Over the past few days, while doing exercise, I’ve been watching a BBC programme called The Housing Enforcers. It’s about some journalist who goes around with local council housing officers.
The housing officers do some good work, for example trying to prevent (mainly Asian) landlords cramming up to 5 people in some dirty room with broken windows, no heating and mould all over the walls.
But I almost threw a brick at the TV when I saw how these housing officers threw our money at girls who were always referred to sympathetically as ‘single mums’ as if pregnancy was something that just happened rather than something which required your active participation.
One girl with a young child was given a council house with a large garden. She kept gushing about how “supportive” her family were. Sadly for us taxpayers, it seems the girl’s family weren’t quite supportive enough to give her somewhere to live. No. That was left to us long-suffering taxpayers.
And as for her large council house garden, of course she didn’t have time to look after that, she claimed. Though, as she was unemployed (and too stupid to be employable) and got free childcare, it’s far from obvious what kept her so busy all day (watching Jeremy Kyle? Smoking? Shagging? Getting pregnant again?). Anyway, as she clearly had no intention of keeping the garden under control, the housing officer generously offered to send people round from the council’s gardening staff to do the gardening for her. Yet more taxpayers’ money down the drain.
Another girl, probably aged well under 20, was pregnant but didn’t yet have any children. Nevertheless she was already being given a council flat because she claimed she couldn’t live with her mother as they spent the whole time “aguwin”. No problem, the housing officer, assured her. Don’t want to live with your mother? We’ll give you somewhere to live. After all, it’s only taxpayers’ money that was being wasted.
I’m not sure if either of these girls, nor the many others being housed at our expense, had the slightest clue which of their many shags had resulted in their pregnancies.
We are so generous to the lazy, useless, sexually-incontinent slobs in our society, it could make you weep.
It seems to me we need to tighten up the rules. Nobody under say 25 years old should ever get taxpayer-funded accommodation if they still have a living parent. Let their parents look after them. The thought that they and their child (or children) might have to live with their parents for a few years might dramatically reduce the number of pregnancies among single girls much more effectively than any known form of contraception.
In December 2015, 196 countries will get together in Paris to sign a global agreement on combatting the ludicrous myth of Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever it’s called this month).
I imagine most readers can guess what will be in this great agreement. For the West there will be ridiculous targets to reduce CO2 emissions, massive environmental tax rises for ordinary people, and hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs as high energy prices make our industries uncompetitive. Meanwhile China and India will continue to build hundreds of polluting coal-fired power stations and will take the jobs that the West is losing as the West commits economic suicide on the rickety altar of the false god of Man-Made Global Warming.
To soften us up for the new assault on our freedoms, pockets and jobs, we can expect the Greenie establishment to bombard us with scare story after scare story about how we’re all doomed unless we “tackle Climate Change”. Given that the Earth hasn’t warmed up at all for the last 19 years, all these scare stories will be total bunkum. But that will not stop the BBC and Channel 4 and the Guardian plus other sanctimonious bien pensants all castigating us for supposedly destroying the planet due to our use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas etc)
As these scare stories are launched, I will as best as I can expose them for the blatant lies that they are.
A good one came out yesterday. Here’s the headline from a newspaper article: After 10,000 years giant Antarctic ice-shelf will be gone by 2020, Nasa report says
And here’s the sub-headline: New Nasa studies warn of “bad news for our planet” as looming crack threatens to shatter Larsen B ice-shelf into pieces
And we’re given a nice photo of this Larsen B ice-shelf:
OMG! OMG! OMG! When this collapses, we’re all going to die!
Or maybe not. After all, in 2002 the Larsen B ice-shelf virtually disappeared. Here’s a quote from a scientific article written in 2002 “In the Southern Hemisphere summer of 2002, scientists monitoring daily satellite images of the Antarctic Peninsula watched in amazement as almost the entire Larsen B Ice Shelf splintered and collapsed in just over one month. They had never witnessed such a large area—3,250 square kilometers, or 1,250 square miles—disintegrate so rapidly”
And here’s a satellite photo from back then:
I think the big hole is where the Larsen B ice-shelf used to be.
Yet somehow, in spite of a large rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in spite of supposed Global Warming, the Larsen B ice-shelf reformed very nicely indeed. Ooooh. That’s odd. Maybe the Greenies could explain how a supposedly warming Earth managed to produce more ice? I thought heat melted ice. Perhaps everything I learnt about physics in school was wrong? Maybe I don’t deserve my physics O’Level?
So, as we wait for the next “we’re all doomed” Greenie scare, here’s a graph suggesting that global temperatures have little or nothing to do with the level of CO2 emissions (the blue line is temperature and the green line CO2 emissions)
And here’s a graph suggesting that global temperatures are pretty strongly linked to solar activity (the blue line is temperature, the red line is solar activity and the thick grey line is CO2 emissions)
The RSPB is one of Britain’s oldest and most respected charities. It was formed in 1889. At the time, hundreds of thousands of birds were being slaughtered each year due to a fashion for women to put brightly-coloured feathers in their hats. The RSPB (originally called the Plumage League) campaigned to dissuade women from this practice.
The RSPB now has over 1,300 employees, 18 000 volunteers and more than 1 million members (including 195,000 youth members), making it the largest wildlife conservation charity in Europe. The RSPB has many local groups and maintains 200 nature reserves.
Last year the RSPB raised around £122m from us and spent about £115m (retaining £7m for future use).
Of the £115m it spent, just £29.6m (only 26p of every £1 spent) went to front-line conservation. A much larger £34.7m was used for what the RSPB calls “Research, Policy, Advisory”, but what a cynic might call “keeping lots of bureaucrats busy”. A further £14.2m went on “Education and Communication” – more work for bureaucrats?
Around £4m was spent on administering the RSPB’s membership which raised £32m. Yet more bureaucrats. Strangely, the RSPB decided to include this £4m administration cost as “charitable expenditure” rather than a cost of running the charity. This was approved by both the RSPB’s accountants and the supposed charities’ regulator – the Charity Commission. By doing this, the RSPB made it look like it was spending more on real charitable activities than it actually was. And finally, the RSPB used £32.5m to generate its £122 income.
The RSPB claims that it spent £82.5m (£29.6m + £34.7m + £14.2m + £4m) on “charitable activities”. But most of these “charitable activities” seem to involve bureaucrats doing whatever bureaucrats do – writing vital reports, thinking very deeply about policy, sitting in very important meetings, making critical decisions and generally generating ever more work for themselves – and very little (just £29.6m) went to real conservation work.
Of course, some of this bureaucracy is necessary. But I doubt whether the good people putting their hard-earned money into the RSPB’s bank account realise that only 26p in every £1 spent by the RSPB actually goes to real conservation work.
As for people buying stuff in the RSPB’s shops – last year these shops raised £21m but cost £18.4m to run. So, out of every £1 spent in an RSPB shop, just 12p was left to be used for conservation and bureaucracy.
Perhaps the RSPB should change its name to the RSPBB – the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Bureaucrats?
Hopefully nobody comes to snouts-in-the-trough.com in order to be cheered up. If you do, then today is going to be very disappointing indeed.
If you’re a student now, you’ll probably leave university with about £44,000 in debt. With the Government slapping on a usurious above-inflation interest rate on that debt, the average student will end up paying close to £66,000 in the 30 years they pay off their debt till the remaining amount is written off.
So, if you get a decent job earning above £21,000 a year, you could easily be paying off around £2,000 a year. Doesn’t seem like too much, does it? But there are also some other debts you’ll have to pay off.
Our national debt is now about £1.5trn and will easily hit £1.8trn within the next 3 years as we’re still borrowing about £90bn a year. We currently pay about £60bn in interest each year on this debt. With around 30 million taxpayers, that’s about £2,000 a year per taxpayer.
So, now we’re at £4,000 a year you’ll have to pay for the rest of your working life.
But there are many other things you’ll be paying for which may not benefit you directly:
1. The ruling elites: We no longer have a democratic free market economy. Instead, a small elite of politicians, bureaucrats and bankers have amassed massive power for themselves and are able to siphon off huge quantities of our money. They’ll expect you to support their luxury lifestyles. How much are they thieving? £10bn a year? £20bn a year? I don’t know. But if it’s just £10bn, then you’ll be handing over around £300 a year to them (click to see more clearly)
2. The system gamers: Millions of people, especially immigrants and more especially those from the Religion of Peace, have learnt how to game the system so that they can live well – benefits, housing, free healthcare, free schooling etc – at the expense of those who choose to work. Let’s assume there are about 3 million of these parasites and they’re costing us £60bn a year (£20,000 a year each in benefits, housing and public services), then that’s £2,000 a year you’ll have to contribute to subsidise their lives of leisure
3. Foreign aid: Over £12bn a year is poured into the waiting offshore bank accounts of African and other Third World kleptocrats. With 30 million taxpayers, you’ll be forking out £400 per year to pay for the foreign aid farce
4. The EU: Last but not least, there’s around £19bn a year thrown into that large undemocratic black hole of greed and incompetence called the EU. Your share of this will be over £600 a year
So, it all mounts up: £2,000/yr for your student debt; £2,000/yr interest on the national debt; £300/yr for the elites; £2,000/yr for the system gamers; £400/yr for the foreign aid farce and £600/yr to the EU. That’s about £7,300/yr you’ll be paying in interest and to support various freeloaders and spongers.
Then you might want to buy a home. You might even need a mortgage. The average UK mortgage repayment is about £7,207 per year. Ooops, that’s even more debt you have to repay – hopefully you’ll have a little left over for your own food, clothing, holidays and entertainment?
Welcome to a life of debt slavery!
(For new readers, you can leave a comment or read comments by clicking on the headline)
(By the way, hopefully readers noticed the story of the 92-year-old woman who committed suicide partly due to being overwhelmed and impoverished by begging letters from charities. A couple of years ago, I noticed how my 88-year-old mother was being hounded and harassed by charities. That led to me researching Britain’s bloated, self-serving charity industry and writing my short book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL)
As most of Africa seems intent on fleeing the squalid, rotten, excrement-covered hell-hole of their continent, the self-righteous (well-paid, well-pensioned) do-gooders at charities like Oxfam and Save the Children keep appealing for ever more of our money as they have done every year for the last 50+ years. But have these charities ever really helped Africa? Or is Africa’s wretchedness actually largely due to the dishonesty and self-serving greed of these supposed ‘charities’?
Regular readers will be well aware of the key facts that charities like Oxfam and Save the Children never tell us:
1. Ten Marshall Plans
The holier-than-thou mob are always claiming Africa needs more money. But after WWII, under the Marshall Plan, Europe received $20bn a year (in today’s money) for just 5 years and this was enough to stimulate the complete rebuilding of our continent. Over the last 50 years Africa has received about $1trn in aid – $20bn a year. So for 50 years Africa has been given as much each year as Europe got for just 5 years and little to nothing has been achieved with all the money. In fact, most African countries are now poorer than they were in the mid 1960s when this deluge of aid started
2. Widespread corruption
Research by the Global Financial Integrity project indicates that African rulers steal about 3 times as much money each year from their countries as their countries receive in aid (please see my YouTube video – link below). So, if we could just cut the level of corruption in Africa by a half, Africa wouldn’t need any aid at all and would still be richer
3. Explosive population growth
Africa’s population growth is completely unsustainable. When we started giving aid in the mid 1960s, poverty-stricken Ethiopia’s population was about 25 million. Now it’s over 96 million. Poverty-stricken Sudan’s was 12 million. Now it’s 50 million. The situation is similar in most African countries in spite of the fact that Africans spend much of their time killing each other. No wonder most Africans are living in abject poverty
None of this is ever mentioned by the charities. They know that if ordinary people in the West were aware of the truth of 50 years of their failure in Africa, we would stop giving and the gilded, usually taxfree lifestyles of our hundreds of thousands of charity workers – the Lords of Poverty – would end
After 50 years of giving, there are more Africans living in destitution than ever before in Africa’s history. Well done Oxfam and Save the Children! You should be proud of your achievements!
After 50 years of failure in Africa, it’s time to stop this foreign aid farce. Here are just a few of the solutions I propose in my book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL
1. All countries eligible for emergency (humanitarian) aid
Less than 10% of our aid is emergency (humanitarian) aid – aid that is given following a drought or earthquake or famine. Over 90% is so-called ‘development aid’. We should continue giving humanitarian aid to any country that needs it
2. Development aid made conditional
We should provide different levels of development aid to countries. This should be linked to clear conditions like reduction of corruption, implementation of population controls, reduction in military spending and so on. Each country should be audited each year and it should be clearly explained why aid is being withheld and what that country needs to do to get more aid released
3. Reducing the number of charities
In some countries there can be hundreds and even thousands of charities operating, all with their country managers and offices and four-by-fours etc and all spending a fortune on bribing government officials. At one time it was estimated that there were more than 4,000 charities working in Ethiopia. We need to give responsibility for each African country to one or two charities. They would then be responsible for organising all charity work in that country and accountable for ensuring that the development money actually succeeds in developing something.
It’s time to stop the development aid farce in Africa. Nothing is being achieved. In fact, after 50 years of failure poverty is increasing. We need a new, more intelligent approach.
And, for those who haven’t seen it, here’s my YouTube video – Africa:
All the political parties, especially Labour, have ridiculed UKIP’s proposal for an Australian-style points system to control immigration to Britain.
So, to expose Labour’s hypocrisy on immigration, here’s a small part of a hastily forgotten speech given by Tony “The Liar” Blair in April 2005, just before the May general election that year:
“I also understand concern over immigration controls. We will put in place strict controls that work. They will be part of our first legislative programme if we are re-elected on May 5. These controls will include the type of points system used in Australia, for example, to help ensure our economy gets the skills we need”.
Yes, you read that right. Bliar promised precisely the Australian-style points system that UKIP are now proposing.
Oooops! While attacking UKIP’s proposal for an Australian-style points system, our friends in the Labour Party seem to have forgotten Bliar’s promise. It’s odd that nobody in the Labour Party has bothered to mention Blair’s promise, which was immediately binned once Bliar was re-elected.
It’s also a pity that UKIP didn’t have the brains to bring up Bliar’s explosive promise in their recent election campaign. Duh! My local UKIP party members are complete tossers. I guess UKIP leadership are as well.
At the time, Blair had been under pressure to reduce immigration and the numbers seeking asylum in Britain. Here’s another small part of that speech:
“Asylum application numbers did rise after 1997, as they did in much of the rest of the EU, due to external pressures, but we have legislated to address the situation and the numbers have fallen rapidly. Asylum applications have fallen from over 8,000 a month at the peak in the autumn of 2002 to just over 2,000. The next set of statistics will show that monthly applications are back to their lowest level since March 1997, and have fallen twice as fast as in the rest of Europe”.
Blair claims he has responded to voter concerns about rapidly rising numbers of asylum seekers. But here’s little chart I did for my book SQUANDERED How Gordon Brown is Wasting over One Trillion Pounds of Our Money (click to see more clearly)
The dotted line on the chart is the number of asylum applications. The other is the number of British citizenships handed out to foreigners. Blair reduced asylum seekers’ numbers – by showering anyone who might be tempted to seek asylum with British citizenships so they had no need to seek asylum. This then made it look like the number of asylum seekers had fallen.
Never in human history have so many been so blatantly lied to as we were by Bliar and his lousy bunch of greedy, incompetent, self-serving Labour scum, one of whom, Andy “Mid-Staffs Mass Murderer” Burnham now wishes to lead Labour and become our next prime minister.
Here they are, some of David Cameron’s fine new government ministers:
Ooooh, there are an awful lot of them, aren’t there?
Probably not many people know this – we have over 100 government ministers in Britain. About 90 of these ‘ministers’ are from the Commons and the rest from the Lords. This means that almost one in every three Tory MPs will be a government minister. Overall, 14% of all MPs will be a government minister. This is about twice as many as they have in France or Germany or even a joke country like Italy.
Why so many ministers? Because it gives MPs (and some Lords) yet another opportunity to pocket vast amounts of our money:
Top civil servants have been known to complain that they can’t find enough things for all these ministers to do. And our government probably wastes hundreds of millions of pounds a year of our money as junior ministers launch all kinds of futile and unnecessary projects just to get some attention and further their own lousy careers.
One parliamentary committee wrote a report “What do ministers do?” recommending a significant cut in the number of paid ministers. Naturally, this report was rapidly-buried and no action was taken. Turkeys….don’t vote….Christmas… etc
Given that the EU now makes most of our laws and our ministers and MPs have very little to do, we don’t need many of these over 100 government ministers. In fact, we don’t need 650 MPs any more – about 200 would be quite enough. The US Congress, for example, has just 435 members for over 250 million people. And the US Senate has 100 members whereas there are almost 800 greedy, expenses-fiddling scum in the Lords.
There is a Money Tree after all. It grows and flourishes in Westminster. Thanks to this Money Tree, our rulers are doing pretty well getting rich at our expense. So, next time you hear them trying to bluff their way to a pay rise and an increase in their already magnanimous expenses, remember that they are largely unnecessary and are already pocketing much more than most of them could possibly be worth.
There’s great joy in Germany-controlled Brussels as the EU prepares to flood our country with mainly M*sl*m migrants from the Middle East and Africa in revenge for the British daring to criticise our EU-rulers. In the run-up to our EU referendum, we can expect many more of these attacks on our diminishing sovereignty by our spiteful EU ‘friends’ as they try to impoverish us as punishment for our perceived disobedience to our German masters.
But one might be confused as to why so many of these migrants are so desperate to come to Benefits Britain. After all, our beloved M*sl*ms are constantly telling us how much they hate us, our country, our freedoms and our tolerance:
So one would have thought they would prefer to live in a M*sl*m country with their wonderful Sharia Law, FGM, oppression of women, execution of gays, intolerance, violence and backwardness rather than having to put up with our freedoms and traditions.
And for the last fifty years, Africans have blamed their poverty and misery on us evil colonialists. So why on earth do they want to come to here to be ruled by us again? Why don’t they stay in Africa where they can be ruled by Africans? Surely that’s why many fought for freedom from colonial oppression?
It’s all very very confusing.
Anyone who has recently visited (or tried to visit) a doctor or a hospital recently would probably get the impression that ethnic ‘minorities’ are now a majority in Britain even though the black and Asian communities only make up about 14% of our population. It can sometimes seem as if ethnic British are hardly ever treated by the NHS such is the level of demand from new arrivals to our country.
But while those who come to our country can appear extraordinarily eager to take all the services we offer. It’s not so obvious that they’re willing to give anything in return. For example, as I’ve pointed out before, amongst Britain’s 300,00 or so Somalis, around 65% of the men and over 90% of the women are (what is politely called) ‘economically inactive’ or what could be more honestly called ‘benefits scroungers and parasites‘. Yet despite their levels of ‘economic inactivity’ our Somalis manage to send around £100m a year back to their families in Somalia. That too is very very confusing.
Here’s another thing that is very very confusing. Britain’s minorities appear to adore taking from our NHS but are most reluctant to give anything in return. Our minorities may make up 14% of our population yet they only account for around 3% of blood and organ donations. Although there are no definite figures for Britain’s M*sl*ms, they probably make up about 6% of our population but less than 1% of blood and organ donations. So a non-M*sl*m is possibly about ten times more likely to be a donor than a M*sl*m.
We’re not allowed to mention this as it would be considered waaacccciiiissssttt, but the lack of minority donors is a problem as body tissues have racially specific characteristics, which means that transfusions and transplants are far more likely to be successful when the donor and recipient are of a similar ethnic background. If you’re black, your best tissue match will usually be black. If you’re Asian and need a transplant, you’ll probably need an Asian donor.
Moreover a number of blood types are more common and specific to people from certain ethnic backgrounds. For example blood group B is more commonly found in black African/Caribbean populations and U negative – a rare sub-group – is only found in these communities. In addition, 25% of Asians (M*sl*ms?) are blood group B compared to 9% of western Europeans.
Yup, when it comes to Britain’s ethnic minorities, the philosophy seems to be take take take, but never give anything in return. And we are so wonderfully tolerant that we allow them to get away with this.
As our idiotic leaders send our military to act as a free passenger service for people smugglers in the Med, the EU has decided to act. According to current EU legislation, any migrants and asylum seekers must claim asylum in the first EU country they reach. But our ‘friends’ in Brussels have decided to change that. In future, Brussels will allocate hundreds of thousands of new immigrants around the EU according to a formula set by Merkel/Juncker.
Don’t be surprised if the new formula magically ends up with the majority of African and Middle East migrants (most of whom are M*sl*ms as Christians tend to be thrown overboard to drown by the aforementioned peaceful M*sl*ms) being sent to Benefits Britain. And those that don’t come here directly, will come to Benefits Britain from other EU countries under EU freedom of movement rules as soon as they get their EU papers. After all, most of the Dutch Somalis now live off benefits in the UK much to the relief of our friends in the Netherlands.
The British government has, of course, said it will oppose any such quotas imposed by Brussels. But there’s actually nothing our government can do because on 21 November 2014, immigration and border control was just one of many policy areas that was moved from “unanimity” to “QMV” (Qualified Majority Voting) a rather important change that our politicians and mainstream media didn’t feel it worth mentioning and explaining to us. Here’s what happened:
In the EU, the Council of Ministers is supposed to make a lot of the key decisions about the main legislation to be passed by the EU. In the Treaty of Nice, many of the areas where the EU wished to legislate required unanimity of the Council of Ministers. So Britain had the option of vetoing any legislation it disagreed with.
But, in order to ‘improve the quality of decision making’, the Lisbon Treaty moved a huge number of areas from ‘unanimity’ to “QMV”. Moreover, the threshold for QMV was lowered from countries with over 70% of the EU’s population to countries with just 65% of the EU population.
So, Britain can now be outvoted by Merkel and her cowardly stooges on virtually any EU decision.
The areas which moved from ‘unanimity’ to ‘QMV’ are all of these:
Area of decision-making Nice Lisbon
Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs
Unanimity
QMV following unanimous request
Rules concerning the Armaments Agency
Unanimity
QMV
Freedom to establish a business
Unanimity
QMV
Self-employment access rights
Unanimity
QMV
Freedom, security and justice – cooperation and evaluation
So, on 21 November 2014 we said goodbye to the UK as an independent country, because after 21 November 2014, Britain was no longer be able to block any legislation which was against our national interests. No wonder Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and all their self-serving sycophants in the mainstream media never mentioned 21 November 2014. After all, if we plebs had understood how our quisling leaders were handing over control of our country to Germany, more of us might have supported UKIP.
David Craig, on May 20th, 2015
