Friday, 27 May 2011

Four muslims attack RE teacher

Four muslims attacked a white RE teacher, cracking his skull and knocking him unconscious, and only got caught because MI5 happened to be bugging their car at the time.

Here are the villains of the piece:


Gary Smith, 38, was beaten as he walked to Central Foundation Girls' School in Bow, east London, last July. The gang left him unconscious after attacking him with a metal rod and a brick, Snaresbrook Crown Court heard. They pleaded guilty to GBH with intent and were ordered to serve jail sentences of four or five years.

Azad Hussain, 26, of Wapping, and Akmol Hussein, 26, of Bethnal Green, both east London, were each given indeterminate sentences and ordered to serve a minimum of five years in prison. Simon Alam, 19, of Whitechapel, was given 10 years and told he would have to serve at least five years, and Sheikh Rashid, 27, of Shadwell, was sentenced to eight years and ordered to serve at least half the term.

Judge John Hand QC said he believed the four remained a danger to the public because of their extreme religious beliefs. Addressing the defendants one by one, he said: "Your belief is that you carried out a duty to your God and you did so with no mercy. "If you think that people around you in society present an insult or threat to God then you will not hesitate in attacking again in the way that you have acted."
Too right, that judge! This kind of news is getting all too common. Any possibility of immigrants integrating into our society seems to have fallen by the wayside. People don't even mention it anymore. It's just not going to happen.

Apparently it is no longer acceptable to these muslims to have a non-muslim teach their children about religion. These four decided the best way to express their displeasure was to hand out a vicious beating to the RE teacher, leaving him scarred for life.

The fact that MI5 already had them under surveillance doesn't say much for their characters.

We need to get rid of these muslims - there's really no alternative. While they live in our country we are all at risk. Deportation is now the only solution. And the only party with the balls to make it happen is the BNP.

Ratko Mladic: the next fiasco waiting to happen?

General Ratko Mladic has been apprehended in a village in northern Serbia, not more than 100 miles from Belgrade. He's wanted in connected with the massacre of Bosnian muslims during the Yugoslav civil war.

The plan seems to be to extradite him from Serbia, take him to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Hague and try him for genocide.

The ICTY will need to raise its game. Look at its inglorious record so far...



Slobodan Milošević: President of Serbia  1989-1997, arrested in 2001 and taken to the Hague, trial started 2001. Complained of heart problems during the trial - was refused leave to seek treatment. Died 2006 of heart attack after an inconclusive 5-year trial.
 


Radovan Karadžić: President of the Serbian part of Bosnia 1992-1996.  Accused of ordering the Srebrenica massacre where 8,000 muslims died. Arrested and taken to the Hague in 2008 where he was served with a one million page legal document. His trial is on-going and it's likely he will need until 2016 to finish reading the indictment.




General Ratko Mladic: Chief-of-Staff of the Bosnian-Serb army 1992 1995. Accused of involvement in the siege of Sarajevo and the Srebrenica massacre. Now 69 years old. Already seems to be suffering from health problems, and may even have chosen to come out of hiding in order to get medical treatment not available in a small village in northern Serbia.

It remains to be seen if the ITCY has learnt any sort of lesson from its previous failures. They need to level specimen charges at him, charges sufficiently concise that a trial can be completed while the accused is still alive. In England a murder trial rarely takes longer than two weeks. Running trials that last for years serves no one's interest apart from the lawyers paid by the hour from our taxes.

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Denmark bans marmite

Lay down your knives and forks and step away from the table... slowly!

Yes, folks, that black gunk made by Unilever for the spreading on toast and the flavouring of savoury dishes has been banned in Denmark. It's an acquired taste and the Danes haven't managed it.

Forbidden fruit yeast by-product

Why ban it? Well, apparently it contains added vitamins and minerals and we can't be having that, can we? That may seem odd but actually the logic is sound. People should be getting their essential nutrients by eating a balanced diet, not as additions to a by-product of beer production.

However one cannot help but feel this is xenophobia in action. Marmite is foreign. In fact it's British; and has been made in the UK for more than a century. Colonists have taken a taste for the stuff to the ends of the Earth, if not the actual marmite itself, and Australia and New Zealand both have their own version of the product.

Banning the spread is quite admirable really. The Danes are showing distinct signs of reasserting their national independence. Earlier this month they re-introduced border controls and effectively opted out of the Schengen agreement which allows free movement in Europe. About ten percent of their population is immigrant and it seems they've had enough. Nationalism is taking over, in the form of the Danish People's Party - third largest party in parliament and now calling quite a lot of the shots. The ban on marmite is likely to be down to the DPP.

Of course, the BNP has had its own marmite controversy. Unilever sued, money was paid. So this blog has no objection to the biter being bit but the take-home from this is really the emergence of nationalism in Europe not the banning of a spread.

Thursday, 19 May 2011

Rape isn't rape

Poor Ken Clarke, he's in a lot of hot water. Rather foolishly on Radio 5 live yesterday he told interviewer Victoria Derbyshire that some rapes are less serious than other rapes. When Derbyshire responded that surely rape is rape Clarke went on to give some examples of less serious rape, for example date rape. Thus digging himself into an even deeper hole.

Clarke's faux pas was to fail to recall that rape is a PC issue. There is an approved response, viz, all rapes are equally terrible and the most horrible thing that can happen to a woman except murder. You are NOT ALLOWED to suggest that rape is scalable, like say bank robbery, because those who police our thoughts prefer to have us think in black and white rather than apply our own critical faculties. There are other things  you are NOT ALLOWED to say: blacks have lower IQs than whites; immigrants commit more crimes, Jews control the media - that sort of thing. Eventually, in an ideal Marxist universe, there will be one approved opinion on every subject and thinking anything else will be NOT ALLOWED.

Clarke blundered into this minefield all unknowing, and a few hours later at PMQs the Labour leader dully demanded his head on a platter. The prime minster was fairly muted in his support.

And yet Clarke is right. Rape isn't rape. It comes in shades of terribleness. Clarke gave date rape as an example of lesser rape; probably a bad example. Try this one: in September 2008 a muslim man called Sabbar Kashur met a Jewish woman in a bar in Jerusalem. He told her he was Jewish as well. They got on well and spend the night together. Later she found out he was actually muslim and cried rape. Kashur was convicted of rape by deception and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The court refered to Kashur as a "smooth-tongued criminal." (Sorry!)

At the other end of the spectrum, in April 1989 a 28-year-old lawyer called Trisha Meili was jogging though Central Park in NYC when she was chased by a pack of about 30 black youths. She was gang raped, received mutliple lacerations, suffered internal bleeding and her skull was cracked open and one eye came out of its socket. Her ordeal lasted for four hours and she was in a coma for several days. She wasn't expected to live. Five people were convicted, although clearly far more were involved. They have since launched successful appeals based on police procedural errors. Meili has made a recovery of sorts and now has a career as a motivational speaker.

Only an idiot would think those two rapes are the same.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

CPI has risen to 4.5%

The UK Consumer Prices Index (CPI) annual rate of inflation rose to 4.5% in April, up from 4% in March. However, the Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation - which includes mortgage interest payments - fell slightly to 5.2% from 5.3% in March. (BBC)
Clearly this is a serious situation; CPI is well over twice its target now. The Bank of England needs to start exercising extreme vigilance straight away, and maybe look into the possibility of writing a letter, saying something, to someone, if the situation does not improve over the medium or longer term.

However it would not be prudent to take any action as such; we must always factor in the possibility that inflation might fall  back to its target without any adjustment to the Bank Rate or other interventions. Give this possibility a policy of vigilant inactivity must be pursued with the utmost vigour immediately.

Gah!

Friday, 13 May 2011

Fill your boots with NS&I certificates

National Savings & Investments have launched their 48th issue 5-year index-linked investment certifications. These yield RPI + 0.5% over five years. However the return is loaded towards the final years. You can cash in any time but if you take your money out in the first year you get no interest, just your original investment back. At the end of the first year you are credited with RPI + 0.25%, then at the end of the second year RPI + 0.35% (thereafter RPI plus 0.4% then 0.65% then 0.86%.) After five years this works out at RPI + 0.5% over the five year term. RPI is around 5% at the moment.

There’s a minimum investment of £100 and the maximum investment is £15,000 per person but you can buy them for your children as well. The interest is totally tax free.

This blogger can see many good reasons to put any cash you have lying around into these certificates. First, you’ll struggle to get a guaranteed safe investment that pays anything like that amount of interest without a long lock-in. Most deposit accounts don’t even keep up with inflation – let alone add a bonus on top.

Second it’s a shot across the bows of the banks. These certificates are going to be in heavy demand. A lot of cash is going to leave the banks and trot across the road to NS&I. It wouldn’t be totally out of the question for £10bn to make the move. And banks haemorrhaging money will have to respond by raising their game. They will need to lure money back with better deals; much better deals. To beat RPI + 0.5% tax free the banks will need to be offering interest rates of 6% or more, otherwise they are really only of interest to very short term savers. For banks the era of borrow low, lend high and take home a massive bonus is coming to an end.

And one has to wonder: why is the government offering such a good deal at this time? The government can borrow on the debt markets at about 3.5% for a ten-year lock-in, ie, that’s the yield on a 10-year gilt-edged bond. So why offer a better deal to the public?

There are a few possibilities. Maybe the government expects RPI to drop like a stone. This is unlikely. Only yesterday Mervyn King gave a speech in which he said he expected inflation to continue rising. And anyway, if RPI fell significantly the money would leave NS&I as fast as it’s currently piling in.

So, nope, that’s not it. Second possibility is of course simply that they have succumbed to public pressure to provide a savings option which maintains the real value of people’s money.  Effectively they have been guilted into it. This option presupposes the government actually feels guilt. This blogger thinks not; plus if this were repentance they would be making a much bigger deal about all this in the press. So, seems unlike that this is the real reason.

Maybe it’s just to piss off the banks. Surely that’s reason enough in itself. Well, they do own several large banks now and they don’t want them or the others still at large to go bust, so probably not.

A more likely scenario is this. Last year the government borrowed about £160bn by selling bonds into the debt markets. This year they are going to want to borrow more than £140bn. But last year the debt markets didn’t really finance their borrowing. If you recall they also created £200bn in quantitative easing and used that money to buy back bonds from the markets. So they didn’t really finance the deficit by borrowing – they financed it by printing money.

Of course, back when they did the £200bn QE the inflation rate was on the floor, practically negative. QE is an accepted remedy to deflation (negative inflation) since it is (obviously) inflationary. However this year they cannot finance the deficit by doing the same again because CPI inflation is already twice its 2% target; last CPI number was 4%, in April. More QE with inflation already so high would be like squirting petrol on the BBQ – your sausages would turn to charcoal.

And let us not forget that the gap between wages growth (currently 2% pa) and inflation (RPI currently 5% pa) is a measure of the extent to which the economy will shrink. If people’s real income falls by 3% then they will buy 3% less goods and services, and businesses will have 3% lower profits, etc. (Not literally! People may save less, or dip into their savings, or do without that foreign holiday, so the whole 3% won’t be passed through into economic decline. But a proportion will be.) And next year if there’s another 3% gap it adds to this year’s gap and you have a 6% decline in the economy. And so on for all the years that follow until wages start growing faster than inflation.

So the government doesn’t want to trigger even more inflation. But it does need to have its deficit covered. So, solution, turn to the rate hungry public. Yes, folks, they want your savings to pay their overdraft. Well a small fraction of it anyway. And they are sufficiently keen to have your money that they are prepared to shaft the banks. So that’s very keen indeed.

Another benefit to the government of borrowing your money rather than asking the bond markets is that you don’t care about the value of sterling. As far as you’re concerned a pound is a pound. But to the bond markets a pound must be weighed up against a dollar or a euro and may be found wanting. If the pound falls then bond-bidders must be mollified with higher interest rates. You, in the main, won’t notice or care. If you’re inflation-protected then you’re happy.

So you’re tame lenders. You’ll put your money into NS&I and forget about it. That’s the kind of lender a government really wants. What are you waiting for? Call 0500 500 000 right now!

Greeks want more gifts


You remember last year we gave the Greeks €110bn? Well, it wasn’t us, it was the eurozone members. And it wasn’t “gave”, it was “lent”. Anyway, they’ve spent it and now they want another €150bn.  (So I suppose it’s “gave” after all.)

They were supposed to use the first wedge to bring in austerity measures, get their spending under control and emerge from their crisis poorer but wiser, and on an even keel. That hasn’t happened though. They did try some austerity but they didn’t like it. And the citizens have responded to the government cutting their services by in turn paying even less taxes. Taxes are largely optional in Greece. (In election years the government gives all tax officials orders to do nothing but stare at the walls of their offices, metaphorically speaking!)

So that’s the bad news. Here’s the good news: none of the €110bn came from the UK, and none of the next €150bn is going to come from the UK. Ha! In your face EZ! That idiot Alistair Darling signed us up to the Irish bailout on his last day in office (after the general election had already booted Labour from power!) and we were committed. But apart from that and a little €4bn loan to Portugal, we’ve dodged the bullets on EZ bailouts.

Monday, 9 May 2011

What is the point of the SNP?

The Scottish National Party have taken control of the Scottish government. They hold 69 of 129 seats in the Holyrood Parliament. That's a clear majority of 9 seats and gives them the mandate to carry out their stated aim, which is (from the party's constitution) to create a just, caring and enterprising society by releasing Scotland's full potential as a sovereign state in the mainstream of modern Europe.

So what they need to do now is hold a referendum for independence and as soon as that is passed start unbundling the nation: agreeing an exact border, dividing up the oil fields, the military etc. No time to lose - they might as well get on with it straight away. It's a major task and will likely take all the Scottish government's attention for their entire term in office.

But SNP leader Alex Salmond has slammed on the brakes! The referendum will take place in the next five years, and certainly not before 2013.

Salmond: Wants to live under the English jackboot for a few more years

Why the sudden diffidence? Could it be because opinion polls show that only 40% of Scots people actually want independence? So the sooner the SNP holds its referendum the sooner they will learn their whole purpose in life has been rejected by the people. But provided they never actually ask the question they can govern in blissful ignorance.

The truth is that the SNP have been elected to power in Scotland, not to spearhead independence, but rather to use the threat of independence to extract more money from the English. During the election Alex Salmond promised a load of good things, such as freezing council taxes and reducing corporation taxes, which can only be provided if the English subsidise them.

This is a dangerous policy. The English are growing disenchanted with the Scots. The Scots have free prescriptions; the English don't. The Scots have free University education; the English will be paying £9,000 a year before long. The Scots have free nursing care for their old people; the English must sell their houses to pay their nursing bills. Meanwhile Scottish MPs at Westminster vote on matters that only affect England while English MPs have no such reciprocal power over Scotland.

Support for Scottish independence is probably higher in England than it is in Scotland right now. How much longer will England tolerate a parasitic Scotland?

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Alternative Vote: the answers

In the posts below I have posed a couple of questions about how AV works; not because I really want to know how it works but merely to demonstrate that those who claim it's all too complicated aren't stupid - it really is complicated. In fact the pro-AVists who go around saying its pretty simple are themselves simple in the head and have failed to tackle the detail of how votes would be counted.

Anyway, the answer to all AV questions is this: vote against AV and then it doesn't matter.

Remember, tomorrow's AV vote is actually more significant than any elections. Elections just choose leaders for a term in office; however good or bad they are the politician is sooner or later out of office and you get to pick someone else.

A vote for AV is a vote lasting forever. It changes the system in an open-ended manner, possibly in perpetuity.

AV is also likely to produce coalition governments. Prior to May 2010 a lot of people would have said that's a good thing. Our previous experience of coalition was during WWII which had a successful outcome. But now it's clear if you elect a one-party government at least some of their election pledges will be kept. If you elect a two-party government no pledge is safe; even if both parties have pledged the same thing (eg, no rise in student fees) the pledge may not hold.

On the other hand this blog is a BNP-supporting blog and AV is quite attractive to the BNP voter: he (or she) can give his first preference to the BNP candidate thus expressing support for nationalist policies, and his second preference to a candidate with a fighting chance of winning. The BNP would of course recommend the second candidate. Given the BNP's current minor party status the BNP candidate would be eliminated early and the BNP voters' second preference would then have the same significance as other voters' first preference. This means BNP supporters still get to choose who is elected, and better, if the second preference main-stream candidate actually gets elected he will do so thanks to a bloc of votes from BNP supporters - and thereafter be beholden to the BNP, especially if the BNP bloc tipped the balance for him.

So AV wouldn't be a disaster for the BNP.

Nonetheless, this blog recommends voting AGAINST the AV system: firstly because it's such an incomprehensible mess; secondly because it produces unaccountable coalition governments; thirdly because you should not skew the electoral system to favour a particular party, even if its a party you support; and finally because the BNP does not intend to be a small party forever and any advantage AV brings to small parties would then count against the BNP.

Alternatve Vote: another question

OK, so no one knows the answer to my first question, so here's another.

There are 10 candidates but no one has 50% of the first preference votes. One candidate is eliminated and his votes are redistributed based on the second preference of his supporters (lucky them, two bites of the cherry!)

Still no one has 50% so the second last candidate's votes need to be redistributed.

On the second last pile of votes you now have all the ballot papers which put the second last candidate as first preference plus all the ballots which put the last candidate first, and the second last candidate second. So the second preference of the first set of votes needs to be considered, and the third preference of the second set of votes.

Question: what do you do with ballot papers which put the second last candidate first, but the already eliminated candidate second?

Tuesday, 3 May 2011

Alternative Vote: a question

On the 5th of May there will be a national referendum on whether we should switch to the Alternative Vote system, also known as the Instant Run-off system. In AV voters rank candidates in preference order and in each round of counting the candidate with the lowest pile of votes drops out and their pile is re-allocated to the other candidates.

Here's a quiz.

In the first round of counting the following results are seen:

Candidate A: 100 first preference votes
Candidate B: 99 first preference votes
Candidate C: 99 first preference votes

Question: what happens next?