Syria again

Following on from my recent post.

The British media seems dumbfounded that the House of Commons voted against British participation in any military intervention in Syria.

Let me help them understand.

Firstly, there are all those memories of Iraq and the sexed-up dossier.  Sadly, the UN weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly, wasn't the only person to lose his life over this.  100,000's of Iraqis lost their lives too.  As did UK, US and troops from other nations.  And still the heartache continues for the Iraqi people.

Linked to the above, the most oft-cited criticism of the 2003 invasion was the lack of any coherent plan for the next stage.  Everyone wanted rid of Saddam Hussein but no one gave thought to what or who would replace him.  The Iraqi people are still suffering the effects.

Ordinary people in the UK and US (overwhelmingly opposed to intervention, polls suggest) know, that without some kind of plan for the post-Assad era, then the current regional instability will only increase.  The business author/guru has one of his Seven Habits of Successful People as 'start with the end in mind'.  I can't believe that the aim here is just to remove Assad.

I suspect that the people of the UK also have two over-riding thoughts on Syria.

Yes the pictures and events are truly horrible but what is it to do with us?  Why should the UK get involved?  The US sets itself as the 'world's policeman' so let them stick their nose in, keep ours out!

Secondly, why should the UK spend money it doesn't have, interfering in another country? Such interference will only lead to negative consequences for the UK economy.  The UK simply cannot afford to intervene - financially so.  How can we spend millions on bombs and jet fuel while preaching the need for austerity at home?  If there are millions of £ to spare, how about putting that by and giving it back to taxpayers?  Or, since government simply chokes on the idea of reducing taxes, how about paying out to people suffering from fuel poverty as a result of idiotic green policies?

I think that it comes down to that.  I don't think that most people look to the regional instability that is now in play and the tremendous uncertainty that we all face, as a consequence.  Perhaps they do see Syria as the proxy war battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran but the questions remain - what is this to do with the UK? 

There are of course humanitarian reasons to intervene but these reasons have prevailed in many other places and the West has closed its eyes.  I think though, that this time the scales have fallen from the eyes of the UK people and, fortunately from the eyes of UK parliamentarians.  

Oh and I won't be misled (and I suspect neither will the British public) by so called American intelligence reports.  These presumably come from the CIA?  The same CIA that couldn't protect the US Ambassador and three fellow Americans at Benghazi, Libya, last September 11? 

Ask yourself this.  Suppose that there is military intervention - we know this will only involve bombing or missiles - how will the interventionists ensure only the 'guilty' are targeted?  Then ask yourself, what's next?  I don't have the answer and I suspect that neither do our so called leaders.

Syria - The Vote! Questions for the Syrian opposition.

Well done to the UK Parliament! 

The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable.  Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte! 

What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government.  And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.

Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.

At best the House of Commons vote was premature.  The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime. 

Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action?  By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war.  The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks. 

Just think about it!  They are losing.  They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do?  How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed?  A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV

In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table.  And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN.  Everything is tainted. 

The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc.. 

The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale.  Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though.  David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people.  So why did the previous ten  attacks not warrant action or comment? 

I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water. 

The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing.  It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution!  That though is one outcome of Syria.  Strange bed-fellows abound.  Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'.  This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him.  Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda.  These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates.  However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy.  Exactly what do the 'rebels' want?  Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?  

So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks!   Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility.  And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.

I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria.  To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!

So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK.  And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!

Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!

Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%

Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!

The new censors and the rule of law

Don't you feel at all troubled, these days?  Something bothering you?  Have you maybe read a news story or seen an item on TV that concerns you?

Well, keep quiet about it!  Shut up!  Stay silent, say nothing because if just maybe your view doesn't conform to the latest orthodoxy, then you will be pilloried.

Don't believe me?  Consider Yelena Isinbayeva.  The Russian Pole Vault champion was reported to have voiced support for the laws of her motherland or rather one law in particular.  The law that makes it a criminal offence to promote homosexuality to those less than 18 year's of age. 

Cue squeals of outrage from the pink mafia and their slavish followers.

Isinbayeva has now qualified her remarks to say that what she really meant to say, and maybe it got mangled in her use of the English language, was that all people should respect the laws of the country that they are in, at any given time.  So, if you are in Russia and they have a law that says what you can do and say about homosexuality, to an under 18, then follow that law.  She didn't go on to say that in Russia you must also not kill people or steal or set fire to buildings or other stuff but I suspect that she meant all of those laws should also be followed, as well.

I guess it's kind of like when foreigners come to visit the UK, we have this tendency to require them to follow our laws , I understand the same applies in France, the USA and, come to think of it, the whole world over.  Imagine what it would be like to drive in the UK, if Americans could simply ignore the law and drive on the side of the road with which they are familiar.

Personally, I don't have a problem with what I understand of the new law in Russia.  However, if I did, I guess I wouldn't go to that country and if I were a Winter Olympics athlete and felt very strongly about it, I would boycott the Sochi games.  I don't think it would be right for me to expect my fellow athletes to follow me in a boycott, after all, maybe they have their own views which are not totally in synch with mine.  At the moment, people are still allowed to have their own opinions since the new censors haven't yet managed to get their control of 'group think' to be total.  Right now these new censors can only use their minor celebrity status and acolytes to push their views through a like-minded main stream media.

Problem is though, the new censors don't yet control Twitter and blogs like this.  They want to control it though.  Recently, in the UK, some people posted hateful messages on the sites of some women.  Now in respect of some of these messages, they would seem to have been hateful enough that they contravened laws.  In these cases then, the law should be enforced but the new censors want to go after Twitter, instead.  To me' it's a bit like prosecuting knife manufacturers because someone was stabbed or Toyota because a Corolla was involved in a fatal accident.

The real truth though is that these new censors go after Twitter simply because they cannot stand to allow people a medium that they do not control.  They control main stream media - the biased BBC
is riddled with a 'right-on' metropolitan elite that knows better than the people that pay their wages and simply don't process stories that don't fit their agenda.

So if you are at all concerned, either shut up or keep on pushing Twitter and other social media to stay censor free.  Other than the privacy of our own minds (even Big Brother couldn't really get inside Winston Smith's), we have few outlets where we can freely express ourselves.

Advice for visitors to Britain

I wouldn't normally give advice to visitors to Britain.  Preferring instead to let people find there way around and discover the beauties of our lovely and history-filled island. 

However, recent events lead me to warn people of the perils that they may come across. 

The thing is, you may see people in certain rural idylls mimicking ostriches.  Yes, that's right, you will see the rear ends (most will hopefully be clothed) of country dwellers with their heads buried in the sand. 

Many of these people reside in the southern counties of England and enjoy the natural beauty while at the same time commuting into London where they can earn the salaries that afford them and their families, this lifestyle.  These people are truly fortunate because they are able to manage this lifestyle and yet not need any hydro-carbon based energy to do so. 

How do I know this?  Well, it must be so.  It must be that these people travel by foot or pedal power and light and heat their houses using personal solar power panels.  All that lovely country food must get cooked on solar powered stoves or open wood-burning fires.  These fortunate  people must also be blessed with an absence of internet and TV interfering with their lives and those pesky mobile phones don't blight their life, either.  And of course, they never, ever holiday abroad!

This has to be so because otherwise they wouldn't be opposing onshore drilling.  They would understand that the 4x4s that they drive require hydro-carbons, that the electricity that is used comes mostly from gas-fired stations.  They would have read, in a carbon-environment newspaper, that the UK is facing a severe energy crisis and within 2 years the country will face power outages.  They will have heard and read stories about the high energy taxes that are causing the death of old people who simply cannot afford to heat their homes, in the winter.  

Knowing all this though, they oppose exploratory drilling which just might provide solutions to the country's energy needs.  To say nothing of the fiscal benefits which might accrue to the country!

Why do they oppose?  There is some that twaddle on about the drilling rigs being an eyesore.  In this they are supported by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.  All though are content to see wind turbines, despoil the countryside.  These wind turbines will be around for 25 years, unless they burn-up before (as some have already done so).  The drilling rigs will be there for a couple of months, at most,  and then they will be removed to be replaced, if the well is successful, with a low profile pumping system - think nodding donkey - that can be hidden by a stand of conifer hedges.  Don't believe me?  Go look in Lincolnshire around Welton, Nettleham and Keddington and see the extent of despoilation (and when you don't see any, you will know what I mean !).

A further fear relates to 'fracking'.  Understand first that the drilling activity that is currently being opposed, includes zero as in no, fracking activity.  None, nada, zilch!

If hydro-carbons are found, they are likely to be in gas form and will most likely require fracking to facilitate extraction.  So, what about fracking?  Based on the mendacious stories from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and the totally discredited Gasland movie from Josh Fox, you would expect aquifer pollution - the actual fact that these wells drill through and beyond the water-table and then 'case-off' the aquifer zone, isn't allowed to get in the way of the lie that pollution occurs - it doesn't pure and simple.  Don't take my word for it.  Do your own research on the USA's Environmental Protection Agency website.  See how many instances of groundwater pollution they have recorded, during the ongoing shale drilling boom, indeed since 'fracking' first started in the mid 1940s.  Oh and don't be concerned at the talk of secret chemical recipes being pumped into the ground.  Lots of companies have 'secret recipes'.  Ever heard of Coca Cola or KFC's coating mix?

Then, talking of booms we get to seismic activity - that is the accusation that fracking causes earthquakes to occur.  This will cause country churches to topple and houses to develop cracks, just prior to falling over and killing all of the inhabitants and, perish the thought, school roofs to fall and smother children.  Again, do your own research.  Find out how many homes and buildings have been devastated by fracking in America, where thousands of wells have been fracked.  Tip - you won't find any data because there isn't any but Greenpeace and FoE don't want facts or the truth to get in the way of driving us all back to a non-carbon environment where we can sit in un-heated homes and work just down the road from our hovel.

So dear traveler, don't be surprised by any sighting  of the 'lesser brained nimbyist'  These selfish animals, when not burying their head in the sand and chirping their 'not in my back yard' mating call can sometimes be found communing with their local, usually Conservative, MP.  This creature comes from the genus money-grubbing hypocratus and when not concerned with feathering its nest has the uncanny ability to talk out of its rear-end while moving its lips.  These MPs are characterised by self-interest and such short-termism that would make a City trader blush!

So dear traveler, come visit, close your ears to the whining and eco-lies and instead enjoy this green and pleasant land.  Visit those churches that have stood for hundreds of years and marvel at the landscape.  Try also to picture that landscape before parts of it were ruined by loony eco-policies that heavily subsidise the installation of wind turbines. 

A series of unpredictions and predictions

Here is something that won't happen.  England and other European nations will not refuse to participate in the 2022 Football World Cup.

They should do this of course, if the criminals, running and ruining football, at FIFA, go ahead and move the tournament to winter from the summer. But they won't.  They will huff and puff and then they will see the $$s, ££s and €€s and conclude that 'the game' benefits from being spread far and wide. 

They will ignore the fact that the game is already global.  They will ignore the fact that the driver of this is the televising of European leagues, particularly, the English Premier League and that all of these leagues operate during the northern hemisphere's winter.  They will ignore the lingering stench of corruption surrounding the bid.  They will continue to close their eyes at the democratic deficit that is FIFA. 

They won't even pause to consider why Middle Eastern businesses (Qatar Foundation, Emirates, etc.) sponsor European sporting teams and events - hint - it is because these teams get exposure.

Instead, they will wrap their obeisance to the unrepresentative FIFA, in a 'concern for the conditions in which fans will be watching the games'.  Total codswallop.  These people don't give a fig for the fans.  The only time fans feature in the equation is on the revenue side - as in how much can we fleece them!

It was surely always on the cards that there would be calls for the games to be moved to the slightly cooler Qatari winter.  However, it is like FIFA and their bid evaluation committee have just discovered that it gets a tad warm in the Qatari summer - as in typically 45-50C warm. 

Here is something else that won't happen but should.  England and other European nations should leave FIFA.  Abandon this corrupt organization and stick to UEFA.  Here is another prediction - they won't do that - compromise is the modus operandi of the national associations - even with a history of what disasters follow appeasement.  Consider though, who really has the commercial clout?  UEFA or FIFA?  I would be willing to pay to watch Germany, Spain, Italy or England, play football or would watch on TV and endure being bombarded with advertising.  I definitely don't see myself watching a Turks and Caicos Islands versus Indonesia or Qatar or any other smaller footballing nation.  It just doesn't appeal and I am sure I am not alone - go into any sports bar in Vietnam or Malaysia or Qatar and see which leagues are being televised!

To those in control of the English Premier League, I implore you to do the right thing.  Leave the English football season as it is.  Consider, just for once, the people who follow your clubs, the people that won't be able or want, to travel to Qatar for the World Cup - they will be the overwhelming majority.

To football fans, get on social media and club sites and make your views known.  Not a prediction but.... they may just listen.

Twitter bullies beware!

This warning also applies to other social media sites.

Researchers at the University of Life, which is based in Common Sense Land,  and adjacent to the School of the Bleeding Obvious, have discovered the means to defeat the so called social media bullies.  These are the people that say nasty things and sometimes even criminally culpable nasty things about individuals or groups on social media sites like Twitter and AskFM.

Apparently, the way to avoid being bullied on a particular site is to not visit that site.  I know, sounds easy, right?  What you do is, you switch your computer or your mobile phone on  and then instead of opening-up Twitter or AskFM or whatever, you don't.  The researchers, who are surely in receipt of taxpayer funding, have offered this solution to one of the 21st century's biggest problems, free of charge.

I know this is 'one of the 21st century's biggest problems' because it has attracted the attention of the UK Government.  David Cameron, the puppet controlled by Nick Clegg, has been mouthing-off all sorts of ill-informed and technically illiterate talk about the need to 'control' these web-sites.

Yes this is the same government that continues to preside over an economically incontinent administration and continues to borrow, borrow, borrow because 'hey at least we are borrowing less than Labour would'.

The same government that wants to control the printed press and internet access.  All this doesn't distract them though from spending, spending, spending - 'hey, but it is spending less than Labour would' .

The same government that is pushing ever more people into energy poverty in pursuit of an environmentalist pipe-dream.  The same government that, instead of embracing  the bounty that is represented by shale gas deposits, drags its feet in approving licensing while pensioners die of hypothermia or malnutrition - got to make a choice Doris - heat or eat?  Britain used to lead the world in so many things, now our 'lead' is down a path towards economic annihilation.  Look behind you as we head down this path.  Look at Germany, yes they have lots of inefficient wind turbines, same as GB, yes they have abandoned nuclear power, pretty much the path that GB is heading, but what is their solution?  More wind power? Higher energy taxes?  Actually, no.  They are burning more coal - yes that dirty stuff, the stuff that used to be burned in the power stations that are so rapidly being closed down, in the UK.

The same government that ring-fences spending in the NHS  - 'hey, but we are spending less than Labour would' - while at the same time receiving report after report which detail the extremely poor level of service and care that NHS patients receive.  Reports that show that people are dying unnecessarily and often in the most degrading circumstances, all in a provider-controlled system that is the 'envy of the world'.

I've strayed but I think you get my point.  The bullying that has been reported is hateful.  I can't help but think that some of this though, is no more than used to be verbalised before the advent of the internet and social media.  I am sure that a group of anthropological researchers would posit that bullying is a natural human phenomenon which Man has used throughout all time to sort out who leads the pack, etc..   There is though, no record of any of these so called trolls holding a gun to anyone's head and saying 'go online.'

Some of this bullying has taken the form of what can only be described as criminal threats and incitement.  There are already laws to deal with this.  Just use them!  Why go after Twitter or AskFM?  If someone gets drunk and calls you an 'ugly or fat so and so' or worse, do you think of calling for the banning of alcohol?  (OK that question isn't for the Lib Dems because we know what their answer would be.)  Or, do you just cross the road and walk on? 

Maybe pause for a moment and consider that the more that government seeks to control everything, the more that this causes these people to ratchet up their level of abuse?

Hopefully, you have read this far and since you have not been called any unpleasant names, even you Lib Dems, nor have you been subjected to any hate-filled speech or threats of rape or killing, you will see that the internet and social media and blogs isn't all about negativity (okay so I am more than a bit negative about government spending but indulge me).  These mediums offer the opportunity for social interaction far beyond what our ancestors could have dreamed of.  Far beyond what governments would like us to have.  Don't kowtow to censorship.  Accept that even with its flaws, this medium is far better than the alternative.

Still not convinced?  Ask yourself this then.  When did you last believe anything that came out of the mouth of any government minister or politician in any country in the world?  And if you did believe, did you immediately wonder 'what's in it for him or her'?

Homosexuals and Marriage

Wherever David Cameron and the rest of those parliamentarians are resting their heads at the moment, the sound that awakens them this morning isn't a bucolic morning cockerel - it is the sound of chickens coming home to roost!

Almost one year ago today, I posted here  http://bit.ly/1cmqqUd  about the then pending Same Sex Marriage Act.  See also here http://bit.ly/17pGgGw


In this post, I commented

I believe voters will see through the government's meaningless promises that 'no religious organisation will be compelled to offer marriage to homosexuals on religious sites'.  Everyone knows that this is rubbish and that before the ink is dry on the legislation, the homosexual advocates, for whom no amount of progress is ever enough (until perhaps homosexuals are in the ascendancy and heterosexuals are a down-trodden minority), will be pushing for marriages to take place in churches and claiming all sorts of 'human rights abuses' when they are denied.  We have seen this all before.

As predicted a homosexual couple, Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow, have said that they will challenge the so called 'quadruple lock' that parliament put into the legislation.  This is the same couple that achieved a certain fame by becoming, in 1999 the first homosexual parents to be named on a child's birth certificate. 

This couple are said to own and run a surrogacy agency and so perhaps the notoriety from this challenge will be good for their business.  Though I would have thought that having 5 surrogate-sourced children themselves, would have been sufficient advertising for the efficacy of the services they offer.

Government and the courts will soon find themselves persecuting a minority.  In this case, the minority are the remaining practicing Christians in the England and Wales.  I seriously doubt that any homosexual Muslims will be seeking to risk a fatwa or worse, by rushing down to the local mosque for a 'traditional wedding'.  So no, it will be Christian churches that will be attacked and punished.

This whole legislation was not required.  Homosexuals, correctly, had equal rights under law for all of the things that matter but the liberal, metropolitan elite, which, being so politically correct actually end up being illiberal, wanted to push this and keep pushing it.   For activists like the  Drewitt-Barlow's the protection of minorities only extends to homosexuals

I guess that this now has the potential to pose the situation where Her Majesty's government goes to court against the Church of England (Head - Her Majesty) to force the CofE to conduct ceremonies that they were categorically told and promised they would not have to conduct.  Many people commented at the time, that it was to be expected that the legislation would be challenged.  Equally, many posited that if the legislation went to the European Court of Human Rights, then this illiberal and politically correct institution would rule the legislation as discriminatory.  And you can bet that when they do, it won't take them years and years, as it did in the case of Abu Qatada - this further attack on the status quo will be fast-tracked through the courts - what better way to show the British who really runs the country?