No privatisation of the NHS! The RAF? - Well that's OK then!

There seems to have been constant uproar and outrage from the press and the public alike whenever talk of privatising the NHS bubbles up, and rightly so. It’s a critical service that the public (in general) are willing to fund, you’d think there’d be equal concern if there was talk about privatising another critical service - the armed forces. So it may surprise you to find out that this isn’t talk – it’s already happening and has been for a few years – and it’s not just ‘back office’ functions either.

Later this year the RAF yellow Sea King rescue helicopters, familiar to everyone are being scrapped with the service privatised. The large air-to-air refuelling tankers that operate in war zones refuelling all our combat aircraft have already been privatised. All air-crew training whether that be pilots, navigators etc are currently being privatised. Day-to-day running and operation of airbases and maintenance of aircraft –again already being privatised! So what’s happening?    

Search And Rescue

By 2016 our country’s coastline and mountains will be patrolled by civilians replacing 90 RAF and Royal Navy pilots. This ends 70 years of military search and rescue by servicemen who have saved thousands of lives both at sea and off mountain tops. The MoD’s distinctive fleet of yellow Sea King helicopters will be scrapped by March 2016. The MoD currently provides a 24-hour helicopter search-and-rescue service from 12 bases around the country.

Sole responsibility for Britain’s search and rescue is transferring to the Department for Transport. It seems a £1.6billion deal was signed a few years ago which wrenches responsibility from the RAF and Royal Navy in favour of Texas-based Bristow Group. I don't remember this being in the 2010 Tory or LibDems manifestos !

Further concerns have been raised because Bristow is axing two of the 12 military SAR bases and reducing the total helicopter fleet from 24 to 22, despite this the Department for Transport has said that under the new regime rescuers will reach emergencies more swiftly and could cover larger areas of the country. Really? How does that work then? Less bases. Less helicopters but quicker, greater coverage, sounds like spin and bullshit to me. The public has come to trust and value the military search and rescue service and this privatisation is just wrong.

In effect, they've actually privatised out people’s lives. Am I really seeing this? As long as the Forces are doing the rescuing then people will always be rescued - at the utmost risk. So will the private sector operation take on the same sort of risks that the RAF and Royal Navy do, on the same scale? I rather doubt it. No doubt they will have a health and safety manager who will do a risk assessment and stop them flying in bad weather. It really has just opened the door for the Health and Safety bureaucrats who are such a blight upon all of us to decide anything from 'seas too rough' to 'wind blowing wrong way' to 'wrong type of brine' to avoid and hamper rescue attempts. This is absurdity. Leave it with our wonderful military airmen, only the absolutely insane would decree a service such as this as fit for private contractors. I don’t notice other countries carrying out such stupid moves. If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

The military do a wonderful job and have done for many decades. Think of the famous rescues, Fastnet, Boscastle, Piper Alpha etc. They have probably done the job in far worse conditions than any civilian operation would allow themselves to operate in. It won’t be long before we see headlines like "SAR helicopter not allowed to fly in rain, or wind over gale force 4 because of HSE rules."

One other point is that the military will still probably have to do the same amount of flights as currently performed to keep the training and skill level of their pilots at the top of their abilities; they need to for their battlefield roles in rescues of military personnel in peace and war. So we'll still be paying for the same amount of helicopter operations as currently undertaken, the money will just come from a different source of funding or budget name. In the end the funds still come from us, the taxpayer, but of course we will now be funding a civilian operation as well, so coughing up twice the money.

As for Bristow, well just look at their safety record, it ain’t too hot. Can you imagine for one second, the USA handing over the US Coastguards responsibility to a UK private company! I think not! If Bristow weren't making money out of it, they wouldn't do it. But what happens when they stop making money out of it? How long before there’s the possibly that they’ll demand payment from anyone they rescue?

Air to Air Refuelling

Way back In March 2008, during Labour’s reign, the Ministry of Defence signed a PFI contract with AirTanker Ltd, for the “Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft” (FSTA) to provide air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport services. FSTA is based around 14 modified Airbus A330-200 MRTT and have replaced the 24 Tristars and VC10s that formed the RAF’s fleet at the time. These were aircraft owned by the RAF and flown by RAF crews. Note we’re getting 10 less aircraft under the new deal.

 

The deal signed with AirTanker, is worth £10.5 billion over the course of the contract, and involves the 14 aircraft being operated until at least 2035. The contract will be paid for at £390 million per annum. Of this running costs are £80 million and the remainder covers the consortium's financing and profit along with the capital cost of the project, including aircraft and infrastructure.

  

Here’s the crux, under this super best value contract the government has negotiated, AirTanker owns the aircraft and will provide them to the RAF when required.  So we don’t actually own anything! Not only that  AirTanker can make more money themselves by loaning the planes out to the likes of Thomas Cook during the summer holidays. So there’s a good chance you might be jetting off on your holiday in a quasi-military jet.   

History has proved that PFI’s are a fundamentally poor way of procuring capabilities that are unpredictable and involve risk because the cost of that risk is always transferred back to the customer and interestingly, one of the funding partners for Air Tanker is the Royal Bank of Scotland. We will therefore be borrowing money off ourselves because we can’t afford it! The fact that no other country has chosen to procure air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport using PFI type arrangements is further indication that PFI is not a suitable procurement route for such important military capabilities.

Bearing in mind we’re only getting 14 jets to replace 24 that were in themselves over-used, you’ve got to question the wisdom of this deal. To me, the MoD has traded affordability for their perception of value for money. There’s also the question of the aircraft’s capability. The A330MRTT with Rolls Royce engines is absolutely the right aircraft but in trying to scrimp and save we have knobbled the fleet; they have no boom so can’t refuel large aircraft or aircraft from other countries. They have no cargo door or reinforced cargo floor which again limits their usage. In effect, what we’ve got is inflexible, inappropriate and overly expensive.

Whatever the pros of FSTA, and there are many, I suspect it will ultimately be very poor value for money and will fail to deliver the capability that we actually needed, with too much air refuelling for a fast jet fleet we no  longer have and not enough air transport/cargo of sufficient flexibility for future sustained expeditionary operations.

Flying Training

In-house military training has served the Armed Forces well for many many years but the incessant drive to reduce cost while training crews for ever more sophisticated aircraft has lead to it being privatised. The Ministry of Defence realised that savings in both financial arrangements and in training delivery could be achieved if all military flying training was included in an industry-led, military-backed new training ‘system’. This requirement was tendered and Ascent, a 50/50 joint venture between American company Lockheed Martin and Babcock International won the contract in May 2008. The contract made Ascent responsible for running the UK Military Flying Training System programme, providing comprehensive training to all new UK military aircrew across the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps. Ascent is a Public Private Partnership (PPP) approach. The initial contract was valued at £635 million and is projected to rise to as much as £6 billion over the life of the contract which doesn’t end until 2033.

I despair when I think of the first class flying training system we had until recently and what it has now become through relentless privatisation and cost saving schemes. A quote I found on an internet forum from an RAF Squadron Instructor said “After going through their basic training, the quality of student pilot arriving on my OCU today can be enough to make you weep, & in less than a year these guys & girls are going to be flying in Iraq or Afghanistan - in 3 years they're expected to become captains”. Says it all really! Foreign air arms used to send their trainees to lean to fly at our flying schools because the final product was so good. Now it’s all about saving money rather than the quality of the end product.

I suppose I can hope that Ascent will improve the quality of the pilots from the training system, but the endless pursuit of ever cheaper training will simply not produce the goods, I fear.

Running Airbases

The MoD is moving to what it calls Next Generation Estate Contracts (NGEC) at many of its bases. What this means is that future staffing arrangements are under consideration as part of this. It is too early to confirm the precise impact, although it looks like outsourcing under TUPE conditions of some activities currently undertaken by MOD staff is under consideration. Essentially what that means is that military personnel will transfer from the military to the civilian companies who win that particular contract.

This of course affects numbers employed. An example I found on the internet was RAF Alconbury where around 80 workers could be forced to leave the military as it looks to privatise maintenance and construction work at the base. The MoD workers are currently contracted to provide construction, maintenance and repair work for the visiting US Air force. These military personnel will end up TUPEing across or may even have to apply for their own job with the private company provider. They will therefore end up being forced out of the military on probably worse employment conditions than they have at the moment.

You also need to bear in mind that civilians don't get the X factor payment that HM forces personnel do for not having fixed hours, additional duties and a war role. This is one way of justifying a lower salary for them as quite often they will have to top up their lower salary with a service pension or redundancy pay off. Civilians also don't have to be cared for by service medical and dental staff, nor are they entitled to subsidised accommodation. So the military staff involved are hit really hard.

What Next?

And there we have it, the thin end of the wedge for the privatisation of the military! What’s next? Adverts on the side of the ships and tanks - if we have any left?. Sponsors logos on the uniforms? Trooping the Colour, sponsored by .... ? And then, sold off to the lowest bidder. Maybe the Government’s next move will be to privatise defence and hire mercenaries as 'contractors'. These could be on long term contracts such as the Vatican guard.

The items I’ve already mentioned are costing us, the tax payer a whopping almost £20billion and there’s more than just those items happening. The whole defence privatisation stinks, makes you wonder which politicians grubby fingers are in this pie? Nothing can be run cheaper than cost. When profit is involved you are looking at cuts and cheaper service so more goes too share holders. Have we not learned from gas, electric, water? Obviously not !

Eventually we will run out of things to sell! Contracted out Britain, all this money flowing abroad, this cannot be a good thing, we'll own nothing but pay for everything, a bit like the PFI debacle.

What a strange country we now live in where fighting such a distant war is apparently more important than ensuring air force involvement in our own shore and maritime defences. Our miserable and wretched politicians know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Rich Are Getting Richer – Especially If You’re a Charity Boss

There was a report out yesterday by Oxfam that claimed the wealthiest 1% in the world, will soon own more than the rest of the world's population. The charity's research showed that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year, on current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016.

Oxfam's executive director Winnie Byanyima, said she would use the charity's high-profile to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor. "It is time our leaders took on the powerful vested interests that stand in the way of a fairer and more prosperous world. Business as usual for the elite isn't a cost-free option; failure to tackle inequality will set the fight against poverty back decades. The poor are hurt twice by rising inequality, they get a smaller share of the economic pie and because extreme inequality hurts growth, there is less pie to be shared around," she added.

Now none of us can really disagree with this sentiment, but don’t forget this report was based on the world population, not the UK - so most of us are part of that “rich” 1%. What got me more was the hypocrisy from Oxfam’s director who goes on about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer whilst being paid a huge six figure salary herself. This led me to do a bit of research myself on some of the other large charity director’s salaries. This revealed that most of them are getting paid rather handsomely.

Just How Much?

My bit of internet research revealed the following, most of which are figures from 2013:

In 2013, Sir Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, saw his pay jump by 12% to £184,000 since 2010, despite a 1% fall in the charity’s donations and a 3% fall in revenues.

Another in the same pay bracket is Justin Forsyth, UK Chief Executive of Save the Children; Mr Forsyth received £163,000 in 2012, just less than Anabel Hoult, its chief operating officer, who was paid £168,653. However Save the Children is paying its top employee a massive £234,000 a year! This individual is believed to be International Chief Executive Jasmine Whitbread; she is among 20 employees earning more than £100,000 at the charity’s international body. And there’s another nine that are on six-figure salaries at the charity’s UK arm. Interesting that these huge pay packets are considerably more than the £142,500 a year paid to David Cameron, whose wife Samantha is an ambassador for Save the Children.

The top paid executive at Christian Aid was Loretta Minghella, a former chief executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, who was paid £126,072 in 2013. The NSPCC has one employee on over £160,000 and over 40 on over £60,000 p.a. Cancer Research UK spends £130m on wages and has 154 exec's on between £60k and £230,000 per annum.

All of this is surpassed by the salary of the highest paid employee at Marie Stopes International, who earns more than £290,000 a year. A second employee at the birth control charity is paid more than £200,000 and in total 11 people are on six-figure salaries.

In their annual accounts, charities are not required to detail by name how much their top executives are paid, and many express the sums in bands, disguising the true figures. Can they really justify these obscene amounts of money, when they are really just selling an easy product - human kindness?

I’ve now stopped giving money to Cancer Research. I feel it's a good cause but I'm not giving my hard earned money to a boardroom full of executives on high salaries.

It’s Just Not On!

To me, you think charity and you think retired ladies in charity shops, you think volunteers rattling their collecting tins, vocation, and compassion. You don’t think mega-salaries!

The Save The Children salaries are particularly galling. They are the reason why the price of goods sold in charity shops has risen so significantly. After all, the nationwide network of charity shops has to sell an awful lot of second-hand clothes simply to raise enough money to pay a £234,000 salary. Makes you wonder how much is left for those in need, probably just a few crumbs.

I watched an advert for Save the Children asking people to sign up to give £2 a month - I thought about doing that, but I think I'm better giving food to a local food bank than putting money into that overpaid woman's pocket. She, and all those overpaid charity executives, should be ashamed of themselves. This is also the "charity" which decided that 25% of UK children live in poverty.

And I don't think that the other charities are any better. They've all got their snouts in the trough! It's a racket, when there are so many overseas and home charities struggling with people who volunteer, giving their time for nothing to help children and orphans. I don’t know how these exec’s sleep at night. Daytime TV is one endless parade of deserving causes all asking for "just" £2 a week to save a child, a cat or a donkey. After seeing these salaries, I don't feel so bad about ignoring their TV appeals and to the tins shaken in my face at Asda.

In my mind the whole charity apparatus stinks.  First of all, isn’t charity supposed to begin at home? Err, uh, nope.  Charity goes as far away as possible, while our needy and homeless go without. A freezing cold beggar in winter cannot walk into a UK high street charity shop and be given a warm coat, hat and gloves, or a blanket. In this country, charity has become a racket, because British people are quite literally generous to a fault.

A CEO in the commercial industry needs to sell something. Bank CEOs also need to justify their existence and even if the banking industry is run by high risk sociopaths that repeatedly betray us, capitalism will make sure that their day will come (so far it is government intervention that has protected them). Charities on the other hand, provide no product. A charity operates solely to benefit others in need with no real return to the doner.

People give money because they believe that their money is going towards a good cause. So when charities say "£3 buys a kid a blanket" the assumption is that their money will buy blankets, not that it'll fund the lavish lifestyle of a CEO or high ranking workers in these charities. And if this is the case, they need to be upfront about it. After yesterday’s report, I looked but couldn't find the CEO's earning in Oxfam's financial statement.

Our "Third Sector" - these major charity organisations, is very closely aligned to the Public Sector. These two sectors seem to work very closely together, there’s often a revolving door in terms of staffing, particularly senior managerial staff, between the two. They use the same firms of PR consultants, management consultants, law firms and accountancy firms etc. You’ll find the same culture in both sectors - a culture of big salaries at the top, a bonus culture and gold plated pensions for the "senior management". And of course the endless junkets. Oh and don't forget the same culture of cronyism in terms of awarding fat mega bucks contracts to their chums in said PR industry, management consultancy industry and corporate law firms etc, no doubt with kick backs and all sorts of inducements coming back their way for doling out these fat contracts. Another thing that bugs me is they invest is the alcohol and tobacco industries, products which kill people. They are hypocrites and sadly, should he avoided.

Salaries Should Be Comparable With Industry?

Seems to me there is no such thing as a charity – it’s simply another name for a business. The argument the charities give back about high salaries is that they need to provide salaries competitive with industry. Well I suppose most charities are just businesses, there to rake in funds, their overheads can easily use well over half the money they collect. Doesn’t mean its right though does it? "We establish remuneration to attract the best talent", is what they say – so the same excuse as the bankers and the councils then.

Don’t forget, these charity businesses also get tax breaks, so in a way; we are already paying for them. Why should they have preferable treatment as a business entity, if they are in the making money game just the same as any other CEO from industry is? These high positions have prestige too; they’re given access to politicians and the like: they’re an elite in themselves.

When we talk of what charity CEOs could earn in industry, shouldn’t we also compare what unpaid volunteers could earn in paid work? Also when we talk of thousands reporting to the CEO, the job would still get done without a CEO. He or she might well work with a board to develop strategy but they’re not needed for day to day operations any more than a council chief’s presence is needed to repair a pothole.

In any event there must be many rich philanthropist executives that would give their skills free of charge. Bill Gates might be an example. I don’t think he pays himself for work he does for his foundation. Maybe the answer is that charities should be trusts that are headed up by retired exec’s who do the work out of the goodness of their heart. Putting something back into society as a thank you for the high salaries they received during their career.

I am not going to give these parasites a penny until their fat cat salaries go to zero. If they are rich (which they are) they can afford to give their time for free. Otherwise leave it to others with the vocation and the desire to help. 

Solutions

Simple solution. If the remuneration package is over a prescribed limit set by the government then the charity loses its registered charity status and all the tax benefits that registered charity receive.

Any "charity" that receives any taxpayer money should have to publish how much they pay their staff, from the top down. Once they start paying their top people huge salaries they should lose their charitable status, and start paying the dues that any other business has to.

Charity work should come out of duty. It should be run by humble people that should be put on a pedestal for the fabulous work they are doing. Not just a way for CEO to take home extortionate wages.

What About Me and You?

I’ve come to the conclusion that large charities, with the exception of the RNLI and the Air Ambulances, are not worthy of my support. I find it truly unbelievable that a charity should pay such amounts as we’ve seen. Even more disgraceful is that these directors should accept it!

Not only are senior employees grossly over-remunerated, but some charities are far too political. Others receive far too much cash from HMG and the EU, but still continually ask for donations from us lot. Most of these large charities adopt aggressive fund raising techniques - they see it as being "professional", but for me it is very off putting. I also object to being asked for my bank details by a bunch of scruffy yobs in the high street and feel that expensive television and billboard advertising soon swallows my contribution.

I will now only give to local causes where it is clear that collectors are genuine volunteers and where the committees are made of up truly local volunteers.

For the rest of you, it’s down to your own conscience. As long as you’re happy that less than 5% of the money you give to Christian Aid or Save the Children actually goes to the needy then carry on donating. The majority of money goes elsewhere within the charity; it’s a racket to suck in gullible people.

Remember if hundreds of thousands of gullible people pay two pounds a month, just two pounds a month then these parasites can continue to live the good life. Next time you are asked to contribute ask how much their Chief Executive takes for no added value.

40 World Leaders On The March, Any Action Though? #JeSuisCharlie

We all saw the magnificent pictures of the huge crowds in Paris this weekend, just looking at the numbers should make everyone in France proud. The people were all very humble and also patriotic with many kind words for those who suffered last week’s atrocities and also for the police and security services. It gave you a feeling that hopefully the journalists and the innocent people caught up in the carnage did not die in vain. Now though, the politicians have to do their job.

The marchers were a wonderful sight and showed the depth of public anger to what has occurred, but Islamic terrorists are blind to this kind of unity. They are on a fanatical mission to destroy all that is good. The march was fantastic to see, but it’s what happens next that really matters.

40 World Leaders

It’s reported that there were forty World leaders in attendance, ironic then that Merkel, Cameron and Hollande all appeared together at the march to protest against a terrorism that they and their predecessors directly caused by their desire to make Europe home to everyone whilst invading Middle-East countries. As usual with politicians they are hypocrites. Their liberal pursuit of multiculturalism while denying us the right to say we don't want it, have been a major cause of this problem. Instead they just have a big group hug and think it will all go away. The question is, when will our leaders WAKE UP to this global problem? To me they’re just pathetic!

This march was by the French public to honour the people who died and to back their right to freedom of speech. How dare the politicians jump on the bandwagon and use this as a propaganda tool to basically say that we should all live in peace and get on together. Multiculturalism doesn't truly work and never will as long as the cultures themselves don’t want to integrate. This whole problem was started by left wing politicians and do-gooders saying we must be tolerant. Really?  Who said? Is that really free speech demanding we are all tolerant to things we don’t believe in, because that certainly isn't democracy. And if these politicians condemn the terrorists actions so much and insist on free speech, when will they post the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their social media sites? Surely they must if "Je Suis Charlie" is to mean anything? Otherwise they are saying "I like the idea of it but I'm too scared to do it myself"

Don’t forget as well that this Jihadist terrorism is global. What about the 1000+ killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria? When are our World leaders going to pay tribute to them? And what about another tragic terrorist event this last weekend where at least 10 people were killed when a young girl, thought to be aged 10, blew herself up at a crowded market in the north east Nigerian city of Maiduguri?

I was glad to see some Muslim leaders among the march participants. But we need to see strong condemnation of violence from forty or so Muslim leaders too. All Muslim religious leaders who care about their religion should toughen up and condemn every act that gives that religion a bad name. Not just terrorism but treatment of women and people of other religions, honour killing, cruel punishments like dismembering or stoning basically anything that goes against basic human rights. Times have changed drastically they should adjust for the sake of saving their religion.

Sunday was an impressive mass of people but the big question is whether our leaders are going to learn something and change things in Europe, or is the opportunity and its momentum just going to disappear like a fart in the Sahara? It doesn't matter if it becomes 37 million people marching. It's all just useless posturing that accomplishes nothing if the politicians don’t show proper action.

Don't forget, 2 Million marched against the Iraq war. Our government, ie Tony Bliar, ignored them. So don't hold your breath that anything will happen now.

"It’ll  Be Over Here Next"

It genuinely bugs me when people say "oh it'll be over here next". It's already here! What about Lee Rigby? The day that you have a British serving soldier killed on the streets of Britain in the name of Allah is the day that you have a problem. I've been tolerant, probably too tolerant. Perhaps that is the problem that we face here in Britain. We've given too much and then wonder why when it’s used against us.

Why isn't Britain protesting as strongly as France? Our leader is there marching amongst the French (and I do applaud him for that because it shows unity) but Islamic extremists who hate Britain are walking our streets. Something needs to be done, before it truly is too late! Yes, if we fight, they'll fight just as big; but if we do nothing, they will take over and it won’t just be freedom of speech that’s lost!

Something should have happened after Lee Rigby’s murder, but we were assured - yet again- that those were one off attacks. How many one off's does it take before our politicians get some balls and stand up for our country? David Cameron is a two faced coward who won't deal with the threat we have around us. He even tolerates hate preachers without so much as a condemnation.

Poor old Lee Rigby was forgotten by the politicians. His death shouldn't have been in vein, just like all those in France last week shouldn't be.

The Blame Game

Despite everything, you can still hear the apologists in the left wing media claiming that the cartoons should not have been published. Irony again that socialists hate freedom of speech yet they dominate journalism, and don’t forget either that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing publication.

The do-gooders go on about “society should have done more to include these individuals". I'm sorry but stop blaming Western countries for what has happened here, everyone has free will, no one made these psychopaths go out and slaughter people, they did it themselves, they are not the victims here, the people they shot and their families are the real victims, I'm so sick of hearing from apologists, wake up, if these fundamentalists don't like democratic countries, why don't they leave and go back to the Middle-East, I'm sure we wouldn't miss them.

What offends us all, are the actions of the criminals who, dared to use Islam to justify the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians. This wasn't about Islam or being offended by the Charlie Hebdo magazine. This was about a handful of extremists who wanted to slaughter people for any reason and at any cost. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and mercy. It is a source of comfort and strength for more than 1.6 Billion Muslims -  the same people who are shocked, saddened and appalled by the events in Paris this week.

Whichever way you look at it, there is no place for Dark Age, Middle Eastern brutality in our 21st century civilised world.

So What To Do Next?

Extremist Muslims didn't exist until the 70s; but because of Saudi Arabian, Qatari and Iranian oil wealth many mosques preaching the harshest form of Islam, mocked by the other sects are being built everywhere. If Saudi Arabia didn't have that wealth, there would be fewer extremists in the Middle East and the West. It's always about the oil. Just ask the Dalai Lama whose country has no oil and therefore no help from the West or anyone else.

Marches are all very lovely and everything but do you think a bunch of Jihadist terrorists with guns give a toss? They are laughing their heads off at us silly Westerners. The only true way to sort this is to leave them alone in the Middle East. Cameras and media leave, stop paying them any attention and stop going into their countries and telling them how to live. You can't force societies to advance and you shouldn't tell someone our culture is correct and theirs is wrong. Just let them sort it all out amongst themselves. We've got enough to do at home without attempting to sort out the rest of the world.

But how do we sort it out at home now it's out of the box? We need to stop pussy footing around Islam, some preach hatred yet they’re ‘sponsored’ by the UK as most are benefit claimants. Kick those who live in the UK and continue to promote hate out – full stop. In short kick those murderous scum out. Lee Rigby’s murderers and the three in France were all on the intelligence service's radar yet they still carried out their heinous acts unopposed. We should be rounding these people up and either deporting them or interning them. It’s been done before - we had internment during the Northern Ireland troubles.

We should also be controlling our borders properly. Going back again to the Northern Ireland troubles if you wanted to enter the country and you were in a car it was thoroughly checked, bonnet and boot opened, mirrors under the car to ensure it was safe, nowadays you just drive onto the Eurotunnel train unchecked and unopposed. We've done it before, we should be doing it now!  

Why in Europe do we allow our citizens to travel to terrorist countries and then allow them to return home! I don't understand this. We need to make it illegal for anybody to travel to these countries that have training camps. Deportation for traitors would be a good starting point. Also those normal Muslims in the UK must take a more active role in preventing the radicalisation of their own youngsters.

Politicians need to get the message - either you help us, or we do it ourselves by voting you out, they can start by once and for all kicking out the liberal PC rubbish that has enabled all this to happen. I will happily vote to have more powers against terrorism and allow GCHQ to get on with their job. I’ll happily vote against the policy of mass immigration that allows these ghettos to be set up and that allows extremist views to breed. And I’ll happily vote for a party that truly takes border control seriously including places like Dover, where anyone could return back from Syria or Iraq unchecked.

In the End

Last weekend in Paris, we saw hypocritical leaders with crocodile tears. It was they who have brought this to our countries and ruined the Middle eastern ones at the same time. This is exactly what they intended so they could smash our cultures taking away our identities as individual countries so that they could form the EU and take away our freedoms. It's all so ironic considering the mindless smears that are directed at UKIP just because they want sovereignty and border controls.

It sums up the mindset of the liberal Western masses that they think facing down murdering Islamic terrorists with pencils while in the background the EU strips them of even more of their rapidly diminishing freedoms will have any impact on the outcome of this situation. No wonder our aggressors in ISIS and Al Qaeda feel emboldened with every bullet they fire and every bomb they detonate.

We can only hope those in power understand that showing solidarity alone through street marches will not defeat these terrorists and the fanatics that plague societies across Europe and beyond. Put political correctness aside because serious action is needed immediately.

Might sound unbelievable, but If the leaders of Israel and Palestine can stand in Paris yards apart from each other at the same march then these Jihadist animals can be beaten.