Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Wish Pensioners a Happy Christmas With This Small Generous Gesture

The UK State Pension is only £119.30 per week. Certainly not enough to live on, even if you own your own home. Pensioners have to pay Council Tax, the full range of household expenses including maintenance, and then they have to pay in the vast majority of cases for any help or care that they get. They have to pay for NHS dental treatment, which used to be free and was promised to them when they paid all their National Insurance contributions over a lifetime.
All the concessions we used to extend to pensioners are being cut back, even the free bus pass, and the age for becoming eligible to claim the pension is rising steeply all the time.

Image result for UK 2nd class stamp

No, I haven't got a magic pot of money that could solve all these problems overnight, though I do think that "Sir" Philip Green and his likes should pay more tax, and should be forced to cough up for the company pensions of the thousands of BHS employees he cheated and swindled abominably. And I do think that our government should be prioritizing our OWN citizens for spending money, those who have worked here and paid tax all their lives. That is simply fair.
I would like to suggest a small, seasonal gesture. Give all pensioners a couple of books of free Christmas stamps, that they can use to send Christmas cards. Even a second-class stamp is now 55p and a first-class is 64p. If you want to put a letter and a few photographs in it, it will probably be classified as a "large" letter, and charged 75p. That is a figure to cause dismay. The better part of a pound to send Christmas greetings. Less than two stamps per £ sterling. To someone living on a pension, 55p is what they would budget for a meal. It will still buy you a couple of potatoes, a couple of eggs and a few baked beans. And they are expected to pay that for each stamp.

 Consider the total cost of Christmas cards and stamps. Assuming you buy cards in an economy box so that they work out at only 20p per card, (or bought them when reduced last January and saved them, as really frugally-minded people do), add that to the cost of the stamp and the minimum price of sending one small card with no enclosures is still 75p.
So sending a card to ten friends costs £7.50. And sending a card to forty friends and relatives, which most people would like to do, costs £30. When you are living on £119.30 per week that is a problem.
Now I can hear you say "But nowadays people can send Email greetings". That's not the same. An Email greeting is not fun to get through the front door, and fun to open. You don't have the fun or guessing who it is from the handwriting and the postmark. Real cards can be stood on the mantlepiece and make colourful decorations throughout the Christmas season. They can be strung up on ribbons in the hall or in the dining-room. They are personal in a way that the internet is not. And anyway, a lot of older people are not internet-savvy. They don't all have computers, or internet, don't all have Email and certainly would not know how to find, fill in and send an E-greeting card. They would have real difficulty opening one and even more sending one. I hope internet never wholly replaces real cards.
I think it would be nice if the government sent every pensioner 40 free stamps, timed one month before Christmas, a little sign of seasonal cheer from all of us. Each stamp would make two people happy, the sender and the recipient. And it would cost a tiny fraction of the amount we spend on mistaken generosity for fraudsters who are just not legally entitled to claim it.


Sunday, 23 October 2016

Shame on Those Who Reduce Elections to a Farce

I am all for comedians, satirists and the general public having a laugh about political matters, but I don't think it's funny for spoof candidates to stand in parliamentary elections and try to reduce the whole process to a farce. 

If that makes me a grumpy, bad-tempered git then I'm proud to be a grumpy, bad-tempered git, who still remembers that people struggled, fought, and died to get the vote. There are many countries in the world where you could be gaoled for demanding an election  - China for example - and many others where the election process is even more blatantly biased than it is here, yes even taking the BBC into account. And however biased and farcical you may think it is already there is simply no excuse for treating it like a fancy-dress parade and undermining belief in the whole process. 

At the Witney by-election this week, there were fourteen candidates including no less than three silly, superannuated juveniles standing for parties with titles such as the Bus-pass Elvis Party, the Monster Raving Loony Party, and the Eccentric Party of Great Britain. These jests are not new and some of them have been dragged out at election after election for decades. They are dinosaurs of yesteryear. Surely it is time to put aside these tired worn-out japes and grow up? After all, only a few months ago, the majority of people in this country did vote to keep our precious right to govern ourselves. Having fought to keep it, for heaven's sake let's respect it.

These publicity-seekers are treating the whole election as if it were a carnival. Why don't they just go to a carnival and keep away from serious politics? There were actually some good independent candidates such as Mr Nicholas Ward, who stood on a platform of opposing the HS2 high-speed rail-link project  - a very worthy cause. And there was Dr Helen Salisbury standing for the NHS Action Party. These people could have got more media attention and more votes if the pranksters and buffoons would just keep away.

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Eagle Sisters - Not Born That Way. Listen to Science

This is Angela Eagle, Labour MP for Wallesey and Shadow First Secretary, standing next to her sister Maria Eagle, Labour MP for Garston and Halewood and Shadow Defence Secretary. 

It is hard to tell them apart, as they are identical twins. Both were born on 
17th February 1961. Angela as you may recall is the one who spoke for Remain in the televised debate on EU membership just before the Referendum. Her poor performance may well have contributed to the Leave vote. Despite going to Oxford, it seems she is unaware that you cannot win a debate by launching personal attacks on the speaker on the opposite side. You are supposed to address the issues, not the person.

Angela, or is it Maria?

Maria, on the other hand, is the hasty, over-confident loudmouth who proclaimed on Twitter that the suspect in the Jo Cox shooting incident had shouted "Britain First". This later turned out to be untrue, and she deleted the Tweet but only after the falsehood had gone right round the world ten times. She never apologized. 

Maria or is it Angela?
The two sisters are as alike as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Their views, their choleric temperament, their appearance and even their voices are so similar that anyone could be forgiven for mistaking one for the other. Yet one - Angela - is a lesbian, while Maria is heterosexual. Angela is in a civil partnership with another woman, while Maria calls herself the "straight one". This provides striking proof of the scientific fact that nobody is "born gay". There is no genetic predisposition that compels anyone into homosexual behaviour. The Great Gay Myth number 2 is up against new scientific evidence every day.

Identical twins have the same genes and the same 
uterine environment. In fact, Angela and Maria, like most identical twins, also had the same environment throughout their early life. They were brought up by the same parents, they went to the same schools, and the same university - Oxford - where they studied the same subject, PPE. And they are both, to their credit, distinguished chess players, who have played for England.
      And then one of the CHOSE to become a lesbian. The logic is inescapable, Captain Kirk. Of course, feeble-minded Guardianistas who are taken in by LGBT ideology will not accept logic. When presented with conclusive, scientific evidence like this, and there is an immense amount of it, they resort to gobbledygook, saying "Isn't it fascinating, when you have gay genes the other one is less likely to be?"  No gene or combination of genes can have the opposite effect on two different people, that is nonsense. The truth is that both of the twins are equally free NOT to be homosexual. They are equally at liberty to make their own choices. 
So why are children in schools being taught false LGBT ideology? Because the fanatics and ideologues are in charge of the system, it's that simple.
In August this year, a major new study of the scientific evidence for such claims was published in the respected American academic journal New Atlantis, written by two distinguished experts with impeccable academic credentials. Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer , M.B., M.S., Ph.D., and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, both teach at the Johns Hopkins University in the USA. They surveyed 200 pieces of previously published research on sexuality and gender before writing their article "Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the biological, psychological and social sciences".  It concluded that there is no evidence that anybody can be "born homosexual" let alone "born in the wrong body". Nor is sexual preference, once chosen, permanently fixed. The "born gay" myth is not true.
So our policy-makers should be changing their stance. They should be ashamed to endorse views and ideology that flies in the face of science. But instead the Guardianistas are ignoring it, our UK school syllabus is scandalously inculcating lies, and the bullies of the LGBT movement are using menace and threat to take reprisals against the Johns Hopkins University itself for employing "homophobes".

This will not surprise those who are aware of the bullying campaigns they have launched against other top academics like Dr Paul Church and Prof. Mark Regnerus, who tried to blow the whistle on their fraud, or high achievers like Brendan Eich and Dr Ben Carson who have resisted their extremism. I
f a university employs anyone who dares to speak out against the gay myths and lies, the Gaystapo will simply complain to their numerous chums up there in the corridors of power, who can get the university penalized in revenge. 
The Gaystapo has numerous threats at its disposal, principally that of withdrawing the state subsidies or charitable status of any institution that is deemed to have transgressed LGBT decrees. They can also pull strings to get the ratings of the university lowered, and they can organize students (aggrieved LGBTs and their sidekicks) to give low ratings to the non-conforming academic. They can simply stigmatize the university in their own ridiculous little league tables, which for some reason are not ignored. So science is gagged and ideology prevails. 

A gang of Gaystapo thugs has already turned up at Johns Hopkins University waving banners to protest against scientific exposure of their false ideology. And they are making threats. 
They are paid by HRC, the organisation founded and funded by homosexual billionaire Terry Bean who has been prosecuted for paedophile group -homosexual romps in Oregon USA.
They don't want any science that is free from them dictating its conclusions. And why are they so hostile to the good news that we are all free? Because, of course, they are intent on avoiding responsibility for the consequences of their choices and their behaviour.  


Angela Eagle: My pride at being first lesbian MP to ‘marry’Liverpool Daily Post, 11 September 2008



Monday, 10 October 2016

Act Now to Save Asia Bibi from Death in Pakistan

ONCE AGAIN Asia Bibi faces possible execution in Pakistan for being a Christian. Her death sentence has been commuted before, but never lifted. There are only days left before the final hearing. 
She has been in prison for seven years, accused of "blasphemy" by co-workers who tried to make her convert to Islam. This is typical of the way that Christians are persecuted in Pakistan and of course in many other Muslim countries, but since Pakistan is a member of the British Commonwealth this concerns us more particularly.

Mrs Bibi is a poor woman with five children, whose co-workers tried to pressurize her to convert to Islam. The charges of "blasphemy" against her relate to a minor incident concerning the sharing of a water fountain with Muslims, yet she has been sentenced to death and is only alive now because of a series of appeals, which will soon run out of time.
As this article shows, the accusations against her are flimsy, and to carry out the death penalty under these circumstances would be a grievous violation of human rights. She has harmed nobody, and never even tried to convert others to Christianity.
The British Pakistani Christian Association which reports and protests about many terrible cases of persecution of Christians in Pakistan has followed her case closely and can vouch for the truth of these facts.
Sending a message by Email to one or both of the following, begging for clemency, might help:-
The Pakistan High Commission, London
The British Ambassador in Pakistan.

Christian Mom Asia Bibi’s Final Appeal of Death Sentence for Her Faith Set to be Heard in Just Days

Mother of five, Asia Bibi with two of her children
(ACLJ) The Supreme Court of Pakistan is finally scheduled to hear Asia Bibi’s case in just five days. Asia, a Christian mother of five, has been in prison for seven years for allegations of blasphemy, facing execution by hanging. Her co-workers alleged that she blasphemed the Prophet Muhammad’s name.
According to Pakistan’s constitution, all laws must be consistent with Sharia, Islamic law. True to its constitution, Pakistan’s penal code punishes any insult to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad with the death penalty.
Asia’s crime was to offer water to two women who were picking berries with her at a farm. The two women told Asia they would not drink water from her because she was ceremonially unclean as she was a Christian, and then demanded that Asia convert to Islam. Asia refused and reaffirmed her faith in Christ. Then an argument ensued. Five days later, a local cleric went to the police and accused Asia of blasphemy.
After a trial full of errors, the court sentenced Asia to death in November 2010. Four years later, the Lahore High Court upheld her conviction. Asia’s new counsel, Saif ul Malook, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court noting multiple errors in the case.
Our team on the ground has confirmed that Pakistan’s Supreme Court recently granted Asia’s petition for an early hearing and has now set the hearing date for October 13th. While this is a positive development, Asia needs a lot of prayers for wisdom for the lawyers on both sides and the justices who will hear the argument as well as for Asia and her family’s safety.
The case hinges upon the multiple errors committed during trial and on appeal before the High Court that upheld her conviction. Most importantly, the Supreme Court will decide whether the unexplained delay of five days in registering the complaint was a harmful error that justifies overturning her conviction. As we have explained before in our earlier posts, under Pakistani law, such delay is considered harmful for the prosecution’s case because it shows that the accusers had planned the case with mala fide intention. In 2002, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Ayub Masih (a Christian on death row for blasphemy) over a few hours of delay in registering the complaint.
The Supreme Court might also look at another serious error committed at trial. Asia Bibi’s first lawyer inexplicably failed to cross-examine Asia’s accusers, thus leaving their testimony uncontested. This error resulted in the court not giving Asia’s statement much weight. Asia had testified that she had not insulted the Prophet of Islam and that she had no intention to do so. We hope that the Supreme Court will give Asia’s statement due weight and reverse her conviction.
In just days, before her Supreme Court hearing, we are sending a letter to Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States urging him to raise Asia’s case with the Pakistani government, highlighting Pakistan’s international obligations to religious freedom under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to the ICCPR, “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference,” and “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression.” Freedom of expression includes the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” Pakistan’s blasphemy laws violate these principles. The ICCPR also limits the death penalty for the most serious of crimes. Our letter emphasizes that neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment is by any standard proportional punishment to the “crime” of blasphemy.
We again ask you to pray for a positive outcome and for the safety of Asia, her family, and her attorney. A legal team from our affiliate ECLJ’s office in Pakistan is planning to attend the hearing. We will update you as soon as we receive information about the Court’s decision.
But we urgently need you to join over 450,000 people from across the globe that have signed our critical petition.  Sign our petition and join our legal letter demanding Asia Bibi’s freedom.
Sign the Petition to Free Christian Mom Asia Bibi from a Death Sentence

Please keep our sister, Asia in your prayers. Speak out against her wrongful imprisonment and death sentence. Please pray for Christians in Pakistan and no backlash or mob violence will come from this trial. Pray for an end to the blasphemy law so often misused against them.



Sunday, 9 October 2016

Yes It Is An Outrage, Stop EU Subsidies Now

There are still lots of people very angry and vociferous in denial about the Brexit vote. They never protested when the EU used our money to close down businesses here in the EU and move them to Eastern Europe  or outside the EU altogether. They never protested about massive farm subsidies being given year after year to some of the richest people in this country - regardless of whether they are even British citizens. They never protested about employers advertising English jobs first in Eastern Europe, then shipping in foreign workers and claiming massive housing benefit subsidies to accommodate them  - all at our expense.

Khalid Abdullah al-Saud has a stud farm in England and gets £400,000 p.a. EU funding

But now they are lamenting like banshees about the loss of their EU citizenship. I'm surprised they don't just use the usual argument, and announce that Brexit cannot be true because it was reported in the Daily Mail. That is the usual intellectual tactic that such folk depend on.
As far as I am concerned, it can't happen too soon. When I stood as a parliamentary candidate six years ago, I pointed out the unfairness of the EU's agricultural policy paying huge subsidies to some of the richest land-owners in this country. Six years later, Greenpeace seems to have finally caught up with the news, and has commented that it is an "outrage" for billionaires to get large pay-outs while we are imposing cuts to services for the poor and vulnerable. The NHS has to decide whether to fund drugs for cancer patients, and we squander money like this.
Khalid Abdullah al-Saud is a Saudi billionaire who owns (among other things - many, many other things) a stud farm near Newmarket. He gets £400,000 per year from the EU in subsidy, and that money comes out of our own taxes. So why is the new chancellor, Philip Hammond, committing us to go on making all the present payments for another four years? That is crazy. We should stop it immediately and I'd be happy to have it stopped retrospectively too. If the EU can issue one of its decrees and tell the government of Eire to rescind its agreement with the Apple company to operate there tax-free for a number of years, then why can't we rescind our CAP payments in retrospect too? It would be a great idea. 

As a matter of fact, the EU is behaving hypocritically as well as illegally in targeting Apple in this way. There is nothing wrong with a government making a deal with a company to set up business in a country and provide jobs. It is done all the time. A tax-deal is just another form of subsidy, and it is a clever form since no capital payment is required at the outset. The company only benefits so long as it actually stays there and does provide jobs and salaries, all of which generate income tax, council tax, VAT, petrol tax etc etc. Since the EU itself hands out massive grants and subsidies all the time to its chosen pets (whose lobbyists got the ear of a suitable Eurocrat) it hasn't got a leg to stand on, and from a legal point of view, the Eire government should certainly challenge the decision. But that is digressing. 

If the EU can tell the government of Eire that its deal with the Apple company is illegal, and abolish it retrospectively, forcing Apple to pay billions of euros in back taxes, why can't we abolish EU subsidies here retrospectively and demand that people such as Khalid Abdullah al-Saud pay back the huge sums they have pocketed? Over a period of ten years he has got £4 million pounds. That would enough to keep a lot of old people in care, people who at present are being forced to pay by selling their own homes. It could also pay for care workers to visit people's homes - a service that is at present limited to 20 minutes per week per person. All over the EU, opportunistic land-owners use the CAP system to help themselves to millions of euros of public money every year.

The EU subsidizes a lot of payments to the regions, effectively forcing England to pay higher taxes for the benefit of Scotland and Wales. It also pays subsidies to a long list of dubious, sometimes bogus businesses, that claim to be running this and that, but are scams. None of these schemes has ever needed to get the votes of the local tax-payers who fork out for them. All sorts of crackpot organizations get EU funding. The people in receipt of subsidies knew perfectly well there was a Referendum coming up - so they had fair warning.

As an English Democrat, I call on Philip Hammond to reverse his decision, and guarantee nothing. Stop making membership contributions to the EU budget and demand refunds from impudent billionaires such as Khalid Abdullah al-Saud who are ripping off ordinary people.




Friday, 23 September 2016

Sadiq Khan says Get Used to Terror Attacks, They're Part of Life

Is Sadiq Khan London's worst Mayor ever?  Or just the worst Mayor possible?
First he goes prancing around America, abusing his position in London to support the Democrat side in the USA, which is known to be complicit in the setting up and arming of ISIS terrorists.


Then he goes to talk to the Mayor of New York, when there are terror attacks taking place all around in New York itself and in New Jersey, and tells him that we should all "get used to them" because they are just "part and parcel of living in a modern city" along with traffic jams.  What a shamefully weak, pathetic, supine response. We cannot trust this man with the security of London. People's lives are in danger with such a useless, completely unsuitable bungler in charge.

Anyone who voted for this creep should be ashamed of themselves. You were taken in by false promises about frozen bus fares  - promises Khan broke almost as soon as the election results were announced. Now you are stuck with a Mayor who hasn't just let bus fares rise, he has invited every terrorist in the world to put a bomb on the bus too.
It might be wise if the border control at the airport stopped him coming back into England.


Wednesday, 14 September 2016

Fair Representation in the UK - not Gerrymandering

Even the Electoral Reform Society opposes the government's proposals for re-drawing the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies and reducing the number of MPs.  Drawn up by supposedly independent boundary commissions, the proposed changes offer us all the wrong reforms for the wrong reasons. 

With the population of this country higher than ever before, there is simply no logical reason to reduce the number of MPs and make our votes count for less. It does not get us any closer to proportional representation, some form of which prevails in most other parliaments around the world. 
This plan was surely drawn up before the EU referendum, and was intended to shrink Parliament and reduce democracy as more and more powers were transferred to Brussels. In the EU, our Parliament would become superfluous, with no function except to rubber-stamp the decisions of Brussels bureaucrats. So the Cameron government was happy to see the House of Commons decline in numbers and power. Parliament could be left to become nothing more than a club for the likes of Keith Vaz to drop into for a bottle of taxpayer-subsidized champagne and cordon-bleu meals in the intervals of steamy cocaine-fuelled bouts with rentboys (and by the way, when is Keith Vaz going to be prosecuted for supplying Class A drugs?)
Fortunately, the #Brexit vote has made that a little more unlikely, and ensured that in the long term power does remain at Westminster. I hope too that Brexit will ensure that this country never gives votes to prisoners. The idea is an outrage. 
We don't need fewer MPs, we need better MPs. We need MPs of intellectual and moral standing.
The proposed boundary changes do seem in many cases to favour the Conservatives and disadvantage Labour. Nothing is being done to address the real, major failings of our electoral system. 
I am not particularly concerned about the omission of people who are not registered voters. If they don't bother to register, either they are apathetic or they may not be entitled to vote.
As an English Democrat, I deplore the fact that England is the only part of the UK that lacks its own parliament. English people have less autonomy than those of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Last October, the government introduced some steps towards alleviating this disparity, with "English votes for English laws" but the Scots still want to call all the shots at Westminster. Scottish MPs, some of them mere students, prance around dictating to the entire UK and threatening that they could or would block #Brexit, imposing their will on the will of the majority of the British people. I say that injustice, imposed by the stupid Blair government, must stop. 
Scotland actually has a smaller population than Yorkshire, yet it has far more MPs and more money spent on it per head. Voters in England are under-represented. A Scottish voter can write to his MSP or MP and get two representatives working on his behalf. A typical English voter has only his MP, and that MP represents more voters than the Scottish  - or Welsh - equivalent.
The number of Scottish MPs must be reduced, their power to vote in English matters must be curtailed, and there must be an absolute veto on any attempt by them to block decisions which the majority of English people have voted to approve. 
It is the House of Lords, not the Commons, that is far too big. There are 790 life peers now, far more than the number of MPs. It is also now far less representative of the people than it ever was when it was filled with hereditary peers. It is now full of party apparachniks and is used as a pay-off for donations to party funds or services rendered - as in the case of Shami Chakrabarty, clumsily made a peer by Jeremy Corbyn within minutes of writing her report clearing Labour of anti-Semitism. Corbyn supposedly does not believe in the House of Lords, but he believes in it when it suits him.
People were rightly indignant at the way that David Cameron, when stepping down, raised all his party chums and fund-raisers to the peerage, even putting Samantha Cameron's fashion adviser on the list. Why should Sam Cam's dresser make laws for you and me? Cameron was the man who in the presence of the Queen and Archbiship of Canterbury, gleefully burbled that the international anti-corruption conference was attended by nations that were "fantastically corrupt". Look who's talking. If you want to see corruption just look in the bathroom mirror, Dave. 
The House of Lords is full of corrupt people put there for corrupt reasons. Greville Janner could still appear there and vote when he claimed that he was too ill to appear in a court of law, and suffering from advanced dementia. The same went for Leon Brittan.
The House of Lords is full of a quite unrepresentative number of Liberal Democrats, regardless of the fact that their vote share has collapsed and their party is in terminal decline. They are shamelessly greedy, unscrupulous types, such as Lord Paddick, who claimed £9,000 earlier this year in expenses to cross the Atlantic, in order to make a four-minute speech in the Lords. That bill is footed by us, the tax-payers, and that is disgraceful. The TPA rightly highlighted it as a form of corruption. 

It is still true that women are under-represented in the British Parliament, despite all the all-female shortlists and lipservice of Blair's Babes. Women are slightly more than half of the population, yet only 25% of our elected MPs are women, 191 out of a total of 650. One reason for this is that women are regularly bullied out of the democratic process by the homosexuals who are undoubtedly over-represented, with 35 out of 650, 36 if you count Keith Vaz. Why should a minority of only 1.5% of the population have 5.5% of the seats in Parliament?  
Sarah Teather who was one of the more principled and ethical members of the Lib Dem party (what was she doing there?) found herself simply bullied out of her political career because she would not vote for same-sex "marriage" and she quite rightly voted to protect the conscience of registrars. She found herself a target of vilification and intolerance. 
The resignation of Louise Mensch in my view had a lot to do with the amount of sheer sexist bullying that she received in Parliament and in the political sphere. It is also true that Christian MPs in general are subjected to such appalling bullying that many retreat from the profession. Stephen Crabbe is the latest victim.

Something ought to be done to address all of these injustices, but the proposals of the Electoral Commissions do nothing to improve the situation, and so I hope that parliament will vote to reject them, and I hope that Mrs May follows suit.