Crimea: I Think Russia’s Right On This One

Like most of us, I’ve watched what’s gone on in the Ukraine with Crimea and Russia over the last few weeks with interest. Are we on the brink of World War 3 or maybe a new Cold War? Will the Ukraine and Crimea go their separate ways? What will the West do? Or will it all just fizzle out into nothing?

A History Lesson

Crimea is located on the northern coast of the Black Sea; it’s currently under the jurisdiction of Ukraine and has a history of over 2000 years. Apart from a brief spell in the WWII when Germany occupied it, Crimea has largely come under Russian control since the 18^th Century. In 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed it became part of independent Ukraine, as the Autonomous Republic Crimea.

The Russian Black Sea Fleet had long been based in Crimea and remained there after independence; however this caused numerous tensions between the two countries up until 1997. Following the ratification of the May 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership on friendship and division of the Black Sea Fleet, international tensions slowly eased off. With the treaty, Moscow recognized Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity, and accepted Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea and Sevastopol. In a separate agreement, Russia was to receive 80% of the Black Sea Fleet and use of the military facilities in Sevastopol on a 20-year lease So Crimea has a long history of being a Russian territory and over half the population are ethnic Russians.

In February, the democratic national government in Ukraine was ousted after days of armed violence in Kiev and replaced with unelected radical self-proclaimed rulers. Generally, we all know what happened after that!

Undoubtedly, Russia appears to have illegally occupied Crimea. But as history suggests, there’s more to it than that!

Since When Did We Back Mob Rule?

The Ukrainian president, Viktor Yamukovych was kicked out of office by a mob. Horrible though he might be, Yanukovych was democratically elected. And much though the West might sympathise with the Ukrainian protesters, angry that Yanukovych vetoed closer ties with the EU, when did we decide that mob rule was favourable to democracy? Hmmm, never.

The EU isn’t innocent in all this, appearing to encourage this mob rule to get them another member state. But they forget there are a whole load of people in the East of Ukraine as well as Crimea who are appalled at what happened to their elected government. The West of course, felt it had to take sides in a battle which is nothing to do with them, slowly though, they seem to be going into reverse as they realise what taking sides involves.

Illegal Occupation?

The Ukraine and the West argue that the Russians have occupied Crimea illegally. Russia however, says it does not recognize the newly installed unelected self-proclaimed government in Kiev and claims it is simply responding to requests from the both the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Crimean Prime Minister Sergey Aksyonov, "for assistance in guaranteeing peace and calmness" on the peninsula; which, makes Russian intervention lawful under current treaties.

Guys, they’ve got a point. I’m with Russia on this one. They’re protecting their own people from, what is still mob rule. Things moved on further in the last week when the Crimean parliament voted to ask Russia for re-unification, which if granted by Russia would then be presented to the Crimean electorate next week.

Of course, the newly self-installed, unelected, radical self-proclaimed Ukrainian government, says this democratic move has no legal grounds – like they’re organisation actually does?? The situation is confounded even further as the Crimean parliament does not consider the unelected self-proclaimed Ukrainian government as legitimate, which they are absolutely right not to as they’re an illegal self-installed body.

Sanctions? – Nah!!

While the West tries to talk tough about hitting Russia with sanctions, we all know in Europe that ain’t going to happen because we potentially lose too much ourselves then. The biggest issue is that a significant proportion of our gas comes from Russia via pipelines that cross the Ukraine. If Russia (or the Ukraine for that matter) close those valves, we’ve got a problem. The Germans are in a similar to boat to us here.

There’s also our ‘other’ trade with Russia. In the past year alone, the UK has flogged the Russkies £86 million worth of sniper rifles, laser sights and ammunition and there’s 271 more lucrative deals in the pipeline. It’s not just us, the French are so upset with the Russian occupation of Crimea that they’re about to sell Mr Putin two huge battleships for almost a billion quid!!!

So, while we try and talk tough about economic sanctions, it’s just empty words. We know it, and Russia knows it too. This makes the rhetoric from the likes of William Hague and other Western politicians utterly laughable.

Leftards Don’t Know Where They Stand Anymore

This whole episode has created a quite extraordinary (and amusing) situation for the left wingers. It’s lead to many of them sitting on their hands. They’re confused! Do they support their beloved EU and the rebels who have taken over the Ukraine by violent means removing a democratically elected government? Or do they support Russia, their mothership who espouses the Stalinist doctrine they look to impose on us all.

Of course, they say they’re in favour of ‘democracy’, when in fact they are apologists for a blatant coup against an elected government by an armed mob. They also say they are against interference in other countries, but they excuse the blatant intervention of foreign politicians on the side of the Ukrainian rebels.   

Looking wider, they lack consistency they’re concerned about Mr Putin and his dangerous and dishonest government. But they don’t moan about China, which is a far more repressive regime.

So many contradictions, I’d hate to be left-wing, arguing with myself.

A New Cold War?

The episode has raised the spectre of a new Cold War. I don’t think we’re in immediate danger of Crimea sparking anything like that, but Russia are flexing their muscles more and more and shouldn’t be underestimated. It started with their war against an independent Georgia a few years ago, and then there was Chechnya, now Ukraine. We’re also seeing more ‘testing’ of our air and sea defences by the Russian military like the old Soviets used to do.

What is worth considering though is whether the dismantling of our armed forces over the last twenty years to the extent they’ve been cut today a wise move? I’m beginning to think we were a little hasty, a little premature. Maybe now is the time to call a halt to these cuts and look at investment instead. As Blair, Brown and Cameron have all proved, we can always find a use for them even if we’re not fighting the Russians!

Better safe than sorry I say.  

Get Out The Way - Ban Motorway Lane Hoggers

Over the last ten years through my job, I've driven many hundreds of thousands of motorway miles, I've never been caught speeding nor have I had any accidents there. However, a certain type of motorway driver, in all this time, has never ceased to amaze me.

It may just be me, but I reckon people who hog the middle lane of a motorway are right up there with the worse drivers around. People who cruise up the outside lane and try to push into queues are a pain and they really know they're being a bit cheeky, middle lane hoggers however, actually think they're brilliant drivers. These are the people who, given an empty three-lane motorway, choose to drive in the middle lane.

What these smug, self-satisfied knobs don't realise is they're actually committing an offence. From my memory of The Highway Code, the outside two lanes are overtaking lanes, so if you're overtaking nothing then you shouldn't be there.

They think that as long as they're doing the statutory speed limit they have a divine right to whichever lane they choose because "nobody should be going faster than me, anyway". At which point they switch off from looking in the rear view mirror and turn up their Michael Buble CD and cruise.

After taking a precautionary look behind me for Mr Plod in his BMW, I like to nudge past them on the inside. This often has the habit of waking them up. Alternatively, I sit directly behind them and after a couple of miles they'll suddenly realise there are other vehicles on the motorway apart from them and grudgingly indicate to move over. I'm glad I'm not a truck driver, middle lane hoggers must drive them spare. The habit isn't gender specific, age specific, or car type specific either; though most of them are VW driving coffin dodgers.

The Saddest Ones

The saddest middle lane hoggers of them all are the ones that speed up the minute you go to overtake them in the outside lane. I previously assumed that this was some sort of pathetic 'alpha' male trait, but I've since noticed women doing it too. They're trundling along at 70mph and as you approach them you realise that they're not going to pull over into the empty inside lane, so you speed up to 75mph and make a move for the outside lane. They spot you and put their foot down to match your 75mph too. You realise that 75mph isn't going to be enough and you're committed to the outside lane now, so you speed up to 80mph. They do too. So you think, sod it, I'm not going to back down now and speed up to 85mph. All of a sudden this piece of human excrement with a driving licence has accelerated from 70mph to 80mph+ in a bid to keep in front of a car that is going to overtake him anyway. Madness !

I've witnessed the same characteristic in pond life. They rush to compete for food thrown into a pond whether they need it or not - they can't help themselves, The brain equivalency of these hoggers is similar.

The Outside Lane Hogger

More dangerous, but usually more observant than the middle lane hogger is the outside lane hogger. To hog in the outside line requires a car that will cruise at 85mph+ along with the unstinting belief that whatever speed they choose to do above the old speed limit - is the new speed limit ! Thus, this gives them the authority to sit in the outside lane and cruise there impervious to any other outside lane hoggers who believe the new speed limit should be at lease ten miles an hour quicker, so get the hell out of my way! These are essentially people who think they're special and that speed limits don't apply to them. 

You never see outside lane hoggers doing under 70mph. That's because under 70mph they know they shouldn't be there. At 71mph they know that neither of you is in the right and possession of the lane is nine tenths of the law and actually, drivers are not supposed to communicate with flashed headlights and that isn't the correct hand gesture for "I am going straight on".

An extension of the outside lane hogger is the one who, on joining a motorway, has to get to the outside lane as fast as is feasibly possible as that is where they think they belong. They do this however busy the motorway is. I come out of Manchester down the M62 to Warrington in the rush hour, it's slow and basically chokka. You can spot the 'owners' of the outside lane joining from the M60 at Eccles, they usually drive BMW's or white vans and aggressively force their way across all the lanes then sit, victorious in the outside lane. Regular users know and understand how the M62 works along this stretch, almost without fail, in the rush hour, the fastest lane is actually the inside lane (which is where I sit), we're happy then for the 'owners' to go and sit doing 10mph in the outside while we regulars just plod along at about thirty five overtaking them all from the inside lane. So, just occasionally, justice is served. 

Anyway - rant over !       

Gorse Covert Mounds –When ‘Big Society’ Turns Into Megalomania

We’ve all heard of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’, it was a key element of the last general election and is essentially a ‘Do-Gooders’ Charter. It encourages the community to get involved in public work, often in place of local authority services that have had to be cut. A noble scheme for certain, it also recognises the significant work done by many previously unappreciated local charities.

We’ve seen many good things to come out of the ‘Big Society’ like local libraries being handed over to local (often retired) volunteers to run rather than just having them closed down. All good stuff, but what happens when these volunteer groups turn into something they were never meant to be, when certain individuals want to make a name for themselves and spoil it for everyone else? Cue the tale of Gorse Covert Mounds.

So What Are ‘Gorse Covert Mounds’?

Gorse Covert is a pleasant housing estate where I’ve lived for over 15 years on the edge of Birchwood in Warrington. The following description of the ‘Mounds’ comes direct from the Woodland Trust’s leaflet on the area.  

Gorse Covert Mounds form a long wooded ridge with superb views to Manchester and the Pennine Hills from Pestfurlong Hill. The area looked very different 100 years ago when it was an expanse of flat bog, often covered with mist.

During the Second World War much of the moss was drained and a huge bomb factory was built on the land. It employed 30,000 workers, mainly women, who produced over a million mines and 500,000 high explosive shells! It was a dangerous place to work with frequent explosions. Many lost limbs and a few their lives. Detonator assembly was particularly risky and the women who did this were known as the Suicide Group.

The Mounds are man-made, created from spoil heaps formed when the bomb factory was demolished in the 1960s. They were landscaped in the 1970s and are now an attractive mixture of woodland, ponds and meadow. In addition, Pestfurlong Moss contains remnants of bog. The varied habitats provide food, shelter and breeding areas for a wealth of plants and animals. 

The Woodland Trust were gifted this land by Warrington New Town Development Corporation with the agreement that it would be held in trust for the benefit of the community and maintained accordingly. Since they took over, very little has been done other than a little coppicing and thinning where the over-growth becomes a real hazard to visitors and neighbouring properties. Some remedial work was done to 'some' of the paths a few years ago when their condition became intolerable but, apart from that, zilch. In other words, the cost to Woodland Trust has been negligible.

So What’s My Beef?

Well to understand that, we need to go back a few years. The story is taken up by a neighbour and good friend of mine who has always used the mounds for exercise and walking their dog. “When I retired I made contact with The Woodland Trust as the area was a disgrace, lots of litter and the like. I asked if they would supply me with a litter picker and some bags. Out of that grew the idea of a small group of fellow dog walkers working together for the good of the area.  We managed to get the benches repaired, and a bench placed at the ponds by nagging and chatting to the bosses at the Woodland Trust” It all sounds good doesn’t it? And it was, improvements were gradually being made by a little gang of friends making a difference!

The Takeover

The Woodland Trust recommended that the dog walkers became an official group, as that permits them to apply for grants to improve the area. This coincided with Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ and the involvement of a local Tory Councillor who needed to raise his profile, coupled with that was the inevitable involvement of the ‘tree hugger brigade’. This little band of do-gooders took over the little band of dog walkers, insisting that they had to have a committee, a constitution and a bank account!

At this point, my friend one of the original instigators resigned, committees and constitutions wasn’t what they intended when they formed their little group, all they wanted to do was keep the area tidy.

The group now has a ‘Management Committee’ with a Chairperson (the Tory Councillor of course), a Secretary, a Treasurer and a Membership ‘Officer’. The Group has a ‘Purpose’ statement “The Group exists to provide a forum for and opportunities for involvement by the local community and organisations, who have an interest in the sustainable management and use of Gorse Covert Mounds. In so doing it aims to enhance the enjoyment, biodiversity, health, safety and education value of an important community resource” – Buzz word city hey? Problem is, it’s alienated the very people whose idea it was in the first place. 

Over Zealous Stupidity

As usual when these groups go all official they get very precious about what they see as their domain and oppose anything and everything they disagree with.  

A couple of years ago some lads built a small camp in the woods , set it up with seats and had some fun, it’s what lads do, it was harmless, and the local police said it was doing no harm, the chairman of the group wasn’t having this though, so he tore it down! Wasn’t it Dale Carnegie who wrote “How To Win Friends and Influence People” obviously this guy has never read that book? The results of his actions were to “piss-off” the original members even more.

A statement in the group’s constitution is the usual politically correct “everyone should have the right to the safe enjoyment of these woodlands that is consistent with these values, regardless of their sex, or sexual orientation, religion, culture, ethnic or racial identity, disability or age”

Good disabled access then will be allowed. Well I walked the mounds this morning and I challenge any disabled person to do the same. They can’t even get through the gate if they’re in a wheelchair. There was originally a perfectly good gate giving access near to the ponds, that was replaced with a metal swing gate that requires a "radar" key to open it, so if you are in a wheelchair or have a child in a buggy and do not have a key, your only way in is to go through the wooded area to the side which is thick with mud. In addition, to enable them to fit the gate they cut away at the slope of the small hill, so now the whole area is a flooded mud bath not only when it rains but through the whole of winter. So whilst saying all the right politically correct things what happens on the ground is something totally different, sounds familiar in the political world doesn’t it?

Destruction not Conservation

As with all tree hugging do-gooder groups, they like to do what they think is best for us. Well this lot have gone well beyond their self-declared remit. Their constitution declares they “will work with others to enrich and protect the woodland and its natural vegetation and wildlife and to encourage activities that are in harmony with nature”. How will they do this? Well destruction of the areas of rhododendrons has been one item, why? What will this really achieve? Rhododendrons are often used extensively as ornamental plants in landscaping; they are used for their structure, size, flowers, and the fact that many of them are evergreen. So a perfect fit you would think? Nope, the group are in the process of ripping them all out.

Just to the right of the main Pestfurlong Hill and before the area of woodland is a flat area, which over years has become dry and fairly flat, it is used by the young kids to play hide and seek, and by dog walkers as a good area for playing catch with their mutts.  It did have young seedling trees growing on it, but the chairman and his gang have cut them down, their intention is to allow it to flood and revert to what it was, a bog, they believe that it is in the area of the oldest bog in the area and therefore it is important for our futures. Utter rubbish, nothing round here was as it was, there are plenty of ponds around the mounds and in winter, off the paths it’s virtually all bog, so we don’t need anymore.

Yes, I admit some improvements have been made in recent years. About 3 years ago they re-topped some paths, but such a poor job was done that they are already breaking down! Blame seems to be being laid at the doors of the contractor however I suspect it should be laid at the door of the specifier.

The chairman is currently moaning about rabbits eating the willow he’s been planting which he wants to grow and sell it. He’s looking at purchasing metal fencing to protect them. So no natural order allowed here, the little bunnies are just doing what bunnies do, stop discriminating against them guys.

At The End of The Day

At the end of the day, this land is not an ancient moss land, it’s all man made, so why treat it like it’s something else. We have Risley Moss down the road if you want special interest.

It’s often said it’s better to do the small things well than the big things badly. This is a case in point. Most of the locals who I speak to just want a nice walk, with good paths, they are not wanting flooded fields and the chopping down of the rhododendron bushes or of nice trees just because they're not indigenous to the area. A quote from a local who uses the area regularly sums it up "Quite frankly, I don't give a toss about the greater crested newt or how invasive the rhododendrons are; I just want somewhere to exercise my dog and meet other like-minded people"

Instead of flooding fields to recreate old bogs sort the drainage across the site out so people can stray off the paths all year round; sort the disabled access out so disabled people can truly use this wonderful asset; don't replace gates that don't need replacing; sort the motor bikers out who wreck the paths riding them. These simple things will all make a bigger difference to the Big Society of Gorse Covert.

M&S Blue Harbour? F**k right off!

Traditionally clothing for middle-aged men wasn’t a problem, they all looked like their dads and they all looked like each other. Nowadays things are different, I just don’t know what to wear. You don’t want to look like your dad, and the only thing you want less than that is to look like your son.

I know an architect who’s about 52 yet he dresses like an 18 year old. The latest trainers (always Nike or Adidas); the latest style of pants or designer jeans. The latest labels in T-shirts and sweatshirts. He even wore those strange Puffa jackets when they were in fashion. His clothes have zips and Velcro in all sorts of unexpected places. His trousers have all sorts of pockets in them, some of them unusable. He has bomber jackets and leather jackets and a vast collection of trainers. Have you ever heard anything so daft? Now because he’s an architect he gets away with it, this eccentricity has become his trademark and probably suits his character. I do think this behaviour is halfway to certifiable though. Personally I’d rather join the Hare Krishna movement and shuffle down Market Street in Manchester chanting and ringing finger tambourines than go out in the street dressed like he does. What could possibly be more ridiculous than a man in his 50’s pretending to be a teenager?

I might not be in my 50’s yet, but I don’t want to dress younger than I am. On the other hand, I don’t want to dress like my dad. So what should I do? Should I wear what our dads wore, or the alternative, which seems to involve paying ridiculous sums of money for more comfortable clothes that have all those designer labels on the outside? At one time, labels were things that went on the inside and were a bleeding nuisance if they popped out. Why should I be a walking billboard for a multinational clothes business? I also object to the ludicrous difference in price of this reasonably okay plain black sweatshirt and this reasonably okay plain black sweatshirt with ‘Timberland’ written on it. So most of the time I just won’t go there, and if I have, it’s usually under duress, or it’s been a gift.

Marks & Spencer

So what do I end up with? I don’t particularly want to wear designer labels, and I don’t want to wear old git stuff. So I end up with one of those sub-designer, mass-produced but not quite total rubbish things like ‘Blue Harbour’ from Marks & Spencers. Now what could possibly be sadder than that?

Shopping in M&S feels like a sure sign that it’s all over. I find myself browsing the rails and the racks, desperately trying to find something I don’t actually hate. I glance up and all around me are a load of totally boring bastards, who look as though they have had their spirits ripped out of them with their barbeque tongs, almost always out shopping with their wives. He’s looking bored, depressed, repressed and generally hopeless, while she’s rifling through a load of stripy rugby shirts to try to find one that will make him look even more fat-headed than he does now. And then it all gets worse because I think, ‘Oh, my God, that’s how I look!’ and at this moment I hot-foot it out of the shop as fast as my fat little legs will take me.

So Where To Go?

I can just about stand to go into GAP or NEXT, but if I suddenly find myself surrounded by teenagers, I feel a cold sweat creeping over me and can’t get out fast enough. Top Shop? – Wouldn’t even dream of going in. Burtons? - Do they still exist? Anyway, too boring. I find the answer is to go into one of those big department stores like Debenhams where they have all the different ranges, so if I accidently stray into something too young for me; I can beat a hasty retreat without too much indignity. In Debenhams you can toy with the idea of buying something by Jasper Conran or Rocha John Rocha, without making the commitment of going into a dedicated store and looking daft when you see the prices they charge in them places.

Variations on a Theme

One little problem that I have is that I only tend to wear black, blue or grey, so I’ve got literally dozens of tiny variations on this theme. But then, just now and again, I find myself somewhere wondering if I should be daring and ring the changes with say a rugby shirt in maroon with horizontal black stripes. As I’m about to reconcile myself with what, for me, is the equivalent of coming out as gay, I discover that it’s got the number ‘12’ written on the back. I hastily return it to the shelf as though I’ve just been given an electric shock. The idea of walking around with a number on my back, or on my left tit as though I was some kind of pensioned off sportsman seems so utterly ridiculous to me that, now, I can hardly breathe when I think about it.

Going off subject a little, I do think it’s hilarious that the only people wearing tracksuits in the street are usually around 30 stone! They probably order Diet Coke with their large Big Mac meal too. What’s going on in their heads? Are we supposed to think they are Olympic medal winners in pie-eating, or maybe off-duty sumo wrestlers?

Anyway back to the subject in hand. Eventually I find myself back in M&S, where I finally settle for yet another black sweatshirt, with the slight concession that this one has a different coloured collar. It may also have that little tag on one side with the red flag or whatever it is on it, but at least I know I can cut that off when I get home. Blue Harbour? Fuck right off!

#UKIP – A Few Niggling Doubts

Let me first of all say I’ve been a UKIP supporter since after the last General Election. Our mate Cameron started to make fundamental changes which he never said he would (Top down NHS reform, Decimation of the armed forces etc). Basically, as a Tory supporter all my life I felt let down by them. UKIP stand for everything I believe, so since 2011 I’ve supported Mr Farage and his merry brand of Brits, I’ve even been to a few local UKIP meetings. In that time we’ve seen UKIP support consistently growing, getting bigger and bigger all the time. I still support them, but more and more I wonder if their popularity could ultimately  be their (and the country’s) downfall.

Europe

UKIP’s primary reason for existing is to get us out of Europe something I support. I’m proud that along with a little Yankee help this small country of ours has been the liberator of our continental cousins on two occasions. The sacrifices of our brave heroes on the battlefields of Europe must never be forgotten both by ourselves and the rest of Europe.

I don’t subscribe to the theory that we might have won the war, but we are losing the peace, and that Germany is now ruling the roost through the back door of the EU. Believe it or not I am not anti-Europe but I’m vehemently opposed to any of our laws, rules, defences or controls of our sovereignty being given over to Europe.

I want the UK to trade with our nearest neighbours but I definitely don’t want a single currency or our laws being made by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or Strasbourg. I’m not old enough to remember Ted Heath taking us into the ‘Common Market’, but fair game, we did have a referendum over it. What I am positive of though is that most Brits who voted then, thought the vote was about joining a common market not forming a United States of Europe, which is what it’s become.

I don’t think wanting to keep control of your borders, your armed forces, your laws, your sovereignty and even your imperial measures is a sign of being either a racist or a little Englander. It’s just proof that you are proud of being an island race, proud of your culture and history and want to remain resolutely British. This is essentially UKIP’s mantra, and I support exit from Europe wholeheartedly. Europe will still trade with us whether we’re in the EU or not, we’ll still holiday there, we just won’t operate under their dictates.

Immigration and Asylum

This country has a proud tradition of inviting and welcoming other nationalities to join us and in fact I truly believe we are the most tolerant and welcoming nation in the World. This proud tradition extends to providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and long may that continue. Nigel Farage recently pushed the Government to take our share of Syrian refugees, which proves my point, UKIP aren’t a racist party. Of course it is true that in recent years through our chaotic immigration controls, we have let in people who are playing the system or abusing our hospitality but I would never want us to turn away genuine refugees.

What has gone wrong has been the unfettered, uncontrolled opening of our borders to all and sundry, to an extent where our infrastructure can’t cope, the NHS, social services, housing and education are all splitting at the seams with the population growth in a time of austerity. UKIP advocate controlled immigration to alleviate these problems, I agree, don’t shut the door, but only let in those who will benefit our economy, much like Australia does, nobody calls the Australians a bunch of racists for controlling who enters their country so why should we be classed in that way?

So again, with regards to immigration and asylum seekers I agree with UKIP and trust them to stick to what they say, unlike the other parties.

The Lunatics

UKIP has many members who are passionate about it’s policies and it’s common sense approach, which is great, just what I’m looking for. However it does have its share of ‘lunatics’, these are the people who the press and the other parties jump on to discredit UKIP. What’s worse is there appears to be yet another one appearing every week. They give the wrong impression of the party - or is it the right one ? I’m beginning to wonder !! Nigel Farage has said he wants to clamp down on the “Walter Mitty characters” that too often make UKIP look like a care home for fruitcakes. I’m afraid ““Walter Mitty characters” is too kindly, Nigel.              

Most famous was Godfrey Bloom. Remember the whole “Bongo Bongo Land” outburst and comments about women cleaning behind the fridge. His latest was asking a disabled student at Oxford if he was Richard III, the medieval king with a deformed spine. Bloom is not a Walter Mitty character, he is pond life in a bow tie.

Then there was UKIP Councillor David Silvester who wrote a letter to his local newspaper saying that the deluge of floods was caused because of David Cameron’s successful move to change the law about same-sex marriage. Fruit loop !!

Cast your mind back twelve months to Geoffrey Clark, this is the guy who suggested compulsory abortion in order to bring down the deficit. Another nut job tarnishing the UKIP name and cause.

Then, the most recent – and potentially most damaging – the issue of Mujeeb Bhutto, A man who served as UKIP's Commonwealth spokesman for a year and is the former leader of a kidnapping gang in Pakistan. Bhutto's gang were behind a high-profile kidnapping in Karachi in 2004 and he then took a £56,000 ransom payment in Manchester. In 2005, Bhutto admitted being the gang's "boss" and was jailed for seven years by a UK court. It’s not like UKIP could plead ignorance to this. He may have now resigned but the media have leapt on him therefore soiling the UKIP name further.

Yes, it is better to root out the "loonies" early than to tolerate them only for them to bring the party into disrepute later on. However it’s getting closer to the General Election and they’re still coming out the woodwork. It would be a tragedy if UKIP’s common sense credo were derailed by a gaggle of loony bins like this lot.

A Vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour

This is my biggest concern of all with UKIP. The party and its supporters are largely made up of disillusioned Tories like myself. Admittedly the meetings I’ve been to have had a lot of ex Labour voters there however predominantly its ex-Tory.

My big fear is come the General Election next year, UKIP will split the Conservative vote to a point where neither get in, leaving the door wide open for another Labour Government. This would be a catastrophe for the economy, especially the anti-business rhetoric coming out of Labour at present, penalising high achievers with the higher tax rate, talk of taxing businesses on turnover instead of profit, not forgetting the Unions getting a foot hold back in Number Ten.

I’m confident there is nothing remotely mad about UKIP’s belief that the future of Britain should be decided by the British, that’s a given.

So this is my issue, do I stick with UKIP as they match my beliefs and end up tainted with the loony brush and a Labour government for the next five years, or do I listen to Cameron and his insistence that we’ll have an EU in/out referendum when the country can speak.

A big decision and a year to decide?    The clock’s ticking !!   

NOT BREAKING NEWS : Time For A Change at the BBC

The BBC is one of our great British institutions and I never want to see it scrapped, however it does need cutting down to size. In the multi-media platform world we live in, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to justify the funding, The BBC has become a British Leyland of broadcasting funded by means of a punitive poll tax which you must pay or face prison.

In effect, the BBC should only be providing services and programmes that the market can’t or won’t produce. They also have no right to infest every sector of broadcasting with their soft-leftie over funded propaganda.

In an age when it is easy to watch the news, be entertained, follow sport and surf the internet without ever using the state monopoly’s services, why on earth should we still be forced to pay for this dinosaur? In an era of austerity the saving of the licence fee, which essentially is a tax on each household would be wildly popular, but it’s probably not the answer.

I’m not calling for the BBC to be completely privatised. I just want the BBC to concentrate on providing a value for money service to us, its funders. I want them to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary into the real world, and I want it to be forced to both earn and justify its existence.

A very recent example of this over blown, unnecessary spending of tax payer’s money was the BBC coverage of the death of Nelson Mandella. Yes it was an important event, but didn’t need the uprooting of the entire BBC News team to go on a junket to South Africa for a fortnight then making it the main news item everyday for that period to justify the trip! Did Question Time really need to broadcast its edition that week from South Africa? How many important UK news stories can no longer be investigated as they’ve spent the budget on Mandella?    

Of course, the BBC is held in high esteem around the world and it has obviously produced some brilliant radio and TV over the years. But unfortunately at home its presence in all media areas is too dominant. As the state broadcaster it has tremendous privileges and rights, but it should also have enormous equal responsibilities to us, the very people who are forced to pay for it.

A particular bug-bear of mine is the left wing angle you constantly get on certain, so called impartial news programmes. The Today Programme on Radio 4; Newsnight; Question Time, to me, are all very impartial. Indeed a recent Question Time edition came from Boston in Lincolnshire, a town that has an extremely high population of immigrants, it also has what’s probably the largest UKIP following of any town. Strange then how the audience seemed to be made up of immigrant supporting, anti-UKIP people.   

On top of all this is the cover up of the whole Jimmy Savile; Dave Lee Travis; sex abuse issues that lead to Operation Yewtree. Many senior people in the BBC knew what was going on, yet did nothing about it. Was this to protect Savile or protect the BBC? The one thing it didn’t protect was the victims !

Lose BBC3 and/or BBC4?

Let me say I wouldn't miss BBC3 for a moment; it’s a repeats channel really. BBC4 costs the licence payer a mighty £50m a year; however it does have some great programmes on. But being a fan of BBC4 and having no interest in BBC3 is exactly the reason why both are important, but are they affordable? Maybe a solution would be to merge them into one, taking the best bits of each.

It also depends on if they were to do anything with BBC2, though. If the documentaries and arts programmes (and high quality foreign imports) move there, then that's acceptable. If however BBC2 continues to show a diet of cooking, gardening, Dad's Army and talent show spinoffs, then no thanks get rid of BBC2 instead.

Sponsorship

Can anyone give me one good reason why popular BBC programmes such as EastEnders; Strictly; Casualty or The One Show can’t be sponsored in the same way as Coronation Street is by Compare The Market? I’m not suggesting advertising interrupting the shows, but surely they could flog credits at the beginning and the end? Again, revenue brought in this way would free up cash.

BBC Radio

Radio 1 and Radio 2 should be sold off to the highest bidder. The BBC’s argument that both stations bring on new talent and champion minority causes can be easily satisfied by opening up sections of the licence fee for both private companies and the BBC to bid for to put on these types of shows.

Radio 3 has lost its way as well. It’s nothing more than an expensive fig-leaf for the whole operation. Lousy programming, lousy sound, tiny audiences too, for whom they have little but contempt. Yes, the Proms are fun but they’re hardly a duty of the licence-payer to the tune of millions.

And when it comes to BBC Five Live, I like it, but should they really be allowed to use our money to bid for Premiership football rights and effectively outbid commercial stations? They then use the football to build their brand!

Six Music is a really good station, its programming is unique amongst the whole radio network and its successful, but only a few can hear it as it only broadcasts digitally. With a wider audience this station could fulfil the gap left by Radios 1 and 2 being sold off whilst fulfilling the BBC’s diversity ethos.

Local Radio

All of this money saved could then be used to fund BBC core activities that will not be provided by the private sector, such as ‘proper’ local radio which sadly, no longer seems to exist in the UK anymore.

The best, truly local radio station I ever listened to was Manchester’s Piccadilly Radio. It had everything, popular music; specialist music; news; debate; investigative shows; sport etc. It had huge listening figures and created many local personalities that ended up as national figures such as Chris Evans. Piccadilly disappeared when big corporate business started buying up local radio in the 80’s, their descendant; KEY103 is a dire, chart music, playlist station with nondescript, identikit presenters. It appeals to teenagers and that’s about it. They could be broadcasting anywhere in the country, the output would still be the same.     

BBC Radio Manchester is a fairly good local talk station with brilliant news and sport coverage, however with a bit of investment it could be so much more. If the BBC were to take the Piccadilly Radio model and merge it with what Radio Manchester does they’d have a perfect offering, listenership would go through the roof.

Put It In The Manifesto

I don’t think it’s helpful to call for the abolition of the BBC. I think it’s a reductive, if not nihilistic game whereby abolition plays into the hands of the likes of Murdoch and a wide variety of extremists. However something needs to be done.

The BBC is rightly seen as a great symbol of all that is great in Britain but it has to be cut down to size and made apolitical. It needs to be made more accountable to the British public if we are to continue to be forced to pay for it. It also needs to stop being a supporter of minorities first and foremost and be more supportive of the British way of life instead. It should reflect our shared values and not be an organ of propaganda for those who seek to destroy our way of life or change it without even consulting us.

All the political parties will be drawing their manifestos shortly ready for the General Election next year. Times are changing. They should put some serious thought into what the BBC needs to look like in these modern times. It could be a vote winner !

Manchester Canal Deaths – Too Many, Too Often

Another Monday morning, another report of a young man fighting for his life after being rescued from a canal in Manchester City Centre. This one, a lad in his 20s, was pulled from the Rochdale Canal on Dale Street near Piccadilly Station at around 10.30pm last night. He was taken to the Manchester Royal Infirmary where he's described as "critically ill".

It seems that every time I look at the Manchester Evening News website there’s another body in a Manchester canal. 2014 is only three weeks old and this is the FOURTH one so far this year. The first died on the 7^th in the Ashton Canal, the second, died on the 10^th in the canal near Great Ancoats Street and the third was rescued on the 14^th from the canal in Princess Street. What’s going on ?

Chilling Statistics

This isn’t a recent thing either, It seems to be happening more and more frequently with young men going missing after a night out in Manchester. A quick internet search reveals the official numbers from Greater Manchester Police are that between 1^st January 2008 and 18^th March 2013 there have been 61 bodies retrieved from Greater Manchester waterways. That’s almost one a month. I know it's not a particularly useful comparison, but if a particular stretch of road was that dangerous, I'm sure they'd be looking at safety improvements.

Why Manchester?

Why does Manchester seem to have so many young males meeting a watery grave. It does happen elsewhere in the UK, but not at anywhere near the same frequency. Are we really to believe that young men in Manchester are just phenomenally clumsy compared to the rest of the country? It all seems very strange to me.

Birmingham, has a large canal network around bars and clubs but there’s no reports there of men falling in canals after a night out and being killed. Indeed, Birmingham has more canals than Venice, so you'd expect if it was just drunk people falling into them (and some of the Manchester victims had relatively low levels of blood alcohol), you'd expect it to be a weekly occurrence there – but it’s not!

With all these young men’s bodies being dragged out of Manchester canals/rivers in the space of a decade you do wonder is something else going on here? Of course, it may just be coincidence, but the first thing the police seem to say in all these cases is "no signs of anything suspicious". That's pretty dismissive really isn't it?

No Suspicious Circumstances

As I say, most of these incidents seem to eventually get dismissed as "no suspicious circumstances". I suppose part of the reason for this is that if there's no CCTV near the canals (which there isn't near most of them in Manchester), then how are they supposed to prove anything untoward has happened? Even if the body has cuts, bruises and they can see that something has happened, water can wash away any DNA and other evidence. Still, there’s no way on earth this many young males are falling into canals though.

Why Is It Always Young Men?

The one thing that really bothers me is the age and type of person that keeps slipping into the water and drowning. With only a few exceptions, these victims are all young males in their late teens or early twenties. Why should that be the case? They’re usually leaving a party not even in the area of a water way late at night. It seems females don't slip or leave party's late at night in the Manchester area.

If there is ‘no suspicious circumstances’ and they’re not being pushed in or thrown in then one way to help prevent more deaths is some sort of fencing around the death black spots on the water ways, or is that too simplistic?

It may sound a bit of an obvious, even silly thing to say, but it really should be impressed upon young people, never ever walk along close by a canal or waterway at night. It's too easy to trip, when tired, when stumbling in the dark.

More Sinister?

Personally I feel there's something more sinister happening with all these canal deaths; there’s far too many of them in Manchester, and the lads are rarely intoxicated. Most incidents happen around the 'Gay Village' - Canal Street and its environs - quite a civilised place until the small hours, and the towpaths there are also seen as a short cut home for some. How many people have died in that canal after being thrown in? Canal Street breeds drugs and violence late at night. Are these young men’s drinks being spiked (rohypnol etc) disorienting them to a state where they end up falling in the canal? Is something sinister going on in the gay community there? Something's going on for sure!

I begin to wonder if this is just a host of coincidences or is there a serial killer at large? This theory never even entered my mind when I started writing this blog and I don't see why there is any reason to believe there is one at this point, but I do think it's chilling and very sad that cases of young men disappearing and later being found dead are on the increase.

I don't really think I believe that serious, organised  foul play is occurring, it's just that if these deaths were young women people would be sympathetic and worried. I find the total lack of reaction about the increasing number of young men dying (whether they die innocently or because others have done them harm) sinister and sad.

Doesn’t Make Sense

None of it makes any sense. Why the hell are there so many young males going missing, then being found dead in water in Manchester? What are Greater Manchester Police doing about this? Something quite dodgy and disturbing is going on. If I'm thinking there's a possible serial killer about, and I know I'm not the only one thinking this, then maybe the likes of the Manchester Evening News should be doing some ‘investigative’ journalism rather than ignoring it.

A question to Greater Manchester Police. What are you doing about this? Why are there so many 'not suspicious circumstances' when you can't get any more suspicious than a load of young men being found dead in canals? What is going on?

Whether foul play is involved or not, these deaths and disappearances need investigating and reporting on a lot more. Maybe if a little more awareness was raised, these young men could avoid harm. There again, I suppose because they aren't blonde haired, blue eyed middle class girls the media just doesn't give a shit.

Religion. Sorry, I Just Don't Buy it

Happy New Year one and all, the season of greed and madness has passed and we're into another year, another year of experience and progress and another year closer to shuffling off this mortal coil.

What's changed then ?  

Well nothing really from what I see, the economy is finally picking up, can't say I've noticed it in my pay packet though. The Government still aren't listening to us about all sorts of things, like immigration, HS2, EU Membership etc. The fracking debate goes on and I'm still not clear where I stand as the messages are so mixed, maybe the subject of a future blog. The Labour Party are still un-electable in their current form. 

What else ? 

Oh yeah, our under equipped soldiers are still fighting other peoples wars. These wars, and to be honest virtually all modern wars are a result of one religion's people trying to eliminate an opposing religion's people. Oh and there was all that appalling weather, the flooding, people without power on Christmas day, the deaths as a consequence of the weather. There's a link between wars and the weather and that's religion. People fight wars for their religion, people also believe that the weather is an 'Act of God'. So it seems we have a deity that is happy to willfully murder people by causing terrible weather conditions, either that or by allowing them to murder each other in his name. I'm not really buying this, are you ?

Nice Architecture, that's about all though!

I quite like good architecture, churches are generally fine, attractive buildings, they do have those monolithic stained glass windows though; all those images in them of Jesus Christ being crucified on a cross. That just gives me the horrors, sends shivers down my spine. I can't understand the way God is represented in church. He's not exactly a barrel of laughs, is he? I thought the whole idea is that religion is meant to give you comfort and happiness yet the God Squad are always so terribly dour and serious.

I honestly can't see that religion gives much pleasure to people at all. If someone genuinely believes that they're going to end up in heaven, surely they should be spending their entire lives with a huge smile on their face. I don't go along with any of it. It seems so patently obvious to me that the whole this is one big con, one giant delusion of wishful thinking and all it does is pit people against each other and creates at least as much damage and bad feeling as politicians do.

The world would be a much safer, happier place if people embraced the idea that death just might be the end, so why not try and do good while they're here on earth, not get away with hatred and murder in the expectation that they'll be forgiven in the next life.

Religion is Control

Religion and control seem to go hand in hand, much as communism and control did. When you're a Christian, or a Muslim or a Jew (or whatever religion you may be), your beliefs are taught to you. In a sense, you are told what to believe and most people just do what they're told. The result of this is that you live in a controlled society, only accepting what you're told to accept because you think that your beliefs are better than other people's and you will accept no other opinions, you only have to look what's happening in the Muslim world to evidence what I'm saying. 

Atheism

As you've probably guessed, I'm an atheist, I've developed my own opinions. I don't feel pressured by religious teachings to accept thoughts that may not really be what your heart wants you to believe or head tells you is just plain impossible. Being an atheist allows me to be free to examine multiple sides to arguments, and be open-minded on others' opinions. I control my own life. 

I might be an atheist, a none believer, but I'm not against God or people believing in God. I am merely against people who use their religion as a weapon, and who use it publicly trying to force it on other people. Beliefs should be private and sacred. In general, globally, religious people try to use what they've been taught to be above other people where atheists don't. In my opinion, atheism is about being open to learning and developing, whereas religion isn't. 

Does God Exist ?

If God actually existed we would ALL believe in him or her. But the evidence points more to the fact that the reason God was invented was because thousands of years ago, they did not know how to explain our existence. Today however, our origins are somewhat clearer.   

Romania and Bulgaria Unite !!

I see in various reports over the weekend that the Unite union is offering to teach unemployed Romanians and Bulgarians how to claim benefits in Britain. That’s very good of them isn’t it, just what this country needs !!

It seems Unite, who are Labour’s biggest funder, is courting foreigners from the two countries as part of a membership drive. It is offering the advice as a reward for signing up to the union. It has even issued membership forms in Romanian and Bulgarian, this despite both the Government and Labour saying immigrants should learn English. The unemployed immigrants are being offered the chance to join the union for just 50p a week. In return, Unite says it will offer new arrivals with advice on how to maximise benefit claims.

Ministers have refused to estimate how many immigrants will arrive from these two Eastern European impoverished countries but history has already proven that it will probably run into hundreds of thousands in the coming years.

Tory MP Priti Patel has called Unite’s behaviour “shameless”, adding, “It is incredibly irresponsible and I’m afraid it just sums up the attitude of Labour and the trade unions towards EU immigration.”. Can't disagree with you there Priti !! 

Let Down

I’m sure every existing Unite Member who thinks his job could be at risk in the near future really welcomes this initiative. More likely Unite is recruiting abroad to make up for all those who have abandoned their membership in the UK as they feel they have been so badly let down by the people they thought were there to actually protect their interests.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, the unions looked after the British workers. Read my blog of the 28^th November, where I cover how Labour and the Unions were opposed to our membership of the EU until the late 80s. Not anymore.

If you belong to Unite you are helping to finance the Labour party. Unite is promoting immigration so immigrants can come here and take British jobs. Labour is also staying very quiet because they are making a very good living out of their union contributions. If you’re a Unite member and are against the Labour party policy's and you are against mass immigration you need to question whether Unite are traitors and are taking your money under false pretences.

I think the populous now recognise that Labour is no more than the political wing of Unite. Milliband is boxed in and must dance to McClusky's tune or his party is bust. As they might say, McClusky has him by the Balls. Milliband has yet to learn that there is no such thing as a free meal and if you are going to drink with the devil then use a long handled spoon.

The Elephant in the Room

The real elephant in the room is the funding of our political parties. Both sides are funded by organisations with a vested interest in that party’s success. What can we do ? Well, we either bite the bullet and agree to them being funded by the state, or we accept that they must continue to beg for cash as and where they can; with all that that implies. 

State funding has much to recommend it.  It would do away at a stroke with the vested interests buying influence, in theory at least. The problem as I see it is that it would soon become an open ended commitment, costing the taxpayer more and more.   No matter what controls the state tried to impose, the politicians would find a way round it, it's the nature of the beast.   In addition, there is little appetite for state funding among the electorate.

If it seems we maintain the status quo, that we’re not going to provide state funding, then we have to accept the current flawed system. We have to accept that nobody gives large sums of money away without expecting a quid pro quo.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, after all.   Ed Milliband faces problems, but what else can he do?  If he gets tough with Unite, the taps will be turned off.  The phrase ‘a rock and a hard place’ springs to mind.

Maybe they should be funded by their party members and supporters only and what money they can raise from them should be open to public scrutiny? If a Political Party cannot find the necessary funding from its members then it shouldn’t exist. If we were to cut all state support, we should also limit contributions to say a maximum of £10k per member, just watch MPs and their party change the way they behave if we did that. It would also be essential that any politicians that are being backed by organisations, institutions, business or religious interests, should have, by law to declare those interests.

Back to Unite and the Romanians and Bulgarians

It feels like I’m watching a terrible car crash in slow motion, powerless to stop or influence the oncoming tragedy. Our politicians continue to serve nobody but themselves, deaf and blind to the electorate.  I suppose it’s a case of welcome to the world of dirty politics. It truly feels that these people will do anything to get the votes these days.

New Labour admitted this was Labour's plan to stay in power all along. Unlimited immigrants claiming benefits and voting Labour. Today’s Labour party has long deserted their traditional "working class" supporters by importing immigrants to steal their jobs or claim benefits.

What about the unemployed British working class and their jobs? The Unions used to fight for the British-working class, and in trying to improve working conditions and pay, now they are just an extreme-left political organisation determined to bring Britain down. Unite should think of what will happen when the same Bulgarians and Romanians they help, start taking their members jobs for less money.

At The End of the Day

All the prospective immigrants want, is to come here for a better life. The fact that them coming, harms those here already is ignored, whether they be indigenous or other immigrants. 

I also want a better life. David Cameron has a better standard of living and house than me and I want to move in with him but I suppose it's too much to hope that he will take me in. At the end of the day, it's the same thing as the poor of the EU coming here, isn’t it?