A visit from a policeman

Are we still allowed to say “policeman”? Or does it have to be “policeperson” now?

Anyway, for the first time in my 11 years at this address, we just had a visit from a policeman. A very nice guy he was too. Community police. We invited him into the garden and had a chat. He was talking about the problem of prostitution in my area, which apparently concerns residents greatly. This goes back decades. I said I hadn’t seen the regular prostitutes (of whom there were only ever two) nearby for some time – but even when I had seen them they weren’t much of a problem. So what if there is a single woman occasionally on a street corner? It’s not ideal, certainly, but not the most pressing problem.

I stated my view that we might as well do away with the law about cycling on the pavement because members of a certain community (and I said I wasn’t allowed to state which one, which told him all he needed to know) frequently storm down the pavement on bikes with their hoods up, not caring about anyone and are seemingly never given their £500 fine.

He said burglary is on the rise in the area – that’s also important, more important than the cycling issue even. I told him I was grateful for the call and that I fully supported the police and would like to see them on the streets more often.

The call today was reassuring. Perhaps Boris Johnson is doing something after all. We can only hope, but I’ll only really believe it when I see criminals cleaning off graffitti and digging verges as I have done in the USA – supposedly it happens in between their games of pool, but I’m yet to witness it.

On the English Defence League

I thought I had better note my own position on the issue of the English Defence League, which is currently all over the news.

The EDL can be understood, first of all, as an utterly predictable consequence, at street level, of years of government appeasement of Islam and Islamic demands: the first glimmerings indeed of civil war.

I don’t like the look of them generally, but they are a mixed bunch. Unlike Muslims, they do not as far as I know have a book which they have to believe is the undiluted word of God, encouraging them on to violence and telling them to hate people who disagree with them. This makes them rather different to Muslims.

Some in the EDL will be opportunist football hooligan types. Others are probably reasonable people, concerned about the rise of fascism with an Islamic face. How annoyed they must be to be called “fascist” in return.

I don’t like the EDL’s methods. I don’t think it has come to street battles yet. I think concerned parties should take their concerns to government, as I do, but en masse. Government, and ministers, need lobbying. You don’t take the law into your own hands.

Of course I can understand the EDL’s anger at this cowardly government and the rise of Islamofascism in the UK, but I think they will need to be watched and kept in check. There should be no bending to Islam, no capitulation, but this should, of course, be at the level of legislation. It is true that “ordinary Muslims” are not taking enough steps to clean up their own back yard – well, they can’t, since the penalty for apostasy under Islam is death – but direct, confrontational provocation will just result in EDL members being arrested.

At this stage, at least, the intellectual route is certainly preferable to the physical (which should only ever be a last resort). The EDL will see growing numbers for as long as the government continues to capitulate. They will also help the BNP to seem legitimate, which is a problem as the latter have a clear racist manifesto.

While the EDL’s mission seems to be no more than that they are against the Islamification of the UK, I’m on side with it, but I’m not on-side with their methods, not yet. If they produce a manifesto that is itself fascist, then they will be no better than the BNP or the religion of Islam, but they cannot be judged as such yet.

Either way, the rise of the EDL should serve as a wake-up call to the government.

Radio 4: The Reunion

Radio 4 actually broadcast an un-PC programme on Sunday. Well, largely. The subject was un-PC – it was about the Iranian Embassy Siege of 1980 in which six terrorists took hostages, and all but one of those terrorists got themselves killed by the SAS. Even the BBC could not gloss the fact that the terrorists were the bad guys.

But they tried, can you credit it! Sue MacGregor, speaking to an SAS soldier (a hero) could not bring herself to say the word “kill”: “How many did you personally… deal with?”  “You mean kill?”, he asked, unashamed. “One”. She also spoke of her sadness at seeing the burial of the terrorists and she asserted that it must have been a “searing” event for all concerned. This again was flatly refuted by the soldier, who was highly trained and simply doing his job (to the benefit of all of us).

It’s a shame because Sue MacGregor comes across very nicely, but the BBC seems just unable to keep political correctness out of its broadcasts. Of course the one who was not PC at all was the SAS soldier. Speaking sound sense, he said:

“We had a government at the time that was well led and knew how to lead soldiers and was worthy of their soldiers.”

Very telling about what he thinks of the appeasing wimps who run Whitehall today.

Back in 1980 Mrs Thatcher said she did not want “any ongoing problem” in the resolution of the hostage crisis. The SAS knew what she meant. There would be no “sympathy” with the terrorists. Yes, terrorists. Hostage takers. There would be a permanent solution. Back then, under her leadership, Britain was stronger and had its own standards which would never be compromised. There was no appeasement, whether it was the Falkland Islands or the trade unions. This incident in particular sent a clear signal across the world, and won respect for the nation.

Two years later the storming of the embassy was, effectively, dramatised. Perhaps this wouldn’t happen again now for fear of the government hurting the feelings of the terrorists, but we can at least reflect with pride on how things used to be managed if people decided to come into our country and threaten, and indeed kill, our citizens.

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Pat Condell: Apologists for Evil

Pat Condell articulates the concerns of the silent majority in the UK better than any other person I have ever heard on the Internet, TV or radio. It’s a shame he has to do this: it’s time for the silent majority to be a lot less silent and stand up along-side him.

I have not seen a single video of Pat’s with which I disagreed in any way. This recent contribution was especially refreshing and welcome…

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

Tony Blair calls Qur’an “progressive”

Qur’an: 500 quotes encouraging violence and intolerance.

Tony Blair: “To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is.”

Unbelievable though it is, this quotation really speaks for itself.

I just heard it on the sickening whitewash of a programme, Islam, Mullahs and the Media on Radio 4 – though of course it was presented in a positive light there. The programme allowed a few glimpses of reason but completely avoided analysing the mandate for violence and intolerence which is intrinsic to the Qur’an – and that, really, is the point in all this.

The Atheist & the Bishop

I managed to catch an episode of The Atheist & the Bishop on Radio 4 this evening. I thought that atheist philosopher Julian Baggini did not put a foot wrong, except when he seemed to think that moral conduct today was the same as it ever was. I rather agree with Theodore Dalrymple that it has declined, but also maintain that religion need play no role in its recovery.

Having been impressed, therefore, I was disappointed to see that Baggini seems to group all of the so-called “new atheist” writers into one and dismiss them all as negative. A big mistake. The fact is they all bring something different to the table and most (if not all, actually) are extremely positive – especially Richard Dawkins, who in particular offers a real world full of wonder as an alternative to religious delusion.

Not to worry, though – the BBC were right back on form following this brief lapse in political correctness: the next programme up was about ethnic minority MPs in the UK and was presented (with the most stunted reading I have ever heard on Radio 4) by none other than my local MP Sadiq Khan. That’s right: he who has completely failed to reply to my recent report highlighting the suffering inflicted on animals by ritual slaughter methods in the UK.

He hasn’t heard the end of the matter.

Update: Many thanks to Dan from anti-theist.co.uk for sending me the first two episodes of this programme. I agree with him the episode 2 was especially good, with A.C. Grayling speaking excellently, as usual. I have fond and grateful memories of Grayling’s book during my undergraduate study of Philosophy. In the programme he even got a indoctrinated schoolgirl to admit that if she had been born into a different faith she would have believed that one instead – which pretty much said it all. Well, children can be more direct than adults.

Between Ourselves

I keep doing it – listening to BBC Radio 4. Well, I don’t have a TV licence and there aren’t that many talk stations. There’s the World Service, which is good and offers a more global perspective, but today I tried Radio 4 again.

Now the trouble is, I keep finding that whenever they have these “women only” programmes on, the women keep saying things that are offensive and would be considered outrageous were they said by men (as is commonly the case on the television programme Loose Women). The women seem to be very mixed up – obsessed with feminism, but they don’t really know why. I know why: it was drummed into them like a religion during their formative years.

Today’s Between Ourselves was a discussion between two female columnists. One, Katherine Whitehorn, came across as surprisingly dignified, given the fact she is mainly known for having written an article called “How to Succeed as a Slut”.

The other one, Liz Jones, came across to me as a a very unhappy and confused person. There are some quotes from her writing here. I was shocked when, on air:

• She admitted her method for finding topics to write about was to deliberately start arguments with her husband (“happiness is boring”, she said).
• At one point in the interview she wanted a man to buy her dinner and at another she did not.
• She conceded she was disloyal to her husband.

Naturally I was quite dismayed by some of the things I heard her say (and therefore concerned at her having a column at all), but I write it up her because, as the interview gently proceeded, it really began to find its mark. These two feminist (I suppose) writers – especially Jones – began to admit that they were the product of a confused age, that feminism hadn’t really been as liberating as they thought it would be, that they had felt the pressure to measure their worth through their career, and they didn’t like it. Jones’ life in particular began to look like a catalogue of mistakes, and one could even genuinely feel sorry for her: a victim of the mind-washing of the feminist movement – a movement which, broadly, makes the mistake of confusing equality with identity.

Perhaps Radio 4, ever keen on toeing the PC line, unwittingly did society a favour this morning..