More Housing Shortage Bollocks from the NHF

More garbage out this morning from the National Housing Federation about a supposed threat of a severe housing shortage making homes unaffordable to 'ordinary people' (patronising bastards). Take all this with a huge bucket of salt.  Their business is selling houses at the highest prices they can get.  Do they really expect us to believe they care a toss if a shortage forces prices even higher?  It is THEY who are causing the shortage by refusing to build on the big portfolios of brownfield land they own until market prices recover. This is all just part of their on-going PR campaign to scare/bribe the Government/local councils into relaxing greenfield planning controls so they can massively improve their profit margins by building on the cheap agricultural land they have options on.   Their campaign seems to be working, the only question being is that because the Tory party is too dim to see through it or because it it has its own snouts in the trough?

Never Closer Union

What more evidence do Europhiles need before they will believe that all the fine words about ever-closer union from France and Germany have been just so much guff - simply a smokescreen for their ambition to run Europe as a Franco-German duopoly? (the French with the underlying delusion that in practice they would be in the driving seat).  Any notion that their ultimate aim was a genuine United States of Europe is simply blown out of the water by their unwillingness to accept that concept for the Eurozone even though it becomes more screamingly obvious by the day that it cannot survive without it - except in the rather unlikely event that all the other Eurozone states agree to accept fiscal and budgetary dictatorship from Paris and Berlin without their own people having any vote for or against those doing the dictating.  Mind you, since they have been deluded enough to believe all the ever-closer union guff, who knows what more Franco-German bollocks they will persuade themselves to swallow.

What's Easier than History and Geography?

Sitting there desperately waiting for the BBC to stop chuntering on endlessly about the latest GCSE and 'A' Level results, I heard as if in a dream someone complaining that there had been a serious decline in the number of kids sitting 'difficult' subjects like History and Geography.  

What's difficult about History and Geography for Christ's sake?  When I was at school they were the two subjects you took if you wanted to be absolutely certain of being able to get a pass even if you were as thick as two short planks, because all they required was the ability to memorise and regurgitate a few facts.  

So what are the 'easier non-academic' subjects we are told kids are now taking instead of them?  They must be subjects where you don't even have to remember anything and regurgitate it.  Are they subjects in which all the questions come with multiple-choice answers in which every answer but one is so screamingly obviously wrong that even a chimpanzee would pick the right one?  

Or is the problem that with History and Geography you have to be able to understand and write grammatical English - a skill which our heroic teaching unions seem to have managed to strip away from many of our most underprivileged kids.

I tell you, when History and Geography are considered too difficult for a high proportion of our kids, our country is in even deeper deep shit than I had realised.

Why Do We All have to Suffer this Exam Results Bollocks?

At that stage in my life I don't recall a single mention on TV or a single column inch in the press about 'O' and 'A' level results.  The only people who even knew the results were out were we ourselves and our folks.  Now we get blanket coverage of it across all TV channels and across multiple pages of all our newspapers for day after day. Hour after hour of tedious footage of young people celebrating or crying about their results, and of even more tedious discussion and analysis.  Why for God's sake? Who gives a shit apart from the people themselves and their parents?

Policing by Consent Bollocks

I've just watched the Chairwoman of the Kent Police Authority telling us all on BBC Southeast News (its usually on the BBC that you hear this kind of crap) that David Cameron is wrong to bring in Bill Bratton to advise on gang and crowd policing because, unlike the Americans, we in this country have a system of 'policing by consent'.  

It's the umpteenth time I've heard this ludicrous phrase from wool-brained  liberals in the last few weeks.  What in God's name do they mean by it?  What DOES 'policing by consent' mean?  Have the people who utter it the remotest clue what they mean by it?  

Do they mean that in this country the police only take action against criminals if the criminals consent to their taking action against them?  Presumably not.  

Do they mean that in this country the police only take action against a criminal after carrying out a public consultation process to see if the people agree?  Presumably not.  

Do they mean they take action against criminals only after clearing it with ministers in each case?  Presumably not (in fact the police have been busily rubbishing the idea all week that ministers have any part at all to play in policing decisions of any kind).  

Do they mean that in this country police chiefs are elected to ensure that their methods reflect the will of the people whereas in the USA they are not?  Er, no, because as it happens it's exactly the other way round.

Do they mean that we in this country have a very British sense of fair play and think therefore that things should be arranged in such a way that the criminal has at least a 50-50 chance of getting away with it?  I fear some wool-brained liberals do sort of think in this way, but presumably they wouldn't want to admit it, so this can't be what they mean by 'policing by consent'.


Do they mean that crime is more acceptable the less well-off you are, so if you are  working hard going to the Post Office every Monday morning to collect your benefits you should be cut a lot more slack by the cops than if you are a toffee-nosed middle class rich bastard?  Just about the entire left-wing political establishment probably thinks in this way, but again, presumably wouldn't want to admit that this is what they mean by 'policing by consent'.

So what DO they mean by it for Christ's sake?  Can someone please put me out of my misery?

Better still, can someone tell me how we can rid ourselves of these wool-brained idiots occupying influential positions all over the country who are a major part of the reason why we are in the the bloody awful mess we now find ourselves in.

The BBC is a Big Part of the Problem

Not content with insisting on referring to rioters, arsonists and looters as 'protestors' throughout its live coverage of our recent national trauma, the BBC seems now to be devoting most of its news gathering resources to rounding up the thickest, stupidest, most ignorant morons it can find on street corners throughout the land and giving them ten minutes each on its so-called World News to tell us all things like: the riots are Cameron's fault for being away sunnin' 'imself on 'oliday like, then comin' 'ome to plot wiv the cops against us, yeh; an' they're 'is fault 'cos we ain't got no jobs like yeh, an' we ain't got nothing to do nor anywhere to go like yeh; an' like we're only doing like what 'im an' them MPs like did on the fiddle like, yeh; or like what them bankers did like, yeh.

Given that they clearly have absolutely zero understanding of reality, and that they are unable to make any utterance which comes even remotely close to having any grammatical structure at all, it is clear that the reason they are unemployed is that only a raving lunatic would offer them a job of any kind.  That is of course, apart from those fitting the above description who it turned out DID have jobs, all presumably in the public sector of course, government bodies being sufficiently raving lunatic to employ them; or, to put it another way, not giving a shit because it wouldn't be their own money going down the plughole. One of them actually had a job as a teacher.

Ed Miliband then spends the day going round the TV studios saying pretty much the same things as these morons are saying, and in language only marginally more coherent.  We need a public inquiry to find out the causes he says.  And is it any surprise, he says, that these kids do this when they see bankers getting fat etc, etc.  Of course none of this excuses rioting and arson and looting, he says.  Look Ed, if you say it explains it you are saying it caused it, and if you say it caused it you are saying it excuses it.  Worse than that, you are saying we have to make a deal with the rioters:  if they'll stop rioting we'll stop the bankers giving themselves big bonuses etc. etc.

There is of course one legitimate question that needs anwering in the longer term: how in God's name did we got ourselves into this mess?  Which politicians and which parties are to blame? Which of them should never be allowed anywhere near ministerial office again?  If that's what Ed means by a public inquiry, let's by all means have it, but let it be run only by a top judge without a single politician, sociologist, educationist, economist or any other ist or academic allowed within a million miles of the drafting of its final report.  I fear you won't like its findings Ed.

Meanwhile, there is the little question of what to do about the immediate problem, which no amount of public inquiring or stamping on bankers' bonuses or even on bankers' necks is going to make one ha'peth of difference to.  What WILL make quite a big difference is making life for the morons as hellish hell as they are trying to make life for us.  That, Mr Cameron, is what we need and expect from you, what Ed Miliband calls knee-jerk reactions, and fast.

The other thing you can do is set in motion the process of ending the compulsory TV licence and forcing the BBC to sink or swim on the basis of the willingness of people to pay for the stuff it puts out.  I'm sorry, but when the BBC decides that its proper role in a national emergency such as this is to give maximum air time to the morons who are the cause of it and to anyone who wants to spread the idea that it's not really their fault but the fault of Tories and bankers, the BBC has really lost the plot and it's time for it to go.  

Bring Pack Capital Punishment for all Killers

Until now I haven't felt inclined to sign the restore capital punishment petition, but as I sit here wondering how the hell we set about cleansing our system of the generation of sub-human thugs and morons we have managed to create by 50 years of politically correct bullshit passing as education and crime policy, I begin to feel that the shock of seeing their mates strung up for murder might be the only way of making any impact on the problem in anything less than another 50 years.

The trouble is, bringing it back just for child and police killers completely misses the point.  It isn't child and police killing that has exploded since abolition; it is killing for kicks and for money and for power that has exploded, and topping just a few child and cop killers will have absolutely no effect on that.  So come on Guido; start a new petition calling for restoration of the death penalty for all killing, and I'll be the first to sign.

And while you're at it, start another one for capital punishment for the next person who says on a TV news channel that the riot, arson, assaults and looting are all caused by kids being bored/disenfrachised/not understood/not listened to/not empowered/having nothing to live for etc etc.  In fact you might not need to because it's probably only a matter of time before they find themselves being strung up extra-judicially by outraged citizens who just can't take any more of their bullshit anyway.