Political correctness – the cancer within

So nurses have been told they cannot use  words like luvvie, pet or dear to address their patients.

This is the latest madness to emanate from the jobsworths who now occupy over paid positions in many of our major public services.

What is wrong with these people? Are we really offended when lying in hospital if someone calls us “love.” I for one regard it as a friendly, caring sort of greeting and have never met anyone who objects about the use of such words.

But then this is all part of the new speak which is steadily eroding our traditional ways of communicating with each other.

Yet those who seek to inflict this upon us are it seems actually winning, How many times these days do you pass a comment only to be told: “You can’t say that?”

We have got to the stage where we really do have people who use phrases like chemically inconvenienced (drunk) and uniquely co-ordinated (clumsy).
And they are the ones who through persistence and stealth are inflicting upon us ideas and actions that are both alien and frightening.
It’s called political correctness and its origin has been traced back to Chairman Mau of China’s infamous Little Red Book.
It is, of course, not just the way we speak that is under attack.
The latest trend is to destroy what remains of the great British Christmas.
Some cities have banned the name and refer to it now only as a Winter Festival.
This year Oxford has decided that traditional street themes – you know, Santas, reindeers that sort of thing – will be replaced by a 25-metre high mobile of lanterns in the shape of the solar system under the title of Winter Light Festival which will include events marking the Hindu Diwali and Jewish Hannukah festivals as well as Christmas. It also coincides with the start of International Year of Astronomy 2009.
Those who make these ridiculous decisions claim it’s to involve all sections and all religions yet in Oxford it’s brought criticism from muslims and a local rabbi.
But you can bet your life the interfering busybodies who want to tamper with every aspect of our way of life won’t give in easily.
For proof look what happened in  Scarborough a couple of months ago  when the local college decided Christmas and Easter  were “out” and replaced them  on calendars and diaries with “end of term break.”
And so it goes on
The PC brigade tell us  the ending of Humpty Dumpty is upsetting. And Snow White no longer has seven dwarfs.
Recent years have seen good old fashioned Punch and Judy shows banned in case they encourage domestic violence.
Council chairmen are now known only as “the chair” or “chairperson.” Manholes are now people’s holes,  school sports days are changed to ensure there are no winners or losers in case some kids get upset, parents  have been stopped taking pictures of their children so no-one can think they are paedophiles.
Even government ministers fall foul of the masters of newspeak.
Home Office minister John Denham was criticised by the police for using a well known phrase because of race relations rules.
He was told that officers could face disciplinary charges for saying “nitty gritty” because it dates from the slavery era.
I reckon it’s time to rebel, to fight back, to talk like we were taught to talk, to express ourselves in proper, simple, everyday English.
And start by telling those who try to force us to do otherwise in in equally understandable language to go to hell.

Death of a nation

I am Mr Nobody. Joe Average. The bloke in the pub, the ordinary fella who is no-one special, nor even wants to be.

I have no degree in this or that, have never been in trouble with the law and have done my best to provide for my family.

Academic success eluded me apart from a handful of GCE’s obtained more by good luck than good learning. It mattered not, for I did what I wanted. I worked hard and enjoyed it.

Above all I did it safe in the knowledge that I was secure, living in a state where people mattered, a country that looked after its own, a nation that stood proud, a place where justice prevailed, where free men enjoyed the right of free speech.

Now I look ahead to my remaining years in confusion and – increasingly – in desperation and trepidation.

And above all I realise that many of those I have elected to help ensure my security and well-being in those years are men and women of dishonour.

For I see a discredited government spewing out false utterances, professional politicians bending the truth to suit their own ends. I look with distrust and contempt on the words poured out by the army of propagandists, truth benders and professional liars, employed to try to win my support for policies that within their hearts they know will be unworkable and ineffective.

Freedom of speech is no longer that. Voice any opinion on certain vital issues of prime importance to this nation’s future other than that approved of by the authorities and I could end in jail.

I see the same judiciary that would put me there taking the side of known and often vicious criminals

When I walk the street I do so in the knowledge that I could be attacked and robbed in a country that appears to accept such actions as undesirable, but uncontrollable.

Like others of my generation I believed an Englishman’s home was his castle, but not one at constant risk from those who queue up to raid it safe in the knowledge that even if caught – and that is highly unlikely – they will escape without punishment.

I listen to statements ranging from half-truth to downright lies about the flood of immigrants which still pours across our borders and I am afraid to speak out about it .

The government thought police dictate how I should think and what I should say. Politically correct madness on a scale approaching that seen in the days of Stalin’s Russia threatens my daily communication with others.

I squirm at the sight of a Prime Minister offering comfort to the families of men he sent out to fight someone else’s war and I ponder on what international adventure he will next embark upon to detract from the growing problems within his own land. And I witness a once proud nation he purports to lead descending into a moral and cultural hell fuelled by his political dogma.

The Nanny State rules – whether you like it or not.

But what is the Nanny state? And just where did the description originate?

It sounds good, but is it? Sadly, no. For Nanny State read government interference in every aspect of your life. Live as they tell you, not as you wish.

Political correctness is a part of this, threatening to overwhelm our language. “You can’t say that,” they tell me when I utter phrases I have used since boyhood.

I now know that black coffee no longer exists, that a blind person is visually challenged, that the disabled are physically challenged. I know that sports days at school are bad for youngsters who may actually come second. I see, I hear, I despair at this systematic destruction of my language and my thoughts.

I see a new generation without basic manners, self destructing on ill-discipline and the scourge of ever more readily available drugs, lawless, uncaring, unshackled. The law is scorned and ridiculed.

Morality is a dirty word among young people fuelled on casual sex and drugs members of a generation in which four out of every 10 kids has committed a crime. Violence is a part of all our lives. Drunken mobs rule town and city centres.

And our Westminster masters pretend concern, but with what result?

The coming months will see this shabby and discredited government again appealing to me and millions like me for my vote, telling me that the years ahead are filled with promise, that fears such as I have expressed are groundless.

Before a single word of their election campaign is uttered I know I can only regard their claims with the utmost cynicism.

This Mr Average – and I am sure I express the thoughts of a great many people like me – has had enough of empty promises and political failure and looks upon the present disreputable government with the contempt it surely deserves.

At heart I remain just an ordinary bloke who loves his homeland and who in his earlier years read a book entitled 1984 and still clearly recalls one sentence from its pages:

“‘Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

I think about it in relation to my country as a general election creeps closer. And I am very afraid.

Britian is now a police state

Is Labour using the police? was the headline that I read this morning – the article continued..

Within minutes of the news of Damian Green’s ‘Stalinesque’ arrest breaking at Westminster, dark questions were forming in the minds of the Tory high command.

Namely, just how involved was the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a decision to arrest a man who had been a thorn in her side for the past 14 months?

And, even more worryingly, was this the final proof – if any were needed – that Labour has turned the police service into a political beast, defending the Government’s interests at every turn?

To read the rest of the story go here

No More Heroes…

We were very excited to hear that at last night’s NME music awards, the British public nominated Pete Doherty as Hero of the Year.

It’s a well deserved award, the endlessly talentless Doherty has spent the year providing a shining example for our addled yoof by snorting, injecting and vomiting his way through a handful of public performances whilst avoiding prosecution numerous times for possession of drugs, possession of drugs while on charges for possession of other drugs, driving while under the influence of drugs and being in possession of a talentless and incredibly vacant girlfriend (who, oddly, was on drugs).

It feels so good to know that the future politicians and business leaders of this country know a winner when they see one and that Britain will stride forward with a firm resolve and a needle hanging out of it’s arm.

Mind you, the older members of the British community haven’t done much better, electing Blair and meekly accepting the odious, lying cheat Brown as their leader.

Last one to leave the country, turn the lights off, if you can be bothered …

Double-Oh 20 Bensons – Licenced to Smoke

In a staggering new move proposed by yet another pointless government think-tank, it’s been proposed that smokers should be forced to buy a £10 license in order to buy cigarettes. Just how much do these imbeciles think the people of Britian will take before they fight back?

I’d like to propose an idiot tax, payable by people called Julian, health-commies and the entire Government back-bench for consuming too much air without giving anything back. In fact, taking a lead from London’s demented Lord Mayor, the odious Livingstone, perhaps we should charge fat people more in idiot tax as they consume more oxygen then is reasonable and pollute society with their evil obese presence …

Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way.

No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England.

Its chairman, Professor Julian Le Grand, told BBC Radio 5 Live the scheme would make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking.

But smokers’ rights group Forest described the idea as “outrageous”, given how much tax smokers already pay.

Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS.

He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit – as much as the cost – that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit.

“You’ve got to get a form, a complex form – the government’s good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph.

“It’s a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker.”

‘Extra bureaucracy’

He added: “70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking.

“So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference.”

But Forest said it would be “an extra form of taxation, while tobacco taxation is already at record levels”.

Forest spokesman Simon Clark said that when the cost of administration, extra bureaucracy and enforcement are taken into account, “the mind boggles”.

He added that the people most affected by the proposals would be “the elderly and people on low incomes”.

Mr Clark added: “The senior government advisor putting this idea forward is not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country.

“He is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in.”

A department of health spokeswoman did not rule out such a scheme as part of the next wave of tobacco regulation.

She said: “We will be consulting later this year on the next steps on tobacco control.

“Ministers are seeking input from a whole range of stakeholders.”

From the BBC

At the mercy of the Saudi’s

A late posting, but worthy of comment I feel.

Last week it was revealed that the Saudi’s forced arch-traitor Tony Bliar to stop investigations into their arms-dealing activities or they’d make it easier for terrorists to launch attacks on British soil.

Like a true Briton, Bliar immediately gave in and gave them what they wanted, ensuring that (in the words of the street) we become their bitch forever.

Funny how he was so keen to invade Iraq but so defensive in this instance, but then, the cult of history and celebrity only remembers those who fight wars they actually “won”…

Saudi Arabia’s rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced “another 7/7” and the loss of “British lives on British streets” if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday’s high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have “rolled over” after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was “just as if a gun had been held to the head” of the government.

The SFO investigation began in 2004, when Robert Wardle, its director, studied evidence unearthed by the Guardian. This revealed that massive secret payments were going from BAE to Saudi Arabian princes, to promote arms deals.

Yesterday, anti-corruption campaigners began a legal action to overturn the decision to halt the case. They want the original investigation restarted, arguing the government had caved into blackmail.

The judge said he was surprised the government had not tried to persuade the Saudis to withdraw their threats. He said: “If that happened in our jurisdiction [the UK], they would have been guilty of a criminal offence”. Counsel for the claimants said it would amount to perverting the course of justice.

Wardle told the court in a witness statement: “The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led.”

But a paper trail set out in court showed that days after Bandar flew to London to lobby the government, Blair had written to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and the SFO was pressed to halt its investigation.

The case officer on the inquiry, Matthew Cowie, was described by the judge as “a complete hero” for standing up to pressure from BAE’s lawyers, who went behind his back and tried to secretly lobby the attorney general to step in at an early stage and halt the investigations.

The campaigners argued yesterday that when BAE failed at its first attempt to stop the case, it changed tactics. Having argued it should not be investigated in order to promote arms sales, it then recruited ministers and their Saudi associates to make the case that “national security” demanded the case be covered up.

Moses said that after BAE’s commercial arguments failed, “Lo and behold, the next thing there is a threat to national security!” Dinah Rose, counsel for the Corner House and the Campaign against the Arms Trade, said: “Yes, they start to think of a different way of putting it.” Moses responded: “That’s very unkind!”

Documents seen yesterday also show the SFO warned the attorney general that if he dropped the case, it was likely it would be taken up by the Swiss and the US. These predictions proved accurate.

Bandar’s payments were published in the Guardian and Switzerland subsequently launched a money-laundering inquiry into the Saudi arms deal. The US department of justice has launched its own investigation under the foreign corrupt practices act into the British money received in the US by Bandar while he was ambassador to Washington.

Prince Bandar yesterday did not contest a US court order preventing him from taking the proceeds of property sales out of the country. The order will stay in place until a lawsuit brought by a group of BAE shareholders is decided. The group alleges that BAE made £1bn of “illegal bribe payments” to Bandar while claiming to be a “highly ethical, law-abiding corporation”.

From The Guardian

Is it because I is white?

Lance Cpl Ben Mayer, a former regimental cop with the Royal Anglians has been refused a job with the police force because he’s white, male and Christian.

The words boot, other and foot spring to mind … Remember folks, keep Britain … foreign!

A SOLDIER who saw nine comrades killed in Afghanistan told yesterday how he was stopped from becoming a cop — because he is the wrong colour.

Brave Lance Cpl Ben Mayer, a regimental police officer with the Royal Anglians, was shown capturing Taliban terrorists on a telly documentary screened last week.

But when he quit the Army last month to fulfil his ambition of becoming a cop, the Metropolitan Police refused to even send him a recruitment pack — and told him in a letter they were only “actively seeking to raise interest from black and minority ethnic communities and females”.

But he could apply to be a volunteer special constable or a Community Support Officer.

Stunned Ben, 23, said: “After all I went through for my country to defend it, I just wanted to help the community at home — especially at a time when terrorism is such a threat.

“While I was in Helmand, I risked my life constantly to take on terrorists.

“To get back and learn that I am the wrong colour or sex to even be considered for the police has left me speechless.

“I feel discriminated against.”

Ben, of Billericay, Essex, was shown operating on Helmand frontline with 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, in Sky One’s Ross Kemp In Afghanistan. He was seen interrogating terrorists in Army jails.

The soldier, who also served in Iraq, left the Army after seven years.

He added: “I’ve always wanted to be a cop and my experiences dealing with prisoners in Afghanistan just strengthened that because I enjoyed it so much. I find it very disheartening. ”

Non-white officers make up 24 per cent of the London force — an increase of seven per cent last year.

 

var RStag = “”; try{ RStag = segQS; } catch(e){ RStag = “”; } document.write(”); Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair boasted in October that success in recruiting minorities meant positive discrimination was no longer needed.

The Met confirmed Ben had been refused a recruitment pack — but said that the force was not recruiting right now.

A spokeswoman added: “This is the case for everyone regardless of gender or ethnic origin.”

In 2006, Gloucestershire Police were forced to pay £2,500 compensation after “deselecting” white male candidates who had applied to become coppers.

From The Sun

Coming soon to a court near you …

Stoning, hanging and the repression of women if the so-called leader of the Christian church has his way.

The Archbishop of Canterbury (that bloke who’s allegedly in charge of the well-being of Christians throughout the country) has said there’s no point in standing up to the evil of Sharia law and we might as well give in now and let them do whatever they please. No matter then that we already have our own legal system, laws and ways of doing things, we’ll just ignore hundreds of years of history in the usual attempt to appease the hatemongers who shout the loudest.

Once upon a time, we used to have spirit, fire, backbone. We were a country that stood together whatever was thrown at us. These days, we’re just a sad bunch of appeasers who spend far too much time and energy on the wasters, the apologists and the crooks to have any regard for the majority.

The ArchTraitor said Muslims should be allowed to have their own laws and do things their own way as we need to “face the fact” that some Muslims don’t relate to British laws.

There’s a simple answer of course – if you don’t like British law, sod off somewhere else. Perhaps the ArchTraitor would like to taek this Anti-British contingent and clear off somewhere were we don’t have to hear their whining voices. That way the Church of England could elect a reasonable head who speaks for it’s followers, rahter then appointing some loon who wants to give it all away.

THE Archbishop of Canterbury handed al-Qaeda a victory last night by saying the introduction of Sharia law in Britain is inevitable.

In an explosive outburst Dr Rowan Williams, the country’s top Anglican, said there should be one set of rules for Muslims — and another for everyone else.

He maintained it was WRONG for followers of Islam to be forced to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Instead he said the country must “face the fact” that some Muslims do not relate to the law in Britain.

The 57-year-old insisted we accept aspects of Sharia law with a “constructive accommodation” in areas like marriage so Muslim women would not have to use British divorce courts.

He added: “It seems unavoidable.”

Dr Williams’ extraordinary claim is a huge propaganda coup for extremists plotting to end centuries of the British way of life.

And it was roundly condemned from all quarters last night.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, branded his outburst “muddled and unhelpful”.

He said: “As far as I am aware no serious body of Muslim opinion supports the idea of special treatment or exemption from the law of the land based on some vague ‘conscientious objection’.

“Raising this idea will give fuel to anti-Muslim extremism and dismay everyone who is working towards a more integrated society.”

He went on: “His implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous. It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings.

“There is a fundamental principle that when you appear before a court in Britain you appear as a citizen, equal to any other and you should be treated equally to any other. There can be no opt outs.”

Paul Dadge, famously pictured helping masked 7/7 victim Davina Turrell, 24, was left stunned.

Proud

The 31-year-old former fireman, of Cannock, Staffs, said: “The Archbishop’s remarks are unhelpful. I am proud to be British and find the idea that Sharia law would ever become part of British law incredible.”

Mary Burke, 50 — who survived the King’s Cross bomb on July 7 2005 — said: “Britain is a Christian country and should stay a Christian country. I don’t want Islamic law here and I believe most of the British public agree with me.”

Dr Williams’ intervention was also savaged by former Home Secretary and Sun columnist David Blunkett.

He said: “The Archbishop’s remarks are not only inflammatory they are dangerous. There will be a backlash of which he appears to be oblivious.”

PM Gordon Brown made it clear a two-tier legal system was totally unacceptable.

His official spokesman said: “The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values.”

 

var RStag = “”; try{ RStag = segQS; } catch(e){ RStag = “”; } document.write(”);

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said Dr Williams was “wrong”.

He added: “You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That would be a recipe for chaos.”

Muslim Labour MP Khalid Mahmood was outraged.

He said: “This is the sort of woolly thinking that gets people into trouble. This sort of talk makes people think Muslims want to separate themselves from the rest of the community and be treated differently. The truth is most Muslims do not want Sharia law.”

Dr Williams spoke out in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s World at One.

He did stress he opposed the extreme elements of Islamic law — including stoning and whipping — but went on: “There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.”

His comments were welcomed by some Muslims.

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said: “Sharia law for civil matters has been introduced in some western countries with much success. I believe Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith.”

From The Sun

“Sympathy” for the devil

In yet another staggering display of contempt for the British people, the coward Brown and his gang of no-hopers, liars and cheats have refused to ban Muslim hate preachers from entering Britain. Indeed, support of the Sub-Humans Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been been granted a medical visa to enter the country for treatment for an undisclosed illness.

A Government lackey said refusing entry to al-Qaradawi would effectively be playing into the hands of extremists, the indication being that it’s better to let him in to preach loathing and hatred then to do the sensible thing and ban him.

In the past al-Qaradawi (a plague of lice be upon him) has openly supported the execution of gays and defended suicide bombers  saying: “Through his (Allah) infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.”

This is just another reason why the spineless, gutless Brown should be stripped of power immediately and replaced with someone who has the British people’s best interests at heart.

In related news, a “British” man pleaded guilty to hatching a plot to behead a  soldier in Birmingham (for my money it’s impossible to British and a terrorist …) and on the day both stories broke, what was the Prime Incompetent doing? Announcing that it’s possible to get qualifications from the University of McDonalds – questions about terrorism, the state of the nation, knife crime and immigration were carefully sidestepped by the old technique of “pretending to not hear the question”.

Perhaps the epithet coward lacks sufficient punch for Brown, traitor would be closer to the mark – we still have the death penalty for traitors, don’t we?

Disgraced Conservative MP Derek Conway to stand down at next elections

Another MP up to no good – this time it’s Conservative who are in the dog house.  I hope he does more than stand down – he should be kicked out.

We are supposed to trust MPs, we are asked to give them our support and backing, when clearly many of them these days are only out to make their own lives better, while their country suffers. So who should we trust?

 Derek Conway, the disgraced Tory MP who sparked outrage by paying his family more than £200,000 of taxpayers’ money, has announced he will stand down at the next election.

The MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup bowed to public pressure, after attracting widespread criticism for paying his son an excessive parliamentary salary for work as a researcher.

From the Times Online