Just a Few Thoughts on Different Topics.

VAT on School Fees.

VAT was envisioned originally a luxury tax, only on luxury goods and services. Hence why children's clothes, education fees and supplies, book, newspapers, and even biscuits. Are VAT free. 

Of course the EU changed that perspective, forcing VAT to be applied on energy. 

VAT has encroached on ever more items, as it's original use as a luxury tax has diminished.

Now VAT is being used as a weapon of envy. VAT has started to be applied on education, but only one form of education: private education. Directly targeting supposedly the rich. Except there are many people that scrimp and save to be able to keep their kids out of the clutches of the far-left hegemony in education.

Except it's worse. The government assumed there would be places in local schools able to take those children removed from private schools, but those places don't exist. Scores of children now are sitting at ho9me, waiting for a place in a state school. So, parents may take a punt, lose a wage and home-school their kids.

Except:

Parliament Debate New Home Schooling Laws.

Yes, that's right, the government now want to stick their oar in Home Education. They want rules enforced so that if necessary if they deem the child not to be correctly educated (Aa an  example, lets say they don't like critical thinking), they can put an end to the home schooling and enforce sending the kid to a state school. 

There's a pattern emerging: the government and their bosses want drones, not truly freethinking, or critical thinking people.

Local and National Government Fail to Plan for Climate Change Whilst Demanding Money for it.

I've banged on about Net Zero and how evil the policy is, but we are paying over the odds for Home energy (because there is a green surcharge) we pay more for fuel, we pay more for a lot of things and climate change is the supposed reason. Yet it appears that the extra money we pay isn't being used to mitigate the affects of climate change. Take the current floods in the North. Yet again, the usual rivers have burst their banks. We are told incessantly it's a result of climate change. So why isn't the money we are paying as a direct result of climate change being used to mitigate the affects of climate change?

Is it instead (as I suspect) being used to bankroll big corporate projects like wind farms, to pay wealthy landowners to put up large wind and solar farms. But none of it is being used to improve rivers to remove the risk of floods?

Are the rivers being left to continually flood year after year so the government and it's agencies can keep banging on about climate change? Rather than fix the problem, is it not being fixed deliberately?

Is the removal of winter fuel supplements more evil than we thought and a deliberate move to kill people so the government can say it was climate change that did it. Rather than give the people the money to mitigate the affects of climate change?

Or is it all a cynical ploy in the first place just to extort money for pet projects of large political donors?

Is the Labour Party Inherently Racist?

Well, I think so. I think the grooming gang scandal and the local government environment where it wasn't investigated and stamped out is a massive example of Labour's overt racism.

My opinion is that Labour's attitude to immigrants hasn't changed since the Sixties. I believe they still think in terms of foreign immigrants as savages. How else do you excuse the inaction by local Labour councils?

It's the mentality of "poor savages, they can't help themselves". There is no expectation of immigrants to be accountable by Western standards, instead immigrants are excused as "it's just their culture". 

It's the racism of the sixties, when the African and Caribbean immigrants were viewed as savages that couldn't integrate into Western society. 

Personally, I know immigrants can and do integrate. Very successfully. I had Indian friends during my childhood and even beck then they and their parents integrated. There was no issue. We all got along with the Polish, Romanian and the early Muslim immigrants. 

But there are immigrants who refuse to integrate, who choose to live apart. My next-door neighbour in the Eighties, who didn't speak a word of English, who refused to integrate, refused to be part of a community that welcomed him. He lived apart, isolated, because of his arrogance.

And that arrogance is what I see in the current waves of immigrants that have not been asked to integrate, who demand interpreters, who demand community centres just for them funded by the public purse. 

Back in the day, the Poles, Romanians and Indians built their own community centres with their own money. They understood that they were in England, and it's not up to England to preserve their old-world traditions. They integrated and kept their traditions alive for themselves, by themselves. 

But it seems the Labour council attitude is inherently racist, their is no expectation to integrate. When Pakistani immigrants bought the majority of houses in an area of Oldham and created a slum, the Labour council decided to "improve" that area at taxpayer's cost. No improvements for anyone else, because they respected their area. That's what caused the so-called Oldham race riots.

Grooming Gangs: An Indication of Silent Racism in the Labour Party?

It's telling that the grooming gang cases have occurred in predominantly Northern towns and cities, who are governed mostly by Labour-run councils.

There's an argument that the crisis was caused by councils not wanting to stir racial tensions.

But is there another reason: Racism?

I ask, because I remember that racism of the 60s, the racism that thought the African and Caribbean immigrants were savages and couldn't act civilised. Is there a similar attitude in Labour councils?

Is it the inherent racism in the Labour party? Did they actually think the poor savages couldn't help themselves? Or it's their culture? Did Labour councils think it the white slut's fault for flaunting themselves in front of the Muslim savages? 

Because I can't understand why Councils and the Police wouldn't act to arrest the men raping children. After all the offence is statutory rape. If you have sex with a child under 16 then it's assumed by the law that the child doesn't have the capacity to consent and the offence is automatically rape, if it can be proved there was sex between and adult and the child. There is no defence against statutory rape, it's an absolute offence.

Sure, there could be sex between two under-age children, but then the law takes a more balanced view. However, sex between a 17-year old and a child under 16 is still illegal and cases can and have been prosecuted.

So how have the Labour councils excused the lack of action in prosecuting as an example middle aged men having sex with minors? Platitudes like "Lessons will be learned", that's how. Yeah, no excuse at all.

And here is the I think why there isn't going to be a full public enquiry by the Labour party. It would show them as inherently racist. 

The Best option would be it shows them as corrupt: not implementing the law so as to not enrage the Muslim population on who's votes they rely to win elections in Northern towns. 

Corruption could be close, because at least one official in a labour council was complicit and was part of the grooming gangs and helped protect them. He was finally arrested and sent to prison, but he's one man in a raft of officials that should be held complicit.

Or the even worse thing is the party were scared. Scared that investigating grooming gangs could spark a backlash and riots from the Muslim community. Hence why one Labour MP said the victims should stay quite for the sake of diversity...

The Sadiq Khan Knighthood.

Time was you got a knighthood for helping people, for making lives substantially better.

Sadiq Khan has objectively made London worse under his tenure as Mayor. Knife crime is up, the expense of living in London is up, London Transport is less safe since he started.

So why has he got a knighthood? Other than appearing to be a suck-up to the World Economic Forum and other Supra-national undemocratic organisations, I can't see what he has done to better the lives of those living in London.

Why the Fuck has he been given a knighthood? Time was the old boys club was a criticism of the Tories, but it seems that Khan has received a knighthood just for being a Labour Mayor and sweet FA else.

Andy Burnham will be waiting for the call next year, I expect.