Eight pictures to make you think... and Churchill foresaw it...
Be sure to read Churchill's comments at the end.


                                                                    IRAN 1970 
 

                              

IRAN 2012

                                                          AFGHANISTAN 1967

                                                    AFGHANISTAN 2011

                      EGYPT (Cairo University) 1959

  


                                 EGYPT (Cairo University) 2012

                                             NETHERLANDS (Amsterdam) 1980

                                             NETHERLANDS (Amsterdam) 2012

And some people STILL don't think the Western world has anything to worry about.


                                                            Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill 1899:
"Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the  world."

CHURCHILL ON ISLAM:
Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899. (Check Wikipedia - The River War). The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries. He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt.
He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90.

HERE IS THE SPEECH:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensual-ism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Sir Winston Churchill;
(Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).


Churchill saw it coming a long time ago. He is being proved right year after year, week after week, day after day, country after country after country. He saw it THEN. Today's politicians are deliberately blind to the reality. That or sheer cowardice prevents them dealing with the problem. Either way, they are Islam's "useful fools", helping Islam to spread and embed itself among its targets.

RELIGION: BASIS OF OUR CIVILISATION – & REASON FOR ITS ULTIMATE DEMISE?

I've said it before – sooner or later, there is a war coming to the West and it will be caused by our unwillingness to recognise the nature of the beast that faces us. Islam accepts parity with no other creed and regards all other gods or religions as offensive to Allah which must be eliminated. Common sense, reason etc have nothing to do with it: it's a matter of blind faith trumping everything.

We are all familiar with the mantras -- It's always better to talk about things. Let's negotiate.   Lets discuss this reasonably and I'm sure we can resolve it. Let's find a middle ground. We can both find a mutually acceptable solution. Are we not all brothers? Etc etc etc. It won't work. The sooner we get real, the better.

The real enemy of all of us is, quite simply, religion itself. Again. The massacres during the Crusades were a part of the Christian response to the Moslem massacres during the Moslem takeover of the eastern Mediterranean. If it's not Jew versus Moslem, it is Moslem versus Christian, one Moslem sect versus another one, Catholic versus Protestant, one type of Protestant versus another......and so it goes on – over and over again. More people are murdered/tortured/persecuted/vilified in the name of so-called loving, caring and compassionate gods than you can shake a stick at. All religions necessarily and explicitly require unquestioning belief in something that has no supporting evidence.

Israel, Jerusalem in particular, somehow sums it all up. You've got touchstone religious symbolism for the Christian churches, Judaism and Islam all in one and the same spot, all relating to different gods/different versions of the same god/different ways of worshipping either the same god or else different ones. You pays your money and you takes your choice, according to which particular strain of those religions you make your spiritual pilot. Meanwhile, Islamic fundamentalists and Jewish fundamentalists (more in common with each other than either wants to contemplate) are hell-bent (oh, the irony) on precipitating a major, bloody confrontation that will involve everybody. And all the while, Israel and Iran and Pakistan have a serious nuclear capability with a willingness and, indeed, a growing desire to use it if and/or     when the situation gives them excuse.

Many countries have governments in power which are inextricably linked to one particular religion – Islam. Saudi Arabia, Islam's homeland in particular. In those instances, power and authority is both dependent on and guided by interpretations of Islam that are rigorously eMy faithnforced. All those countries are wedded to a creed that is inflexibly and vigorously hostile to all our concepts of Western culture. It is our refusal to accept that proposition AND our refusal to adopt appropriately defensive strategies that is our fatal weakness. Our very own self-defined "virtues" of tolerance and willingness to seek compromise are simply opportunities for this hostile, predatory and ultimately lethal creed to live among us and proliferate. Wishful thinking and dreaming of a peaceful solution has led us to this and pretty soon, events will overtake us.    

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE: WHERE DOES IT START – AND WHY?

Academic selection, with no reference to the family income/location etc is the ideal mechanism for promoting and demonstrating equality of educational opportunity.  In my grammar school year, there were pupils whose parents included office workers, tradesmen, solicitors, doctors, sales reps, factory workers and shop workers.  Every year was the same. It was socially inclusive, with admission based on merit and not background.  This was Salford in the 60s.  That same year later produced one fellow of Cambridge, one Oxford academic, several other university academics, authors, at least one leading name in commerce, one pop music entrepreneur and numerous professionals -- teachers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers etc.  As grammar schools go, it was good -- and there were lots of them all over the country, too.

 However, what prepared me and my generation for the rigours of  the 11+ and  grammar school was  6-years at primary school. What has changed is both the way children are taught and the way teachers themselves are prepared for teaching.  I'm a grammar school product but I'm not here to extol their virtues, great though they are, but to show that they were provided with excellent material to begin with.

 It seems to me that then, the job of primary schools was to prepare pupils for a  secondary education. Their job was to hand over to secondary schools 11 year-olds who were numerate and literate, with a sound basic knowledge of our pre-Norman history, UK geography and a general idea of countries of the globe. Certainly it was British-centred.  And why not?  It's only right that we should educate our young to understand our own heritage before we indulge in our ritual self-abasement and attempt to  contrive some sort  of historical and cultural equivalence with or to other cultures.  I'm sure other countries also put their own fundamental cultures first. They are quite right to do this --- we should do the same.

 It was generally accepted and understood that numeracy and literacy were the foundation stones of all further education, from shopkeeping to nuclear physics.  These pupils were ready for serious education, with all the tools they would require. Of course, this required primary school teachers to have the necessary skills and knowledge and, dare I say  it, the willingness to actually inculcate some knowledge into their charges.  Oh, yes, and a system which insisted on gentle, but enforced discipline.

 I attended a bog-standard Catholic primary school in Manchester, with pupils from a wide social base.  As a matter of course, we were regularly tested on our spelling, arithmetic (including a weekly mental arithmetic test) and yes, we learned our tables. Poor grammar was corrected -- by teachers who actually knew what it was. (Basic grammar, that is: clausal analysis came later!)
 All subjects were tested annually with proper   explorations of what we had actually learned and remembered. No multiple-choice answers then.  Guess what -- it actually worked, without ever being intense or elitist.  It was simply constant and insistent and yes, quite happy too, even for those less able.  The class had over 30 forward-facing, teacher-focused pupils and I strongly suspect that the class of 1957 would, in terms of literacy, numeracy and general knowledge of this country, knock spots off most of today's output.

We can't blame the teachers because it isn't their fault.  They too are the products -- victims -- of the relentless politicisation of education and the incessant stream of changes in the way it is organised. It isn't just the abandonment of any selection based on academic ability.  It's the attitude which, in a fruitless pursuit of a bogus 'equality', seeks to establish adequacy as excellence, thereby lowering standards, which then makes it easy for the government to claim that results -- and, therefore, standards too --  are improving. Teachers who were educated the "old" way -- and there are precious few of them left now -- despair that those entering the profession who will replace them often lack the subject grasp which used to be standard.

May I suggest that before any sustainable improvement in the performance and output of secondary education can be achieved, it is vital to begin the rescue process in the primary sector? If children are comfortable with the basic numerical functions and   are literate, all subsequent learning is made easier and pupils will have more enthusiasm.  If they are handicapped in these areas,   education suffers and the country is badly served. No wonder science is not attracting pupils: it's made far more difficult if mathematical skills are deficient and students have difficulty reading complex text.  That applies equally to History, English etc.  The increasing reliance on technology to resolve a mathematical problem only makes it worse: when students are accustomed to having an answer calculated for them, they make progress without actually understanding the basic relationships and linkages of mathematics. Without understanding, such tenuous knowledge is not just shallow, it can be dangerous.

And, to sustain improvements at higher levels, why not have a basic "passport" to Higher education in the form of something like the pre-war Higher School Certificate, which requires passes in English, maths, at least one each of the basic sciences and humanities (eg physics + history) and, importantly, a paper which covered the workings of the UK and it's various systems, say   'British Constitution'?  I seem to recall that my Economics A-Level course included a history of the parliamentary system, the legal system and judicial hierarchy, the separation of powers and the constitutional monarchy.  I wouldn't mind betting that damn near all today's sixth-formers have little or no knowledge of any of that.  No wonder succeeding generations have no  proper understanding of the system, no appreciation of the significant role of a constitutional monarchy. No wonder either, that politically illiterate youth will make forceful political protestations on matters they do not fully understand!

THE POLITICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The "human rights" culture.

Human rights.  Yeah, right.  As I see it, there's no such thing as a universal human right.  Rights, whatever category of right you care to name, are rights -- privileges, entitlements, whatever -- which any given society or group confers on its own members.  Thus, members of golf clubs have particular rights peculiar to the membership, nightclubs "reserve the right to refuse admission", the Freedom of Information Act gives us the right to access certain information and UK citizens have the right to vote in UK general elections and so on.

  No rights are automatic, self-evident rights: they are all the result of particular groups or societies defining the rights of their members. It is only by agreeing to abide by and conform with the rules of those societies that we are accepted as members OF those societies and groups. Failure – or refusal – to "follow the rules" will normally result in penalties or exclusion from that group.

 Within those groups and societies -- from the Students Union to the Bar Council, the golf club to the United Nations -- we define rules of eligibility and conduct and agree general or specific limitations to those rights and we pass laws to explicitly deny certain rights -- the right to help ourselves to other people's property, to hurt or damage other people, animals, property etc.  Many of those rights do not exist in other countries and indeed, some other countries give their citizens rights that here would be strictly illegal -- the right to carry a rifle, to own slaves, to treat animals or other humans in ways we would consider distinctly cruel or barbaric, for example.  We extend to everyone in this country some rights simply by virtue of  being here.  The right to wander the public highway, for example, to pursue their own religion, to choose one's own partner and so on. Indeed, we have the right to dress as we please, even to go naked (without outraging public decency, of course) without necessarily inviting visits from sexual predators! It's why we like to think of ourselves as a "free society". It's increasingly under threat.

Within those parameters specifically defined by a nation to protect itself and its members in general, laws and rules are made for that purpose, such as those dealing with terrorism, extremism and the preaching of sedition.  We elect parliaments, giving them the power to make laws that govern the way we live, extract money from us and commit us as a society to international undertakings or even wars. But those powers themselves are not irrevocable and they can be withdrawn if and when the electorate decide.

Some of our citizens' rights are surrendered voluntarily when, for example, joining the Armed Forces and agreeing to submit to the military code of the UK, Queen's Regulations.

Criminals can forfeit many of their rights as a consequence of their actions. They may well forfeit their freedom and spend time in prison. (Oh, and there is no "human right" to comfort! Or TV!). The greater the offence committed, the more rights are forfeited by the criminal – and for longer. Some consider that the best deterrent for would-be criminals who go armed and quite prepared to take someone else's life in order to get what they want, should be the distinct possibility that they will face the same consequence for themselves -- execution. That really WOULD be a "quid pro quo"!

Underlying all this is the concept of accountability.  There is a quid pro quo in society that affects everything.  We are responsible for our actions.  Nobody else is, as a general rule.  It used to be generally understood that if it was your fault that something went wrong, you would be subject to some adverse consequence. When you think about it, that's a distinctly Newtonian proposition -- nothing is without consequence or reciprocal, whether it is payment, an exchange of obligations, debt incurred, favour returned and so on..  The legal profession has changed everything however: today , nobody is responsible for anything.  Ever. We have a new Moral Relativism.

We have developed a culture of dependency and a moral code which seems to make every moral judgement subject to an appraisal based on its financial impact, or possibly any legal precedents, or maybe prevailing European law – and the idea that somehow, blame can be shared. Today, everything is somebody else's fault -- the girl was dressed provocatively and she led me on with her flirting so it's her fault really, claims the rapist's legal team and you know that somewhere, some idiot judge or jury will buy that defence. Increasingly, we have the "cultural offence" bandwagon. In nearly every case, the offence appears to be given by the "host" culture and the offence taken by representatives of a newer, "alien" culture.

We are all "victims" of something or other, or somebody or other, apparently. New causes of our victimhood are constantly being discovered. If it isn't something that somebody said some time that somehow offended us and hurt our feelings (even if we weren't aware of the crime at the time), it will be a new crime definition. Currently, "race" and "hate" crimes are "fashionable". What next? I'm sure there are lawyers or political activists somewhere, working it out. Be warned: lawyers will be involved – that means it will be expensive for the "perpetrators" and profitable for the lawyers.

The truth about Islam. It's NOT a religion of peace.

This post is not one of my own. I've copied it here simply because it's the best way to broadcast its existence via Twitter. It's frighteningly relevant to today's situation, with our politicians locked in a culture of denial about the reality of the threats facing us and our culture's future.

This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.'

'My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.'

'The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.'

'The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.'

'The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

'History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, We often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims Have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our Enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.'

'Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.'

'Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario, and, yes, in Ottawa, too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.'

'In Australia, and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.'

'In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.'

'As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.'

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before it's too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!!

JUSTICE? THE DEATH PENALTY CONUNDRUM.

It's very strange that terms like "barbaric" and phrases tumescent with high morality are used to condemn the very concept of the death penalty.  It's strange because the balance of the moral concern expressed seems dedicated to undermining the idea that some crimes deserve the offender to pay the ultimate price.
I'm not suggesting for a minute that every murderer should face the death penalty.  Indeed, circumstances of some murders suggest to me that no more than a moderate -- or even a suspended -- sentence would be an appropriate punishment.
On the other hand, some murders are so calculated, brutal or casual that nothing other than the death penalty could ever be considered justice.  My purpose here isn't to try and suggest a sort of hierarchy of appropriate punishments however.  What is under discussion is the sentence itself. It seems to me there are two fundamental issues which need addressing: the deterrent effect and the risks and costs of mistakes.

DETERRENCE
We need an effective system with a penal code that makes the consequences of conviction too frightening for the crime to be worthwhile.  There needs to be a quid-pro-quo understanding in the minds of, say, somebody planning an armed robbery which goes something like this:-if you are prepared to go out with a shotgun, ready to take life in order to get what you want, you must accept that if you do kill somebody with calculation or deliberation or particular callousness, your own life will be forfeit.  No question.  That same equation should apply to all who murder and kill for a variety of reasons – terrorism, religious or political fanaticism, sexual gratification, financial reward, personal motives of revenge etc.
As it is, life-imprisonment, even without parole, means the killers would have a full lifespan and health support at a cost of around £60,000 a year at the expense of the taxpayers – including relatives of the victims.

RISKS OF MISTAKES
 Yes, mistakes have happened.  The grief caused to the family of the person wrongly executed cannot and must not be underestimated.  "It's better" so the saying goes "that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted."
Well, maybe -- but nothing is without consequence.  Consider this: lack of that ultimate sanction means that there is no ultimate deterrent to what some regard as the ultimate crime.  Statistics, history – and common sense – suggest that as punishments lose their deterrent value, the incidence of the crimes increases. You have only to see the number of times murderers who are released go on to murder again. Well, what have they got to lose? Not their lives, obviously.
The result – more murders means more  anguish and torment for more family members, all because people were in circulation who shouldn't have been around  anyway. Doesn't that also constitute miscarriage of justice?
Moralists and moralisers remain unapologetic. Yes, things went wrong – but it's not their fault.


As I said at the beginning, it's strange.  It's strange how the anguish and moralising about the harshness and barbarity of the death penalty refuses to countenance the anguish and barbarity of the increased murders that would consequently arise.  On the whole, we make a judgement.  My judgement is that there would be fewer miscarriages of justice with the death penalty -- a hell of a lot fewer than there have been increased murders since it was abolished.  If you want to bring morality into it, fine. If you want death penalty advocates to feel guilty for any miscarriages of justice, then the abolitionists must also be prepared to accept responsibility, both for murders that are committed by previously-convicted following their release, as well as other murders that only occurred because there was not adequate deterrence.

I just think that my way will actually save more lives.  Barbaric?  I think not.  Justice.

TROUBLE BREWING

There is a war coming. One by one, the pieces are falling into place. It won't be a war in the way that our parents understood. It won't be country versus country. It will be defined by two issues -- race and Islam. It will be the people of what is generally called the Western world, fighting to protect and reassert their own cultures and identities while facing a seemingly unstoppable mass immigration of alien races and a religious philosophy that is hostile to everything that has built and developed Western civilisation. Worse, those incoming groups know little and care much less about the culture and traditions where they take up residence.

It may well start somewhere like Marseille, a city with one of the largest Arab populations in the world, after Cairo. In France!  There, or maybe Burnley, Haringey, Brixton, Bradford, Bristol, Manchester Moss Side, Brent. If, or rather when it starts, it will spread like wildfire because those tensions are there and have been for years.

At its root, it's less about race than it is about culture -- our culture. You know, the one that we are constantly told by our rulers, libertarians and the BBC, needs to accommodate the incomers because after all, we are a tolerant country.

Tolerant? Really? I think not. Certainly, we put up with things we find irritating -- the noisy kids next door, grandma's nagging and so on. But putting up with something is not the same thing of tolerating it. When we put up with something, we forbear: we do that because we know that it will not last – so we won't NEED to do anything. Tolerance implies acceptance of something as normal, something that does not threaten your way of life. What has happened over the past 50 odd years is not normal. During that period, we have allowed more than 10% of our population to become alien and hostile to everything we used to stand for. One of the consequences is that socially and educationally our systems have to adapt to the additional requirements of that new intake and their descendants. Many of those will be hostile – philosophically, racially and religiously – to the society that made the great mistake of welcoming them with tolerance.

When the war comes, it will be race and Islam-fuelled: whatever you think about the rights and wrongs, we will have no choice -- you will have no choice -- as to which side you are on because that will already have been decided for you by race & the Koran.

EU stitch up. We've been played for suckers all along.

Under the 30 year rule, many government papers and cabinet papers that had been classified as secret were released for public scrutiny. Last year, many of those relating to the 1975 referendum on Europe were released. (Yes, I know that was 40 years ago but it wasn't me doing the research). The findings were alarming and depressing.
　
The deceit and duplicity go back a long way, much further than I ever suspected. We've all been played for suckers by people who "know what we really should be doing". It is uncomfortably close to supporting the conspiracy theorists that links the Bilderburg Group with Common Purpose and worryingly, the same names keep cropping up. (And instinctively, I am not a conspiracy theorist.)
　
　
Quick summary of treasonous secret government documents.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the department that began the abolition of Britain by secretly working for the EU in 1970. The FCO’s secret documents from then were released under the 30 year rule. Ironically, the EU will close the 156 British Embassies around the world, so the FCO is the department the EU will crush the most.
These documents show that immediately after his election on 18th June 1970 Ted Heath began working with Frenchman Jean Monnet of the Comite D'Action pour les Etats-Unis D'Europe. Heath's plan from before he was elected was clearly the abolition of Britain. He and his entire cabinet were dealing with a "United States of Europe" from day one. All his statements about "no loss of sovereignty" he knew to be lies. He was a full-blown saboteur.
All this is blatantly obvious from FC0 30/1048 and those referred to below.
Jean Monnet, the chief implementer of the EU, was allowed deep access into Heath's government, and got the willing co-operation of Sir Alec Douglas Home, William Whitelaw, Geoffrey Rippon, and Sir Keith Joseph, all of who we now know to be traitors to the British Constitution under our own treason laws.
We now also know Heath, Rippon and Roy Jenkins were recruited by the Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst intelligence department in 1958, and had been working for the EU since then. Who are today’s members? Francis Maude, Ken Clarke, David Milliband, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind are probable candidates. We won't know until their deaths.
The government disinformation programme to deceive the public about the EU was underway by 6th August 1970, less than two months after Heath took office.
On 30th September it was authorised by Alec Douglas-Home Secretary of State, and William Whitlaw. Public figures like Joseph Godber MP, Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs, were given secret briefs on the pro-EU message, and what to tell the public. This is all right for political party, but highly illegal for the government.
Norman Reddaway, the campaign's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) full time leader, was involved from before the 10th September, as was Mr Royle.
The speed with which Edward Heath leapt to stab Britain in the back is quite astonishing.
By the 6th October the plans were finished:
Anti EU groups and politicians, like Enoch Powell, were stalked - even when they went abroad; advance copies of their speeches to be obtained from their party leaderships and derisory rebuttals delivered in advance or as soon as possible.
Ministers were recruited to speak for the EU, and given a manual of deception from which to write their speeches.
Six hundred external pro-EU speakers were organised and sent into action.
Overseas information officers were to be controlled and directed on Britain's entry in to the EEC - which was always techincally the EU - a superstate from the beginning.
　
A massive press and media letter writing campaign was begun in which FCO civil servants wrote to the press extolling the wholly untrue virtues of the EU, but signing them as though they were ordinary members of the public.
Whitelaw implemented a pro-EU letter writing to MP's in their constituencies.
They made approaches to the editors of newspapers to get them on side.
They recruited TV and radio recruiters who were pro_EU, and got them more air time.
Then footballers, television personalities - Jimmy Hill included -
The campaign was a huge success - and they finished up with FCO 26/1215, a long summary of results for the future disinformation programme - the one we're under today.
Extracts from other FCO documents including Letters / communications revealed:
FCO 30/1574:
PPS says Heath calls for EU Employment policy (Illegal under our constitution)
17 April 1972 Jellico of the Civil Service Dept, Whitehall, tells Douglas-Home that HMG should ratify the treaty of Accession (obviously illegal). and that EU Political Authority is needed.
19 April 72 Tom Bridges, 10 Downing St, confirms Heath supports Monnet's idea of an EU employment policy.
Our own EU Commissioners are common appointments by all EU govts, not just ours.
EU needs to be a political authority.
　
The unelected Monnet is obviously and illegally the boss.
28 June 72 From Michael Pakenham, Cabinet Office, to Michael Alexander, FCO. Monnet's meeting with Rippon - obviously working together. Action Committee for Europe.
19 May 72. Alec Douglas Home, FCO, to Jean Monnet. "I agree with your method for European unification"
FCO 26/1214 25th Oct 1972 JM Crosby, EU integration dept, tells Redaway & Logan to implement town twinning.
FCO 26/1215 15 February 72 Anthony Royle, FCO, SECRET to William Whitelaw, cc Geoffrey Rippon, Sir Denis Greenhill. Long document summarising successes of the disinformation campaign for future pro EU battles. Govt spent £461,400 on it.
FCO 30/1573 18.172 Jean Monnet, Comite D'Action pour les Etas-Unis D'Europe, To Sir Alce Douglas Home. Common monetary policy, Political prospects.
FCO 30/1061 Snooping on copy of speech by Geoffrey Rippon, in which he lied HMG would not settle for the current common fisheries policy. Lied Britain would still be ruled by the Queen in Parliament, at the same time when he's implementing the Monnet "EU Etats Unis".
1st Aug 71 List of MP's for and against EU, with "persuadables".
FCO 30/1048 How to put the EU across. A manual of deception covering: Sovereignty, the monarchy, influence (strengthened!), don't worry about withdrawal, courts, common law, all lies.
　
FCO 30/1065 Tracking the Britain Out campaign. 10th May 71: 17% in favour of EU.
26/797 Tracking Women Against the Common Market WACM, and Enoch Powell. Anti EU speeches to be given to the government before party seniors deliver them. "Times" on HMG's side?
797 16 April 1971 Tracking Powell in Italy and Frankfurt, plans to counter attack his speeches.
1065: 31 08.71 WK Slatcher Lying to Frere Smith, Anti CM League, that texts of EEC legislation are not available. Then changed their minds in two draft replies?
26/1213. 26 May 71 The plan in advance. William Whitelaw wants a single person coordinating publicity campaign. The Mirror cooperating with Maitlan, The Sun soon. Give ProEU TV producers more access. Persuade TV to use pro EU presenters. Recrut Pro EU footballers, entertainers; (This was stunningly successful; it went right through the nation)
FCO 26/1212 EU disinformation: the public are the priority target. Names missing.
26/1212 6.10.71 to Reddaway: All of it, incl. Letter Writing campaign to newspapers by civil servants pretending to be the public.
17th precursor, then 30.9.70 Reddaway to a list of departments: Secretary of state has approved the campaign.
1212 Privy Council writes to Joseph Gober MP asking him to exploit every opportunity to speak in favour of the EU. Sample phrases follow in 'THE MESSAGE" - a restricted document.
　
1212 6.8.70 Miss JC Petrie, EC Information Unit to Mr Ford: Mr Royle describes the team, campaign of letter writing. Conservative Party Research Dept on side.
Geoffrey Rippon was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1970, then Secretary of State for the Environment 1972.
The source for this information is – or was – David Noakes. http://eutruth.org.uk
Strange, but it is no longer available. I just happened to make a copy at the time – just in case!

WHY WE ARE LOCKED IN A DOWNWARD SPIRAL.

　

Nature, it seems to me, is rather Newtonian in its operations. Nature's operating principles are echoed in many familiar phrases and clichés -- - what goes around comes around, nothing is for nothing etc. In other words, nothing that happens is without consequence. It's cause and effect.

Most of those phrases are used when describing or commenting on human behaviour and interaction. It is rarely used in the wider context but it applies equally to the world that we humans manipulate. Thomas Malthus, in his "An Essay on the Principle of Population" pointed out that populations will inevitably grow while there is sufficient food to sustain them. Not sustain in comfort or plenty, mind, just about adequately will be sufficient to encourage population growth. In Africa, perversely, the more marginal that subsistence, the more explosive that growth appears to be.

As I said, nature is like that. When populations outgrow the earth's resources that sustain them, nature's corrective programme is automatically triggered. Depending on whether it is one particular resource or several, the corrective mechanism could be famine or else pestilence. It could be disease. The result could be war or any of the other Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Come what may, nature will restore its balance. Whether we like it or not and whatever we do, one way or another, population will be made to shrink.

Well, mother nature may be like that but unfortunately, human nature isn't. Not only that, we appear to be hell-bent on thwarting nature -- first by deliberately doing things that necessarily create imbalances in my nature's regulatory systems and then by reacting to the inevitable consequences by setting the scene for further subsequent disasters.

Once again, Africa has a whole raft of crises, from famine to civil war, terrorism to corruption – with all the awful social consequences. Once again, the West is awash with bleeding hearts responding to pleas for assistance. Once again, many of those pleas are from our very own charities. Favourites of the liberal-left like Oxfam, Save the Children etc lead the field with TV advertising campaigns tumescent with heartbreaking emotional blackmail. Leading names of the entertainment world's heartbroken-lefty brigade provide the commentary. It has become as predictable as Christmas. It does occur to me however that this cycle is picking up speed and not only that, the medium to long term consequences will be damaging to the West.

In effect, we repeatedly deplete our own resources to support mismanaged systems and cultures that, as a result of our actions, simply revive and continue to repeat their mismanagement with added vigour, safe in the knowledge that they will, eventually, be rescued again. The all-too-predictable consequence will be a series of large-scale migrations from the troubled areas to the areas that provide relief. Increasingly, aid from the Western nations is seen as proof that those countries are "the place to go".

The added poison to this mix is Islam. A belief system that denies – utterly, implacably and without emotion – the validity of any lifestyle or culture that does not conform to its own. In other words, the non-Islamic world as a whole. It is locked in the 6th century and, basically, is at war with the Western cultures. In this case, what the West regards as a "humanitarian crisis"is considered an opportunity to both exploit Western compassion as well as gain a foothold– a working base – inside it.

We are weakened by this carousel in many ways – socially, culturally, economically, politically. There is one inevitable consequence. At some stage, there is going to be an inexorable march to a major conflict. Looking at the world today – Europe in particular, that march to war is clearly already in progress. When it happens, it will be between the Western cultures and religions on the one hand and the predatory invading ones on the other. You can bet your bottom dollar that unifying factors facing the West will be race – and Islam.  And when our own culture and ethnicity have predetermined which "side" we are on, none of us will have any choice of allegiance. Once again, nature – and the Koran have already decided for you. 
Despite the evidence and experience, the West's self-delusion will survive. You can bet that we will attempt to conjure up an expensive (for the West) "solution" that will stop the catastrophe continuing. For a while, anyway. Maybe. Once again, praying for help will be utterly pointless.    

ITS CHRISTMAS. AGAIN. OH , WELL. I'LL MAKE AN EFFORT..

HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ONE AND ALL – with all due respect and wishing no offence whatsoever to those of you of other religions and creeds who do not acknowledge any significance in this season of the year 2014 (in the Christian calendar – while recognising that not all people acknowledge the Christian chronology), and acknowledging also that those other traditions may well be celebrating strange beliefs of their own and always remembering – and respecting equally – those souls who freely choose NOT to subscribe to any religious dogmas but successfully live their lives and get drunk regularly, like all normal people.

DISCLAIMER: Expressing the hope that you have a 'Happy Christmas' does not come with any warranty or guarantee, express or implied that you will actually have one. No liability is accepted in the event of your failure to do so and you are not under any obligation to do so against your wishes or inclinations.

USER GUIDE AND SAFETY ADVISORY: The greeting has been stress-tested under laboratory conditions: it has been scanned and is free of all known viruses but if the embarrassing " Secret Place" rash occurs within four days, go to the specialist clinic.

This is an equal opportunity greeting and applies to all, irrespective of their favourite disgusting fetish, which football team they support, how awful their dress sense or how judderingly-stupid they are (French people & Social Service wankers excepted). The sentiments and wishes contained in this greeting may settle during transit. The picture on the outside of this greeting may not always accurately reflect the content inside It. This greeting is gender-neutral, nut-free , gluten free, dairy free, organic, vegan and vegetarian-friendly, child-friendly and requires no personal information or access to your bank account.

Please adjust your dress and wash your hands before leaving this greeting. Slippery when wet. May cause dizziness if taken with alcohol. Do not exceed the recommended dose. Always read the instructions. If you are under 10 years of age, seek the advice of an adult. Height restrictions may apply during the holiday season. No animals were hurt in constructing this greeting. Only one per person. Mind how you go. Always turn the tap off and put the lid down before leaving the bathroom. Never take sweets from strangers in public lavatories. Your mummy and daddy were right all along. There, there. Settle down.

TODAY, NOBODY IS ACCOUNTABLE

Nowt's for nowt.  They understand the way things work in Lancashire and Yorkshire!

That's a distinctly Newtonian proposition, when you think about it.  Everything has some sort of reciprocal, whether it is payment for something received, an action or response resulting from some other action or a responsibility or duty necessarily incurred when rights and benefits are conferred.
So what's gone wrong with that equation?  Today, that very proposition is a concept too far for a depressingly large percentage of our population.  There is no shortage of pressure groups, vociferously lobbying on behalf of one set of 'rights' or another -- animal rights, human rights, this or that minority group's rights.  Nor is there any shortage of legal vultures, fighting for their share of the money generated for their once-honourable profession as one spurious claim after another is rewarded, to the disgust of the rest of us.  What a strange circus we have!  Recession-proof politicians with a taxpayer-funded retirement package of great generosity – matched only by Trades Union barons with inflation-proof remuneration paid for by their members, with an expenses culture denied to the rest of society, publicly proclaiming their distaste and condemnation of fat-cat businessmen. At the same time, journalists with a flexible moral and expenses culture of their own fulminate loudly and angrily about both of them -- with an army of Rumpoles in the wings, trying to decide which of the available troughs they should dive into.

 On the whole, I think it's the businessmen who come out of it best.
Why is nobody responsible these days?

LEGALISE COCA TEA

COCAINE.

(Before you read this, I have absolutely no vested interest in the subject. I say this because when I read it myself, I thought it read uncomfortably like a marketing pitch!)
I would guess that, in terms of UK crime figures, one of the major causes is the import and supply of Class A drugs – heroin & cocaine, including crack. Of these, as well as the criminal damage they inflict on society, heroin and cocaine cause a wide range of health problems. The damage done by heroin quite often results from the impurities added to reduce its purity.

Then we come to cocaine. Anything that requires industrial grade hydrochloric acid in its preparation as got to be suspect from the start! Pure cocaine is lethal: it 'hits' so quickly and massively that it creates a blood pressure surge that overwhelms the heart. That is why it has to be 'cut' with other substances to reduce its impact. Those adulterants themselves, as with heroin, do serious damage to the liver while cocaine corrodes the nasal passages and the habit leads to paranoia anyway! Yes, 'something must be done', as they say but nothing seems to work while Julian Critchley, former drugs adviser to the Cabinet now thinks that legalising -- and thereby regulating and monitoring -- narcotics is the only sensible policy.
　

A SOLUTION?

It seems to me that one way to seriously damage the entire cocaine industry would be to attack it financially, at source, by making it so prohibitively expensive that the market would wither. Fortunately, we in Europe have a relatively simple means of doing this that would have some major benefits. What I'm proposing is that we legalise the import and consumption of coca tea, a beverage widely and regularly consumed by nationals of those countries where coca is produced. Those countries have a long tradition of drinking it and its benefits are often ignored in the West, simply because it is used to produce cocaine. Of course, the same logic could be used to outlaw the consumption of grapes by children under 18 because they are the principal ingredients in wine and brandy!

COCA LEAF AND COCA TEA ARE NOT THE SAME AS COCAINE.

Apart from coca tea being readily available on tap in most hotels in the Andes and being a retail item -- teabags -- throughout the area, it is also available simply as a leaf: agricultural labourers just chew it, often for hours, because it gives them greater endurance, keeps them alert and helps keep hunger at bay. It is particularly beneficial at the high altitudes because it is also effective in combating altitude sickness, by improving the body's ability to absorb oxygen from the thin air.

SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION SUPPORTS COCA TEA

Studies (Nutritional value of Coca Leaf, Harvard University, 1975) have shown that although cocaine is one of the chemical constituents of the coca leaf, it is present in such small quantities that you would actually need to drink around 500 teabags of coca tea in order to ingest the 1g of cocaine that is present in one single 'line' -- that's around 80 litres or 20+ gallons! At the same time, its effects are quite interesting:

-- it increases alertness and sustained concentration
-- it contains vitamins, potassium and trace elements
-- it improves stamina and ability to resist fatigue
-- it is a mild appetite suppressant
-- it is a very mild stimulant
-- it is particularly high in antioxidants
-- it helps with oxygen absorption -- hence its altitude sickness relevance
-- it is definitely non-addictive
-- it helps regulate the heart and circulation
-- it aids digestion
-- it is suitable for old and infirm alike

Anecdotal evidence from tourists to Peru and Colombia consistently supports the proposition that it is basically a risk-free and physically beneficial beverage. It's widely packaged and retailed in exactly the same way as Tetley Tea. Even today, Coca-Cola import around 30,000 tonnes of coca leaf for flavouring although it is stripped of its cocaine content at the insistence of the DEA, as a condition of import. The reason they insist on that process is because a chemical analysis of a coca leaf will certainly indicate the presence of cocaine. It's one of about 15 identifiable components, (I think) and a small one at that: there's no way you could get 'high' on coca tea. Even George Bush, on a visit to Colombia was drinking it as he held a brief press conference although he didn't know it at the time. It was his host's sneaky way of demonstrating its harmlessness and the fact that it did not have any great euphoric 'hit' to make you hunger for more!

EFFECT ON COCAINE TRADE

There are a number of benefits to this proposition. First, if coca tea became an acceptable beverage in Europe, demand for the coca crop would make its legitimate commercial exploitation far more attractive to the Andean farmers. This would raise its price to such an extent that the cost of producing cocaine would rise massively: at the very least, this would raise the street price so that it became prohibitively expensive for many who, at present, consider it cheap and affordable. All too often, the introduction to cheap cocaine draws in the younger and potentially more vulnerable user. The same would be true of its crack derivative. It may not kill the business completely but it would do it serious damage and in the process reduce the incidence of much of the petty crime and violence that surrounds the traffic. If the US followed suit, it could be a terminal blow for the cocaine trade.

BENEFITS FOR ANDEAN HILL FARMERS

A second major benefit would be to the growers themselves. Able to farm the crop legitimately and sell for a higher price than before, the economic circumstances of an impoverished group of farmers would be significantly improved. So too would the economies of their country, without the need for foreign aid because the coca bush requires the sort of growing conditions only provided in the Americas by the Andes or the Rockies at certain altitudes.

There would be other benefits, not so immediately apparent. As cocaine production declined and its market shrank, the peripheral apparatus that supports the trafficking would also shrink -- those who transport it, the use of 'mules', the various middlemen etc.

In short, coca tea has been enjoyed by natives of Peru, Colombia and Bolivia for centuries and should be made available to European consumers. It's beneficial, gives a lift, improves alertness and concentration, helps fight fatigue and is non-addictive. I commend it to the nation!

PRIMARY EDUCATION – WHY IT MUST BE BASIC

THE ROLE OF PRIMARY EDUCATION.

What is primary education for? In a nutshell, it is to equip young people with all the tools they will need to get the most out of the education system and make the most of their talents. Fashions and priorities and methods change regularly but two things have been the bedrock foundation of our education for generations -- numeracy and literacy.

Literacy is our ability to read and understand the English language and the ability to express ourselves comfortably and with variety, both verbally and in writing. Grammar and spelling are integral to the process. Numeracy isn't advanced maths: it's being comfortable in using and manipulating the basic arithmetic functions, both mentally and written. All other education, from pre-Norman history at age nine to pilot training or medical School requires those skills. They are absolutely fundamental to subsequent learning and if learned early, they make future learning easier and faster.

　

What else? A sound basic grasp of the Earth's geography -- continents, oceans, the world's great rivers, deserts and mountains will give some context to the UK. A good basic knowledge of the UK -- main cities, rivers, ports. The map of Europe and its constituent countries should be familiar images.

Our history is important. It is essential that everybody here, including those who choose to come here and make their lives here, should grow up with a sound basic understanding of how, why and when this country came about, up to the Norman conquest at least. At this stage, if the teachers have done their job, secondary schools should be welcoming pupils with all the resources and training they will need for some serious education.

An old school friend of mine -- Grammar School, not public -- told me that he had been obliged to give additional ("remedial" was his word) English lessons to some of his first-year students at Cambridge! They have the brains, he told me but had been very badly-served by their teachers. They needed showing how to write properly-constructed papers for their course and even needed guidance on the use of English! He was a Fellow of King's College and in despair at the quality of modern secondary teaching.

It's no surprise that secondary education standards are dropping when the politicisation of teaching methods in primary schools and the knee-jerk rejection by the left – politicians and teaching unions both – to the old-fashioned methods of our parents and grandparents is creating generation after generation of pupils completely unprepared for and unable to benefit from secondary education. Add to that the fact that many of today's teachers are themselves victims of this dumbing down process. Like many of today's pupils, they are far better than the teaching system has allowed them to demonstrate -- while telling them that their academic record is excellent. It isn't always the case. When they are the result of the corrupted system that tells them that they are "excellent" when clearly they are not, they are bound to fight back against their detractors. They are victims, defending the system that victimised them and determined to carry on the process! You couldn't make it up.

If anything, technology may have made things worse, by enabling young people to manage without those basic skills. That way, they may even be solving problems without properly understanding the nature of the problem -- or how & why it was solved!

BROADBAND: A CAUTIONARY TALE.

Be very careful who you choose as your provider. See if you can follow the thread. This was my last (as of today anyway) e-mail to the customer service department of Talktalk. I've had Tiscali for the best part of two years and it has been wrong from the outset. I have summarised the story, so ignore your queries as to why didn't he?/couldn't he have done this or that etc. Just enjoy and be appalled. I was trying to close my account and was having problems. He was very sympathetic and sorry to hear of the trouble I've been having, and recommended a helpline that I had already attempted to use in the past day or two. This was my reply:

"
If I followed the advice of the customer helpline, cancelling the account is going to be impossible.

First, to recap: package requested -- broadband +24/7 telephone. Package charged for -- TV + weekend calls.

Result: initially no service at all because the broadband people thought I'd got the router etc from TV people. Then router arrived and only when monthly statements arrives am I puzzled. It took 20+ minutes online to Manila call centre to get the theoretical correction but nearly 2 years later, I'm still being invoiced for TV + weekend calls and like you, everyone is desperately sorry for all the inconvenience etc etc etc.

Back to now: advised to contact the appropriate helpline, I tried broadband: sorry, you have TV and we can't help you because that's a different section. "We'll connect you" led to the usual automated program -- repeated twice and the line went dead. (I am quadriplegic and use voice-activated system for PC -- but cannot press buttons on the phone.)

Undaunted, tried the TV line: sorry, don't recognize the number because you have no TV from us! Yes I do, that is what you are charging me for! No, you cancelled that service in 2008! No I didn't -- you are charging for it. Sorry, but we have no record.

Brainwave! I called head office reception and told them I was mightily pissed off with the whole situation: summarised and asked if there was any senior management available because I needed to talk to somebody about this who was in a position to do something. I'll put you through to somebody who can help you. Sounded promising, despite the piped music. Eventually I was through -- to a bloody call centre somewhere in Asia. (Back to Manila?) I summarised the story for her and she asked me whether I had a talktalk account. No, but I do have a Tiscali account. Sorry, she couldn't help because I didn't have an account. So, why the hell did the nameless person at head office put me through to her? She had no idea, but she couldn't help me because I didn't have a talktalk account.

It's a great story isn't it? Tell me, you think I should copy this letter to someone at the Daily Mail or Which? While you're pondering that, there is still the matter of closing my account as from midnight, Thursday June 17. Please advise."

THE BUTTOCK IMPORT CONUNDRUM.

Why does Britain continue to import buttocks?

It's not as if we weren't extremely successful in growing fat bottoms of our own, as can be seen in many classrooms and shopping centres. This place seems to be a magnet for those with grossly disproportionate gluteal endowments.

Cecilia (name changed to avoid legal embarrassment) must have won awards somewhere for her assets. I swear that light bends around her, such is her gravitational effect. I rather suspect that constructing her must have contravened her home country Gambia's building, safety and planning regulations. However, Newton's 3rd law operates, even here, in a care home (in a fashion)! Nothing is without consequence: despite the energy generated by her enormous calorie consumption, so much of that energy and effort is being directed towards maintaining her structure that very little is left to support brain activity. That must be the reason she has difficulty grasping concepts like "the key on the keyboard with an arrow pointing to the left", "the other one", "on your left", "my left leg", "the grey one goes underneath the red one" and others.

I mustn't be too critical though. The agency concerned may have a great store of as-yet-undiscovered buttocks to send here in the guise of "carers".

JUDGEMENTAL ME!

Look, I admit it: I am given to expressing dismissive opinions of some individuals who in all probability are wonderful human beings and a tribute to their parents' parenting techniques. Okay? Do I feel bad about that? (Feel free to speculate!) It comes to me easily, especially here. We all need somebody who makes us feel superior and, in that respect, this place is heaven on earth. Sometimes you are reminded of the extent to which you are just treading water in a sea of cerebral inadequacy and general ignorance. In the wake of the general election, we sat through days of manoeuvring, posturing, bluster, secret negotiation etc etc etc. I watched as the situation developed and, by and large, followed what was going on. At the same time, I was regularly quizzed by various carers as to "what is happening?", "who is winning?", "what are they doing?", "which party is Clegg ? Is he Conservative? Cameron?". I nearly started crying by that stage. And then I remembered something that I have mentioned before -- these people are allowed to vote and don't need special permission from a High Court judge in order to have children!! We should all be depressed -- this country is doomed!

MORNING ROUTINE -- PART OF IT ANYWAY


6 a.m. The morning tea round: might as well, you will be awake because of the noise anyway. They've got used to my aversion to lukewarm, weak, milky tea. Strong, hot and not too much milk. That'll do nicely. Now bugger off and I might get another 45 minutes kip.

I'll horrify you some other time with the morning 'rise and shine' routines. There is a six part sitcom in it somewhere. Eventually, down to breakfast. Cereals and toast are the only standard options most days, with prunes as an exotic extra. Fortunately, I've got my own porage oats. Friday's breakfast is usually a variation on a good English fry up. Roll on Friday.

My principle here is to maintain that it is a fundamental law of nature that there is no such thing as too much caffeine, too much chilli or too much whisky.The menu is occasionally excellent (sorry about that, I am prone to exaggeration) but frequently confused, as in "lasagne, with garlic bread and vegetables" (the cook isn't English, of course). As a rule it's bland, since they cater for the least demanding or sensitive palate. There's nothing remotely spicy or hot about the curry and garlic is considered too much of a departure for many, which is why you'll only get it on garlic bread. I think the most extreme example of cowardly cooking is the chilli con carne: it doesn't contain chilli!! It's only vaguely spicy-herby and I suggested that "minced beef with rice" would be more accurate. Oh yes, the kitchen appreciated my helpful advice.

However, I have slowly built up my own spice rack with hot chilli sauces, bottle of extra-virgin olive oil with chillies in it, black pepper mill, sea salt mill and in the fridge I have a jar of Thai green chilli sauce and some pickled garlic! These are judiciously added to soups, salady bits and pieces, well, pretty much anything except porage. I also have my own Carte Noire coffee, much better than the catering grade instant coffee they use and my own Scott's Porage Oats, light years ahead of their Ready Brek. In addition, I keep in the freezer a supply of chicken madras/vindaloo/jalfreize, Thai green curry and.....well, you get the picture! Apparently, certain staff members and residents consider my dietary inclinations to be brave, eccentric, peculiar or adventurous. They prefer ice cream and/or chips. Not always on the same plate.



In my room, I keep my medication strictly controlled: the whisky and vodka on the left, any port or wine at the back and in the shade and any beers in the coolest place available.

Oh well, that'll do for now. I've got things to read, e-mails to send and whisky to drink. Most of the guards here are fairly benign and I know that a few of them are, like me, dreaming of and planning their escape.

COMMUNICATION


As I said in my first post, good communication skills are not always a recruitment priority. I should put it another way: since most residents are English, fluency in English really should be a non-negotiable requirement. Hell's bells, it's bad enough for disabled people without them having to struggle with a language barrier -- or indeed, a comprehension barrier -- when attempting to explain what problems they need addressing, even more so if it is an urgent problem. Imagine lying in a bath while two carers, neither of them English, wrestle with the language, convinced that while lying in the bath, you want some toast! Spelling words was useless: they didn't recognize the word. It took some inventive thinking before they finally understood: the problem concerned your toes!

A lighter note. You know, nursing homes and care homes shelter a wide range of people and 'normal' people -- that's everybody else (normal? Ha!) -- often forget that among us lurk some very subversive characters. I exclude myself, of course. And don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm talking exclusively about residents. We have a number of rcarers here -- many from agencies on an "as needed" basis -- who, since raw intelligence is an inherited attribute, have DNA that you would kill to keep out of your own family gene pool. Does that make me judgemental and snobbish? Oh well. (See the shrug.)

It is rather like school really. You are sharing premises with a bunch of strangers with whom you have nothing in common except the need for care and have no control over who gets to be a carer. All you need to do to survive is simply accept that situation and play the cards you are dealt, as it were. Okay, some things can be hard to stomach: your table companions may include somebody French -- how bad can it get after that?

Well, for a start, the carers putting you to bed or giving you a bath may not be, shall we say, your favourite people. You may have problems with their manner, their attitude to you/the job in hand, their competence (or lack of) or their ability to understand you. Or all of those things! I shudder sometimes for those who have their own communication problems. You don't want to upset them though because those very same carers will have easy access to your private and secret places when you are up in the sling! If not today, some other day. Best not tempt providence, eh? I don't say that with any bitterness, you understand, as if I was recalling in acute detail any particular gruelling incident, I hasten to add.

ENTERTAINMENT?

Have you ever wondered what happens to former wannabes, once their peak years of dreaming of almost making it somewhere, have passed? I'll tell you what happens to them -- they make a nice living on the twilight circuit. That's the circuit of retirement homes, care homes, nursing homes and such, where "entertainers" (in their own minds anyway) are paid £40+ an hour to entertain the unfortunate residents.

Okay, one or two aren't quite that bad but, in many cases they wouldn't have made it past auditions to be Butlin's redcoats. Typically, it might be someone who can barely carry a tune, strumming chords on a guitar as they accompany a backing tape while singing their way through anything from Cliff Richard's ' Summer Holiday' to 'It's a long way to Tipperary'. Even more bizarrely, he/she may be no more than 40-60 or so, believing for some odd reason that their captive audience have musical tastes going back almost 100 years. On one occasion, we had a guy of 50 who gave us within the space of 15 minutes, My Old Man Said Follow The Van, American Pie, a bit of Lennon and McCartney, some Elvis, It's a Long Way to Tipperary and a bit of Eric Clapton! I suppose that it wouldn't have been so bad if he'd had a decent voice and knowing all the words would have helped him as well. And we had him for 90 minutes! Still, mustn't expect too much, must we?

HEALTH AND BLOODY SAFETY.

How, in the name of everything or anything that is holy, has the human race made it this far? Without the phalanx of health and safety experts, would we ever have known that hot things can cause burns, that sharp things can inflict skin damage, that balancing precariously on top of unsecured ladders or furniture might be dangerous and allow you to fall down with painful results? Dear (insert the name of your chosen deity, icon or favourite fetish), how lucky was my dad to survive without them to help him? He even managed to survive a world war!! Did nobody even bother to warn him about the dangers before he went?

And today, the health and safety advice panel here tells me that I am not allowed to have control of my own medication! No, it must be issued to me by the nurse on duty every time: what's more, I'm only allowed things that have been specifically prescribed for me by the doctor. That ruling extends to a simple 75mg ('children's) aspirin and even to over-the-counter products like Sennapod! Apparently, I might overdose without realising it! On antibiotics! Aspirin! My very own Sennakot!! It seems that I'm not permitted to ask one of the carers "would you give me two of those ampicillin & one of those aspirin please?"

This is, apparently, to protect both me and the carers: I can't be trusted to be in control of that request and that they cannot be trusted to respond appropriately. Look, I'm thinking, if they can't be trusted to do that, why the hell are you employing them in the first place? And even before that, how dare you take away my control of me? In my book, I am in control of me, as far as my mental functioning goes, even though I may need physical assistance to give effect to my wishes. Even having fun, however you define it, you need assistance from carers etc. Don't you believe everything the pro-lifers tell you -- quadriplegia isn't always fun.

Unless my priorities and routines change, my postings may be, probably will be, sporadic. Be warned. I'm not remotely PC and regard "political correctness" as nothing less than a social and cultural cancer. It may well be that some of the things I say cause you some grief, offend sensibilities and thoroughly merit being condemned with words ending in ‘-ist’. Fair enough. By and large there is no focused hostility or antipathy. Well, actually there is from time to time but frankly, I don't really care any more -- certainly, no more than religious and social zealots or born-again politicos care about irritating me when promoting their own perspectives. Get over it. Get a proper life. The dog did, Eventually. After we took it to the vet..


Oh well, I got that off my chest. I am not intrinsically and irredeemably curmudgeonly -- my wife may demur -- but I certainly have developed a finely-tuned capability to be a grumpy old man. That's hardly surprising when you're stuck in a nursing home. Forced by circumstance to live with a bunch of strangers, most of whom share few of your life experiences, opinions and understandings, circumscribed by rules and regulations dealing with Health & Safety, Lifting & Handling is bad enough.



Things are made worse sometimes with the problems created by the carers supplied by agencies. By making the caring sector a low paid employment option, it has become an easy recruitment opportunity for available labour with no qualifications other than their availability. As a consequence, it remains lowly paid and so is highlighted by those who argue that we need immigrants because nobody in this country will do the job at those rates. Of course, this creates a situation where there is no need to raise remuneration significantly as there is always a ready supply of willing workers. Yes, I know there are some excellent and dedicated carers, often attracted by the opportunity to work occasional hours, preferring that sector because it allows them to be in control of their own lives. They are not the majority. Unfortunately, the ability to communicate fluently and easily with those receiving care is not deemed a priority. No doubt I shall return to this theme. Biliously. Often.