|
|
By  David Craig, on September 29th, 2014 There are two daytime reality TV programmes which might make you weep with despair. One is called “Nothing to Declare” and features border control in Australia. The other is “UK Border Control”.
In the Australian programme, week after week you see would-be illegal immigrants being caught at airports. If they have suspicious items like CVs, or work clothes or just too many clothes when supposedly going on a short holiday to Australia, they’re refused entry and shoved on the next plane home:
The other striking thing about the Australian programme is that the immigration officers seem to have a reasonable level of intelligence.
Not so “UK Border Control”. In the British version a bunch of real thickos demonstrate they haven’t a clue. For example, in one incident a M*sl*m couple from India, coming “for a holiday” in Britain were caught with 16,000 cigarettes and several kilos of tobacco in their luggage. In fact, they didn’t have any clothes for their holiday. The Border Control officer quite rightly stopped them. But his supervisor, a woman, managed to convince the Indian couple that they weren’t smugglers. Instead she suggested to them that they might be in danger if they were to return to India and so should claim to be asylum seekers.
Though I suppose we should be grateful that one of the idiots working for the laughably-named ‘UK Border Agency’ did get a little suspicious when another Indian claimed he was coming to Britain ‘for a holiday’ because “I want to see Birmingham Palace”.
But in general, however absurd illegal immigrants’ excuses, our useless Border Control almost always let them in (click to see more clearly)
It’s pathetic. It’s laughable. It’s tragic. It’s why our country is being swamped by people who hate us but just love our wonderful benefits system:
God help us.
By David Craig, on September 28th, 2014 And so, after weeks of prevarication and hours of hot air in Parliament, Britain finally went into action against ISIS in Iraq. Two of our over 20-year-old Tornado GR4 fighter/bombers plus a refuelling plane boldly set off to pummel those dastardly Isl*mic State terrorists. You know, the Isl*mic State terrorists that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all claim have nothing to do with the Religion of Peace.
Incidentally, the Tornado GR4 fighter/bombers were pretty much the same versions of the plane used in the 1991 Gulf War.
Anyway, much to our great leaders’ surprise, the Isl*mic State fighters weren’t standing around in large vulnerable groups with all their vehicles and weapons screaming and ululating their defiance waiting to be attacked like our leaders thought they would after watching films like Lawrence of Arabia and Gordon of Khartoum. Nope, somehow the Isl*mic State fighters realised British planes were on the way and so decided to disperse into civilian areas. Thus, with thousands of Isl*mic State fighters (who of course have nothing to do with *sl*m) running wild in Iraq, during seven hours of flying around like idiots, the British planes couldn’t find a single target to attack.
To cover up their embarrassment, our military bosses claim the two clapped-out Tornado GR4 fighter/bombers “gathered valuable intelligence”. This is a lie. The planes have been flying over Iraq for weeks “gathering valuable intelligence”. It’s more than doubtful that they learnt anything new that they didn’t already know from previous flights and from US military satellites.
This is the result of (IMHO) war criminal Blair’s illegal wars. Now it takes us so long to organise just a simple air strike that our opponents will always be forewarned. Luckily for us the Islamic State fighters don’t have planes or SAM missiles (yet), otherwise, Britain would now be two Tornado fighter/bombers short.
Meanwhile the Americans, who have once again been in action against ISIS in Syria, must be shaking their heads in despair at Britain’s uselessness.
By David Craig, on September 27th, 2014 Remember 1984? Not the book, the year. That was the year of “Do they know it’s Christmas?” when the great Saint Bob Geldorf blagged us all into giving bags of money to feed starving Ethiopians. Then in 1985, shaggy-haired Bob got even more of our money with the LiveAid concerts watched by about 1.9 billion people worldwide. In all, the great Irishman Bob convinced us to hand over around £150m for the starving Ethiopians. No wonder Bob was knighted or sainted or canonised or whatever.
But why were the Ethiopians starving? Oh, of course, there was a drought in the Horn of Africa. That’s why, isn’t it?
Well, umm, not really. Here’s a graph of the population of Ethiopia from 1965 to today (click to see more clearly)
Crikey, there were only 25 million Ethiopians in 1965. This had shot up to 39.5 million by the time of the 1984 great famine and has now reached about 96 million.
In fact there were famines in Ethiopia in 1958, 1966, 1973 as well as 1984. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if a fairly infertile country like Ethiopia struggled to feed its 25 million population in 1966, then it’s hardly surprising that there were problems in 1984 when the population was close to 40 million and that there will always be famines if Ethiopia’s population doubles every 25 years.
As one commentator wrote: By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million; the equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley. So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?
So yes, every seven or eight years or so there is a drought in the Horn of Africa. There has been for the last hundreds of years. But Ethiopia’s problem is not a lack of rain. The problem is a population that is growing too fast. So, next time Bob or Bono or whatever media-attention-grabbing celeb harangues us to give our money to save lives in the latest famine, remember famines are often caused by too many people not too little rain.
But, of course, it would be “waaaaccciiiiisssstttt!” to suggest that the Ethiopians and others in the Horn of Africa tried a little birth control. So there will always be famines there.
And when thousands of Ethiopians come flooding in from Calais, welcome them with open arms. After all, they’re victims – victims of their own stupidity.
(btw, I’ve just seen a wonderful comment on a newspaper website. As Cameron sends our six clapped-out Tornadoes to attack ISIS, one reader suggested “Could we not send our jets to northern British cities to protect our girls?”)
By David Craig, on September 26th, 2014 The two highlights of Ed Miliband’s speech to the Labour conference were, of course, the two things he “forgot” to mention – immigration and the deficit. So for those of you who may have been disappointed, here are the facts:
1. Immigration – I believe that the current rate of issuance of new National Insurance (NI) numbers to foreign nationals is around 46,000 a month – about 2,000 every single working day or 5.5 million a year. Any single immigrant earning less than about £20,000 a year will take more in public services and benefits than they pay in taxes and any immigrant with a wife and two children earning less than £34,000 a year will take more in public services and benefits than they pay in taxes.
From that, I hope readers can work out that immigration is a disaster for Britain, swamping us with Third World and EU detritus, overwhelming our schools, NHS and housing and pushing up public spending.
2. The deficit – Hopefully, unlike 91% of the population who don’t understand what a deficit is, readers of this blog realise that if a government spends £100bn a year more than it takes in taxes, it is running a deficit of £100bn which it has to borrow and on which it will have to pay interest from here to eternity. Moreover, hopefully readers of this site, unlike 91% of voters, understand that every year a country runs a £100bn deficit, its national debt increases by £100bn
Ed Miliband didn’t mention Britain’s deficit. Who could blame him? Just click on the chart below to see more clearly
The chart shows the annual general government deficit (or surplus, in a few rare cases) for a selection of European countries as a percentage of their GDP since 2000. The countries included are the UK (in dark blue), the 18 countries of the Euro Area (in red), France (in green), Germany (in purple), Greece (in orange), and Italy (in light blue). Negative numbers represent a budget deficit, while positive numbers are a surplus.
Why is the chart too horrible to mention? At the beginning of the 21st century, the UK had one of the largest government budget surpluses in Europe. It was certainly much higher than many of our direct competitors. However, the financial crisis in 2008 hit the UK particularly hard, and by 2009 we had one of the largest deficits. Although the UK government has been reducing the deficit slowly since that trough in 2009, we are still in the unenviable position of being behind Italy, France, and even the euro area average – and a long way behind Germany, who have managed to roughly balance their budget for the past couple of years. So far this year all the data we have suggests that in 2014 our deficit might increase for the first time in five years, which is likely to put us even further behind..
Ed Miliband didn’t mention the deficit and the debt because he wanted to create a picture of a socialist paradise in which immigrants, the lazy, the useless, the obese, the worthless and especially those in the public sector would live in luxury thanks to all the money contributed by the few people who can be bothered to work.
Trouble is, there is no money to pay for Ed’s socialist Nirvana. That’s why Ed didn’t mention the deficit.
By David Craig, on September 25th, 2014 You’ll all have read about the farce that was Ed Miliband’s conference speech. The speech in which he never mentioned either the deficit or immigration. We’ve already had Miliband claiming both that he deliberately left these subjects out and that he forgot about them as he didn’t use a script. ‘Forgot’. My a**se.
But I’m not here to repeat what other people have already pointed out. That’s not the purpose of this website. Instead I’d like to focus on the people sitting behind Miliband as he gave his great oration. I suspect that these (IMHO) total nobs are hand-picked by Miliband’s PR people and that the PR people also choose exactly where each of these (IMHO) total dickheads sits in order to create the best subliminal impression with the public whose votes Miliband most wants to attract.
So let’s look at these (IMHO) self-serving prats (click to see more clearly)
The first thing you’ll notice is that there are six people who will appear more on our TV screens than all the others. Of these six, four are women and half of the six are clearly from immigrant backgrounds.
Miliband’s two subliminal messages are: 1. By showing more women than men that Labour are caring unlike the nasty Tories, hence all the blether about the NHS and not a mention of the deficit or the debt. 2. “Immigrants R Us” – if you’re an immigrant, then vote Labour, hence not a mention about Labour controlling immigration.
But let’s look even closer at this stage-managed farce. The one person who appears most in all the TV clips of this speech, which will be seen on the TV news by millions, is probably the gravitationally-challenged coloured lady on Miliband’s left (your right).
Here she is (click to see more clearly)
Now, I don’t know who she is. She may be an Olympic athlete wearing an ‘Eddie Murphy Big Mama’ fat suit for fun.
She may be someone who has been successful in fighting anorexia. She may be a lean, mean entrepreneur busily creating loads of jobs. Or she may be a fat, self-indulgent, lazy, donut-guzzling, public-sector or Labour-party worker with absolutely no self-control who never does any exercise. I let you judge.
But one thing is clear – she was put in that prominent position for a purpose – to signal to people like her “Vote Labour” and you’ll get lots of benefits and support while nobody will dare being ‘fatist’ by criticising you for being a greedy fat-arse who probably couldn’t waddle more than fifty metres before collapsing in a great pile of foul-smelling, heaving putridity.
I don’t blame the lady for her looks. None of us is perfect and she’s free to choose her body weight by the amount she eats and the amount she exercises. What I criticise is Miliband’s spin-doctors’ manipulation of the audience to send a subliminal message to voters. And I think the choice of the six people who would appear in the TV reports in the front row during Miliband’s speech and the choice of an (IMHO) lazy, useless, public-sector lard-lump to take the most prominent place tells us a lot about the kind of people whose votes Labour is out after.
But, I may be wrong. Who knows? Perhaps lard-lump is really Dame Kelly Holmes having a day off training.
(btw if readers want to write comments or see comments, you have to click on the title of the post)
By David Craig, on September 24th, 2014 The awful Ed Miliband provoked some derision yesterday when he gave his ‘great’ conference speech and talked about him being in power for ten years ‘to fix Britain’. But I’m not laughing. Here’s why:
1. Labour have more than a 20-seat advantage because Cameron didn’t have the spine to stand up to schoolboy Clegg over electoral boundary reform
2. There will be massive postal fraud in mainly Labour-voting M*sl*m areas. But as with the gang rape, gang sodomisation and torture of perhaps 10,000 or more white girls by M*sl*m Pakistani men across Britain, nobody will dare say anything for fear of being labelled “waaaccciiiissstttt!!!” Remember, it’s no law for M*sl*ms in Britain and one law for the rest of us
3. Around 54% of the population get more in services and benefits than they pay in taxes. When Miliband blethers on about “fairness” they know what he means is that they’ll continue to get something for nothing paid for by someone else. And who wouldn’t vote for that?
4. Labour has massive majorities in benefits-dependent Scotland and Wales
5. The majority ‘right’ vote will be split between the Tories and UKIP as many patriotic British distrust and even loathe the greasy, lying, u-turning, spineless PR spiv Cameron so much that they just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him
6. Only about 9% of the electorate have any economic understanding at all and realise that as long as we have a deficit then our debt continues to rise. The other 91% have no idea that with a deficit of £100bn a year and debt of over £1.4trn we are going bankrupt. So they can’t see anything wrong with Balls continuing liar Brown’s borrow and spend policies
So, that’s how Miliband can scrape into Downing Street.
How will he stay there for 10 years? First you have to consider all the six points above. Then you have to add in:
1. Under Miliband around 46,000 immigrants a month – over 500,000 a year – will continue to flood into Britain. So that’s up to 2.5 million more Labour voters by the time of the 2020 election
2. Miliband will use the example of the Scottish referendum to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds by the 2020 general election. Most of these will tend to vote Labour
So, ten years of Miliband? Are you still laughing? I’m not.
Moreover, in the longer term, with birth rates for ethnic British falling and birth rates for immigrants, especially M*sl*ms, rising to almost three times the rate for ethnic British, Labour will gradually build up a demographic that will make pro-British parties unelectable. As one newspaper reader commented yesterday in a short statement that I thought was brilliant “The battle for Britain will be lost in the maternity wards of England”
(By the way, my experiment yesterday didn’t work. The readership of my blog is still falling and nobody is buying my books. I’ll have to think of something else)
By David Craig, on September 23rd, 2014 I once did a post on how much pornstars earn.
Since then I’ve noticed that the search term that brings most readers to my site is “pornstar”.
Sadly, the people who arrive at my site while searching for ‘pornstar’ don’t buy the kind of books I write.
Anyway today I’m conducting a little experiment – in the headline, I’m putting lots of words that might bring more readers. I’m interested in seeing what effect this has on the number of people visiting my site.
I will have a first idea of the answer tomorrow.
In the meantime, if you did come here looking for something slightly more salacious than my usual moaning about our greedy incompetent rulers, I believe that www.video-one.com is the place to go for everything (legal) that one might want in free, full-screen, high-definition action.
Oh, and for readers who want something a little more serious, here’s the National Debt Clock https://www.debt-clock.org/ and Ed Balls says he’s going to increase public spending. Aaaarrrrrrgggggggg we’re doomed!
By David Craig, on September 22nd, 2014 Actress Emma Thompson, a true luvvie’s luvvie best known for playing an almost endless series of simpering females in costume dramas, has been on a Greenpeace ship visiting the Arctic to highlight the dreadful effects of supposed Global Warming (now conveniently renamed ‘Climate Change’ as the Earth hasn’t warmed at all for the last 17 years).
In addition to her acting skills, Emma is apparently a fully-qualified climatologist, or at least she seems to act as if she is.
And yesterday, former actress and now one of the world’s leading climatologists, Emma Thompson, spoke at a big Greenie rally in London where she said “Every single person on this Earth has the power to change the world. And when we all come together, our power becomes irresistible. Now we must use our power to tackle the biggest threat humanity has ever faced.”
And Emma ominously warned us “Unless we’re carbon-free by 2030 the world is buggered”.
It was a good idea for Emma and Greenpeace to visit the Arctic, where the ice pack has definitely been getting smaller. After all, I’m sure Emma and Greenpeace wouldn’t have wanted to suffer the embarrassment of a bunch of hapless Greenies last year.
The Greenies, accompanied of course by a Guardian journalist, set off from New Zealand with great fanfare on a research vessel, the Academic Shokalskiy, to recreate a 100-year-old Australasia expedition first sailed by Sir Douglas Mawson. The goal of their great voyage was to ‘prove’ how much less ice there was than a century ago.
Unfortunately for the Greenies, their boat soon hit a mass of thick ice sheets and got well and truly stuck:
An Australian icebreaker, Aurora Australis, was sent to the rescue. But it was unable to reach them because it was not strong enough to break through the unexpectedly thick ice – the thick ice the Greenies had claimed had melted due to ‘Global Warming’.
Then a top-of-the-range Chinese icebreaker, the Snow Dragon (‘Xue Long’), was deployed. But it too got stuck in the extremely thick ice that shouldn’t have been there according to the presumably surprised Greenies.
Finally the Greenies and the Guardian journalist had to be rescued by helicopter – they were able to build a helipad using the ice which the Greenies had denied existed.
So, keep up the good work Emma daahhlliiing. Keep fighting the myth of Global Warming to save us all from ourselves and keep preaching to us about how we must all change our lifestyles.
But just remember, Emma daahhlliiing, don’t go near the Antarctic with its record levels of ice, otherwise you might get stuck in the ice and look like a real twat.
By David Craig, on September 21st, 2014 In the interests of multi-culti mutual understanding and harmony, this website is always pleased to bring heart-warming stories of social cohesion in today’s multi-culti Britain.
We’ve provided figures showing that Britain’s M*sl*ms have the highest rate of ‘economic inactivity’ of any group; of how over 75% of Britain’s Somali community choose not to work and still manage to send about £100m of our money back to their relatives in Somalia each year thanks to the British benefits system’s generosity; we’ve praised the British police for their open-minded attitude in allowing M*sl*m men to gang-rape, gang-sodomise and torture thousands of British ‘white trash’ girls; we’ve admired the BBC and our politicians for encouraging practices like FGM, forced marriages and first-cousin marriages in the interests of multi-culti harmony; we’ve praised the many great M*sl*m figures who have married pre-pubescent girls; and we feel it’s right that M*sl*ms should be allowed to march and demonstrate their loathing of us, their hatred of everything British and encourage violence against us without the police lifting a finger.
And now we’ve found yet another example of our open-minded attitude to the world’s greatest religion. Apparently there are at least 20,000 M*sl*m men in Britain who have several wives with some having the four wives encouraged by their holy book. This, according to the Daily Mail is just one of these men:
Of course, this is against British law. But have any of these men been prosecuted? Nope. Why not? Because as with so many other matters it’s no law for M*sl*ms and one law for the rest of us.
It has been estimated that for a family with two children, household earnings would have to be over £34,000 for that family to contribute more in tax than it takes in services and benefits. So a M*sl*m man with two, three or even four wives and five to ten children would probably have to earn at least £80,000 to £100,000 to avoid being a burden on society.
I wonder how many of these M*sl*m men with their several wives and huge broods of British-hating brats earn that much. Or are they all a massive burden on the rest of us?
And when will our politically-correct cowardly police and authorities prosecute one of these gentlemen? Never? Surprise, surprise.
By David Craig, on September 20th, 2014 Twenty years ago, most members of my extended family who died, left this earth due to cancer or heart attacks. But now these seem much less common. Instead, my relatives are living longer and succumbing to things like dementia and Alzheimers.
One of the latest incidents was when a close family member flew in from Australia to visit his 88-year-old mother. Arriving at Heathrow, he rang his mother to let her know he was in Britain. His mother, who had been looking forward to his arrival for weeks, then told him she was busy, was going out and didn’t know if she would have time to see him. As she can hardly walk, she wasn’t actually going anywhere. But her behaviour is becoming increasingly erratic.
Of course, there’s no cure for degeneration of our brain’s functioning and you have to be mentally strong to fight against the forgetfulness and wild mood swings this brings. And, as you feel your memory going, there is a risk of becoming embarrassed to meet people and thus becoming ever more isolated and depressed.
In this case, I had a ‘come to Jesus’ talk with the lady in question in which I made it clear – either she renews her social life or it’s into a home for her. The effect was almost miraculous – her diary started filling up, she got out more, became less introspective and self-pitying and began to get stronger both physically and mentally. Surprisingly quickly she moved from a self-reinforcing downward spiral of forgetfulness leading to isolation leading to depression leading to more forgetfulness and so on into a positive self-reinforcing spiral of more contact leading to more confidence leading to more contacts leading to better memory and physical health.
Of course, the recovery can only be temporary. But many of us will have some very difficult years ahead as we become parents to our parents while they become increasingly child-like.
People may be surviving heart attacks and cancer but nobody seems to have thought through the consequences of our bodies living longer than our brains.
(As for Salmond’s resignation. I got that one wrong. I thought he was the winner. He almost achieved independence and got more power for Scotland without his lies about Scotland’s non-existent wealth being exposed – a true Holyrood hero. I don’t understand why he quit.)
|
|
