WarOnWar

I just wanted to put down my thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn’s outrageous victory on Saturday in blog format. Firstly, congratulations to him, to Tom Watson and Sadiq Khan for all winning their respective campaigns. I’ve not followed any of them too closely in all truth, I’m not a Labour Party member so I didn’t vote either.

As far as Jeremy goes, it’s going to be a rocky ride. But I think if the Labour Party can sit tight, hold together and redefine it’s purpose as Jeremy so passionately put it in his victory speech then they may well cause the Conservatives a fair few problems indeed. Whether that will translate into an election victory in 2020 is another matter though, and one that I find to be quite ludicrous to even contemplate right now. The focus from Labour ought really to be on it’s identity. The party of the people. Get back in touch with the people first, the election comes much, much later.

Of course he has some pretty ‘radical’ ideas, such as talking to to the ‘bad guys’, not bombing other countries willy-nilly and trying to make Britain a fairer, more just place to live. But what we’ll find out over the next year or two is that his ideals and world view are not as terrifying as the Daily Mail might have you believe. And given the competition in the leadership contest, you have to say it should have been obvious from the beginning that he would win. People are sick and tired of the status quo, particularly the grass roots of the Labour Party – the SNP showed us that.

So choosing Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, or Liz Kendall as leader would have sent a very clear message to the Tories: here’s to another decade of Tory rule. Why? Because the three of them are effectively Tory Light. They chase public opinion as described in The Sun, Mail or Telegraph and don’t really challenge it. Their version of the Labour Party, would merely be a watered down version of Cameron’s Tories, and that would have been a travesty. There’s that saying about arguing with idiots – Cameron would have dragged Burham, Kendall or Cooper down to his level, and beaten them with experience.

Corbyn on the other hand, offers something genuinely different. Despite his age, Jeremy is offering the Labour Party, and Britain as a whole, something new. He doesn’t want to go down the long-established route of politics. He wants to challenge public perception, he wants to help change it. Sure, the public won’t agree with everything he says, but at least he’ll say something worth taking note of. Can you remember anything the other three candidates said during their campaigns, or ever in fact? Probably not.

Already the Tory Propaganda machine has started up, stating quite unequivocally that Corbyn, and the Labour Party, are a threat to National Security! They guy disagrees with Trident, and wants a debate on it. Debate is a threat to National Security? Jeremy thanked Ed Miliband for the dignity in which he handled all manner of personal abuse from the press in the run up to the 2015 General Election, no doubt hoping for some help in dealing with it, but one thing’s clear: the tactics have changed.

Jeremy won’t be snapped eating a bacon sandwich or giving a homeless person a few pennies in change, because he’s not naturally awkward like Ed. No, instead he’ll be targeted in the same way that Muslims are targeted. If he disagrees with Cameron’s Tories, he immediately becomes a threat to National Security, to the Economic Recovery, to Humanity itself. If a Muslim disagrees with Government Policy, s/he could see themselves on some kind of watchlist, or reported as a non-violent extremist. It’s a way of silencing our disapproval of Britain’s foreign policy over the past two decades. Corbyn will now face similar levels of attacks, at a much higher level of course.

Though of course, the Conservatives know that nothing could be further from the truth. However, Corbyn is an incredibly dangerous man. He has the ideals to smash the status quo, to destroy austerity, to get people involved in politics again, to change the public perception on a range of issues and he has the beginnings of a following big enough to follow through. He did not refer to Labour as a political party during his victory speech, he called it a movement. This terrifies the establishment, both Conservative, Labour and the Press too. They will try to take him down, but Britain needs him to keep fighting the good fight, because we need his voice to temper the increasingly right-wing world we live in.

A busy day in the world of politics today saw David Cameron start us off with a nice big speech that was apparently ‘years in the making’. It always fascinates me when politicians talk about ‘Islamist Extremism’, mostly because they haven’t a clue what it actually is, why it exists or how to stop it. This complete lack of awareness is fuelled by something similar to what NHS employees see every 5 years or so, people at the top turning up in their hospitals telling them how things ought to be run.

Why does this happen? It’s all part of the Westminster bubble effect that the SNP have been talking about for the past decade or so. Cameron and his ilk surround themselves with people who want to ‘make it’ in the world of politics, not with people who might actually have a bit of expertise in… something. Anything. Today’s speech was very much another product of this bubble. Nobody in the Conservative Party has a clue about extremism, except that they have to be seen to be doing something after 38 British Citizens were murdered in Tunisia.

Not only do they have no clue, they don’t have any friends who have a clue either. News that Maajid Nawaz, a former extremist himself and occasional stripclub-frequenter, allegedly helped David with his speech is no surprise either. Whilst the political elites in London think he’s the best thing since Halal Chicken, the rest of the Muslim population see him for exactly what he is: a fraud. He may well be a former extremist, but he doesn’t have a clue about British Muslims, yet claims to speak on our behalf. Note that his instantly forgettable book(s) about himself and how wonderful he is for becoming an extremist and turning his back on that are available in all good pound shops. Autographed with a personal message. Probably.

Anyway, the point is that the government seem to be using him, and people similar to him, as some kind of sounding board or yardstick for everyday Muslims in the UK. Which is almost as preposterous as the EDL using Anjum Chaudhary for the same purposes. They’re a pair of idiots on the opposite end of the scale: one’s an extremist that represents nobody and the other is a self-involved former extremist that represents nobody. And this is quite concerning, because Maajid seems to think that Muslims aren’t doing enough to combat extremism and now the government think this too. It’s no longer enough to condemn ISIS, we’re told. What more we must do, we are not yet told.

But let’s get something clear. Extremists don’t walk around the streets of Britain wearing Osama t-shirts or fluttering ISIS flags around in the wind. They don’t even talk about their ideas in Mosques. So on that basis, we genuinely don’t know who they are. Interviews on the tellybox with relatives/friends/neighbours of people who have left for ISIS or blew themselves up all have a pretty common theme: nobody saw it coming. Why? Because extremists don’t broadcast their views. Why? Because they know 99.99999999% of people they know are against it. Often in these interviews you’ll hear the friend pluck something innocuous out of thin air like: “He started boycotting Coca Cola, he changed after that”. It feels like this is the basis of this new government strategy to tackle extremism. Which is partly why it feels like thought crime. If I don’t want to buy Israeli chilli peppers, it’s because I don’t want to contribute towards a nation that kills children with impunity. Not because I harbour extreme views.

The new strategy gives the impression that British Muslims who oppose ‘conventional wisdom’ or Government policy are non-violent extremists and are on the fast-track to becoming the next Jihadi John. If you’re White and reading this, you may think that’s absurd, but it’s not you living in fear of your own thoughts. You may retort that you’re instead living in fear of your life, but as Mr Cameron himself said, these extremists kill Muslims too.

Just a quick note on the welfare bill that passed in the commons tonight, Labour MPs were told to abstain. But I’d suggest that had the people they claim to represent had done so in the same proportion on election night, their defeat would have been even more resounding. The rank hypocrisy of a system that urges you to vote, yet fails to vote itself makes me feel a little bit sick. Whether you agree with cutting £12bn from the poorest households and most needy in society is irrelevant, everyone who voted should feel betrayed by Labour’s disgusting mass abstention.

As the Exit Polls were announced at 10pm last night, the Labour spin-machine went into overdrive: ‘It can’t be right’ They said. ‘Exit Polls aren’t representative’ They said. ‘it’s not what we’re hearing on the ground’ They said.

But the Exit Polls turned out to be as good as it got for Labour, a teasing hope that Cameron might not get the overall majority he so craved. That hope wasn’t snatched away cruelly, it was smashed to pieces with a sledgehammer. And rightly so.

I despise the Tories and everything they stand for, I despise what they’ve done to the people of this country for the past five years, and I fear that without the Lib Dems attempting to rein them in, things will only get worse. The Libs also deserved the annihilation they received last night, but after 5 more years of Austerity under a majority Tory government maybe the public will realise the Lib Dems weren’t quite so bad after all.

But as I was saying, Labour didn’t deserve to win this election, and it has nothing to do with Ed Miliband’s personality or any of the embarrassing photos the media have taken of him during his leadership. No. It’s because Labour campaigned as a ‘Poor Man’s Tory Party’, they allowed UKIP and the Tories to dictate the terms of this election, to select the battlegrounds and to have first pick of the ammunition.

Rarely did Ed take on the false wave of public opinion generated by the likes of Farage, Cameron, The Sun, The BBC or the Mail. He attempted to take them on at their own game, to attract their voters with similar, but less hard-line policies on Austerity and Immigration.

The SNP were every bit as frightening as the right wing media promised they would be throughout their campaign: frighteningly open, frighteningly ambitious, frighteningly good natured, frighteningly organised and most frightening of all they actually listened to their electorate. They let their electorate dictate the terms of the Scottish vote. Many people will say that the SNP cost Labour the election, but I don’t think that’s the case at all.

Labour lost the election by listening to the press, by listening to Cameron, by listening to Farage and going along with it, they somehow missed the massive surge in political awareness and activism in Scotland during the referendum campaign. They missed the chance to take on the myths that the right wing establishment peddles as truths and challenge public perception. They missed the chance to offer the public real hope for a brighter future on a different path.

instead they offered us the same as the Tories, but slower. Maybe. And let’s be clear, Cameron’s majority is tiny. He was there for the taking. His own campaign was dull, uninspiring, negative, bitchy and filled with actual lies. Instead of presenting us with something completely different, Labour tried to take the Tories on at their own game and lost to experience.

As much as I warmed to Ed Miliband as a person, his politics just simply weren’t as opposing enough to the Tories to inspire the voters, so instead they voted for solid, unspectacular continuity. So in the end, Cameron was right. Ed was weak, too weak to take that stand and be radical.

Then again, the day after he was chosen as Labour leader he was labelled ‘Red Ed’. It’s no surprise he didn’t move the party back to its roots then, given that if he so much as looked left before crossing the road he’d be labelled a Communist.

Five more years of pain then? Probably not for me, and this the problem our society faces at this moment in time. There are too many people in a similar position to me, not particularly poor nor well off enough for any policy to have a massive impact on my life. People in my position want job security and a prosperous economy, but it seems many have ignored or just haven’t seen the cost of maintaining that.

I’m not poor, I don’t need food banks, I don’t claim benefits, I have health insurance through my employment, I have a private pension scheme too and I get a decent salary each month. But too few people in my position realise the cost to others. Voting Tory is the easy option, keep things the same as they are, let the economic improvements keep coming. Too few stopped to realise that we have our own sort of micro-capitalism feeding that. Just as richer nations need poorer nations to exploit and supply cheap labour and resources, so too average and wealthy Britons are living off the backs of the poorest in our country. They are the ones bearing the biggest burden on this Tory recovery, and millions of people in my shoes heartlessly and selfishly voted for that to continue another five years. We are not all in this together. We are divided, and the Tories rule.

Oh, and they want to change the boundaries to make them more conducive to a Tory majority. Five more years? Make it 10. Unless Labour go back to basics.

This will be the third General Election I’ve had the chance to vote in, and the second where I’ve paid attention to what’s actually going on. First time round I was a pre-occupied student without a TV or Internet connection in my room at a hall of residence. It’s worth bearing in mind that I’m talking about 2005, the TV was by choice and the Internet connection was because I decided to pick the cheapest place on offer. Either way, I didn’t really pay any attention to what was going on aside from the fact the Liberal Democrats promised to prevent rises to tuition fees, Tony Blair was the Labour leader and the Tories were Tories – naturally I voted Lib Dem!

Second time around everything seemed to have changed, and for the worse too. Labour were incredibly unpopular given their perceived handling of or role in creating the global financial crash, David Cameron was leading the Tories rather unconvincingly and everybody seemed to agree with Nick – right up until the point they got in to the queue at the polling station at least. Despite Labour being so unpopular, despite 24 hour coverage of how Labour f**ked everything up, despite the country being fed up of 13 years of Labour control and despite Gordon Brown calling an old woman from Rochdale a ‘Bigoted Woman’, the Tories were so dire they couldn’t secure that majority.

Instead, those who held their nerve and voted for Nick and The Lib Dems, seriously regretted having ever done so, now knowing that they’d be stuck with a Tory government propped up by their power-hungry Lib Dem pals. It wasn’t pleasant viewing, hearing of all manner of shady backroom deals between ‘senior party figures’ ahead of the official announcement. As it turns out, the Lib Dem voters basically got nothing they wanted, in fact probably less than nothing – a pointless referendum on a watered down version of proportional representation and a big giant kitchen knife in the back on many of the headline promises.

Anyway, so we all know about that, what of 2015? Well, I’m dreading this election and have been pretty much since the last one. We’ve had four and a bit years of political posturing between the main parties, stage-managing everything possible on the run up to what will probably be the closest run election in living memory. The biggest problem we have is that the party leaders are all a bit rubbish in one way or another: both Cameron and Clegg have no credibility in their substance, having failed to deliver on so many of their 2010 manifesto pledges, Ed Miliband seems to be disliked because he looks ‘weird’ doing pretty much anything and Nigel Farage has come along with pints of ale, pub lunches, his funny looking mouth, semi-racism (at best) and forced everyone to the right. That’s four pretty big problems, and that’s before we start talking policies, pledges, promises and the SNP.

Of the four, it becomes a question of who is the least bad option for running the country and it isn’t an easy question to answer. Nigel and Nick have no chance, particularly Nick because traditional Lib Dem voters think he’s a c*nt that sold them all down the river and Nigel has the problem that there aren’t enough racists in the UK to take him all the way to Number 10. That leaves us with Dave and Ed. Dave has shown that he’s not a particularly nice person over the past 5 years and he’s failed to deliver on an awful lot of his promises – however he’s covered that up pretty well in conjunction with a severely incumbency biased and compliant media. Ed seems to have all the ideas but lacks credibility on two fronts: firstly he does look odd in pretty much every ‘real’ photograph taken of him ever, and secondly we just don’t know how much of the failings of the previous Labour government he had an influence in.

Over and above that there is of course Scotland, with Cameron almost conspiring to lose the union completely and Labour seemingly about to be obliterated there in much the same way the Lib Dems will be in England and Wales we have quite an unusual set of circumstances. A PM so arrogant and lazy he presumed that the Scots would never want to break free of his reign of terror on the working classes and a Leader of the opposition who was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Now the SNP are more likely to hold sway in this almost inevitably hung parliament, regardless of formal agreements or not they will never support the Tories. Who knows, perhaps Ed knew he had to sacrifice either English or Scottish Labour votes, and knowing there are more seats in Scotland, and a Tory-hating opposition in Scotland, the calculated risk was to play it safe and ride with the establishment.

My final thoughts on this Election revolve around my general dismay at the political process and system we have in the UK. It may seem obvious and may have always been this way, but I just feel that none of the parties know how to represent the British people any longer, but they are all perfectly adept at representing their own interests. Miliband seems as though he is the least self-interested, but at the same time was pretty ruthless and calculating in defeating his brother to the party leadership, so I could be wrong. Until the parties begin to get in touch with the reality of both the people of Britain and what’s actually happening in the country, then none of them are equipped to represent the interests of the electorate. That being said, I thoroughly disagree with Russell Brand’s assertions that we just shouldn’t vote. Purely on the basis that the only people who would consider listening to him are more likely to be left-leaning and as such we’d end up with a horrible right-wing racist government for at least five more years.

I will vote, and you can probably guess which way I’ll vote. But I’ll be voting that way because it’s the least worst option, I won’t be voting blindly out of some kind of unbreakable faith in that party, but simply because I think they’ll probably f**k it up a lot less than the rest. For me, that’s a sad state of affairs to find ourselves in, and I don’t see it changing for a long, long time.

Yesterday was a dark day for civilisation, as the UK Government announced in a new 39-page document that Nursery Schools and Childminder Services both have a role to play in Counter-Terrorism measures and will be expected to report children they deem to be at risk of ‘Radicalisation’.

Lots of left-wing loonies came out on the Twitter and the Facebook and the Guardian’s comments section decrying this as some kind of Orwellian dystopian nightmare-ish futurey-type scenario – well they bloody would, wouldn’t they? But I, as a fervent UKIP supporter and fine upstanding citizen of the good ship Great Britain, think that these measures don’t go far enough.

Clearly by the time a child is three or four, it’s too late. These Asian folk I see have their children fully indoctrinated within weeks of birth, so we’re striking three or four years too late and quite frankly it’s an outrage. I should be able to eat my bacon, sausage and egg sarnie with a pint every morning without fear of a 4 year old with a modified Fisher Price bomb-vest trying to kill me. No, we’re not going far enough here and it’s typical of our foreign-pandering politicians to be so damned weak.

People will say I’m being racist, but I’m not at all, I have one black friend and even he agrees with me. What we need to do is monitor the sperm and egg cells of these Asians that come to our shores. We need to test them and root out the ‘bad eggs’ so to speak before they can be born. That way, we won’t need to waste valuable resource in our Nurseries and Schools educating the little suicide-crazed bombers.

We’re clearly under attack from immigrants. Not only do these people want to come here, take our jobs, homes and women – oh no. Now they want to blow us up too. Well I say catch them whilst they’re just a twinkle in their father’s eye.

That ought to sort it. And remember, vote Farage.

As you may probably be aware by now, Nigel Farage has been named ‘Briton of the Year’ by The Times. It’s difficult to comment on this without saying something that’s already been said thousands of times today, yesterday, throughout 2014 and in fact throughout Farage’s entire political career. It would also be easy to come up with a list of other suitable contenders for ‘Briton of the Year’, but that’s already been done quite a few times today too. So I’m not going to either of those.

Nope. In the spirit of The Times’ award to Farage, I’m going to run my own little awards ceremony too – here’s hoping the victors can make it:

The Gengis Khan Award for Efforts Towards International Peace

It’s been a fantastic year for warmongers, with conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, The Horn of Africa and Pakistan to name but a few, however this year saw one man rise above all of that in his efforts to promote International Peace. Truly, there wasn’t even the need for a shortlist for this award as it has been abundantly clear that no man, woman or child has done more for Peace in 2014 than Benjamin Netanyahu. I couldn’t imagine the state of the world today without his efforts in peacemaking throughout 2014.

The ‘Comical Ali’ Award for Honesty

A tough one this award given that politics, both international and domestic, has become a game of ‘Truth or Dare’ for the rich and powerful, with most opting for ‘Dare’. A rare exception to this rule was of course none other than Jeremy Hunt for his efforts towards making sure that absolutely no data gathered on the NHS was kept from the public. He’s gone above and beyond the call of duty ensuring that the gradual privatisation of the National Health System has been kept firmly off the radar too, and spectacularly attempted to increase Ambulance target times in response to the intense demand being placed on our paramedics. Oh, and he’s always available answer questions from the press and public.

The Jade Goody Award for Contribution To Positive Race Relations

This controversially-named award cannot go to any single individual, as an ensemble cast played their part in this saga. An episode that has done more for Race Relations in America this year, than any other event in history. Collectively this award goes to Darren Wilson for killing unarmed Michael Brown, Police Chief Joe Belmar  for his neutrality on the entire issue, Barack Obama for his strong, decisive actions, Jay Nixon for his efforts towards keeping the peace and of course The Grand Jury who acquitted Darren Wilson for their courage in pursuit of fairness and justice.

The Grima Wormtongue Award for Advisory Services

Dedicated to the slimy, snivelling Lord of the Rings character this award can only be destined for one man. That man is none other than Tony Blair. Let’s face it, the integrity he has displayed on a daily basis throughout 2014 has been a joy to watch. Some men try to hide the misdeeds of their past, some men admit their mistakes, other men attempt to make up for them. Not  Tony. Tony instead insists that everything he’s ever done was right. He has displayed that he’s learned from his past mistakes (even if he doesn’t admit them) by providing advisory services to dictators & corporations – presumably on how to get away with their own misdeeds.

Our lesser award winners:

• Theresa May for her handling of the Historic Child Abuse Inquiry and management of the Home Office Passport Backlog
• David Cameron for being David Cameron
• UKIP for their indefatigable dedication to scapegoating
• The BBC for their indefatigable dedication to  UKIP, Israel, Austerity and Will Gompertz
• Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East Editor, for well-timed Holiday of the year
• Kim Jong-Un wins the Sweeney Todd Award for Services to Barbers with his list of ‘Approved Haircuts’
• The British Press for their enduring focus on the real issues at hand, such as Ed Miliband’s awkwardness
• Mark Regev for having the most punchable face in the world

There were of course many other worthy winners in 2014, until next year though…

It’s been a long while since I last posted anything here, so long in fact that upon logging on I was informed I needed to upgrade my WordPress version as I’m vulnerable to the Heartbleed vulnerability. Now I’m wondering if anyone even remembers what that is/was.

Anyway, I’m on a train heading for London having left the actual sunshine of Manchester (no, seriously) and heading through some thick fog in the Midlands. I don’t often do a lot during these train journeys, I like to watch the world go by and think about stuff but today I couldn’t help but notice a particular story dominating the headlines.

That story is of course the report into abuse in Rotherham over the past decade or so, which revealed that around 1,400 children were abused by gangs of predominantly Asian males, and by Asian they mean the Indian subcontinent.

Whilst that number, conservative or otherwise, is a complete shock, it should come as no surprise that Asian males played a significant role in this series of incomprehensibly disgusting crimes. The report claims that the authorities were afraid to raise the issue for fear of being seen as racist, and to a degree that’s understandable given the relationship between the Police and ethnic minorities in the UK, but it’s no excuse. If even half of this estimate involved Asian males, it’s not racism whatsoever, it’s fact.

I’m not sure what kind of response, if any, I will get for writing this, but my own experiences and observations of some Asian communities have been concerning. That’s certainly not to say that all Asian people are bad, rapists or child abusers, no. But if you yourself are Asian or have meaningful relationships with Asian people you will have undoubtedly experienced a bizarre attitude within a tiny minority of people within the community.

Without a shadow of a doubt, there is a small contingent of familie, Asian or otherwise, that raise their sons quite differently to the way they raise their daughters. Their girls are limited in what they can do, limited in who they can talk to, limited in where they can go and live life as instructed. In isolation, being treated as second class is bad enough, but it’s the way these particular families raise their sons which is of most concern.

In complete contrast to the daughters, the sons have almost no limits. They are the pride of the family and can do no wrong. They can make friends with whomever they wish, do as they please, go wherever they want. In isolation, this is perfectly normal and how any child should be raised – to have freedom. The problem is, their sisters are raised like slaves or servants. A great many boys will grow up realising that this is wrong and unfair, that their sisters deserve equal treatment and they will speak out, defend their sisters and support them.

But what of those who accept the status quo? A great many will meander through life without saying anything, accepting it for the way it is without any malicious intent. Then there are those who will exploit this status quo, that push the limits. I suspect that these are in a minority, but that the majority of the men in this Rotherham case come from that group. My theory is that they see that their sisters are beneath them, giving them a skewed view of what a woman is. Then they take this view and push it to the extreme. They are of course the pride of the family, the boys who will preserve the family name, so they get away with their minor indiscretions, giving them free reign to escalate further and further. The results of which we have all read about over the past couple of days.

It has to be said, that there are families of all colours, races and religions with a similar view. After all, the vast majority of prisoners are white, not Asian. So let’s not mistake this post as a racist diatribe against Asian people. It isn’t.

I’m just calling out my own observations and formulating a theory that applies to all races. From your own observations, can you honestly say you’ve never known a family like this?

I’m not sure if it’s just me being good at ignoring things or whether there’s been a genuine upturn in chatter on this subject, but either way I’ve seen a lot more calls to ban the practice of halal and kosher slaughter in the UK. I do have to say that I’d be all for a blanket ban on these slaughter practices if the following conditions were met:

1. If the pro-banning campaigners demonstrated a genuine care for animal rights, which would in turn lead to;
2. A complete ban of all animal slaughter in the UK at the same time.

So yes, if both conditions were met, of course I’d support any ban of Halal and Kosher slaughter. Of course that’s not going to happen, given that in January 2014 alone approximately 90 million live poultry were slaughtered (see here for data), that’s not even getting in to the number of pigs, cows, lamb, sheep, goats and ahem horses were slaughtered for our human consumption. I think at this point I should probably stress that I am by no means a vegetarian or vegan, but on the other hand I’m certainly not a rampant carnivore either.

This entire debate around Halal/Kosher doesn’t stem from genuine animal rights concerns at all and, whilst many will be tempted to do this, I don’t even think I could attribute it to Islamophobia either. What it boils down to is a mixture of the misplaced fear that Islam wants to conquer the United Kingdom, enforce ‘our rules’ (whatever they are) upon the native population and enslave them into ‘our way of life’ (again, not sure what that is) and protectionism from Vets and Farmers who delight in eating meat but want some form of ban to placate animal rights activists . The fact that Kosher has been brought in to this debate, and I’ve never, ever seen anyone do this until very recently, seems to be a cynical attempt to legitimise the campaign and give it the appearance of an animal welfare one.

If it were a serious campaign with deep-rooted animal welfare concerns attached to it, surely the campaign would also seek to tackle ‘non-halal/kosher’ slaughter too, given that there isn’t really a humane way to kill any animal for its meat. Besides, given that there about 3 million declared Muslims and Jews living in Britain, leaving about 57 million non-Muslims/Jews, it should become fairly clear that the overwhelming majority of meat available for consumption in the UK is not ‘sacrificed’ by religious methods at all.

Couple that with the fact that scientists just can’t agree on which method of slaughter is more or less humane than the other, you must begin to see that arguments against Halal and Kosher are paper-thin and constructed upon a destructive concoction of fear, hatred and misinformation. The standard method of slaughter is often overlooked, do you know how your meat is killed? It is done using a bolt-gun and the method is described in some detail here. To take a little passage from that:

 ”The stunner uses a pointed bolt which is propelled by pressurized air or a blank cartridge. The bolt penetrates the skull of the animal, enters the cranium, and catastrophically damages the cerebrum and part of the cerebellum. Due to concussion, destruction of vital centres of brain and an increase in intracranial pressure, the animal loses consciousness. This method is currently the most effective type of stunning, since it physically destroys brain matter (increasing the probability of a successful stun), while also leaving the brain stem intact (thus ensuring the heart continues to beat during the bleed. This however has no bearing on the efficacy or speed of the bleed, as cardiac output requires a venous return, as venous supply is severed, this does not occur. The bleed hence relies on gravity and not a heartbeat). One disadvantage of this method is that brain matter is allowed to enter the blood stream, possibly contaminating other tissue with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, colloquially known as mad cow disease).”

Forgive me, but if one is to argue that halal and kosher slaughter is inhumane, how can one simultaneously argue that bolt-guns aren’t?

I don’t know an awful lot about Shechita (Jewish method), but I do know a fair bit about Dhabiha (Islamic Method) and if the rules are followed correctly, the entire lifetime of an animal being reared for slaughter is far, far better. For instance, if one is genuinely concerned about animal welfare, why then do conventional slaughterhouses allow animals to see other animals being slaughtered? For Dhabiha to be considered Halal, the animal has to be cared for during the process, it cannot see the blade until the very last moment, must not be under the impression it’s about to be killed and must be kept calm at all times. When the cut is delivered, it is a single incision to the carotid artery, preventing blood from reaching the brain.

Perhaps why this might seem humane is the fact that you can hear and see the blood gushing out of the animal, it’s a sickening and disgusting image, whereas the conventional method used smashes through the skull of the animal and tears the brain to pieces so you can’t really see much and it doesn’t look quite so disgusting. But appearances aren’t everything, and whilst scientists are not in agreement over which is more or less humane, to call for a ban to one and not the other is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Ever since 9/11, or possibly before but I was too young to notice or care, regular followers of current affairs and news have found themselves bombarded with a common phrase every time somebody does something really bad to somebody else. Whether that somebody is a country, a group, a politician, a pop star or just an ordinary person there always follows a wave of condemnations from a plethora of important people.

If there’s a bombing in a city however near or far, Obama will condemn, Cameron will condemn, Merkel will condemn, Hollande will condemn, Bob the Builder will condemn, Joey Essex will condemn, your average Tweep will condemn et cetera, et cetera… But I often ask myself, why? Why do these world leaders feel the need to condemn? It’s pretty obvious that bombing innocent people is not a very nice thing to do, why do we need our world leaders to tell us so? If they didn’t stop everything they were doing at that moment and summon a press conference immediately, would that affect our opinions of them or of the act itself? Would we think they were pro-bombing? Would we think bombing is good? I don’t think so, I don’t think so at all.

I look at the long list of people condemning these obviously gruesome and twisted acts and notice one or two common themes: They’re mostly white, and the ones that aren’t white are in a position where it pays to appease white people. Next time there’s some horrible unspeakable tragedy, note who condemns it.

That kind of brings me on to the reason I started writing this piece. I noticed Mo Ansar had been getting a bit of grief from career troll Louise Mensch and a whole host of hangers-on attempting to hound him in to condemning stoning. I didn’t follow the whole thread because I could feel my blood temperature rising, so I don’t know what provoked them into this frenzied keyboard attack but it did make me question what difference would it make if he did condemn it then and there? None, none whatsoever. If somebody had intended on stoning someone before the condemnation, their mind wouldn’t be changed after it.

This condemnation that was being sought, would have been a purely hollow one. Strikingly the people demanding it were all white, and this leads me on to my next point: why does Mo Ansar have to condemn acts carried by people purporting to be Muslim? Is it because he too is Muslim? Should we ask white female author and former politician to condemn every negative act ever carried out by whites, females, authors or politicians? Of course not, it’s ludicrous to suggest such a thing, but why do the white majority increasingly feel that minority communities within the UK must condemn horrid acts committed by said communities? It could be said that the white majority are actually characterising these horrid acts with that community, which may go some way to explaining the disgusting treatment reserved for black communities by the police. We are forever seeing the Daily Mail, Express, Star, Sun, Telegraph and Times publishing brash headlines characterising truly despicable acts as belonging to minority communities. Think Romanians, Bulgarians, Muslims, Blacks and even stretch it to include Welfare Claimants.

Britain’s spectrum of ‘normality’ is becoming increasingly narrow, whether that’s a product of harsher economic times, our current government or a mixture of both I’m not sure, but it is quite worrying that minority and/or vulnerable groups of people are being targeted by the white majority in such a way. The likes of Mensch and her merry little band of white keyboard bashing sheep are becoming increasingly common and increasingly racist. Mo didn’t respond to them by outright condone stoning, and why should he? Mo hasn’t partaken in the stoning of anyone or came out in favour of it before, neither does he belong to Mensch. He is not her slave to be ordered. Minority communities of Britain are not duty bound to condemn the acts of their brothers and sisters, no more than whites are not duty bound to condemn the acts of their fellow whites.

The next point about condemnation in the public eye is of course the outright hypocrisy of the condemnation. Barack Obama is a fine exponent of the hypocritical condemnation. Any time, any place, Barack is amongst the first to condemn an act of terror. So long as it isn’t carried out by US or NATO armed forces of course. If one of his own weapons of mass destruction were to, I don’t know, kill an entire wedding party in Yemen, then it’s a ‘regrettable mistake’ or something along those lines. Yet if a Yemeni insurgent who, I don’t know, is fed up of Americans killing innocent Yemenis kills a few US Soldiers then Barack is out there at the front of his blue-curtained press room condemning it as a violent, provocative act of aggression and terrorism. Other condemnations include Cameron criticising the likes of Iran for providing weapons to Syria. Sure, that’s no good thing. But on the other hand, Cameron sells weapons to Bahrain. To Saudi. To Egypt. All repressive regimes, all using it against their own people to stop them protesting.

So what’s the point of condemnation?

There is none. It’s empty, meaningless PR drivel aimed at programming the white majority into believing that whites are great and others less so, and turning the others against themselves, furthering the white cause.

The BBC news website went a little bit bi-polar today on the Cameron Fracking story. It couldn’t quite decide which headline was better so went with three different ones:

‘Cameron Urges Support For Fracking‘ on the main homepage.

Then when you click through to the story: ‘Cameron urges Fracking opponents to ‘get on board”

And on the ‘Most Read’ sidebar there was: ‘PM promises council fracking boost‘.

I wondered, momentarily, am I on the Conservative Home website, or am I on the site of the nation’s most-watched, most-read, most-listened-to news source? For those of you who don’t live in Britain, I am of course talking about the state-funded, state-run media giant that is the BBC. For whilst I’m not one to give conspiracies theories too much thought, I think this one isn’t all that far-fetched. Any self-respecting news outlet would at least question the use of Hydraulic Fracturing. It would least humour the protesters that have been encamped outside the Barton Moss facility in Greater Manchester and who knows, put across their side?

But they don’t. In fact, what the BBC have done with this article is with one hand practically admit with (one of) the headlines, David Cameron is actually bribing local councils who are willing to have the earth beneath their boundaries shattered and natural gas escape, of which only 2% or so is caught, yet on the other hand they forget to analyse this or ask any serious questions, for example Why do you feel the need to throw money at the issue instead of evidence? When Cameron is questioned, feebly, on the safety of such a procedure, we are given this as an answer:

‘The UK has the strongest environmental controls in place.” and that “Nothing would go ahead if there were environmental dangers.”

Given Mr Cameron’s high propensity to lie, and to throw a tantrum if people actually have the temerity to disagree with him, I think I’ll need a little more assurance than a few empty words. The very fact that David doesn’t like any form of dissent whatsoever can be highlighted in his wonderful plan to give money to ‘Fracking Friendly’ councils. Those who’d rather not entertain the thought of the potential for an environmental catastrophe are being given the political equivalent of the old playground favourite: ‘It’s my ball, I’m going home and you can’t play with it.”

And where are the bastions of impartiality and journalistic integrity? Probably in a back room somewhere, sucking Cameron’s cock in the hope of an ‘exclusive’ story before the rest of the press pack ahead of his next draconian policy.

Interestingly enough though, whilst the BBC attempts to be the mouthpiece for the ‘Coalition’ government, it actually reveals a high degree of nervousness and fear within Conservative (come on, Lib Dems? Ha.) ranks. All of the main arguments for fracking are financial. Promises of 74,000 full-time jobs, £3bn of investment, cheaper electricity, greater energy security etc etc. To me, this displays two things:

1. The Conservative government are so weak they’d rather avoid debate about Fracking and steam-roller ahead with a plan to fracture large parts of the country without consideration for the environment, than actually stand up to energy companies and demand fairly priced energy. Whilst the big energy companies rake in £billions of profit annually, ‘Hardworking’ British citizens die each year through fuel poverty. Families face the awful decision of ‘heat or eat’, yet government allows Big Energy to do as they please, with the occasional public ticking off for show.
2. The Government are terrified that Osbornomics just won’t work, clinging on desperately to any potential big cash windfall like a millionaire playboy whose parents have cut him off. They know that no matter how many cuts to welfare George makes, this debt isn’t going to get paid off at the rate they arrogantly promised. Fracking will help to bridge some of that gap, so debate is out of the question. It’s got to happen.

So do I support Fracking? On the face of it, no. But if there’s some actual evidence out there that shows it is 100% safe then fair enough. If Mr Cameron wishes to gain the support of the public and of local councils, the best thing to do is present us with this evidence, instead of handing out brown paper envelopes to willing councils and stifling public debate. Though to be fair, that does seem to be Modus Operandi for the Conservatives at the moment.

Oh, and in case you think it’s silly of me  not to believe David, our dear leader, take a look at this from Dr Éoin Clarke:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvPxCSAhNlENdGh4V25RZGIzZklyNFV3RF83UXRCOUE&output=html

Now Frack Orf the lot o’ yer!