UK Police Will Raid Lockdown-Rule-Defying Christmas Celebrations

 

Great Britain is in for another revolution if they continue on their path. Yesterday I posted Scottish Hate Crime Bill Would Criminalize Offensive Dinner Table Conversations

Looks like they are moving on to having no conversations at all:

As local mayors battle with the UK’s central government over the terms of anti-coronavirus lockdown measures, local police chiefs are warning that Britons may be in store for a holiday season distinctly reminiscent of the “Red Terror”.

Several police chiefs warned that family Christmas celebrations could be broken up by intruding officers if households are found to have violated the lockdown rules.

David Jamieson, commissioner of the West Midlands police, said officers will be compelled to investigate reports of rule-breaking over the festive period, since the West Midlands is currently under Tier 2 restrictions, meaning people can’t mix with anyone outside their own household or bubble.

Speaking to the Telegraph, Jamieson said “if we think there’s large groups of people gathering where they shouldn’t be, then police will have to intervene. If, again, there’s flagrant breaking of the rules, then the police would have to enforce.”

But seeing that the UK is, after all, a multicultural society, it’s not just Christmas that will be affected by the latest COVID-19 restrictions: Hanukkah and Diwali celebrations will face strict enforcement as well.

“It’s not the police’s job to stop people enjoying their Christmas. However, we are there to enforce the rules that the Government makes, and if the Government makes those rules then the Government has to explain that to the public.”

It could spark civil unrest? We shall see what the Brits are made of and if there is anything left of those willing to stand up to tyranny.

Coming to America with the election of Biden/Harris. H/T: Zero Hedge

Oxford students want University to ban clapping

 

Just when you think it cannot get more absurd it does. Oxford University no less. The next generation’s leaders will now become mute little automatons. Silent drones carrying out their master’s orders. It’s all about control – the hint I give you on a Friday.

The Oxford University student council is lobbying the prestigious British university to end applause, arguing that it could trigger anxiety and was unfair to disabled students.

The Oxford Student reported Wednesday that the council had passed a motion to “mandate the Sabbatical Officers to encourage the use of British Sign Language (BSL) clapping, otherwise known as ‘silent jazz hands’ at Student Council meetings and other official SU events,” and to “lobby the University” to make similar changes.

“Loud noises, including whooping and traditional applause, are argued to present an access issue for some disabled students who have anxiety disorders, sensory sensitivity, and/or those who use hearing impairment aids,” the university newspaper said.

The students’ decision comes a year after the University of Manchester Students’ Union made the same move to “avoid triggering anxiety and improve accessibility.” More at

Free Beacon

Yes, let’s have a joyless useless life. Welcome to 1984 and then some. From my stash of old stuff:

From the 2003 Television docudrama: George Orwell – A Life in Pictures. A reminder from George Orwell.  This is where we are.

 

 

For the best in conservative news and so much better than Drudge push the button.

Brits Labour Party plans to abolish and confiscate private schools

 

Best hustle out to your local theatre and catch “Downton Abby” for a view of the last vestige of the once great Great Britain. If Brexit was a problem for the UK and Boris Johnson, let’s look at what Corbyn’s Labor party has in store-

Nigel Farage: “I’ve no doubt, Mr McDonnell, you all want us to be dragged down to the bottom in your new Marxist state.”

Boris Johnson

Leaders of elite private schools have vented outrage over Labour’s plan to abolish them, branding the policy “incredulous” [sic] and an “act of unprecedented vandalism”.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party voted at their conference to integrate all private schools into the state sector if they win the next election.

….

“It doesn’t feel like I’m living in the UK any more,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Properties and funds held by private schools would be “redistributed democratically and fairly” across the country’s educational institutions as part of the reforms.

Private schools’ charitable status would also be scrapped and universities forced to limit their intake of privately educated students to just 7 per cent – the same proportion as in the wider population.

Boris Johnson also called it a “pointless attack” on the education system, adding that it was based on a “long-buried socialist ideology”.

Mr Adshead, head of the fee-paying Old Vicarage School in Derbyshire, said: “For me it seems quite incredulous [sic] that in 2019 I’m discussing whether my private land will be seized and then redistributed.” More at Independent UK

Nigel Farage: Abolishing Private Schools Is Communism

How far behind are we?
Other than that all is well in the swamp.
For the best in conservative news click below:

 

Great Britain vs the European Union … The Background

 

 

UK vs. EU … The Background

by Mustang   (Our man on the beat in the UK)

 

 

Coat of arms of the House of Mountbatten

The entire history of Great Britain is one involving conflict.  First among the early British tribes, and then with its many invaders, which history suggests began with Celts long before the Romans in 55 BC, and then continued with Germanic tribes, Vikings, Normans, the French, various combinations or alliances of these, and that all of these ended up becoming British.  The official language of the British sovereign was, for much of this history, either French or German.

Today’s royal family name is Mountbatten-Windsor, a derivative of two traditions: Battenberg, from Princess Alice of Battenberg, wife of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, who were the parents of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and Windsor, which is the name of the royal dynasty established in 1917.

Coat of arms of the Duke of Edinburgh

Despite the roots of the royal family, hostilities have clouded Britain’s view of Europe throughout its long history, and there is little doubt that this favor has been returned in full measure by Europeans.  In modern politics, French and German interests appear to go out of their way to block British intentions at every turn.

Resentment, perhaps?  In World War II, Britain stood alone as the British people faced an overwhelming Nazi war machine and would not succumb.  This singular event, particularly following World War I, may have led to the British to conclude that the United Kingdom is its own best friend —that if anyone can be relied upon as an ally, it must be the United States of America.

The face-off between the United Kingdom and Europe continues.  Is this because Britain is an island nation, one that has over so many years developed an arms-length attitude toward Europe?  Given the amount of European tourism that originates in Great Britain, and the number of British citizens who now live in Europe (estimated at 1.5 million), the answer is probably not entirely.  But I do think the British enjoy their relative isolation and that most British do not wish to have close ties with the Europeans.  Maybe this attitude results from the days of the British Empire, when the British dictated the terms of relationships rather than considering the directives of others.

In any case, the British and most of Europe faced devastating rebuilding challenges after 1945.

European Coal and Steel Community Map 1952

The formation of the European Union had at its beginnings a desire to bind European nations so tightly together that another world war would be unlikely.  Then Prime Minister Winston Churchill agreed with this thinking.  He proposed for Europe “a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety, and in freedom … a kind of United States of Europe.”  The first step toward this goal was in the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, formed in 1951.  Although invited to join the six-member founding nations, Great Britain declined.

 

A few years later, under the financial stagnation of Harold Macmillan’s government, Britain’s parliament recognized that both France and Germany were experiencing the beginning of a strong post-war economy and had formed a strong political alliance.  Great Britain wanted in.  French President Charles De Gaulle vetoed two British applications for membership —De Gaulle having accused the British of having an abiding hostility toward Europe.  He must have forgotten the substantial contributions the British made to European liberty in two world wars.

Bonn- Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle

De Gaulle also did not like the fact that the British and Americans had formed a close relationship.  In any case, even if the British had selfish motivations for joining the EEC, this was the entire purpose of the EEC to begin with … which is to say, gaining mutual benefits from an economic alliance.  Besides, while true that the British and Europeans were at each other’s throats over a period of several hundred years, the British and Europeans have also found opportunities for political and economic agreement.

It would be an understatement to suggest that Charles De Gaulle was no friend of the British.  Among several foundations for his apparent animosity, he claimed that during his exile to England during World War II, the British treated him shabbily.  At a press conference in 1969, De Gaulle said:

 

 

England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones.  She has in her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions.  The question is, whether Great Britain can now place herself like the Continent and with it inside a tariff which is genuinely common, to renounce all Commonwealth preferences, to cease any pretense that her agriculture be privileged, and, more than that, to treat her engagements with other countries of the free trade area as null and void —that question is the whole question.”

 

Even though the British Commonwealth today isn’t what it was in 1969, De Gaulle’s attitude toward Britain prevails today within the European Community.  Thus, we able to see that even at the start of this relationship, the UK-EU were always going to have a rocky relationship.  In trying to understand the foundations for these difficulties, we must recognize that France (embarrassed as it should be over the loss of its Empire and dismal defense of its own country during World War II), found new opportunities for leadership (or what passes for leadership in France) within the European Economic Community.

Germany was happy to partner with France, either owing to its guilt about World War II, or its ability to game Charles De Gaulle for their own purposes.  Whatever the reasons, the EEC finally did extend the hand of friendship to the UK, and in 1973 British Prime Minister Edward Heath was happy to lead his people down the road of romantic idealism.

This concludes Part One. The conclusion tomorrow.

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

 


It’s the Economy, Stupid

 

It’s the Economy, Stupid

by Mustang- Our man on the beat in Great Britain

 

During the 1992 presidential campaign, where George H. W. Bush sought reelection against William Jefferson Clinton, the United States was in an economic recession.  The impact of this can be demonstrated by the fact that in March 1991, Bush had a 90% approval rating (following the ground invasion of Iraq[1]), but in August 1992, his approval rating was somewhere in the neighborhood of 36%.

James Carville, working for Clinton as his campaign manager, addressed his campaign staff on issues that might work for Clinton during the final run for the White House.  Carville thought the campaign should focus on three things: (1) Change vs. more of the same; (2) Don’t forget about healthcare, and (3) It’s the economy, stupid.

We’ve heard that phrase repeated frequently in subsequent elections.  The problem is that beyond its underlying truth, no one really knows how the economy works.  We do have a sense about the level of our disposable income, but most of us have no clear idea how political policies impact against our financial circumstances.  Not to worry, though … economists don’t know, either.

Here’s something else we do not know: recent history.

European Economic Community

In 1957, several European nations formed what was then called the European Economic Community (ECC).  Great Britain was not part of this effort, primarily because French President Charles de Gaulle refused to allow British membership.  The UK’s admission finally came in 1973, after de Gaulle stepped down as president.  But two years later, in 1975, Britain’s ruling Labor Party held a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EEC.  Sixty-five percent of the British people answered with an overwhelming “yes”.

In 1983, the Labor Party was trying to win the national election on a platform of withdrawing from the EEC.  The attempt failed and Margaret Thatcher was reelected by a significant margin.

In 1997, fourteen years after the EEC became the European Union (EU) James Goldsmith formed a Referendum Party, pledging to hold a national referendum on the question of the UK remaining in the EU.  Goldsmith’s efforts garnered him less than 3% of the nation’s support and the referendum party failed to win even one seat in the Parliament.

In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls for a referendum on this issue, but a year later, he announced that a referendum would be held were he to be reelected in 2015.  Soon after his reelection, the European Referendum Act was introduced to initiate the process of national referendum.  In 2016, Cameron announced that the referendum would be held on 23 June.  Cameron was a staunch advocate for remaining in the EU; when the vote overwhelmingly demanded withdrawal, Cameron resigned.  Suddenly, the burden of creating an acceptable formula for Brexit fell upon Theresa May, who at the time was serving as Home Secretary … her political background was that of a “one nation conservative.”

This is the recent history of the Brexit novella.  Now, as to economists …

In the USA, there are somewhere around 15,000 non-academic economists.  They earn from around $83,000 to $150,000 annually.  They earn these remarkable salaries even when their predictions and analyses are completely wrong.  In fact, economics is such a lucrative vocation that American universities grant close to 1,000 PhDs every year.  We find these people employed by private corporations, followed by federal and state governments; at the lower end of the income scale we find college professors who earn their pay by spouting economic theory.

In contrast to the foregoing, the United Kingdom only hosts around 1,000 economists, most of whom work for the government in more than thirty different departments.  What this suggests to me is that there is less “noise” about economics in the UK than there is in the United States —which is not to suggest that we understand it any better than our British cousins, only that we’re exposed to more of it than they are.

Economists earn their robust salaries by “studying and analyzing” data in order to identify trends in various economic activities, predict confidence levels, and attitudes among consumers.  To accomplish this, they rely on mathematics and computer programming (normally referred to as models).  From these processes come recommendations about how to improve the economy or take advantage of developing trends.  In the United States, there are no legally required educational requirements or licensure for an economist.  All that’s needed in order to bill oneself as an economist is 21 semester hours of college study, bolstered by a few more hours of introductory statistics, accounting, or calculus.  There are numerous fields within which an economist could be employed, including banking, finance, accounting, marketing, lobbying, and political consulting.  In other words, an economist has about the same veracity in his field as a meteorologist has in his.

I’m no economist.  In fact, the more I know about such things, the less I understand.  Currently, I’m trying to understand the clamor in the United Kingdom regarding its impending exit from the European Union (called Brexit).  Should I rely on anything British politicians are saying about Brexit, I would end up with less understanding, not more.  In this, I join the ranks of most British citizens.  Unhappily, for the British people, their economists know even less than I do.

So —I’ve been searching for a single document that will tell me what “we” might expect to happen in the post-Brexit world.  I’ve sort of found the answer …

According to a paper created by Gemma Tetlow and Alex Stojanovic of the Institute for Government, the result of Brexit all depends on what your definition of the word is, is.  This rather lengthy paper underwhelming concluded, “Brexit will lead to a significant change in the UK’s relationship with other European countries.”

In essence:

1.     There are as many economic projections about the effects of Brexit as there are British economists

2.     Each projection depends on as many varying economic assumptions (otherwise known as guesses)

3.     None of these economic models will be accurate if any of their assumptions are wrong

 

Well, I suppose that economic relationships are at best difficult to understand.  As an example, two years ago, the United Kingdom was the tenth largest export economy in the world.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that the UK imported from other countries far more than it exported.  We call this a negative trade balance.  In 2016, the UK had a negative trade balance of $235 billion.  Of course, the British trade imbalance is far less than ours, but as a measure of the British economy, comparing it to the trade imbalance in 1995, (using the current value of money) it came to only $52 billion.  The question then becomes, how has membership in the EU benefited the British economy or its people?

There is more that confuses me.  Why wouldn’t the United Kingdom prefer trade with the United States over the European Union?  The US and UK share a common language, a similar legal system, similar institutions, are culturally compatible, and, allowing for sophisticated marketing schemes, American consumers might prefer British goods over those made in China.  In both economies, the service sector is the largest percentage of the national economy.  Neither country produces as many goods as they did forty or fifty years ago … significant because the services sector simply sells things to people who earn their living by selling things to other people.  Wealth isn’t what you sell, it’s what you produce.

The European Union hosts a single market.  There are economists who argue that EU membership fails to serve the interests of the British people, particularly as it applies to agriculture.  EU regulations control the way farmers produce their goods, how much of it they are allowed to produce, and amazingly, how much they can charge.  This is not free-market capitalism—and agriculture is but one sector of several.  Even if we ignore such limitations as language, legal systems, enforcement mechanisms, there is hardly any convincing argument favoring EU membership.

Granted, there is much I don’t understand about the complexities of a national economy —but here is what I do know:  Great Britain is the third largest economy in Europe (after Germany and France).  The agricultural sector is intense, highly mechanized, and perhaps the most efficient in all of Europe.  The UK produces 60% of Europe’s food needs and does so with less than two percent of the total labor force.  The British control large sources of energy.  Financial services are key drivers of British GDP growth.  It’s weakest link: manufacturing.  Why, then, shouldn’t the UK capitalize on its strengths while working to improve its weakest sector?

My guess is that British politicians, much like our own, rely too heavily on the advice of egg-head economists, and not enough on basic common sense.  High tax rates are harmful to every economy.  In Great Britain, social service expenditures are far too high.  Deficit spending is a major problem … one of the highest in the G-7 nations (3.6% of GDP).  Currently, the UK is attempting to lower its corporate tax rate from 20% to 17% … a good first step, but income taxation is a disaster of epic proportions.  British citizens are taxed at 20% of their income up to £46,350, and 40% of their income over that amount to £150,000.  This makes no sense to me; every £1 (or dollar) a citizen pays in taxes equates to £1 (or dollar) that is unavailable for consumer spending or saving.  Consumer spending benefits the national economy; saving money is in the long-term interest of individual citizens.

As Great Britain seeks to reestablish its economy, Brexit may indeed cause an economic slowdown, but in the long-term, the economy could grow substantially … but this depends entirely upon how well British politicians understand the impact of their all-too-often brainless policy decisions.

Maybe there is someone in reader-land who could sort this out for me.  I’d certainly welcome the education.


[1] In the United States, people always approve of ground invasions whenever they don’t have to participate in them.

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

Are the free societies of the world doomed to fail?

 

The man MI5 didn’t think was dangerous: Killer used gym to radicalize youngsters, worked out with a terror suspect on the FBI watch list and was reported to the security services again LAST SUMMER. So goes the headline.
Today a guest post by Mustang:

An interesting recent article in the UK’s Daily Mail headlined as “MI-5 and Yard: We had him and let him go: a shocking admission that 2-years before London Bridge jihadi maniac went on rampage.”  What is missing is the logical follow-on subtitle: negligent officials arrested and charged in the deaths of innocents.

To my way of thinking, this is a large part of the problem: free societies never seem able to hold their elected officials and bureaucrats accountable for their gross incompetence.  I am wondering … why not?  Do they, or do they not, work for “the people?”

According to the report, “Khuram Butt, 27, was flagged up because of his extremist views and his case was examined by Scotland Yard and the security services.  A call was later made to the anti-terror hotline, warning of Butt’s increasingly extremist behavior, but officials downgraded the investigation because they did not suspect the married father of two was planning an attack.”

As it turns out, the dismissal was incompetent in the extreme, or if you prefer, criminally wanton due to thoughtless political correctness.  Similar instances have occurred in the United States, a few of which were honor killings of female children by their own father, some of whom have never been brought to justice.

What does it take to switch on the light —to finally move against what to me is an obvious conspiracy by too many extremists who seek to murder us.

We can do better than this, yet we sit back and allow un-named officials to draw their fat salaries and hefty pensions even after making horrendously consequential decisions.  It makes the admonition “see something—say something” laughable.  Perhaps what has happened to us is exactly what we deserve —for our complacency.

What is your point of view?

UK Police arrest man for Facebook ‘Hate Speech’ about migrants

Of course the result of silencing the population is that by the time they realize they are now the minority, living under Sharia law and all that goes with being a Muslim, it will be far too late to object and doing anything about it. Coming to our town soon. Already on our colleges. Dissent will not be tolerated.

British police have promised not to tolerate any speech that could cause offence on social media regarding Syrian migrants, after arresting a man for Facebook comments made about recent arrivals on his small Scottish Island.

The tiny Isle of Bute in the Firth of Clyde, which had a total population of just 6,498 in 2011, is expected to take in around 1,000 Syrian migrants, with 12 families already arriving since December last year (picture above).

However, commenting on the comparatively huge and sudden influx of Muslim immigrants online just became a very risky business for local residents.

Police have confirmed they have arrested a 41-year-old local man under the Communications Act, after receiving a report of a supposedly “offensive” comment made on Facebook regarding the migrants.

A police spokesman was unequivocal, that any harsh criticism of the Muslim influx would not be “tolerated”. Inspector Ewan Wilson from Dunoon police office told the Guardianfollowing the arrest:

“I hope that the arrest of this individual sends a clear message that Police Scotland will not tolerate any form of activity which could incite hatred and provoke offensive comments on social media”.

In December last year, it was reported that Facebook, Twitter and Google had teamed up with German law enforcement to delete “hate speech” within 24 hours, in what was seen as being a last-ditch effort to silence public dissent about the million plus uncontrolled arrivals.

In Denmark too, police have adopted a harsh stance. A veteran politician was arrested andhanded a steep fine earlier this month for tweeting about the European migrant crisis and Muslim anti-Semitism.

More at Breitbart

Polygamous families in UK to get more benefits

It is as if all of Europe cannot capitulate to the heathen influx of so-called “refugees” fast enough. Forget Western culture, forget that there is no way these countries can sustain the barbarians. Forget the groping and raping of European women. Forget Christianity. The cash flow cannot exit fast enough.

Men with more than one wife will qualify for extra benefits under the new welfare system, according to official House of Commons research.

Under the universal credit welfare system, which is not expected to be fully introduced until 2021, polygamous households will be rewarded with higher benefits, The Sunday Times reports.

In the UK, it is illegal to marry more than one person.

Polygamous marriages, largely confined to Muslim families, are only recognised in Britain if they took place in countries where they are legal, such as Middle Eastern states, Pakistan and Zambia.

There no official figures but it is estimated that there may be as many as 20,000 polygamous marriages in the British Muslim community.

Read more: Daily Mail

British Man jailed for allowing smoking at home

Nick Hogan Criminal

Nick Hogan Criminal

A recent CNN U.S. poll indicates that a 56%  of people are worried about the Federal Government taking away our freedoms. Just wait until we get Obamacare.We only need to look across the pond for a view of our future. Hey, Barry, you stop first!

 
Nick Hogan has become the first person in Britain—and one of the first in the world—to be imprisoned for taking a stand against the smoking ban. He has been given a six month prison sentence for non-payment of a £10,000 fine. His crime was allowing people to smoke on his own property.
Both the fine and the prison sentence are completely disproportionate to the offence but it has been clear from the outset that the authorities intended to make an example of Hogan. The offence itself—”allowing people to smoke”—is absurd and has no place in a civilised society; the state has no right to force individuals to act as policemen.
H/T Velvet glove Iron Fist

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/nick-hogan-jailed-for-6-months.html

%d bloggers like this: