Thursday, 10 September 2026

Management Mind Virus and the RNLI

The recent events in Portsmouth have highlighted the issue of the RNLI acting as a taxi service for illegal immigrants, ferrying them from boats that are not sinking to the shores of the UK.

But as you look further, it brings into focus the Management mindset, the corporate claptrap of the executive world.

For instance, the RNLI doesn't just save the lives of mariners around the UK coast. It's involved with international efforts as well. See here: https//:rnli.org/what-we-do/international

Most people I reckon wouldn't realise that an organisation set up primarily to save lives at sea round the UK coast would actually be spending money in Bangladesh and Tanzania, for instance.

Most people also wouldn't be impressed that the head of a charity would demand a six-figure salary. 

This is the corporate bullshit world, not the world of a charity that dotes on a chintzy local vibe, that the RNLI like to promote. 

You know as soon as the see links on a website that say "Sustainability" and "Modern Slavery Statement" that the organisation is captured by corporate bullshittery.

I hate to say that there's more than the whiff of Common Purpose Marxist Ideology about this, but I'm afraid there is. This is an ideology that has captured a huge amount of the corporate world.

I mean, what purpose does a modern slavery statement serve in the modern world where there is no slavery? Modern or Traditional. 

Dig deeper and click on the link, you get the title and opening paragraph quote:

"RNLI statement on the elimination of modern slavery and human trafficking

This statement is for the year ending 31/12/2025. The RNLI has zero-tolerance toward slavery and human trafficking and does not accept modern slavery in any form. In our operations and supply chain, we work with partners and suppliers to ensure compliance with the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 (“the Act”) and the updated 2025 statutory guidance."

Rather ironic, given the RNLI are effectively trafficking humans into the UK or at the very least, forming the last link of a human trafficking chain.


And even more ironic that other than the mention in the title and the opening paragraph, human trafficking doesn't get another mention. No details on how they are preventing human trafficking, anywhere.

You'd think that an organisation that "does not accept modern slavery in any form" and has "zero tolerance towards slavery and human trafficking" would avoid transporting people that had been trafficked to the English Channel. It would avoid delivering people that had been trafficked and at risk of being used for human slavery (for instance being locked into Cannabis farms to tend to the plants) would avoid the political minefield of the migrant boats.

You'd think the RNLI would require clear confirmation that lives were at risk and that the migrants being rescued were not part of a human trafficking organisation or subject to modern slavery once in the UK before committing resources to the channel. But no, corporate bullshittery means the statement on the website mans absolutely nothing and is more of a virtue signal than an operational requirement.

The men on the dinghies, shepherded by the French coastguard and attended by Border Force vessels  in a calm sea are not at risk and do not require the attendance of an RNLI lifeboat. 

But the corporate bullshittery around the boats says that the immigrants are in desperate straights (despite already being at sea for a few hours without sinking), are vulnerable (despite two French ships being in attendance), are at risk of drowning (despite the French coastguard giving them lifejackets) and the RNLI must at once be committed to launching and "rescuing" the immigrants. 

On Sunday night both the Bembridge and the Yarmouth long range offshore lifeboats launched along with a number of inshore boats and committed to the operation off Calais. 

That decision left the Solent and a large area of the English channel without inshore and offshore lifeboats. What would have happened if a yacht in that area got into difficulties at the same time the RNLI were attending? 

Thankfully, we didn't have to wonder. But it just shows the priorities in play of the organisations involved. 

To be clear, here's a timeline of Sunday's events via A.I.:
The Sunday Launch Track & Incident Details
  • Launch Time: The Bembridge all-weather lifeboat launched from its slipway at 10:11 AM on Sunday. It was closely followed by the Yarmouth RNLI lifeboats around 10:26 AM. [1]
  • The Route: The lifeboats were tasked by HM Coastguard to intercept an exceptionally large migrant vessel carrying roughly 140 to 160 people. The vessel had departed from the Baie de la Seine in France (near Normandy), an unusual starting point roughly 170 miles from the typical Calais route. [1, 2]
  • The Interception: At approximately 12:34 PM, the UK lifeboats met up with the vessel and two French rescue ships (Amiral de Tourville and Abeille Liberté) about halfway across the Channel. [1]
  • The Return Track: After taking the individuals aboard, the RNLI lifeboats tracked back toward the UK mainland, arriving at the Langstone Channel near Portsmouth at 5:11 PM to safely bring the passengers ashore. [1]

Straight away the question is, if two French vessels were in attendance, why was there a need for the RNLI to ferry migrants to the UK?

The Admiral De Tourville is an all-weather lifeboat, very much like the Bembridge lifeboat.

The Abeille Liberté is a large high-rise rescue tug. 

Now, for me, the tug is big enough to deal with the immigrants on it's own. Why were the RNLI called and why did they transport the 100+ immigrants to the UK? Especially with two French vessels in attendance capable of dealing with any rescue required. 

Considering that the operation was in international waters outside of the 12 mile limit of UK territorial waters, why ferry the migrants to this side of the channel?

I think we all know the reason.

And it has to stop. 

Postscript: Part of the A.I. mentions an "exceptionally large migrant vessel". I assume that's taken from an official statement somewhere. If so, what does that say about the reduction in small boat crossings being crowed about in the media?

Do we now have to request how many exceptionally large vessel crossings have been made instead?

Are the number of small boat crossing down because exceptionally large vessel crossing are up?

Monday, 7 September 2026

Portsmouth: NOT a new Route for the Traffickers.

Well, there was a bit of argy-bargy in Portsmouth last night, Eastney to be precise. 

After the French Police had closed down the beaches closest to Britain, the traffickers tried a new route from the Cherbourg peninsula. 

Except this isn't a new route. 

I've documented before that I've personally seen strange small boats arriving in Langstone harbour at night. By strange, I mean not the usual boats you see if you live down at Eastney. And at one point I did virtually live down there as I had a yacht down there on a mud mooring. Anecdotal evidence of what those boats do when they eventually hit land at the top of the harbour is that men are bringing large heavy bags ashore and loading them into vans. Note they land at the top of the harbour, which is not on any of the Islands like Hayling or Portsea (Portsmouth) which have ANPR cameras on the limited routes onto the islands. Make of that what you will. 

Now what's in those bags, one can only speculate, but with crime comes weapons and drugs. Contacting the Police is pointless, because before you even get a response on the phone, the boats and the vans are gone.

So the route picked yesterday is a known route for the traffickers. They know how much extra fuel to carry to cover the extra mileage. This is no desperate slingshot across the channel. It has been done many times before, just not carrying people. 

Now, to the events of last night. 

Eastney lifeboat station is on the end of a peninsula served by just one road. It also has a pontoon for the ferry boat between Eastney and Hayling island on the other side of the harbour entrance. 

So the authorities made a bit of a strategic error getting the Bembridge lifeboat to land there. I see that there was time to get coaches to Eastney to pick up the illegal immigrants before the residents of Pompey closed the road. And set up tents. And supply care packages. Makes you wonder if the authorities already knew this was a trafficking route and had resources in place nearby, ready to deploy at a moment's notice.

Also the authorities underestimated the community spirit here. Plenty of people are motivated enough to turn up and protest, in numbers. And are quite happy to defy dispersal orders too. 

Also it seems that Danny Tommo's balaclava mob got the news via facebook and jumped on trains to Pompey from Dover to add to the crowd. Not that there's a shortage of balaclava-wearing blokes here in Portsmouth anyway. Also the Police had better watch out: Pompey lads are always up for a ruck. Heavy-handed Police tactics might backfire.

A word of warning to the authorities: Portsmouth is not the ideal location for this activity. It's an island city with only 3 roads onto the Island. As Portsmouth residents know all too well, those routes can quite easily be blocked and cause chaos across the city. There's more than one way to block the importation of more immigrants. And to prevent Police reinforcements from dispersing any protest. 

Just saying.

UPDATE:

After reviewing the videos on FaceBook from last night, I'm a bit confused. Basically the people of Portsmouth blocked the single road and the Police threatened to baton the protesters to clear the way. 

As I mentioned, this was an unsuitable place to land the immigrants. It was at the end of a peninsula, served by a single road. It was the first time the immigrants had been landed outside a controlled port area. Literally on the other side of Portsea Island was Portmouth Naval base. Why were the immigrants not landed there?

Considering the speed of the response regarding transport, tents clothing, etc. it has the hallmarks of a planned  exercise. After all, we are hours away from Dover by road, so the resources must have been housed locally. 

If it was a planned exercise, then the use of an unsecured landing area was planned. One thing I have learned since I came to Portsmouth is that it has a very close sense of Community. As soon as one person sees and hears the activity (many listen to Marine VHF as a matter of course, so would have known in advance what was going on) it was sure to start swelling numbers even just to see what was going on. 

I have a niggling feeling that this was orchestrated, to provide the circumstances to create the large protest and difficulties for the authorities, such that there would be a public order issue and therefore the dispersal order. Unfortunately for the authorities the crowd largely complied, avoiding the confrontation they desperately wanted.

Next time is going to be interesting. 



Wednesday, 2 September 2026

Why Conscription up to 65 Won't Work.

This weekend I turned 64. Rather than the usual trip up North to visit parents, as they have now shuffled off to join the Choir Invisible I decide to celebrate doing something different.

I went camping with the extended family. Kids Grandkids and the single great-grandkid. All in about 6 tents. 

But the weekend just hit home how stupid the recall of ex-military up to the age of 65 is. 

I was crippled. Just by sheer dampness. I mean, modern tents go up in minutes. A 4-berth inflatable tent like ours is up in 10 minutes and completely guyed out in 20.

Setting up inside takes a little longer, but prioritising the kitchen means you can be having a cuppa in half an hour. 

The bed inflates itself from the power pack, as do the chairs. 

Camping is not as hard as I remember it was back when I was a kid. 

But the weather beat me. My joints were racked by the damp. Not the cold. It was far from cold. But it was relentlessly damp.

If I was a 64 year old reservist deployed to some moist part of Europe, there's no way I could defend myself or my colleagues effectively. It would take me a couple of minutes to get up, let along dash to some muster point, or some fire pit ready to repel some foreign army. 

By the time my joints had complied with some semblance of flexibility without pain, we'd be overrun.

An that's the reason why Recall up to the age of 65 won't work, not for the military. There's a reason that you can pension out at an early-ish age. It's because your body can't do the things it did when you were in your twenties. 

I suppose you could be recalled and used here in the UK to fill logistics roles, or maybe some home defence type of role. 

But home defence? Using what exactly? 

It's just pie in teh sky. I don't know what the MOD were thinking, or smoking. But they should lay off it and come back to some for of realism.

Monday, 24 August 2026

TikTok: Why Do All the Crazes End Up Killing People?

Well, the question my Mum used to ask me has been answered: yes, there are a bunch of kids that will jump off a cliff if someone else told them to do it.

We had the Blackout craze, where kids choked themselves to unconsciousness. Kids were dying because they effectively hanged themselves.

One of the latest is the Benadryl challenge. A girl has already died after a fatal overdose of Benadryl.

Now the latest challenge is to drive up motorways or dual carriageways the wrong way. Basically a game of chicken. 

The thing that gets me is these are young adults. To get your licence in the UK you have to be at least 17. Yet you're still doing stupid TikTok fads at that age? <rolls eyes>

It was bad enough when it was the stupid kids offing themselves, but now we have a craze that will potentially kill other people. 

At that point, I think things have gone too far. 

Sadly I can't condone censoring TikTok completely, because it's mostly innocuous. But I do condone parents having the "would you jump off a cliff?" talk to their teenage kids. 

Because as it stands, there are a huge number of kids that would jump off a cliff if dared to. Or even just for likes on social media.

Not that you'd be able to enjoy your minute of social media fame if you are dead.


Pamphlet For Immigrants Released Asking They to Be Less Rapey, Amongst Other Things.

The Home Office has released a pamphlet designed to be handed to every immigrant that lands in the UK, giving them some idea of how we expect them to act once they are receiving our hospitality.

It includes pointers like:

Don't Harrass people.

Be less Rapey.

Be Less Aggressive.

Women are Equals.

You get the idea. Basically telling them they're no longer in Kansas... sorry the third world shithole they came from, and that we have standards they need to adhere to. Let's hope this eradicates the "Sorry, my client didn't know raping a woman was illegal your Honour" defence in rape cases.

<Shakes Head>

Friday, 21 August 2026

A.I. The Future is Terrifying.

First off, let me say that the current batch of Artificial Intelligence models are not that exactly. 

They are a neural network with a large language model that is able to scan the internet at rapid speed and collate the whole of the human experience (on the internet, with all it's flaws).

So you're not getting true intelligence, just through training the model which of it's assumptions are correct you train the neural net to be more correct than not. Eventually.

But it's interesting that such a basic premise: sum up the whole human experience online and offer answers to questions posed based on that gives you such a powerful tool.

However, it's quite clear that where the online information is missing, the various AIs crash and burn.

I'm not telling which area I posed questions to AIs, but I know for a fact that there is scarce information online about it. Every AI failed miserably to respond with any sort of response. 

The fact that people are considering such flawed engines should be involved in informing government how to perform it's task is to me hugely concerning. 

It is in no way equipped to deal with the variations of life, especially the unknowns that require a very alternative thought process to resolve. 

Currently what is known as A.I. relies on the reserve of human knowledge in order to inform any questions put to it. If you start asking about abstract ideas, it gives abstract or vague responses, or almost directly quotes philosophers. It does not decide on it's own what the future may be like, it parrots to majority viewpoint gleaned from the net.

And if this can outthink the thinkers, I hate to think what sort of thinkers we have currently. Pretty shallow ones, it seems.


Monday, 17 August 2026

Disposable Barbeques: COVID Part Deux.

And so it starts. It has been reported that a man in Wales has been fined £200 for using a disposable BBQ. In his own garden. On a table, off the ground. 

He was grassed up by his neighbours. I suspect they are the type of people that gleefully grassed up Anne Frank to the Gestapo.

But here we go again, it's the pandemic part two. More draconian measures. A national message sent to all mobile phones on a system that is designed to inform us of national threats like nuclear attacks. 

A ban on disposable BBQs is overkill. A simple announcement to not use them would be sufficient. 

A ban on using them is just draconian. Especially when you are using them in a manner that isn't a fire risk. Especially when using a different type of BBQ in the same exact circumstances is legal. 

I smell another experiment from the ex-government, now independent Behavioural Insights Team or GCHQ's classified nudge unit the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG). I mean, let's ban an innocuous thing like a BBQ. Yes, there are fires around the country, not all started by disposable BBQs, but ooooh, it's a scary threat we can ramp up and do another one of our experiments on. 

We'll issue fines for people using them even when a normal BBQ used in the same circumstance is not a finable offence. 

I mean, how can a fine be justifiable when the charcoal from a disposable BBQ can be emptied into a non-disposable one and lit and the fine can be avoided. It's the same charcoal, the same location.

But that's the BIT/JTRIG experiment: issue fines for nonsensical scenarios and see if the public comply. Not only that, note how zealous the public are to dob in their neighbours.

And I bet the results will still come back the same as COVID: the working class are less liable to dob in a neighbour, but the middle class will relish the sense of power and pride in a job well done. Especially middle class women.  You know the type, the ones that would have been at the front of the crowds at Nazi rallies shouting "My Honour is Loyalty". 

Anyway, BIT and JTRIG can do one after this week. Thunderstorms and flash floods on the weather menu this week. Should dampen any enthusiasm for using the bloody BBQs anyway. 

Of course the weather would break just before I'm due to go camping with the extended family. 
5 tents including the wife's ex (we hold no grudges). 
Step-daughter gets to try out the canvas mansion I bought her to house her family. Lets hope it's waterproof.
I'm just hoping the weather cools off a bit, and doesn't turn into a humid heatwave.

Friday, 14 August 2026

Is The Disposable Barbeque Really a Desperate Enough Problem to Ban It?

Considering the headlines today, you'd think disposable barbeques are teh spawn of Satan and are quite literally causing hell on Earth.

But are they? Reports say they are the prime reason for wildfires. But I know of at least two major incidents that weren't caused by disposable barbeques (yet the BBC list them on their fire map).

This week's closure of the A31 was due to a fire caused by a van catching alight. 

There A couple of months ago there was a major fire at a festival. Caused not by a BBQ, but by someone lighting a camping cooker in deep brush without tamping down the brush first to create a break. I know, because I know an eyewitness who watched the girl light the cooker and the conflagration start.

But hey, lets blame the disposable BBQ, the devil incarnate. Sadly you won't be able to use one to have a quick BBQ in your garden now. Instead you're going to have to go to the whole rigmarole of buying an actual BBQ, then buying the charcoal, etc.

Of course those of us bemoaning the ban must hush our mouths for the greater good, as with COVID, because the Government has become our parent and tells us not to.

It does make you wonder how many Psychopathic people with Daddy issues there are in the country, that they would allow the Government of all people to become a surrogate parent to them. There must be millions of adults from broken homes just wishing for that parental-style intervention, to set those boundaries for them.

Instead of what they should do and tell the Government to righteously Fuck Off with their Draconian Ban, like we should have during COVID.

How about telling the government to stop borrowing money to pay off it's debts? That's a fucking important message. Nope, BBQs are the most important issue of the moment.

And it's going to rain torrentially within the next 14 days, so brace yourself for flooding. Maybe the government will ban swimming pools and rubber ducks then.

Friday, 31 July 2026

I watched Some Interesting Videos This Week.

I watched a few interesting videos this week. 

The first was on Theo Von's channel and featured John Kiriakou as a guest. He was asked about 911 and if it was preventable and if America had prior knowledge. I have a lot of time for John, I like his analysis and he basically talks the talk. You can't get much more authentic: he was jailed for whistleblowing on illegal CIA activity. So provably CIA ands not some Walter Mitty wannabe.
The link is to a short clip from the video. I might watch the full video this weekend.

His answer ties in very nicely with my analysis. He mentioned the al-Saud connection and the funding of terror plots by high-level individual in Saudi Arabia. He did say that the CIA never got to interrogate the individuals, they all mysteriously died days after America flagged them up to the Saudi Government as persons of interest. So they couldn't be interrogated and implicate the Saudi Government?

But this is where it gets murky, because you have private individuals with immense wealth bestowed to them by the state, funding (supposedly privately) terrorist organisations that support the extremist Wahabbi sect of Islam (that is the Islam of Saudi Arabia). In John's words, there was no smoking gun. But you know that it's just a set-up to avoid a direct link between the Saudi government and international terrorism. That money won't be moving without approval from someone.

And that's where the link is with my story about the assault on the compound in Afghanistan that went a bit pear-shaped on the night of Operation Rhino, the parachute drop into Afghanistan.  I'm convinced the senior Taliban and al-Qaida figures that were at that compound were meeting with individuals from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and possibly one other Gulf state to discuss matters of funding and the impending political situation regarding America and the imminent arrival of ground troops in strength (special forces had been in Afghanistan for weeks prior).

I believe that's why the (normally lightly armed) compound was so well armed that and why the defence of that compound was so fierce. As the West train the Saudi army amongst others, I would love to talk to someone that was at the compound that night and hear if they got "Western vibes" from the fighters inside the compound.
It's still coming to light the number of casualties from that particular operation that night. Initially The Yanks said one person injured, the tally has now risen to half a dozen injured as the truth slowly came out. But the real figures on casualties have yet to be made public. 

But, it's nice to see correlation kind of leaching into the public domain. 

The second video was on Chris Williamson's channel, he interviewed Ex_seal DJ Shipley. DJ has some unorthodox ideas about the war with Iran and how to solve the Iran problem. It involves nukes. 

Which is my take on things. If I was PM, I'd be ruthless. The advantage of being a sociopath. 

Iran is a problem because the leadership is dispersed and hard to hit with conventional weapons. The only solution is to eradicate the leadership by eradicating whole cities. Do you want to win the war or not? War is fought using any means necessary to win. There is no second place, no compromise.

If I was fighting the war, I'd be dropping tactical nukes along the Iranian and Yemeni coast to eliminate the missile and drone launch sites. I'd drop a nuke on each launch site after they had launched. It removes the launch site and any supporting infrastructure and personnel around the site. 

If I'd been PM during the time of 911 and I'd found out that Saudi individuals flew the planes into the Twin towers and that Saudi individuals were financing the Taliban and al-Qaida? I'd be having a serious talk with the Saudi government on how it would be a pity if Mecca disappeared in a mushroom cloud. And that I would lose zero sleep over it's loss. 

I might not need to do it, but I'd make damn sure the person I was talking to believe I would do it.

Which make you think that's the game Trump is playing. Except I don't think the death cultists in Iran believe him, or are that bothered. They're continuously push the boundaries, as they always do. 

If I were Trump, I'd target something far enough away from civilians, something important to the regime. possibly one of their facilities to make nukes, or ballistic missiles. And I would nuke it. A small tactical nuke. Just enough to make the place unusable for a couple of decades. 

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

On Ann Widdecombe And The Leftist Hate

Ann Widdecombe's killing has opened a debate on the Right about online Lefist hatred.

Guido Fawkes Reported that Hope Not Hate have deleted a web page attacking her.

There are other very hateful pages still available to view in the online leftiverse. And I genuinely mean quite hateful of her opinions. That's the stuff posted before she was murdered. The stuff after is hideous.

It's this sort of article that eggs on the weak of mind to commit hateful acts. The articles are borderline incitement, calling her views monstrous, calling her a bigot, transphobe, homophobe, etc.

She was opinionated, sure. Her religious beliefs guided her opinions and she was quite firm on them. But although she didn't agree with Gay Marriage, she still interacted and worked with Gay people. She didn't exclude them because their opinions differed from hers.

But that's where sane people leave opinions and beliefs. They are just that. It doesn't stop them being friends with people that have differing opinions.

However, it's the insane left that want everyone to have exactly the same opinions and beliefs they have and want to eradicate everyone who doesn't. 

And it's that sort of worldview, where people with different opinions should be silenced, or cancelled, or worse that is becoming increasingly dangerous.

And you have to ask yourself: what motivates a man to get in his car, drive 300 miles to the house of an elderly woman he doesn't know, who's personal circumstances he doesn't know, and batter her to death.  Given that it takes several hours to complete the journey, where he must have had many opportunities to recant, turn back, calm down and understand the lunacy of his anger, what gets that anger stoked up to the level that a 4 hour drive isn't enough to calm you down?

The only answer is the toxic ideology of the online leftiverse. Some might argue the ideas on the right are toxic, but the left major in personal attacks rather than attacks on ideas or ideology. 

The right do not attack people individually. The left do, with such venom that people are now dying because of it.

Finally, because I don't think it's sane to infer that a man can be enraged for a full four hour drive and not go through the various scenarios outlined above, lets add a little conspiracy theory. There must have been a third party supplying intelligence on Ann's circumstances to the murderer. He must have known she would be alone, unprotected. He must have been given that information in advance. As an example, I live a lot closer to Ann's house than the murderer, but I couldn't tell you where she lived even though it's now been widely reported.

In special ops and intelligence, you go into an operation with as much intel as you can as up to date as you can get it. Even to the point of scrubbing if anything changes on the journey to the delivery point. 

Ann's murder is the same. All other concerns must have been taken care of, so the murderer could concentrate on the task at hand. So that rage could be focused over that car journey. 

So along with who stoked up the guy to a point he wanted to murder the target, who exactly was supplying that on-site information to the murderer? 

And as I type this, it's reported that Zak Polanski has been reported by Nigel Farage to the Police for incitement. Good. Leftist hateful incitement needs calling out and stopping.


Monday, 27 July 2026

Burnham...

I've just come back from a week in the Welsh Mountains. A house full of Kids and grandkids.

Enjoyed myself so thoroughly and was distracted enough not to worry about the King of the North becoming PM. 

The first impression I get is he's a phenomenal talker. He can charm the birds out of the trees. How else can you explain the financial drain of the Northern Number 10 being pitched as a positive?

I man, how much is it going to cost to move the Prime Ministerial entourage up there once a week? Is that a justifiable cost in the current economic climate? Is that something a prudent Prime Minister would set up when the country is on it's knees and borrowing hand over fist? 

Of course not.

The financial stability of the country isn't something the Socialist elites worry themselves about. 

Burnham's plans involve more spending, more borrowing and divvying out backhanders to the mates that helped him into Downing Street. Not much different than a Tory to be honest.

I have provisionally named him Burnham the money-burner.



Thursday, 16 July 2026

The Big Sugar Tax/Sweetener Scandal.

Did you know that most "regular" soft drinks not only have sugar in them, but that the sugar content is increasingly being reduced in favour of (I assume cheaper to buy) sweeteners. So you may think you are drinking a soft drink sweetened "just" by sugar, but you're actually drinking a drink with some sugar and then sweeteners and in some cases the "sugar" version doesn't even have any sugar in it and instead has a sweetener like Sucralose.

Read on..

I have a big issue with sweeteners. Not a mental issue, but a real, physical issue in that if I have a drink with sweeteners, all sorts of bad things happen with my body's glucose response. Basically I taste a sweet product and my body releases insulin to combat it, but there is no sugar for the insulin to process. 


And that's just on the "good" sweeteners, like sucralose and Stevia. The bad ones like Aspartamine are a big no-no.

Obviously during this long hot spell, I've been turning to my usual summer drink: Lager Shandy. 

I always ask for the full-fat version of lemonade when ordering in a pub, although that option seems to be increasingly impossible to get.

But now at home, I can't avoid the damn sweeteners.

If you look at any full -fat includes sugar soft drink, you'll find that someone has surreptitiously included sweeteners in the mix. 

So why am I paying sugar tax (because I have to) on a product where the sugar is being cut with sweeteners? Either I pay sugar tax (because it contains sugar and by contains sugar, I mean NO SWEETENERS), or if I'm being forced to take sweeteners, I shouldn't be paying sugar tax.

This led me down a huge rabbit hole last night, whilst trying to find a non-sweetener soft drink in Tesco.

Those of us that are sensitive to sweeteners have found out ALL the soft drinks in the supermarket (apart from the organic ones) have been adulterated with sweeteners. And don't think the posh soft drinks in glass bottles are immune. Sucralose and Stevia present in the ingredients.

Call me a cynic, but it seems like a surefire way to make your body insulin resistant, by ramping up the amount in your body with nothing for it to do. Because your body tastes the sweetener and releases insulin to combat it. Do that several times over a lifetime....

Luckily for now, I've found a supplier of sweetener-free lemonade, albeit limited to 1 litre bottles. At least I should get a couple of pints of Shandy out of each bottle. 

I've yet to go back and do a thorough deep-dive. For instance are supermarkets charging more, or including sugar tax on non-diet soft drinks? Because of the sugar tax is required on products that supposedly contain no sugar. 

As an example, last night I found at least one lemonade that was labelled as non-diet or non-sweetener, that just had sucralose in it and no sugar. It was dearer then the diet option. So is this another case of supermarkets charging more for something that is basically the same product?

It bears some further scrutiny. Especially for parents of kids that are susceptible to issues caused by sweeteners. 

I'm not even going to go into the conspiracy that there's a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer. 

As I found out, finding a true sweetener-free option is now a huge mission.



Tuesday, 14 July 2026

Civil War: When the Cold War goes Hot.

I've posted the odd blog for a couple of years about civil war. Even before David Betz was plastered all over social media. 

The thing is, although we are in a de-facto civil war at the moment, we are now at a point where a faction is trying to gain political supremacy through effective blasphemy laws that would go even further than "just" blasphemy.

A law forbidding the criticism of Islam gives Muslims carte blanche to do whatever they like, because to criticise a Muslim is to criticise Islam. The two are indivisible. 

We're now only a few steps away from a hot war. 

How will you know when a hot war has started?

It kind of already has. 

You'll know when agents of the state are openly attacked. Or to put it another way, the representatives of the state.

We've already had MPs killed and that wasn't warning enough, the government machine has continued on unabashed with it's anti-British, anti-working class, anti-freedom agenda.

The second stage will be the agencies of the state being openly attacked. For instance the Police. 

I'm not talking about people defending themselves against Police brutality. I'm talking about people openly seeking members of the Police and attacking them. Of setting traps for Police to attend and then attacking them. 

It's a widely held belief that the Police no longer exist to help. The modern Police are more like an occupying Army that a Police force. 

We've already had a couple of instances around the country of Police officers being attacked, but I predict over the next couple of years, that number will increase. The intelligence I'm getting points in that direction. Especially as the government seek to crack down on our freedoms.

The Police are more than likely to be the first in a series of state agents that are attacked. After the Police it'll be tax offices, job centres and the like. Local agencies of the state. Saves all that travel. 

Local means you can avoid being picked up easily on ANPR cameras. Like how the killer of Anne Widdecombe was found. Anne was another victim of the civil war. 

One thing I would say to anyone that starts a civil war: make sure you can end it. You need overwhelming force and capacity at your disposal. You don't go into a war for a draw. You go into it to win.

I would expect anyone that is contemplating such activity to have the numbers. You're up against not just the government, but their imported proxies. And the problem with numbers is security. The larger a force becomes, the harder it is not for someone to let slip what's gong on. Security, loyalty, they are absolutes and should be a primary focus. 

70,00 armed forces members is a easy figure to overwhelm. But the government proxies, the immigrants? They measure in the millions. That's a harder number to clash heads with. 

Force multipliers are the answer. Superior weapons are one such item. Like drones, of any type. When the government ban drone flying, or any radio controlled aerial activity, you'll know they have credible evidence a threat is imminent. 

What's that? They've done it in various areas already? Without any obvious or publicly stated reason? 

<Raises eyebrow>

Not hot yet, maybe warm then....

Friday, 10 July 2026

More on the Psychopathic Woman.

The link to Female Psychopathy and woke was a kind of revelation. It answered quite a lot of basic questions. 

Questions that didn't have answers in a sane world. But to add Psychopathy into the mix and then it becomes clear.

As I've said, Female Psychopathy has a major influence on Woke. The Psychopathic female uses fake empathy for a cause to hide her own lack of empathy and signal her virtue and status to others. Factors she covets above all others and uses as a screen or shield against criticism from others.

But female Psychopathy also then answers the phenomenon of Trans kids. Children of a very young age being transitioned. BY THEIR PARENTS.

Again, the empathy towards their children is not real, it's manufactured to again gain status and virtue. Things the Psychopathic Woman doesn't possess. 

A normal nurturing woman will most likely take a child that is saying they wany to be the opposite sex, or a cat, or something that is clearly fantasy, and let them play with it. But only in the terms of play, understanding that at some point the child will tire of the notion and revert back to normality.

Not the Psychopathic Woman. She will latch onto that difference and process that the child is unhappy not being a cat and therefore they must be a cat, must actually be a cat, in order to make them happy.

And so the Psychopathic Woman will take the child's fantasy to a point above and beyond a level that any sane person would. I reckon that if there was some way to surgically change the child into an actual cat, then she's force the child through that procedure. Because making the child happy is a mother's job isn't it? Look at how good a mother I am, by surgically altering my child to be the thing they want to be.

As it stands, the only recourse available to the Psychopathic Woman with a cat-child, is to force EVERYONE ELSE to accept that her child is actually a cat. Family, the school, doctors, and other professionals that interact with the child.

Because denying the unreality of the situation would make her child unhappy.

Psychopathy also answers in some way the rise of what is colloquially known as the Karen. Basically a woman who will interfere and claim some fake superiority over their victim.

I'm not yet at a point to understand what has caused the rise of this psychopathy. It's possibly because it has allowed to rise. The freedom of women to express themselves has allowed the number of psychopathic women able to express themselves or be in a position to impose those views and beliefs on the wider world has occurred.

It's possible that in this modern world, the Psychopathic Woman has never been told No, or has had her "stranger" tendencies suppressed in childhood. 

And to be clear, this is not a misogynist rant. I'm quite comfortable with women in general. This is an observation I've made, looking at the modern phenomenon of woke and the conclusions I've made.

I like all women, even the Psychopathic ones, but the observation is there are distinct types of women, as there are distinct types of men. But you never see the nurturing type of woman involved in activism, or the manipulation of society.

I have a feeling the nurturing type of woman would understand that suicidal empathy, of signaling virtue to the detriment of wider society is lunacy. 

Because it is.


Friday, 3 July 2026

Woke: The Product of Psychopathic Women?

Okay,  I've had an insight into the reason that the country and the West in General is in the Fucking Mess it's in right now.

Psychopathic Women.

More generally, we have let Psychopathic Women into positions of authority and power. 

Let me explain. 

Psychopathic women are more likely to be career women and are more likely to compete with men directly in a men's world. They are driven, competitive, all the things required to succeed in a competitive, dog-eat-dog male dominated space.

Most women are nuturing, and don't really care for all the elbows-out edgy competition of the boardroom. You're not likely to see a nurturing type of woman in a boardroom. They're happy to be at home looking after kids. Or if they have to, take a small job, possibly as a care worker, or maybe a assistant at school. In my day they were dinner ladies.

But, oh boy, the other end of the spectrum is the Psychopathic Woman. She revels in the competition, she'll bury her competition, destroy them, usually through reputational damage. She is totally ruthless and you can rate her success on the number of bodies she leaves in her wake.

You find them on the board of large corporations, charities, local government, the post office and the civil service. See also female MPs. Generally they are useless at the job they are employed to do, because they priority is their reputation. They use other people to do their job for them. She uses underlings to bolster her status and gladly burns them out and casts them aside to maintain it.

I met one once, when I went for a job interview. All the terms of the job were agreed in interview, I was a good fit and was offered the job. A week later I was contacted by her and told I could have the job only if I accepted a 25% pay cut. 

I'm not a huge pussy, so I told her where to go. It was an absolute no from me and she was welcome to go and find someone elsewhere who could do the job for that money. 

And that's the sort of woman I'm talking about: deceptive, manipulative, ruthless, and without a shred of morality or decency. If you offered someone a job at a certain salary, and that was the salary offered before the interview, it was agreed and shaken on in the interview, who in their right mind would then phone up a week later and say "actually, I was thinking of paying you considerably less money than we agreed on".

That's not etiquette, that's not how you build loyalty. But the Psychopathic woman doesn't care, doesn't value those things. You're just another body in her wake to the top. She's crushed the souls of so many people to get to that point, you're another victim.

But where does woke come into this, I hear you ask?

Well, the Psychopathic woman uses virtue signaling to cover her lack of natural empathy. She will virtue signal HARD.

Her lack of true empathy means she will virtue signal a company into the ground (sound familiar?).

Her lack of empathy means she will virtue herself out of existence. And here comes woke. The Psychopathic woman will virtue signal men into women's spaces, will virtue signal rapists into those spaces and berate the woman who was raped for highlighting the problem, because it interferes with her virtue.

Another example being the Rape Gangs. How a woman can argue against the wrongness of the rape of another woman staggers me. But we have huge numbers of women excusing the rape of children, because the virtue afforded by the promotion of diversity trumps (in their mind and their social spaces) the virtue of saving kids from being gang raped. 

Another example is the woman who blocked the ICE convoy in America and was surrounded by ICE agents with guns. Any normal woman would have stopped and complied once the agents drew their guns. But not the Psychopathic woman. She will continue past the point that any sane person would. She got shot in the face for it. 

There are plenty of instances of clearly Psychopathic women being interviewed and you get the sense they would insist that black is white in order to secure some tenuous virtue or reputational point over their interviewer. The same applies if the Psychopathic woman is the interviewer: she will do her utmost to trap the person she is interviewing in some sort of gotcha moment, in order to raise her social status and virtue.

For instance calling someone a racist for enquiring about the reasons and mechanisms why a large proportion of Pakistani men are child rapists. There's that social status hierarchy at play again. Raped working class kids aren't half as valuable in the virtue stakes as promoting the importation of families from war torn countries. And even if you try to burst the Psychopathic bubble and show evidence they aren't families, they are 90% fighting age male coming into the country, they will refuse to believe it.

Psychopathic. Up to to the point of eradicating all that affords them the comfort of their cushy (usually middle-class) societal bubble. Even as the Muslim hoards are wrapping the Burka round her head and enforcing it by beatings, as the female rights her grandmothers and great-grandmothers won by protesting even to the point of death are eroded, the Psychopathic woman will be trumpeting the how eradicating all of those hard-won rights affords HER some higher status above her peers.

Psychopathic women, I feel are responsible for the rise of woke. They are also responsible for a lot of other new malaises that have started to corrupt society.

The thing to look out for is that claim of a raise of status above her peers. The latest efforts to "think of the Children" and censor the internet, ban kids off it, and now to ban VPNs because the kids can use them to get around the laws the adults created. 
All are the result of some form of fake virtue, some claim for faux status to raise her up compared to her peers.

Wednesday, 1 July 2026

New Land Tax: We've Been Here Before.

Thatcher came up with the poll tax. A tax based on the value of your property and payable, divided between the adults in the house.

When that happened, we had riots in the streets. The Poll tax riots of 1990

The Socialists revolted, because they had to pay part of the bill that their parents typically paid.

The government then relented and although notionally based on the value of your property (set in bands) council tax was per household. The bands created a reasonable variation between upper and lower bands. Because we're all paying for the same services, it's reasonable to expect to pay a similar amount, with those better off paying a slightly higher cost. With this new system, how can government justify demanding 300 quid from one household and 48 grand from another for the same service?

It wasn't a percentage of the value of the property up to an unlimited value, there was at least an upper limit, controlled by the tax bands.

Now we have the idea of a land tax, based on a percentage of the value of the property, with no upper limit.

If I had a house worth £1 million, my tax liability would be £48,000, more than any wage I've ever earned in my life. In fact I currently earn half that figure. So for me, owning a million pound house is completely out. Thanks Labour.

So how do Labour intend to limit the land tax based on the ability to pay? 

Or is this a way of freeing up expensive properties by seizing them from people that can't pay? New HMOs for the migrants?

Also, I can't say that the charity Omaze and similar charities are happy about this. They buy high value properties, and raffle them off for charity. 

Now currently, you could aspire to owning such a property, because the council tax on it wouldn't be higher than your annual earnings. It won't even be close to rental costs. So it makes sense to have a punt on the charity and hopefully live the high life in a million pound mansion.

A land tax kills that model instantly. Why would you want to be saddled with a tax liability that takes years of salary to earn? 

It kills aspiration. Which is a typical socialist scumbag move. Let's drag everyone down to our level of misery, because they're jealous of your wealth.

Tuesday, 30 June 2026

Sinister Moves Afoot Regarding Legislation Changes.

The recent announcement that the government had just repealed the Vagrancy act has got my Spider Senses tingling.

I've blogged before that despite protestations from the lefties, people who claim asylum have rights given to then by the UN charter on refugees. 

The government of the country they claim asylum in has a statutory duty to provide housing , etc. The things we're already seeing like hotels, HMOs, etc.

As I have blogged previously, there is no such statutory obligation when it comes to housing people that already live here. So who do you think gets the home and who gets made homeless? 

One of the big failings of government was the failure to introduce legislation to make the statutory legislation apply to all. I assume no-one thought that the amount of immigration would impact the availability of social housing and that there would be plenty of housing supply for all. How Naive.

Removing the vagrancy act removes the pressure on councils to house homeless people. Those homeless people being the people with no statutory rights granted to them regarding housing, i.e. you and me. 

Now, add to the mix the rumour that a government led by Andy Burnham is looking at a land tax, that is taxing you a percentage of the value of your house instead of council tax. While it may make it cheaper for some people, for others it makes it a damn sight more expensive. 

It kills charities like Omaze overnight, because winning a million pound mansion will instantly incur a tax liability higher than the average wage.

At the moment, if you don't pay council tax, you get the bailiffs knocking at the door to take goods. But your home is relatively safe. It would take years to rack up a debt large enough to require the sale of your dwelling to pay off.

What's the chances that any new legislation that introduces the land tax changes the way the government claim the money back for non-payment? What are the chances that the changes the rules to say if the new tax is on your property, rather than payment for services, the remedy for non-payment would be seizure of your property? 

You see where this is going? Yep, more people homeless and less pressure on councils to house them. They're getting ahead of the game.

And don't get me started on how the government can charge a tax on an asset you don't own. If you have a mortgage, the house is not yours until it's paid off. The bank or building society hold the deeds. So technically the owner is the bank. 

I bet if the bank got charged the property tax, you'd get it lumped on your lap with a nice administration fee stuck on top...

This is the WEF plan writ large. The government is now making a move to make land grab, a grab for property, YOUR property. 

Remember the outcome has always been, you will own nothing, forget the bit about you will be happy, they don't care.. Happiness has nothing to do with it. You will become a slave, a cash-cow. You will work for board and food and you will be grateful in the new socialist utopia. No foreign holiday, in fact no travel outside your 15-minute city. That would be a bourgeois idea.

The unproductive will be culled. The government are well on the way to introducing that assisted dying legislation. Once it's in place, it won't take much to make it mandatory for the unproductive in society. 

I've a feeling someone has already done the maths on what happens when A.I. takes 90% of the jobs and what you do with the masses of unemployed. 

And if you don't think that's the way the road is leading, you're worse than an idiot, you are a grade A moron.


The 50-Year Doom Spiral.

It started in the 40s. We were so poor after the war, that we were effectively broke. The good news was that we produced products the world still wanted. Cars, aircraft, ships, etc. We made big, expensive items. 

We manufactured our way out of the debt caused by the war. 

But just as we were doing that, at the same time we were losing our Empire. The Empire had supplied us with revenue, enough to keep us the superpower we had been up until the 40s. 

The loss of Empire meant we had to generate wealth from the UK alone. Sadly, there just wasn't enough real estate to generate that sort of wealth.

The Sixties were the last golden times. We still had all the huge manufacturing facilities that allowed us to manufacture the expensive items we needed to at least keep the country alive.

Although during the Sixties, we had the warning signs. Beeching's railway cuts, Duncan Sandys' Defence white Paper. These were the first trimmings and the first indications that the supply of money could not keep up with expenditure. 

Interestingly, we also disbanded the Civil Defence force in the late sixties. Yet the Cold War was still raging. 

Then the Seventies arrived, and with it a rabidly Socialist Labour party and a wet Tory party. Things got rapidly worse. Four day weeks, strikes, the Unions saw weak government and went for the jugular. 

Money supply went haywire. We can't get money through revenue, so let's just print it. And so inflation went through the roof. 

Heath's wet Tories just made things worse. They were an irrelevance that did untold damage by joining the Common Market, in an attempt to use Europe as a liferaft. Tying that liferaft to Germany's economy would, for a while, keep us afloat. 

Things declined rapidly through the seventies, to the winter of discontent in '78.

Then came Saint Margaret of Thatcher. Well, most on the right would class her as a saint, or a saviour of the country. 

She did turn the country around and things did seemingly improve. As a young adult at the time she came to power, the difference between Maggie's government and Calaghan's preceding Labour government was night and day.

It's hard to encapsulate what Maggie did in the first half of the Eighties to transform the country, but here goes. 

She cut all the dross, the waste, the overspend. She was ruthless in her application of cuts. 

The public sector, the tail that had wagged the dog during the seventies got sharp shrift: there would be no more automatic pay rises. 

Defence spending was already scaled back (leading to the Falklands War) which then required some "adjustment" after the Falklands was won back. 

The money supply, printing of money was curtailed. We call it quantative easing today, but it's still printing money you don't have. It was slowed or in fact stopped under Maggie. 

"The market" became the phrase de jour. The market would, with a little help from government generate the wealth needed to keep the country going. The government relaxed controls to help grease the wheels.

And the market helped, but didn't provide the necessary wealth. Maggie had to resorts to steep cuts in public spending and selling off assets like publicly owned utility companies in order to keep things afloat. Basically public owned companies were firesaled. Just get rid of them to stop any further spending. Whether they swam or sank wasn't an issue for the government.

The era of the "Yuppie" came along in the mid-eighties, as the deregulated stock market became a money-making giant. It made money, but very little of that money trickled down to the poorest in society. 

It still wasn't enough though. Services continued to decline and a way of offsetting that was the Poll Tax: making people pay slightly more for the services provided by local councils. It went down like a lead balloon with the population. 

The poll tax riots ushered in the 1990s. Sadly for Maggie, the smoke and mirrors of her tenure had run out of tricks. 

1990 also ushered in the Grey Man, John Major. 

I've already mentioned John Major on my blog, but safe to say, his tenure was the start of the professional management class and the job-creation scheme that was the NVQ system. 

Financially clueless, under Major we had Black Wednesday as he kept the pound nailed to the ERM for way too long as the Likes of George Soros hammered it and the government threw billions into propping it up. 

The Major premiership felt like freewheeling a bicycle downhill after the furious pedalling of the Thatcher era. 

But at least we did the right thing and successfully freed Kuwait under Major. However, I suspect the success was set up and virtually guaranteed by Thatcher's regime.

Major continued to sell off assets, famously British Rail under his tenure. 

Then came Tony Blair...

Tony the traitor, Tony the War criminal to a not insignificant minority. 

Tony took us into war in the Balkans, took us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tony borrowed billions and his policies inflated house prices in order for people to feel richer. 

All the while, the country still declined. He opened the floodgates for Eastern Europeans to come into the UK and provide cheap labour, so people could feel richer. And to rub the noses of the right in diversity, apparently.

Tony also changed the law. Double jeopardy went, so the authorities could keep prosecuting you for the same crime. They could effectively bankrupt you with lawfare. Rather than do it right, he allowed the Police to become sloppy, inefficient and politicised.

He introduced the supreme court. A court that had supremacy over a democratically elected government. Basically killing democracy, because then what's the point of s democratically elected government, if it can't enforce the will of the people?

As I said, Blair took us into Afghanistan and Iraq, decades-long armed forces commitments that cost billions. 

People felt richer for a while. But it wouldn't last. The rate of borrowing couldn't last, the rate of spending couldn't last. We couldn't maintain an armed conflict on two fronts.

The writing was eventually on the wall, so Blair handed over to Brown. 

Gordon Brown, who sold the gold reserves at the bottom of the market. 

Gordon Brown, who bailed out the banks in 2008, with our money. 

Gordon Brown, who thought we were all bigots.

Yeah, a disastrous premiership.

Then we had the Tory/LibDem coalition. 

Oh, my God. Yet more decline, marked by the rise of political correctness, the idea of green policies and basically giving up on any idea of saving the nation.

And this is probably the time of the rise of luxury beliefs, like climate change and Trans ideology. 

And there we stayed for 14 years, under the Tories for the most part.

14 years of increasing immigration and reducing spending. Austerity caused by the Bank Bailout and the repayments required to pay back the sum we borrowed to achieve it, coupled with now accepting the whole world into the UK to offset the hideous GDP figures that we would have seen without it. A disastrous cocktail that was bound to end up in the morass we have now, where people expect a government to at least attempt to fix the country, or make it better.

We're now in the position fewer and fewer taxpayers are being asked to pay a larger and larger share of their earnings to prop up an unsustainable situation going forward.

The thing is, politicians haven't been honest with us for 50 years or more, haven't been able to make it better for 50 years or more. We don't have an Empire that props up the mother country, the EU is as badly in the hole after Germany spent all it's treasure on reunification.

We are in a doom spiral, and have been for 50 years. It was managed well for probably the first 20 years, but the seventies halted that and the Thatcher years only stayed positive thanks to asset-stripping the country.

This is the result of 50 years of managed decline. 

We will eventually hit rock bottom, but I don't think it will be long now. I have visions of the end of this country. It's a civil war, with the country split into various factions: haves, have-nots, Christians, Muslims, 

Those wealthy enough will leave, those that are not will be left to fight over the scraps. 

Victory depends on factors, not least of which would be what external sponsors get involved. For instance if the militant Islamic countries sponsor the Islamic faction in the UK, then without the support of the rest of the West and a determination and stomach to eradicate the Islamic extremists with extreme prejudice, the UK will become an Islamic country.

Nothing of what I've seen of the "Liberal" West fills me with the confidence that the UK will be saved, come the great upheaval. 

Government needs to be honest with people. It needs to let us know what went on in the past, where we are now and from there, with an honest basis, we can build a robust plan for the future.

Otherwise we have more of the same until it all come crashing down into a morass, a pit of chaos, where the country splits into warring factions.

I'm nearly dead, so most likely it won't affect me. Dying a couple of years early? Meh. 

To teh rest of you: Good luck. You'll need it. 




Monday, 22 June 2026

Burnham launches manifesto. Sort of.

A pressure group backing Andy Burnham for the Premiership has launched a document, essential handing out it's wishlist of items for a new PM to address.

Top of the pile is the nationalisation of water and power companies. 

Now the water companies, I'd nationalise in a heartbeat. I'd also make legislation so that they could never be again sold into private hands.

I'd go one further and start criminal investigations into the boards of these companies and make than personally liable for the damage caused to the environment by their actions. Let's claw back some of those bonuses by fining the shit out of them.

The power companies I'm a bit more ambiguous about. They've just maximised profit in the best way they can. By screwing the paying customer, with a side serving of government ideology. 

Sure, a few grannies have died of hypothermia, we have poor baseline energy generation and energy costs are at the very least twice or even three times what they should be because the energy companies and government ideology made it so, but you can't fault the energy companies for just following the ideals of the government.

In true Communist fashion, the group also advocate more caps on more things, because they have no idea of the concept of unintended consequences, or the extra cost to the government of setting up yet another watchdog organisation to oversee (badly) yet another facet of our lives. 

I mean, they could just start building more homes, to bring the cost of rent and purchase down, but oooh no, rent caps are what we need. 

Then once all of these new expensive bodies have been created, keep them off the books somehow, so that they don't show up on the national balance sheet. Or more likely we won't see the massive extra drain on resources they will create.

The thing is with Burnham's policies, is it's a build it now, pay for it later sort of regime, like the new bee network in Manchester is financed in such a way that the pigeons don't come home to roost for a few years. But they do eventually. By which time, Burnham has moved on and someone else is left picking up the pieces. It's forecast that the local authorities in Greater Manchester will have to pay an ever-larger chunk of change to allow the bee network to keep running.

I predict the usual socialist fuck up, by which in 5 years time the bee network faces collapse without a big government bailout. 

And Andy Burnham wants to use this model to national infrastructure.

I mean lets apply it to defence: Imagine all our tanks being franchised and rented from BAE or whatever, the same for our aircraft too. Our ships rented out from Scottish shipyards. All all of the above rented from some huge corporate. 

Assets that could be withdrawn at any minute, especially if there was a threat to the safety of the asset. No more entering war zones or fighting wars. Too dangerous. Those Tanks, planes and ships might get damaged and would affect the bottom line of the leasing company. 

It's nonsensical. 

But when have Socialists ever been sensical?


Starmer Resigns. And Every Line of His Resignation Speech is a Lie.

 Here is the video of his speech, courtesy of Guido Fawkes at order-order.com:



Virtually every sentence is a lie. It's what we've come to expect from Starmer.

Basically the first sentence, stating he was proud to walk into number 10 was the truth. Although I have the feeling he must have thought "Oh Fuck, I've got to deliver now" as he walked to the door of number 10.

The preamble about the party was mostly truthful, until it came to the statement that he'd driven out antisemitism. Really? How many Labour MPs called for the eradication of Israel? From the river to the sea is not an idle chant, is it Kier?

Restoring trust on the economy? You're having a laugh Kier. Rachael from accounts has borrowed almost as much in the last month as the Conservatives did while propping up the economy during Covid lockdowns and furloughs. Except with Labour, that's just "normal" borrowing. Unsustainable borrowing. 

Restoring trust in Defence? Oh, my God. How long his it taken to produce the defence review, that STILL hasn't been completed? How many defence ministers have resigned over the cuts you want to enact on the defence budget? How many times have you lied to the public and to world leaders regarding your commitment to defence?  Nope, I'm not having that one Kier. Flat out lie. 

Restoring trust in National Security? While importing and allowing to settle here undocumented migrants whop have dodgy histories. You've allowed child murderers to settle here. You've allowed killers of women to settle here. You've allowed actual terrorists to settle here. 
That's another big fat lie right there. 

A party that stood with, not against our national flag? Kier lies worse than a cheap Chinese watch. Maybe the Union flag is in the background, left over from teh Tories, but woe betide anyone who is not a Labour supporter putting a national flag up. Off to the Gulag with them.

Now after that sentence, Kier strays into almost truthful territory. He doesn't want power for power's sake, but wants to change Britain for the better. This is not a lie. He wants to impose his ideology, which he thinks will improve the country. It won't. But ideology is always like that. It requires blind faith. 

But then immediately strays from truth: To build a country with dignity and respect. Really? How many of those people he imported has dignity and respect for the country? How many Labour party accolytes have respect for our country and it's history? Very few I suspect, the Labour line on oppression, Empire, and colonialism surely is at odds with Kier's statement.

Where everyone is seen and everyone is valued? Everyone except the majority, who you dismiss and instantly label far-right, eh Kier?

Wealth and opportunity for all? Er, no Kier. You've saddled us with the highest tax burden for a generation and you're also borrowing money at an eye-watering rate, impoverishing our Grandchildren.

Then we get the big lies. The economy rising faster than our peers? Depends who you class as our peers. Europe is an economic dumpster fire thanks to the socialist governments doing their thing. Importing more immigrants to take more welfare, creating a hostile environment for small businesses, imposing ever more red tape and beaurocracy. Yeah, we're doing minimally (like 0.01% of GDP) better than Europe. But we're not better than similar economies in other, less suicidal countries of the world.

Then we get the bit about the changes to workers and renters rights.

Yes, the workers right bill that has forced a downturn in companies wanting to employ people.

The renter's rights bill that has made renters homeless or forced them into the clutches of industrial scale corporate landlords, with massive increases in evictions before the imposition of the law or rent increases.

By now I'd lost interest. Others can dive deeper into his speech, but by now it was clearly just ideological hogwash.

Starmer is a hurt man. The country rejected him. He had a thumping majority, he says, and a mandate to change the country. Except he didn't. 

He had a majority in the Commons because the Tory voters abstained. It was handed to him rather than won.

He then decided to make himself a liar. All the promises made before the election? Gone.

Instead we had Digital ID, online safety (that requires digital ID), supposedly for the kids. But the only way to prove you're not a child is to surrender your ID online. 

We had a government headed by an ex-lawyer that seemingly didn't know how the law works. Didn't know that you can't sue an American company in America with no presence in the UK for something that they failed to comply with in the UK. 

We basically had new, made-up legislation created to make the government look like it was doing something, rather than being the lazy, feckless bums they really are. 

I very much doubt that Burnham or whoever take the poisoned chalice of Labour leadership will make serious changes. They are ideologically captured. You could see that with Starmer's speech. 


Friday, 19 June 2026

I Called It: Burham Wins.

 I've been saying for weeks that Burham will win. Mainly because Labour voters would vote for a pig wearing a Red Rosette

Despite being used by a party apparatus that despises them, they would still vote Labour.

And so it came to pass last night.

At least the Westminster soap opera will play out for a few months. 

However, if it turns on Starmer, I've a feeling he's the vindictive type that will go all scorched earth.

Maybe not to the point of calling a general election before Burnham can take control, although I wouldn't put it past Starner: "I won an election Andy, let's see you win one. Do it the hard way, like I did".

I don't think Starmer will go quietly. He'll slip something in somewhere to bugger up Burnham's Premiership. There'll be something in the latest legislation that he'll get a Starmer loyalist to slip in, or a change in party procedure that will hamstring Burnham. 

I just get the feeling that Starmer is that type of a Cunt.

Tuesday, 16 June 2026

A Nation of Children Acting as Parents.

Let's discuss the Government's latest announcement that they're going to ban kids from Social Media.

Now, I'm not going to go into the details of the millions of ways kids could circumvent any ban. Let's just say, they will be able to do it. The ban is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Let's look at the reasons for the ban. Weak Liberal parents. 

Because they can't do anything with their kids to get them off Social Media and they can't stop other parent's kids getting on social media, they want the government to ban kids off social media so they can say "The Government" made me do it". 

They haven't got the backbone to lay the law down to their own kids and enforce rules. Although I thought in Liberal Land, rules are oppression...

Anyway, the child parent has asked it's parent, the government to lay down the law to it's own children, because it can't do the job itself.

That's how you sleepwalk into tyranny folks, you want the government to be your parent, enforce the rules, make new rules up. Until the rules tell you the child parent you can't do something. And then it's too late.

Spineless Liberal fucktards. 



Monday, 15 June 2026

Are We at War With Russia?

Because last time I looked I thought we weren't.

Ukraine is definitely at war with Russia and we are "helping" by sending tanks, and equipment to help them fight teh war.

But I thought we weren't involved directly.

Until yesterday that is, when we seized a Russian tanker. Okay, it's on of Russia's "dark" fleet, but still, it's ultimately owned by Russia.

In what some would call an act of war, if not piracy. 

What gives the UK the power to seize a tanker owned by another country? I seem to remember Somali pirates getting the tail end of some hot lead for doing exactly the same.

Please can someone explain the difference to me?


Thursday, 11 June 2026

Irish Government to Blame for Riots.

The Northern Irish Assembly, the government over there are blaming thugs for the violence that has erupted after the almost beheading earlier this week.

Sorry? You said what?

Northern Ireland is a classic example of how civil unrest leads to politically directed violence, which then wins political legitimacy when the costs get too high for the government to absorb.

Let's look back at the euphemistically named "troubles" in Northern Ireland.

Back in the sixties, we had riots and protests from Republicans against rule from England. We also had riots and protests from Unionists against the protests against rule from England.

It was a sectarian mess of violence between religious groups. The Army were called in to quell the riots and we got bloody Sunday, the IRA attacks and all of the rest of the "troubles" through the seventies.

The culmination being bomb attacks on the mainland of the UK. The Canary Wharf/City of London bombs finally caused the government to enter talks, because the cost of underwriting the damage caused to buildings and to the economy through loss of trading was too much to bear.

So Northern Ireland has a history of causing a bit of trouble to eventually get what they want.

Now it's Republican and Unionist united against the globalists. They went to an effective civil war in order to try and preserve their cultures and eventually came to a peaceful accommodation in the Good Friday agreement, but now their culture is under threat again, from politicians aligned with the globalist agenda. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, Sinn Fein sound exactly like every other globalist politician in the Western World. Open borders, immigration are good, shut up and put up with the beheadings, you racists!

The people of Northern Ireland won't put up with that. They went to war for their culture and you think they'll just take this new threat lying down? It's less than 30 years since the Good Friday agreement, the violence of the troubles is still within living memory of relatively young people. The history of the troubles will have been passed down to even younger generations. 

It's still raw, it's still a living memory. And you think some pissant politicians with fat paychecks and no idea can quell the sense of injustice and threat that the Norther Irish people feel?

Think again.

You fail to listen to the people of Northern Ireland at your peril. They know where the guns and explosives are buried. 


Wednesday, 10 June 2026

Ireland, You're Blaming the Wrong People.

The overnight upheaval after the knife attack in Belfast yesterday targetted immigrants.

They are not the architects of the problem, they are just pawns. 

The architects are the state and successive governments. If anything direct your anger towards agents of the state, those protecting the state and thereby enabling the status quo. 

Direct your anger towards them, not towards innocent people who have arrived here from god knows where.

Direct you anger towards the people that keep allowing unvetted illegal immigrants into the country.

Direct your anger towards the people that see the almost daily stabbings and still leave the borders open.

Direct your anger towards the people that do not deport illegal immigrants immediately.

Direct your anger towards the people that do not remove illegal immigrants from the country.

Direct your anger towards the Police.

Direct your anger towards the Judges.

Direct your anger towards the Politicians, both local and national.

Direct your anger towards the Civil Service.

Direct your anger towards the ballot box and refuse to vote for the same people. Vote for someone, anyone but those in charge at the moment. 

Focus your anger. Do not waste it. Use it wisely. And when it comes, make it count. Vote for a valid alternative that will make a proper change to politics, the judiciary, the Civil Service, the Police, . 

Tuesday, 9 June 2026

What Unites the Political Elites?

It can only be corruption. Or can it?

We've just had the almost decapitation of a Northern Irish man in Belfast. 

Yet Sinn Fein, sworn enemies of the English spout the same empty-headed rhetoric. 

Now when a Sinn Fein minister spouts the same policy as an English Conservative, or an English Liberal, or a Politician from South of the Irish Border, or a Liberal in France, or a Christian Democrat in Germany, you can't help but wonder what is going on?

The only European enclaves free of the mind-virus are Poland and Hungary.

But what, or who has assimilated all these politicians?

Who, in it's crudest form has bought them?

Who has the financial power to buy the politicians of a continent? Who has the power to control the media, influence focus groups and create the narrative for the puppet politicians to follow?

And they are puppets. Kier Starmer is desperate to blame someone else for his failures. If it's not 14 years of Tory rule, it's the public, the made up "far right" rightly protesting against abhorrent Police procedures and the actions of imported men from areas of the globe where low morals are de rigeur. 

Starmer, so desperate to offload the burden of leadership, he's trying to tie us to Europe once again, so the politicians of the continent can tell him what to do. So if it goes wrong again, he can absolve himself of blame. 

But, with all these singular voices across Europe and even further across the Western World: Canada, Australia, and liberal States of America. 

Who has the wealth to buy power and influence across the globe? 

Is it wealth? Does one person or group control enough money to buy a whole civilisation?

Or is it fear? Is the puppet master so fearsome, the puppets play the tune to the point of eradicating their own countries and cultures?

If it is fear, where is it projected from?

Does someone have nukes? Or worse weapons? 

Is the threat terrestrial, or as some opine, extraterrestrial?

No matter how far fetched, there must be a reason that politicians in lock-step say the same words, erode the same freedoms, take us ever closer to world government.....

The simple question is... Why?

Tuesday, 26 May 2026

Andy Burnham: What if He Wins?

First off, I hope that Labour get a bloody nose in the Makerfield bye election and Andy Burnham doesn't get in and Labour don't have the rebranding that the gullible may fall for.

But let's do the thought process: what if Burnham got in. What might he do to improve Labour's chances of winning against Reform or Restore at the next election?

 What would Burnham's policies be as PM?

One of the likely pushes of a Burnham government would be to Nationalise public transport. The success of Bee line in Manchester has already gained public support in that city. However, no on notes the cost of conversion from Private to Public ownership. Yes, the busses and trams might work a bit better and having a single transport entity makes moving from buses to trams seamless, but does the cost outweigh the benefit? Only time will tell. Of course users on see the benefits, especially if the service is subsidised with borrowed money. Like most socialist projects, it may all collapse in 5 years as borrowing costs rise beyond the ability to fund repayment from fares.

If the Bee line experiment is pushed to become a Nationwide experiment, let's hope there's enough good will in the markets to allow the borrowing to fund the enterprise. Also the large investment funds may get a bit upset at losing the profits from road and rail transport companies.

The second most likely nationalisation in Burnham's public-ownership-focussed brain would be the utility companies, especially the water companies. And it would be supported by the public. But...

The problem he has there is convincing the public to fund repair of the infrastructure caused by decades of lackluster investment by private owners. Why should the public pay? And if the public pays, how are they compensated by the companies that profited from the hideous profiteering by the owners of the utility companies whilst in their ownership?

Those are just two of the problems that Burnham could face if he tries the "Manchester Mayor" his term as PM. 

Notwithstanding the issues he faces from the declining revenue from tax, increased borrowing (and the pressure to borrow even more to fund re-nationalisation), increasing inequality, increasing social and cultural division, etc.

Whether Burham can see past the leftist ideology and identify the true causes of those issues, is another thing. Starmer is captured by ideology. I get the impression Burnham is (currently) a bit more free-flowing, but if he becomes PM would the party, the blob and donors constrain him? 

Hopefully it never comes to that and Burham loses the bye-election. 

Then we'll see Starmer revert to type and his true authoritarian nature will come out. I'm sure there will be a reshuffle like you've not seen before, with ever more obscure and ineffectual personalities put in positions of power, so as not to threaten Starner's premiership. Whether he gets to eradicate all his opponents from the cabinet remains to be seen.

But Starmer is like the step-dad from hell. He is determined to make you a better person (according to him) by force if necessary, up to the point of abuse. Let's just hope we can survive the next 3 years unscathed and whoever gets in can reverse the last 30 years of abusive government.