In my opinion, the boss of British Gas Chris O'Shea appears to be the sort of climate fascist who wants everyone to be forced into doing things in the name of the climate. Yeah just like the Nazis make Germany a better place in the 1930s. It's amazing what authoritarian depths you can plumb when you think you're do9ing the right thing. 

You know, those smart meters that burst into flames because they employ cheap installers to put them in, the Smart Meters that read the Wrong sensor, or the power company can use to switch tariffs without telling the customer.

Sorry, but I won't be having one any time soon thanks.

And that should be my choice. There's no benefit to me to have a smart meter, because I don't need it. I make the choices about fitting energy saving bulbs (which I have because it already makes my bills lower). 

But Chris O'Shea is the sort of fascist type hat wants to force everyone, against their will to have smart meters installed. No consideration of choice, no mention of benefits, like reductions on our bill, especially if it benefits the energy company. I'm the sort of customer a smart meter doesn't benefit, so where's my incentive?

Pay me to have one? 10% off my bill? 

Nah, send the smart meter Gestapo round to kick in my doors and fit a smart meter against my will. 

Fuck you Chris, you fucking Nazi.

Just remember kids: authoritarianism is not a good thing even if you think it's for the right reason... Because when it becomes authoritarian, you've just lost your argument. NOTHING is worth  the loss of freedom. And certainly nothing warrants the authority to break into your house and fit a device against your will. What next? A 24-hour a day camera watching your every move? Microphones listening in to your conversations in case you say something prohibited?

If The Middle Class Want to Commit Social Suicide, The Working Class Will Not Bail Them Out.

It seems that the debate on immigration is always led by well-meaning middle-class people that can afford to signal their virtue to the world at the expense of others. 

They have the income and the assets to insulate them from the consequences of their decisions. They have money, they have pension pots, they have houses.

Not so for the working class, who have to suffer the consequences of middle-class virtue-led politics.

In extremis, it falls to the working class to isolate them middle and upper classes from the consequences of their virtuous attitudes and do the dying on the battlefield. The last time was in the 30s when Chamberlain (god bless the naive old sod) appeased the Austrian Corporal.

Mass immigration has reduced wages to the point the working class will never own a house.

Lack of border security has not only allowed illegal immigration, it's allowed criminals to set up human trafficking corridors and earn a lot of money. 

The lack of border security and the lack of security around the undocumented immigrants also allows the criminal gangs to import their own people to then set up networks within the UK to distribute drugs and weapons.

The drugs then affect the working class adversely compared to the middle classes.

The immigrants also claim welfare resources that the working class should be benefitting from.

Another facet of this is the importation of Muslim extremists. The supposed Lone Wolf types we already know about, but there are several large Islamic terrorist groups now forming within the UK. The object of which is to prepare for the backlash. 

Backlash you ask? Yes, the backlash when the Christian majority start to become aware that the Muslim minority has taken over political power. In essence a religious Civil War. 

I say Civil War, because at the point the Christian Majority try to usurp politic al power from the Muslim Minority, they will move to take complete power by way of force. 

We've seen the script play out in country after country. Originally moderate Muslim countries, but we have seen Christian countries succumb to the Muslim minority. 

The classic example is Lebanon. Lebanon did the kind Christian thing of taking in the Muslims displaced from neighbouring Muslim countries. The Muslims eventually became a significant minority within Lebanon. The Muslim Minority took over various cities within Lebanon, eventually making them Muslim enclaves within a Christian country. Once the Muslim minority got close enough to half the population, they started a civil war. 

The same scenario played out there as it is here. The Muslims allied with the left and were deemed "the oppressed minority", the Christians were classed as the "oppressor" majority, even when the demographics were close to 50/50 just before the civil war. The Christian left, who tacitly supported the poor oppressed Muslims were slaughtered as infidels in the same measure as the supposed "oppressor" Christian right.

Once the Muslims got close to 50-50 or at least over 40%, they went on the offensive, clearing the Christians from the Majority Muslim enclaves. The Christians, on the back foot, tried to defend the non-Muslim territories, but the die was cast. Christians in Lebanon were cast as oppressors and antagonists, so the rest of the World failed to help them. Lebanon fell to the Muslims who quickly became the majority by killing the Christians or forcing them out of the country.

At the moment the Muslim minority is still under 30% in the UK, but it's interesting how they are over-represented politically. In Parliament, how many working-class representatives are there compared to Muslims? In the Lords (don't make me laugh) and the Commons.

Last week in Leeds we had a newly elected green party Muslim councillor shouting the Muslim chant and screaming about Palestine. How is that the way to represent the green party?  How does that represent all of the citizens in his ward fairly and equally? Would you trust the man to represent a Jewish citizen?

The middle-class are playing a dangerous game.

The working class have to deal with the fall-out of their virtuous idiocy. They already understand that a stand will eventually have to be made. They will not help the middle-class when the shit hits the fan unless there are benefits.. 

There will be demands and a price to pay for our blood and manpower. 

Assisted Dying Debate: The Disabled are Right to Fear any Change in the Law.

In this report, Liz Carr, the wheelchair-bound actress from the Silent Witness series is investigating the MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) rules in Canada. Basically she's concerned (rightly in my opinion) about the UK creating new legislation or NHS facilities to assist people with dying.

Of course the consultants she sees will be very careful with their words and speak in rosy tones like their family will be with them when they die, etc. They'll also say that they won't assist anyone to die unless their life is unbearable. 

But, that's not the entire truth of the matter. Is mental illness unbearable suffering? Is depression?  Is any treatable condition an excuse to assist someone to die? Will the test be subjective or objective? 

Because that's what's happened in Canada. I've even seen reports of disabled Paralympic athletes being actively offered MAID in stead of facilities to support their disability. 

In Canada a patient with depression was offered MAID.

In the Netherlands a girl was allowed to be killed just because she had depression.

The links above show I'm not making this up. These are actual cases.

The problem as always with these things is mission creep. Initially yes, the extremely disabled and those suffering horrific levels of pain, etc will be used as an emotional lever to get the legislation passed. But then once the legislation is implemented, it very soon becomes available for all. Because why not? It's inhumane to withhold MAID from those who merely just want to end it all isn't it?

As I've said before, there's not much of a leap from allowing people a humane way to die, to then being dying so you aren't a burden on the family, or dying because I've go no family to support me, to then would you like MAID instead of treatment? 

A woman in Canada has experienced this. It's taking longer to get support for her disability than it would to accept MAID

At it's most extreme, you could say if you are on benefits and have no life, would MAID be an option? How big a step would be be to then bringing in MAID if you are a financial burden to the state? "Stop being a burden to the state, end it all" could well be a slogan for the future. But then how long before it becomes mandatory? You get benefits for 6 months and then it's off to the death clinic with you because obviously you are unemployable and unproductive.... Just think of the savings for the government when they don't have to support the long-term sick, the mentally ill, those with learning disability, the elderly, the infirm and those that are plain anti-social like those in prison. Think of the millions we could save if mandatory MAID for offenders came in... The death penalty for serious offences then becomes a real option again, because there's also a side to the debate that says "well, if you allow people to die because their life isn't worth it, why oppose capital punishment?"

It's a very slippery slope that the UK should have absolutely no part of. I do have sympathy with those that are suffering, but for the sake of those that may fall victim to the inevitable modification of legislation and attitudes to assisted death, I vehemently oppose it. The examples above should make you think twice before supporting MAID.

Don't say it won't happen. We've already seen the abuse of DNR notices during the pandemic. We've seen how it's been brushed under the carpet largely unreported by the media. Certainly there hasn't been the scandal there should be around it. Don't think assisted dying would be any different. It will be abused, it will be changed, eventually. These things always are.

MAID: How the Corporate Lobby Sell it:

Government: "We have this every-growing bunch of people that rely on the state for welfare. It's crippling the economy and despite all the efforts, we just can't make it worth their while to enter work. Minimum wage is too high for employers, but not high enough to make it worth their while working instead of taking benefits. What can we do?"

Corporate Lobby: "Well, you could just kill them". 

Government: "We can't do that! There would be riots, a revolt!

Corporate Lobby: "Well, you start off slow. First you introduce MAID for the most sick, terminally ill and in pain people. No-one would ever speak out against that. You can say it's inhumane to keep them alive. We treat animals better, yadda yadda..."

Government: "Okay, but what about the people on welfare?"

Corporate Lobby: "I'm getting to that. You start off with the very sick, but then you set up the atmosphere that well, if the very ill want to die, isn't it discrimination if we don't offer it to anyone that wants to die. After all you're all about inclusivity and equality aren't you?"

Government: "Well, yes..."

Corporate Lobby "Well then, there you go: start off humane, then let people join in voluntarily."

Government: "But the Welfare people might not volunteer..."

Corporate Lobby: "Well, these are the sort of people we don't want. The workshy, the thick, the mentally ill, the people that cost us to employ with their demands for ramps and wheelchair access, making US pay for their disability.. the nerve!

Government: "Yes, but we just can't kill them..."

Corporate Lobby: "Look, you start to twist things. You say to the infirm Stop being a burden to your family, go for MAID before you cost them money. You might even throw in the incentive of a reduction in inheritance tax if Granny volunteers to pop her clogs. Presto! Reduction in homes for the elderly and instant freeing up of housing stock. Then once people get used to not being a burden for family, you ay why be a burden for the state? Why keep taking money from those over-generous taxpayers? Why sit at home taking their money off them? After all it's not much of a life on the pittance you receive, so why not just end it all?"

Government: "Do you think we can do it? 

Corporate Lobby: "Of course. While you pressure the people on welfare to end it all, you also tell the people in work they are paying over the odds to keep these people on the dole. If these people weren't on welfare, taxes would be lower.... "

Government: "That sounds plausible.."

Corporate Lobby: " and very workable. We'll even get our PR people to work with you on that side of things.

Government: "Thank you. For Free?"

Corporate Lobby: "Initially. But we may ask for favours later."

Government: "Such as?"

Corporate Lobby: "Well, you know how people will think they're getting lower taxes because of euthanasia? Well, we'll get the tax breaks instead. That's all we ask.

Government: "The public won't like that..."

Corporate Lobby: "Fuck 'em. If they kick up a fuss you just make MAID mandatory. Give them benefits for 6 months, but if they don't get a job in that time, it's off to the death clinic for them. If they really kick up a fuss and break the law, the same applies. Just get rid of the deplorables in society. What we want is a race of fit, healthy, productive and passive people. Eventually all the hangers-on and trouble-makers will be euthanised. What's left will be Utopia. Everyone will have a job, everyone will be fit, everyone will be beautiful and mentally stable. 

Government: "That sounds awfully like a certain ideology of the 1930s...."

Corporate Lobby: "No, No, No, No, No.... Nothing like the N-people. This will be a caring ideology. We'll help people who are ill, sick, in pain, mentally unstable and unproductive end their miserable lives..."

Government: "But you made it miserable because you won't pay enough taxes to fund proper healthcare and support for people..."

Corporate Lobby: "I've had a word with your senior minister. It's been decided you need to drop out of public life for health reasons... I know this lovely little clinic that can put and end to your mental health issues..."