary Ann












I am clinically fed-up. Instead of a custodial sentence they should all have had to endure the stocks for the rest of their lives.

Is Foreign Aid Really the Solution to Africa's Terminal Indigence?

Brown vows £8.5bn in crusade to educate world's poor

The Telegraph - fairly recently- succinctly expressed the idiocy of Gordon Brown's prodigious efforts to educate (indoctrinate) the world's poor in three concise points:

1) It will encourage the fallacious belief that a good education is chiefly a question of state spending.

2) The subsidies will confirm the view of many Africans that they should look to the outside world, rather than to themselves, for better government.

3) As well as infantilising Africans, they infantalise British taxpayers.

Gordon Brown is by no means an evil man. However, when you have someone who eminently believes that the nation's wealth belongs to the state; who has undoubted immense altruistic instincts, you know the taxpayer is in for a fun time.

Should taxpayers' money be used to alleviate the world's alleged education deficit? I don't think so. What annoyed me even more though was the impassive exhibition Gordon Brown produced when he announced that £8 thousand millions (£ 8 billions if you come from North America) was to be parceled out to the deserving poor. We know why he was so casual about it; they'll always be more.

I perhaps wouldn't mind so much if the money was spent wisely. But, like most government initiatives, it just isn't. If only politicians would address the real causes of the problem rather than the resultant symptoms. Instead I have to put up with a priapic Gordon Brown displaying his philanthropic credentials across Africa - something a genuine philanthropist wouldn't be caught dead doing.

As the Daily Telegraph leader states:

The beauty of Africa, for a British politician, is that it is about mood, not results. Mr Brown will be able to pose for photographs with laughing children. Everyone will feel slightly better at the sight. He will have demonstrated his benign motives, and will then be able to move on, happy in the knowledge that no one will ever hold him to account.

There is a simple reason why the global community continually fails Africa: all solutions have been expressed through state intervention or the redistribution of private wealth. Any charity, public or private, can make anyone richer - for a temporary time. However, hand-outs won't eliminate poverty, they will actually mask the causes of it; more importantly they will help to entrench the habits that perpetuate poverty.

Poverty may be used to justify these international programmes, but the aid is almost always given in the form of government-to-government transfers. This very inherent bias towards state control and the politicisation of the actual process stifles, rather than encourages reform and anabiosis. Foreign aid then inevitably augments and encourages the resources of government compared to the private sector. Once the aid is then in the hands of a nepotistic bureaucracy the state uses the aid for purposes conducive to the ruling regime’s own desires. One only has to look at the examples of Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Even when aid does finally does reach the consumer it has the same debilitating effect as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It is typically forgotten that most of the recipient countries have local industries and farms. How are they expected to survive the influx of free goods? It is no different to the dumping of subsidised European produce in African markets. In practice, the developed world's short-term solutions eventually manifest themselves in the the protracted difficulties of the future. Aid acutely destroys the possibility for sustained economic growth by driving local producers, especially farmers, out of business.

This is why taxapayers' should not support Gordon Brown's massive redistribution policies. For a start, it is their money, and by association they will be giving open-ended support to the pathologically corrupt regimes which propagate the poverty.

Capitalism and globalistion are then not responsible - despite the BBC's insistence - for the existing inequalities in the world. They have in fact done more to increase wealth and lower prices then any other mechanism in history. Lasting and protracted poverty has it roots firmly entrenched in an abyss of cultural and political corruption. For instance, if capitalism is so destructive and encourages inequality, why do foreign companies based in Africa provide the best education and healthcare services for their employers? It doesn't help that the United Nations fails to even recognise private schools in their calculations for how many children fail to receive any formal primary education.

Central to the question of foreign aid is the belief that formal education and health services can only be provided by state funding. It is simply a fallacy. What existed before the inception of the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom? Ask anyone now and they believe - it is subliminally taught at state schools - that there wasn't any discernable health care system in operation. Where do they think the infrastructure came from? If one did exist they are probably told it involved the poisoning of working class children. Either that, or they were complict in some naughty eugenics programme in Scandinavia.

Africa's problems stem from irrationalism and collectivism - all throw-backs to the aftermath of colonial rule. Some of this blame can be apportioned on the developed world. That blame is not exploitation or the systematic rape of a continent though. I'm not sure how you can even rape a country of its resources when it doesn't have the capacity to utilise them. Without Western technology I doubt even the Middle East could extract its oil. The developed world's real crime is to have burdened African nations with a failed socialist ideology. A combination of misgovernment, the heaviest regulated markets in the world and endemic corruption that would shame an Italian politician (or is it Brtish now?) has transformed these countries from moderately prosperous enclaves into the apotheosis of the most miserable and pathetic place imaginable. The continent itself is still rich in resources, but the incentive to produce has been destroyed by government policy; the real cause of Africa's enervation.

Why are these acts of recidivism being allowed to continue and in such a profligate demeanour?

The blame can be wholly attributed to the lack of moral fortitude exhibited by the liberal-right. The Left didn't even have to resort to irredentist behaviour to plant the Red Flag. This is because ever since the 60s the Right has actively vacated issues on foreign aid and development. This has then left the authoritarian-left with a completely unchallenged monopoly on how Africa's plight is addressed. A moral case must then be made: that the Left must no longer command a cartel on third-world issues.

A start can be made by acknowledging that the world's impoverished nations are poor for a reason: they have nothing to do with free and liberal markets. Africa's autocratic leaders are corrupt, intrusive, and actively restrict political and economic freedom. The real inequality then is that the political culture of Africa is illiberal, whilst most of the developed world has a semblance of freedom to acquire and posses wealth. The question that needs to be asked is: not what makes someone poor, but what makes them wealthy?

It is for this reason that British taxpayers' do not owe the third world an apology for their relative wealth. Their wealth has been earned through their own enterprise and productivity; they are not parasites who prey on the poor around the globe by stealing their natural resources. Consequently, they are not responsible for the tragic problems that afflict that 'vast, beautiful [and] pitiful continent.' The poverty that exists in Africa is a terrible shame, but that shame should not be thrown on to the British taxpayer through the Chancellor's guilt-ridden self-loathing. Africa's decline can only be reversed through the active support of democratic institutions, responsible private charity and unflinching support for the individual. Only then can a renascent Africa emerge after almost 40 years of decline.

Africa's problems are self-inflicted. Only when we acknowledge that fact and treat these nations on the same moral basis as all other governments will reform and development finally be possible. Bob Geldoff can then at last retire from public life, or campaign in support of male victims of domestic abuse, and Bono can go back to writing his music. Actually, on second thoughts, please continue showering Africa with foreign aid.

Labour isn't Funny Anymore

Charles Clarke insists 'I will not quit'

More than 1,000 convicted foreign criminals, including killers, rapists and child abusers, have been freed from prison without being considered for deportation and hundreds are missing, Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, admitted yesterday.

There was once a noble time when an extra-marital affair would have led to a resignation. When exactly is your impropriety beyond doubt in this government?

Grievance Mongers

Bristol shuns slave trade name

Once again, another vocal minority group is caught lasciviously seeking any perceived offence and then wallowing in present-day victimhood. I am offended that they are offended.

Dave the Chameleon

Available in any colour

Easier to HIRE - and FIRE

The amphigoric Mr. Derek Simpson, leader of the union Amicus, read out a statement headed: "Ten reasons why it is harder to sack a French worker than a British one." Almost every one of those 10 was true.

Had his political perspective been different, however, Mr Simpson could have listed his 10 points, with equal truth, under the conspectus: "Ten reasons why multinational companies would rather employ workers in Britain than in France."

The Bewildered Herd...

AdBusters

A "Seriously Crime-Infected and Disintegrating Society"

An interesting article from The American Spectator on Britain's pathetic approach to criminal activity.

L'Oreal Plays the Anglo-Saxon Game. Why Won't You?

Chirac abandons youth job law after weeks of rioting

Can anyone explain why French students were protesting over something that has no discernable effect on them in any way? I mean...it's not as if they hold any jobs that they can be dismissed from.

The empirical evidence is there as well. I'm not usually one to shout about the state of the UK economy, but it seems that it is eminently possible to adduce the respective condition of the French and British economies by the fact that 300,000 French citizens are desperately seeking employment in Britain, whilst 3 British subjects try their luck amongst the burnt-out car ridden banlieues.

L'Oreal, Total, and the 300,000 all seem to have grasped that globalisation will not wait for a society frightened of losing a sheltered dirigiste arrangement it can no longer afford. Not for the first time though, French politicians, at the first sign of mob rule have displayed their lack of personal political volition and comprehensively failed to persuade a society of that truth. Will the 5th Republic go the same way as its predecessors? I suspect so. History suggests the French establishment never acts until it is too late.

Playground Politics

CPS "is crazy" to take play-time insults to court

It is about time that a judge suggested that both the "Criminal Protection Service" (CPS) and the police acted responsibly and stopped pursuing perceived, rather than actual crimes.

As Judge Finestein was able to point out:

"This is how stupid the system is getting. There are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute. If you get your car stolen it doesn't matter, but you get two kids falling out because of racist comments - this is nonsense."

Simon Heffer managed to go even further by suggesting what should in future be official government policy:

"Since neither the CPS nor the police have anything better to do, perhaps I could suggest an extension of this policy, starting with abandoning the minimum age of criminality. It is obvious that all primary schools and, indeed, nurseries should be regularly inspected for signs of racist tots, with exemplary prosecutions where necessary. And don't forget maternity wards - you can't catch them too young, and heaven knows what harm is being done to our nation by bigoted babies."

The whole process is absolute nonsense - I still have no idea how it even got to the stage of being adjourned for reconsideration. Aside from that, what happens to be just as disturbing, is the childish behaviour displayed by the teaching unions in verbally assaulting the presiding judge. All that Judge Finestein had suggested, and at his perspicuous best, was that "in the old days the headmaster would have given them a good clouting." Personally, I would rather the teaching unions worry about the disgraceful education system that they currently preside over and are complicit in encouraging. I suppose there is something to be said that they are at least considering the children over themselves for a change - which isn't something that can be said about the police in this incident.

Firstly, in relation to the police and their neuralgic reaction, we need to understand they have over the passage of time developed an inverted belief of their role in society. This stems from the underlying problem that the higher echelons of the service have a desire to be politicians rather than policemen. Sir Iain Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolis, is the case exemplar. Oxford educated, which doesn't necessarily mean anything these days apart from a competence to regurgitate facts, he is the self-professed intellectual at the vanguard of attempts to transform the relationship between the service and the citizen.

His recent Dimbleby lecture, in which he asked for a debate on the seemingly reciprocal question "what sort of police force do we want?" is a case in point. He meant it as a serious question though. For the police service no longer believes its role is, or should be, confined to the enforcement of law and the maintenance of order. They believe they should, in tandem with the government, create an all-powerful duumvirate to promote and enforce the prevailing social values and attitudes of the present government.

Despite the police service's profound assumptions, just because you happen to be ordained with a 2:1 in sociology - or in Sir Ian's case a 2:2 in English - it doesn't mean your legitimate remit extends beyond your job title. They simply fail to realise that their job is not to interpret the law, or even to debate the law, but to implement it. Quite simply, if they want to enter politics, they can either stand for election at a general election; or, as the Tories have suggested, support the implementation of accountability in the form of elected chief constables and commissioners in the localities. If they then want to spend their time chasing fox-hunters across Gloucestershire, instead of pursuing some bad prat who has just kicked your grandmother's teeth in for her pension, they can put their record to the voter. However, I am quite sure that if this was the case, Richard Brunstorm, Chief Constable and Mad Mullah of the North Wales Traffic Taliban, wouldn't be quite so rigorous in his persecution of motorists - actually he is that arrogant. I do suspect though that accountability isn't something that would sit comfortably with some elected officials, especially if it involved surveillance, a tube station and an electrician.

Central to the vexatious nature of this case is the sense that justice is not being seen to be done in everyday existence. This particular case isn't really about race or the legal age of criminality; it is about proportion and context. There is a deep-seated belief that real crimes are not being prevented or even being given serious thought, that when attempts are make by private individuals to enforce the law, that attempt is punished more severely than the original offence. There is a real perception, whatever the truth, that the judicial system is weighted in favour of the criminal. The irascible nature of it all is further eroused by the police's puritanical pursuit of individuals or groups who happen to hold egregious tendencies not entirely in keeping with government orthodoxy. The police service is then perceived as representing the government's provisional wing, exculpating itself of its foundational responsibilities to the citizen and consciously implementing an authoritarian doctrine.

Why is there then this perception that the police seemingly and assiduously assail softer-targets? I can only think that it is less time-consuming and simpler to prosecute generally law-abiding members of society than it is hardened criminals. For a start, soft-targets like motorists who speed 5mph over the national speed limit; and pensioners who refuse to pay their council tax, are significantly easier to find than the hardened drug dealer on a crime-ridden estate. Also, not only do the law-abiding not take to kindly to the stigma of having a jail sentence, but more importantly, they provide a steady source of income to pay for the cultural awareness and diversity training programmes that officers are religiously coerced to undertake. The natural result is that when officers are investigating a Muslim residence suspected of a misdemeanor, enquiries are first made as to whether the female occupants are suitably covered up and that dogs are strictly prohibited from entering the house - only then can they smash the front-door of its hinges. Oh well, the offending article may well have have been absconded, but at least we didn't cause any hypothetical offence.

This is the problem with the police service. It fails to understand that the prevention of crime is its primary goal, and if that isn't being fulfilled, well, equality targets and cultural sensibilities will have to take a back-seat. The police service isn't some great social experiment.

The Greater Manchester Police statement over the issue of the charging of the 10-year-old boy clarifies fully this cultural fetish that predominates. The official spokesman went on to say that the force took all reports of crime seriously, but went to great lengths to state that the force vehemently opposed any racism in whatever form. Who was suggesting otherwise? I would agree with the officer's summation - to an extent, for this is a 10-year-old boy. The only conclusion you can make is that the police has been emotionally traumatised by accusations of "institutionalised" and "unwitting" racism and, as a consequence, that the police seem to be addressing certain crimes more zealously than others.

As Minette Marrin of the Sunday Times articulated:

"Racism is, of course, a real evil but the current guilt-ridden obsession with it, so clearly expressed in this case, only serves to inflame it and actually to further the cause of racist politics - the reverse of what the politically correct protagonists intended. "

Aside from the alleged criminal nature of this particular court case, and the subsequent actions taken by the respective authorities, this case happens to represent the entrenched symptoms of a greater problem: the lack of moral authority in our state schools to punish and reprimand children. Unable to deal sufficiently with the 10 year-old-boy, the school in question felt it had no alternative recourse but to pass on the complaint to the police, who I am sure with great pleasure presented it to the CPS. If the teaching profession still had the ability to apply discipline, and subsequently derive respect, this internecine court case would never have got this far. Finally, the ultimate losers in this ridiculous case are the police service, who can ill-afford to continue to terminally lose the support and trust of the citizen.

Tonight Singing Live Neil Ruddock is...in Need of a Stiff Talking to

I’m 25, it’s a weekend night and I’ve stayed in. After the initial bout of depression, lasting all of 20 minutes, the thought of a Saturday night in alone swiftly becomes a rather pleasant one. With the sky beginning to bruise and with the house to myself, there was only ever one thing I was going to do, on my own, all night…watch television.

After consulting the TV listings, my initial, and on reflection foolish hopes of a healthy selection of decent programmes to organise into some kind of timetable were dashed beyond repair. Without dwelling on the whole tacky and frankly embarrassing affair I will just run through a few of the cultural gems that were on offer. I sat through the first of a double bill of Strictly Dance Fever, yet another re-hash of the zero to hero to zero formula, this time with sequins and jazz hands, but as ever, performed by delusional, over-weight and under paid members of the Great British public. The complete and utter creative exhaustion of the genre and the sheer complacency of the souls who produce this glop is now obvious. One member of ‘the herd’ turned up under the impression he was to be paired with a ‘celebrity partner’ and turned into Doncaster’s answer to Ricky Martin, when in fact the show is ‘all about the public’, no celebs, apart from the panel (which includes Wayne Sleep), are involved. This poor old sod had completely misunderstood the format; unlike his act, this mistake is totally forgivable when you belong to a society that has come to expect anything but creative or innovative popular television. And they call it the return of VARIETY! Nevertheless the aged baffoon plodded on, dutifully making a complete pillark of himself in the process.

It seems in certain factions failure is regarded as the new success, or at least the very next best thing. No contestant on one of these televised talent shows can anymore claim to be ‘oblivious to the system’, yet tens of thousands still flock to the auditions, desperate to flaunt their physical, emotional and psychological shortcomings on national television. What ever happened to dignity, self respect and for that matter, friends and family who say “you’re shit, don’t do it”? The allures of fame and fortune have forever been apparent, but it seems to be the realisation that they are now attainable overnight, with little or no talent, that compels thousands of hopeless hopefuls to trade every last ounce of self respect for ridicule and inevitable upset, so long as the medium is sufficiently mass.

Other delights on offer tonight were a Celebrity Chef Special Weakest Link, wacky jumper wearing ‘king of gunge’ Noel Edmonds, manufacturing suspense in Deal or No Deal, Celebrity Stars in Their Eyes, artist’s included Neil ‘razor’ Ruddock and ah what’s this The British book awards on Channel Four, should be good… or perhaps not. Hosted by world-renowned literary critic’s Richard and Judy and with a little help from wordsmiths such as Chantelle (of Celebrity Big Bro fame) and Kelly Osbourne, it was clear from outset that, as my turf accountant had kindly informed me earlier in the day, though this time with reference to ‘Glorious Goodwood’…the going could be heavy. There were obviously the awards won by er… writers, which one would expect and my congratulations go out to them, but that’s what should be happening at The British Book Awards; people who write books being awarded prizes for doing so.

The ceremony became an absolute farce, not when Chantelle skipped out, that was bearable, but when Sharon Osborne won the Best Biography category, now don’t get me wrong I’m sure it’s a thrilling read, but I find it hard to believe she carried manuscripts around in a satchel for 2 years in fear of loosing them. Or indeed ever spent the wee hours locked in a candle lit room, just her, herself and her black dog, bent over a desk, implement in hand, stripped to the waist, gushing forth on to the page (well perhaps). In fact I find it hard to believe she even put pen to paper after signing the contract, if she did I apologise, but she didn’t did she.

The wretchedly sycophantic affair was in full flow as Jamie ‘pukka’ Oliver collected his well deserved ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ for services to that most revered of forms, the cook book and perhaps the cheekiness of chappies from Essex, I don’t know. By the time Andrew Flintoff and JK Rowling picked up their “Oscars of the British Book industry” for Best Sports Book and Best Book (it’s a fucking kids book) respectively I felt numb, anything was possible. One could have been mistaken for thinking they were now televising The Mutual Appreciation Society Annual Gala Dinner and Dance. All we needed was Chris ‘Geldof ‘ Martin, Madonna, and a Q & A with Shirley Bassy. Add to that a few under privilege, black, disabled, lesbian, single mothers being paraded around in front of the cameras whilst the celebs, now tipsy from the free bar and ‘feeling the pain’, shout revolutionary cliché’s and throw things around, and we would have been there.

If this is what the nation’s major information providing medium has to offer, presumably to adults, on a Saturday night, the end is nigh. It’s no wonder there’s a growing sense of apathy towards anything which people might now term ‘serious’, or to put it bluntly, anything that doesn’t involve the lives of complete strangers buying a house, selling the contents of their dead uncles shed, or some slack mouth shouting, screaming writhing or wriggling about in front of a celebrity panel. Adorno would have moaned on about social implications of these ‘Tools of Distraction’ and I for one in this instance would have no qualms with him.

There are obviously those who champion programmes such as Strictly Dance Fever for ‘what it stands for’ (usually TV producers), don’t give me any crap about reality TV representing the democratisation of the mass media. Any supposed social ‘empowerment’ offered through ‘ordinary folk’ on television is of the pseudo variety, as someone who is careful to remain unseen is pulling all the strings. The contestants may say what they please, but someone else will decide who, if anyone can hear it. And the fact that ghost written celeb biogs can now win literary awards doesn’t represent some kind of invasion of high culture by the low, it may be post-modern in theory, but it is far from progressive.

All these programmes stand for is the distancing of the masses from what 60+ years ago people might have been able to call ‘reality’. As we wallow around in media saturated squalor, caring and knowing an awful lot more about what’s happening in Coronation Street than Downing Street, is there any way back to some kind of old fashioned (in terms of the concept) ‘reality’? I’m not claiming to have a solution, I’m not even sure where the real problems lie, but I do know that Orwell was very wrong, because if indeed there is any hope, from what I can see, it certainly does not lie in the prols.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Does anyone know the whereabouts of my co-editor? He seems to have disappeared.

The Merit of Low Taxation

US Economy Adds 211,000 Jobs in March; Unemployment Rate at 4 1/2 Year Low

Gordon Brown and David Cameron had better take note of the statistics coming from across the Atlantic. We all know that Britain's unemployment and job creation statistics happen to be erroneous. Its true nature is masked by the proliferation of public sector non-jobs and the siphoning off of the unemployable on to incapacity benefit - all 2.7 million of them.

There is no greater incentive then allowing a private individual to spend his own money. You cannot take risks unless you have fiscal responsiblity; they are two sides of the same coin. Until Brown and Cameron realise this, our fortunes will forever be bound to multi-national companies based in the UK.

The Vocal Minority

Amar Hassain, 23, a security guard from Manchester, said: "I think it's wrong that we have allowed Condoleezza Rice to come here.

"We are against the invasion of Iraq. It was a criminal offence."

We? I had no idea Amar Hassian was the collective moral authority on national issues.