Skip to content

BREXIT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL

July 10, 2018

YOU go to the polling booth to exercise your right to decide in a democratically free country….. don’t you?
In council, Welsh Assembly and UK Parliamentary elections my vote makes no difference because here Labour get in as sure as night follows day (Aneurin Bevan said that Labour doesn’t count votes in Wales, they weigh them) and now it seems that my vote in the Brexit referendum was a waste of my time and energy, too.
The opportunity to vote on our membership of the EU was a massive offer which I grasped enthusiastically…a chance to end our sickening new begging-bowl mentality based very firmly in an over-reliance, even dependence upon a crumbling Christian Socialist German-based social and economic model of openness and integration because of their obsessive guilt over their Nazi past and sail independently into the sunset on a much more positive voyage of world free trade with all our power of self-determination won back from those Brussels bureaucrats who would smother us in red tape designed to close, deny and police rather than open, enable and free us.
The European Union itself is now in grave danger because the overriding ideology which always seeks to homogenise us and force us into paying ridiculous fees and penalties in a system which naturally benefits the homogenisers and not the homogenised is now coming under attack from a growing populist trend in many European countries.
The majority of Welsh people -a considerably higher majority than voted to set up the Welsh Assembly government – decided enough was enough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36612308
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-wales-36202459
We voted LEAVE to ensure:
1, No more government specifically designed for the governors to multiply happily in their plush, cosy cabals while the governed languish and corrode in one-party states like Wales as we encourage ever-growing numbers of immigrants to come in to hoover up low paid jobs and make the most of our generous health and social care arrangements and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that we should have put up the “country full” signs years ago.
2, No more unelected Labour Euro politicians (what percentage of the population actually voted in EU elections in Wales? https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/eu-election-polling-station-turnout-7164115) helping themselves to generous pay and expenses while sitting in a chamber where few people even know where Wales is, even less what really matters to Welsh people.
3, No more cosy cabals and stitched-up trade deals signed, sealed and delivered in boozy cross-party all-expenses paid consensual binges in Belgium and France. Airbus is the natural child of this unholy alliance – really a gift to us from mainland Europeans but with very strict conditions attached – stay in our club and we might give you some more gifts and we can always take your gifts away if you get naughty. This company, don’t forget, told its own staff to vote against Brexit. How much longer would it have been before they were told to do other things to maintain the cosy stasis?
4, No more having to maintain the ridiculous lie that we in any way want to subscribe to and wholeheartedly embrace a common flag, a common currency, a common trade market ruled and regulated by the Germans essentially using their currency, a commonly-held view being unsuccessfully promoted in Brussels that we are one big area with each country almost indistinguishable from any others and a supersized legal and regulatory body which over-rules and over-dominates us in a hugely costly and unnecessary way and which can (like the Welsh Assembly) only expand and fatten and never contract and slim in ways we have no control over.
Overwhelmingly, an EU strangle-hold had left us unable to determine our own course and our own prices and forced us into a protection racket which protected the few rather than the many.
Cardiff Business School economist Patrick Minford http://www.patrickminford.net/LSEpressreleaseRebuttal.pdf always saw the merit in losing that strangle-hold and breathing normally again but his has been a carefully ignored voice in Wales and instead Brexit deniers have held sway in the Welsh media.
The positive impetus and drive came immediately after our vote to leave when there was a strong and powerful feeling of reform and a sense of urgent need for us to set the agenda and state our terms.
The Tories – currently tasked with making our wishes a reality – did not, possibly could not, appoint an enthusiastic and suitably determined and authoritative leader who believed fundamentally in our independence to deliver it so we did not set the agenda and state our terms.
The agenda and the terms are being written and stated in Brussels, not London.
Theresa May has made no secret of her support for the EU experiment and has always been hopelessly hamstrung in her dealings with Europe and her own party.
That impetus, drive and momentum has now been lost along with the careers of a few Brexit positive Tories like Boris Johnson, who fear that Mrs May and her civil servants are cooking up yet another consensus compromise hotpot which will look decorative and impressive on a plate but taste awful immediately and for many years after.
Prepare for a backlash from angry voters if the recipe is deliberately designed to trick and fool us and takes us back to square one.

Advertisements

WHO NEEDS “FRIENDS”?

July 5, 2018

FACEBOOK continues to bombard me with suggestions for “friends” in a feature they call “People You May Know”.
Quite where they get these people from – I’ve never heard of most of them – is open to speculation (Private Eye no 1471 “Anti-social media” informs us that the company is notoriously hazy and economical with verifiable detail as to what information sources they use – I wonder why?).
In the early days, old school acquaintances and the like would send me requests to be their “friend” in what I then saw as something akin to the old school reunion stuff most sane people avoid at all costs (if you weren’t really friends then, why would you be now and why would you want to know that that snotty-nosed little twerp who used to bully you in primary school is now chairman of ICI).
I found it then an amusing and entertaining diversion.
But today’s frantic unsolicited activity by Facebook (the modern equivalent of cold calling) to get me “hooked-up” in a social circle is neither – it’s slightly sinister and really rather oppressive.
I also object to knee-jerk reaction online to any purchases or visits almost warning me “Don’t forget to review it”.
It’s everything now…. had a little walk in the country and fed the ducks? – “Don’t forget to review it”. Just been for a dump? – “Don’t forget to review it”. Been to see the doctor for a “routine” appointment? – “Don’t forget to review it”.
I like to think that something I write on here carries some weight because it is not linked in any way to big business as I receive no payment but anything within a company website is and never will be. It is meaningless as the company controls it and is usually a token part of their marketing drive. They’ve given you the chance to give feedback and review it so they’ve “empowered” you and given you a “voice” – NO.
I once, many years ago, agreed to be someone’s “friend” on Facebook only to find them sending me endless self-congratulatory and self-promoting garbage which I grew to detest. It was rather like one of those round-robin communications you get from America (where else?) where they tell you how wonderful life is for them as they celebrate yet another new arrival and share their holiday snaps in Indonesia and trumpet yet more promotion at work but don’t actually ask how you are.
Others have tried and failed to get me into a community of politically united and directed individuals with common goals who want to work tirelessly for a better future for everyone (yeah, right).
The moment you take issue with them, contradict them or question them in any way they don’t like, they BLOCK you because they can.
And then you’re just a BLOCKhead with no friends.

TALE OF TWO CITIES

July 1, 2018

THE Pillmawr area of Newport is now very obviously and conspicuously a dumping ground for severely under-resourced, under-represented and largely unwanted people, mostly immigrants. How many of them are legally here is open to speculation.
The district is an important part of the history and heritage of Newport, a traditional docks town clustered around a river affording entrance to the oceans with Pill – like Tiger Bay in Cardiff – being closest to the shipping lanes which are no longer busy bringing in imports of food, materials and people.
The 1959 film Tiger Bay starring John and Hayley Mills featured Newport’s docks area around its famous Transporter Bridge in the opening establishing scenes of the movie, not, significantly, Cardiff docks.
At that time, Newport was a thriving major UK centre for shipping as it provided an import and export service bringing exotic world foods in and sending out coal and steel from the huge coalfields and steel plants of industrialised south Wales which have now, of course, shut down. There were jobs aplenty for local people and even for incomers.
Grimy Tiger Bay has been transformed into metropolitan Cardiff Bay – gentrified and tidied up with a cluster of new-builds then given an impressive facelift to make it a suitably prosperous looking host for the Welsh Assembly government building and a large opera house which attracts performers and audiences from around the world. There is a glow of prosperity and wellbeing about the area and new roads are being built to speed people more directly to the rapidly growing number of high-rise flats and apartments with views out to sea which artificially bump up property values for the whole of Cardiff.
No such investment has gone into Pill and there is absolutely no sign of gentrification. The district is becoming a ghetto and now resembles a mish-mash of disenfranchised outsiders on the streets huddled around bare and mean shops and poky properties. There is an unwholesome look and feel and it is not an accident that both main police stations – Newport Central and Pill police station, where most staff and vehicles are based – both abut the district.
Living in a property of any kind is seen as an improvement on their native homeland and the growing number of tent encampments starting to pop up on public land (there is a tent pitched inside the Harlequin roundabout with people hanging out clothes to dry – gaining access to it on a busy roundabout would be an impressive feat in itself. Perhaps they never leave the roundabout).
I was once in a retail park near Pillmawr one Sunday morning when a coach pulled up and Eastern European migrants poured out of it to be greeted and welcomed to their new home by existing immigrants in the area, some in cars which the newcomers piled into, their belongings packed into rackety luggage crammed into the coach.
I recently pointed out to the local council that an office building was being used by people to live in against planning laws. They visited it and found five men of Eastern European origin inside with makeshift beds and poor cooking and toilet facilities. I wasn’t told what they were doing or who was putting them up but the property owner was warned to desist.
Mostly Eastern European itinerant wanderers with poor resources and little or no support at any level are getting by however they can relying upon each other and not visibly integrating or embracing native Welsh culture in any way.
Tensions, naturally, are starting to rise and for the first time ever, I now feel the fear of a no-go zone future where we only venture out either armed or have goods delivered to our doors.
The dominant feeling is of a population in retreat – from each other and from healthy social interaction and civic pride.
One man bolted out of a Lidl store near Pill this morning having stolen some food. The staff pursued him but gave up. There was no security and the police would not get involved.
Others were roaming around the poorly populated car boot sale on rough ground near the transporter bridge competing with each other to desperately haggle and drive down sellers to get old, cast-off household goods which ordinarily would be thrown out as rubbish at rock-bottom rates.
There is prostitution and drug dealing and there is little or no visible evidence of a police force getting to grips with this.
The huge number of homeless people high on a combination of alcohol and drugs occupies more and more public space, particularly outside small grocery shops, where they beg shoppers to give them their change while lying prostrate on the floor supping on bottles of high-strength cider like helpless, mewling new-born babies totally without hope, purpose or direction.
What previously would be considered unacceptable and unsightly is now becoming normalised and everyday, accepted by the authorities who appear to be under siege like desperate British troops on Rorke’s Drift.
Nobody would want a view of this kind of activity. Meanwhile, life goes on swimmingly in Cardiff Bay, where the views are more pleasant and agreeable.

CHEAP AND NASTY JOURNALISM

June 24, 2018

IN THE week when former Blue Peter presenter John Leslie was cleared of a sexual assault in a case which should never have come to court, the BBC has stepped in to the Carl Sargeant affair to make sensational claims about sex pests in the workplace based on highly dubious evidence gathered from a questionnaire they designed and handed out to Welsh Assembly staff for them to answer in secret with no way of verifying the “evidence”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-44580091
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-44546860
Now, a BBC staff member – who has not been named – is accused of “inappropriately touching” by someone who filled in one of the questionnaires in confidence. It appears that the BBC intends to investigate (cue a stream of nauseating verbal virtue signalling by Rhodri Talfan Davies) but how can they if neither the informant nor the suspect are named?
“We tolerated things we shouldn’t and turned a blind eye,” said, yes, you guessed it, an anonymous female former AM who the BBC calls a “whistleblower” but who fails to specify exactly what these “things” were or exactly when.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-44534627
This former AM only becomes a “whistleblower” when she bravely breaks her anonymity and her silence and gives names, dates and actual incidents which were witnessed by others and can be proven by others.
We need to read the questionnaire in full, establish exactly who wrote it, how likely the questions were to bias the respondents in the way they were worded and how scientifically the results were assessed if at all. We also need to know what proportion of the whole questioned refused to fill it in.
Giving disproportionate credence to anonymous questionnaires and anonymous sources is just lazy, cheap and nasty journalism.
It’s a classic example of this McCarthyite agenda of whispers, manipulation and political mischief aided and abetted by a news organisation which no longer reports the news but creates it.
The general tone is that the Welsh Assembly is a toxic and rather sinister place to work in, apparently, nobody feeling able to break their anonymity and name names and repeatedly echoing the idea that standing up to power and powerful figures is difficult for everyone but, it appears, particularly for women, who are more vulnerable, particularly to sexual misconduct. Significantly, it makes no mention of younger males being vulnerable to sexual misconduct or groomed by more powerful males and females at the Assembly and concentrates solely on the victimhood of anonymous women, a cunning tool in the wrong hands.
John Leslie was named and shamed over the ludicrous claims made by a woman he met at a nightclub and enjoyed a dance with. The woman, who has and always will remain anonymous, later decided that the dance was sexually “inappropriate” and went to the police. It takes two to tango – one was doing it in public while the other was doing it secretly.
My name is at the top of this blog – it’s time for these anonymous sources at the Welsh Assembly to give theirs.
And while they are deciding, please don’t employ yet another cheap and nasty tactic of claiming that they are being unfairly “trolled” by people on “social media” – adding yet more sanctimonious victimhood and appealing for sympathy.

TROUBLING STANCE ON CARL SARGEANT PROBE

June 18, 2018

LAWYERS acting for the Welsh Assembly government have told an inquest into the death of AM Carl Sargeant that an “increasing number” of women had come forward to make complaints about him touching and groping them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44493853
But the key question is this: if these individuals will not be named or identified in any way, how can we be certain that this is true and how can this ever be verified in any truly meaningful and forensic manner now or ever in the future?
If a group of anonymous individuals are making complaints and cannot themselves appear at an inquest or, indeed, anywhere else to state them in public, then surely, the government could simply invent a figure because nobody could ever check it or even ask for further details on the complaints and the names of those making them.
If these individuals had genuine complaints, why did they not go to the police with these and make them official so that the police could investigate?
We would then know the exact nature of these complaints as well as the names and the true number of people making them.
If you invite people to make complaints and assure them of complete anonymity in all circumstances (as it appears that the Welsh government has) then the likelihood is that somebody somewhere will almost certainly make a complaint because they have nothing to lose and, very possibly, something to gain.
It may be that some “inappropriate” conduct went on but there is a world of difference between “inappropriate” and illegal. The public needs to know at some stage where on that scale these complaints fell and exactly how many people truly made complaints.
The government’s stalling and obviously partisan posturing over an “independent” inquiry is deeply troubling.
It feels increasingly like a deeply sinister and disturbing business which will have huge consequences for how people behave in the workplace in future.

IT’S HELL DOWN HERE IN THE NUCLEAR FAMILY

June 18, 2018

THE new hit movie Hereditary will have Christians and family history groups up in arms over its intensely gloomy, frighteningly depressing conclusion about the nuclear family – now coming under constant threat from Hollywood and our liberal media (didn’t reactionary Rod Liddle hit out at one of those liberal university campus pointy-heads he so obviously loathes who encourages us to see the family as not binary and not any more gender specific, positively discriminating in favour of a Ms and a Ms bringing up a child born under an IVF procedure like Scottish Tory Ruth Davidson and Elton John and his husband are currently doing over a traditional Mr and Mrs bringing up a child born naturally?)
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/sociology/assess-the-view-that-the-nuclear-family-is-no-longer-the-norm.html
https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/case-studies/families-the-end-or-simply-different
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hereditary
Just think what evangelical church leaders and the Catholic high command will make of this disturbing movie (not because it is intensely frightening in the way The Exorcist was but because it viciously attacks the nuclear family as if it in itself is a demonic institution which inevitably curses and condemns young people).
It is the worst possible advert for the marriage of a male and a female and a very prescient and highly charged propaganda tool for the non traditional, non Christian, liberal left. Women seem targeted too as wicked witches who seek to inhabit males by leading them horrifically astray.
I don’t know where Ruth Davidson’s child will stand when it comes to tracing his or her heritage because the family has always been biologically based on male and female couplings, the mating of a male and a female and the coming together of their two families.
Will a future doctor, for instance, have access to the male sperm donor’s medical history to treat the child according to the male hereditary faults and quirks which are always passed down the line?
Hereditary – which I saw in a Cineworld in Cardiff yesterday – centres on one American nuclear family of a mum, dad, son and younger daughter living a humdrum life in a nondescript house in a picturesque, remote spot who hate each other and destroy all but create nothing when they come under the demonic spell of a dead witch grandmother’s secret all-consuming evil, Satanic cult.
The highly venomous exchanges over the dinner table when mum and son spit insults and angry, swearing barbs at each other like hyped-up hyenas fighting over who is most guilty for the earlier death in a road accident of the daughter most forcefully explains the film’s central premise, which is that this traditional way of life – a male patriarch and a female matriarch presiding over a meal eaten together with the children at a set time as a regular healthy family institution providing shared nourishment and togetherness – is and was not healthy at all. In fact, it’s hell on earth.
What has been passed down from the mother of the wife, played by Toni Collette in this movie (the father, played by Gabriel Byrne, seems throughout to be a desperately docile and rational victim rather than an instigator of the malign mischief which wreaks merry hell in this family home) is devilishly destructive in an unfathomably deceitful and wilfully fucked-up manner.
But is the crazy family curse neuroses and over-anxiety and fear about things in the worldly, physical sphere (unspoken and unconfronted inherited mental illness) or over-anxiety and fear about things in the otherworldly, spiritual sphere (unspoken and unconfronted inherited religious mania)? Or could it be a bit of both? Is it a priest or a psychologist they need?
The film itself is clunky and too obviously rich in stock filmic horror devices (decapitations, seances, characters becoming manic and completely physically disinhibited, outbreaks of fire, ugly grimaces and weird, discordant sounds) for it to be taken entirely seriously (outbreaks of enthusiastic laughter in the auditorium too often accompanied the outbreaks of stock filmic horror devices at yesterday’s showing).
But the family’s transformation from an apparently functioning, fairly healthy institution (albeit bizarrely estranged from happiness and totally isolated from each other emotionally and physically in one house with horribly poor attachments in the local community, school and civic life) into paranoid and vengeful killers seemed, to me, to be saying something meaningful about the state of the nuclear family in modern life.

SISTERLY LOVE OVER SEX PESTS

June 7, 2018



LET US compare and contrast two women who share the same surname (if that word remains acceptable – the prefix sur almost certainly denotes masculine hegemonic superiority imposed upon women by male heads of families over centuries so will be contested vigorously, I note that some men now take their wife’s name in a hyphenated marriage of two families in some sort of ludicrous token attempt to tackle this).
I present to you Ms Jessica Rose Phillips, MP, born in 1981, and elected Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley in 2015 almost certainly in a modern system which naturally positively discriminates in favour of women over men and Ms Melanie Phillips, journalist, born in 1951, who has shifted from the left to the right in her worldview, having worked in a dated system which naturally positively discriminated in favour of men over women.
The two met at a meeting of the women and equalities committee in parliament yesterday to discuss the sexual harassment of women and girls in public places and sexual harassment in the workplace.
I have more in common with Melanie than with Jess – much closer in age, experiences, worldviews, forensic and analytical journalistic approaches, resistance to falling into traps set by political pressure groups of any kind, natural scepticism and equally natural expectation that my views would be given credence and always add to a debate as well as need for an audience.
Jess naturally oozes sex appeal in the way that girls who greet you at massage parlours do (her eyes speak to you before she opens her mouth and always invite rather than decline), Melanie does not and probably never has. She is cerebral and, as the judge in the Jeffery Archer libel trial once said of Mary Archer, “fragrant”.
Jess has a bee in her bonnet (and this is where I fight hard not to descend into Rod Liddle-speak, adopting the weary tone of a sexless “chance-would-be-a-fine-thing” middle-aged man confused and bewildered merely for cheap laughs) about women being objectified and treated as sexual fantasy figures by men who have emasculated them in the home, in public and in the workplace over centuries.
I know not why this is the case for Jess but assume it to be because she has had more than her fair share of unfortunate encounters with men which have left her bruised, battered and bewildered (I Will Survive by Gloria Gaynor comes to mind).
She and the legion of other earthy, busty and fertile young women like her tend to bring out the hunter gatherer in some men, who, with their wooden clubs menacingly brandished over their loincloths, would call her “a bit of a go-er”, “fit and hot” or as the very young who are appropriated into pornography from the age of eight would say, a “MILF”.
She can certainly speak from experience about being pursued. Melanie, who has less of the earthiness, bustiness and fertility, will almost certainly also have a less involved and stressful experience and history of being pursued.
This has led Jess to take a partisan and morally right approach and tone and to regularly lecture us about what is “appropriate” and “socially cohesive” on behalf of Melanie and all women as she spearheads a radical feminist movement which naturally diminishes men in favour of women by applying unfair and divisive rules at the outset, ironically, to tackle unfairness and divisiveness.
These radical feminists are consigning men into boxes as predators, sexual deviants, unwanted pests and persistent prowlers always on the hunt like rabid, slavering dogs for fresh “meat”. The sad case of Welsh Assembly AM Carl Sergeant’s suicide over sex pest claims is a prescient case in point.
Melanie, who seems much more sympathetic towards men and far more understanding of how they really are, can see the madness in Jess’s method and being principled, assertive and well informed, is not afraid to point this out to her (as she did at yesterday’s committee meeting when Jess adopted that usual political approach of leading and coaxing “witnesses” to tell her what she wanted to hear, “So Melanie, when do you think men are going to stop beating off, beating up and being beastly to us women?”).
Melanie fears for the future if men continue to be so brazenly criminalised just for having a libido and she explained to the liberal police that the illness caused by pornography and sexual exploitation was felt as much, if not more, by men than by women.
The women and equalities committee is a coven of liberal activists under “fragrant” chair, Tory MP Maria Miller, who scour the media for examples of unbalanced and offensive representations of women as sexual objects to promote the idea of them as always available and ready for sex which can end in rape and inappropriate touching. They seek to censor and control the media against our wishes and against our interests with Stalinist purges and diktats about behaviour from a radical, revolutionary freedom fighting alt-left academic army in Chakrabarti Towers.
Jess and Melanie Phillips are united in one thing – relations between the sexes in an increasingly sexually obsessed and obsessive environment is a natter for grave concern.
The difference between them is that one can see it only from the perspective of her own gender but the other knows that there are always two sides to every story and political grandstanding from a partisan perspective will achieve nothing.