What's Going on With Greenland?

The media make Trump out to be some cartoonish despot intent on ripping Greenland from the hands of poor Denmark.

The slightly more informed make out that this is an attack by Trump on NATO and the alliance.

In reality, there's a lot more in the background going on.

The main reason for Trump's claim on Greenland, is it's of huge strategic significance in the North American geographic area. It provides land for bases that America uses to defend itself against the Russian threat.

Under normal circumstances, Greenland under Danish control is a friend to the Americans and gladly accedes to any requests for land for American requirements.

Trump's claims reflect the breakdown in the relationship between American and the European Elites.

It's quite clear that the European political class is no friend of Trumps. 

We have seen it with the comments by David Lammy and other European political leaders. The European political elite is staunchly socialist (Communist) in it's political outlook (the reasons for which I've already blogged about) and hate Trump. 

Trump is airing in public in his typical way that he regards Europe not as a political ally. He regards Denmark and their leadership not as political allies also. He's stating that if the attacks on Trump, America and American companies (especially tech companies) and the First Amendment continue, he will use American force to "stabilise" the Greenland situation.

Right now, Greenland under Danish control is not considered as an allied administration by the Trump government.   

What does America do when it sees effectively hostile forces in close proximity? It neutralises them. Greenland is fast becoming the new Cuba.

All I'm hearing at the moment on the media is that Europe must band together against America. 

Bad Move guys.....

And just think, if Europe succumbs to the Muslim influx in 10 or 20 year's time, all the nukes, all the weapons, territory and manpower that Europe possesses will be in alignment against America. By then NATO is just a note in a history book anyway. 

Trump is just ahead of the curve.

Why Asylum Seekers Get Preferential Treatment

 ,,, And if you think they don't, you are an idiot.

I have commented on many post on X, YouTube regarding asylum seekers getting preferential treatment when it comes to housing, and why that is the case, and I think I need to flesh it out here to sort of put a pin in it, so to speak.

Anyone who says asylum seekers don't get preferential treatment is delude, lying, or just plain misinformed. Our government has, by the treaties it has signed up to, given asylum seekers statutory status, which means legally they are bound to provide services to them. Where no such statutory duties exist for normal citizens born here.

The first, is the 1951 Refugee Convention:

Core principles of the 1951 Convention

The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.

The document outlines the basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, including the right to housing, work and education while displaced so they can lead a dignified and independent life. It also defines a refugee’s obligations to host countries and specifies certain categories of people, such as war criminals, who do not qualify for refugee status.

In addition, it details the legal obligations of the States that are party to one or both of these instruments.

The convention, as stated above, disallows the receiving state from instantly returning the asylum seeker, or refusing entry to the country. We have to receive them.

The next point is that under the Convention, asylum seekers are granted certain rights, by law (because they are part of the convention we signed up to).

So, asylum seekers as stated, have the right to housing, education, medical care, etc.

Again, under UK law, ordinary citizens have no such "rights". Which is why funds and services are given to asylum seekers before ordinary citizens.

So when politicians say that asylum seekers aren't at the head of the queue when it comes to housing. They are lying. The 1951 Convention give those asylum seekers the right to housing. A right that you don't have. So they get put in housing before you and your family, who have lived here since birth and have been on the housing list for decades.

It's also why preferential medical services are provided to Asylum Seekers. That's why they get access to a Doctor nurse and dentist with almost private standards of care. You don't get that, because the government aren't forced to provide it to you by law. But asylum seekers...

This is the loophole exploited by traffickers. EVERYONE that arrives in a dinghy instantly claims asylum, whether they are fleeing a war, persecution or even if they are not. 

I'd say they aren't, given that France, the last country they came from, isn't some bomb-ravaged craterscape.

But, that's the mechanism they exploit.

But now here comes the double-whammy of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is the law that we signed up to that affords even criminals the right to family life. So for instance we already have to house asylum seekers, but the ECHR now makes it law that we can't just put them anywhere, we have to consider their family. By family, that's their extended family of cousins, aunties, etc. In other words we have to put them all together. By law. Creating an enclave for them. Even wondered why they all appear in a single area? Now you know.

We can't say "we've found a suitable house for you in Scotland". They have rights. The right to live with the other 34 members of their family that have come across in a rubber dinghy. 

While we are considering their asylum application, if the rights they have don't give them enough, if they go out and steal stuff, it's the ECHR that stops us saying "Sorry mate, but by stealing you have proved you're not the type of person we would like to accept into our country" and deport them. 

First, the process takes so long that it gives them time to find some desperate fat ugly bird, have sex with them and have a kid. And then instantly the asylum seeker gains family ties to the UK through the poor sprog born in this country. 

Just to interject, there is a correlation that most fat ugly birds are left-leaning politically, so that's a driver for why they would want a never-ending stream of "boyfriends" from Somalia. 

Of course there are only so many fat ugly birds, the supply is limited. the desperation of the asylum seekers mounts up. Their instructions are to have sex with a girl in the UK and get her pregnant. 

So we get desperate asylum seekers trying to shag any girl or woman they see. Possibly a driver for the massive number of rapes we are seeing perpetrated by them. That's not to make light of the crime of rape. But if you are from Somalia and you've been told the gravy train absolutely relies on you getting a British girl pregnant, it is your primary mission to avoid being sent back to your shithole country, then you're gonna do the deed with anything bar a corpse. Finesse, courting, charm, all go out the window. 

And anything old enough to get pregnant is fair game too.

Shag the bird, get her pregnant, make sure she doesn't have an abortion (tell her it's against your religion or something) and has the kid and then you are set for life with those welfare payments you and your 34 cousins can send to your gangster Gran back home.

This just scrapes the surface of the drivers and legislation involved.

But if anyone says that asylum seekers don't get preferential treatment, our better treatment, or are prioritised above normal citizens, then  tell them they are talking bollocks. They are, because it is the law. 

Yet another breach on the canals. This one the most dangerous yet.

Yesterday, in the early hours, there was a breach in the Llangollen canal embankment at Whitchurch in Shropshire. Note: not a sinkhole as stated on the mainstream media.

This was probably the most serious breach yet, because two boats were sucked into the breach and ended up at the bottom of the embankment. 

Luckily there was no loss of life. The boat owners affected were able to get off their floating homes just before they went over the edge.

But this is the third major breach this year amongst a number of other smaller breaches/leaks.

Hopefully the fact that this time it came close to loss of life it will start to focus the minds of those responsible to start to reverse the trend.

After all  we have had the following major breaches in the past four years:

Leeds and Liverpool Canal 2021

Lancaster Canal 2024

Bridgewater Canal January 2025

Macclesfield Canal March 2025

Llangollen Canal December 2025

Those are the major breaches, but the Macclesfield canal suffered at least two further serious leak repairs, which if not repaired could have caused serious breaches. 

The common theme amongst these being the failure of a culvert under a canal embankment.

In previous years, breaches were a rare thing. Even in the dark days of neglect and almost closure, the canals very rarely breached in a major way.

So, what has changed? Are people missing the signs of a breach? Were the canal workers of old better at spotting the signs? Are repairs not being carried out quickly enough?

Is there something in the canals that is causing the breaches?

Is it a lack of maintenance?

Is it a "not my job" problem?

Is it a lack of Money?

Let me explain.

1. Is it something Causing the Breaches?

As I've said, back in the 70s, at the height of the neglect of the canal system, we never got the number of breaches we are getting now. So is the canal network experiencing a new phenomenon? 

Is there something introduced to the canals that has introduced a higher risk of breaches? For instance, the signal Crayfish is a relatively new invasive species that has been introduced into the waterways of the UK. It was introduced in the 70s and has spread across the waterways of the UK over the decades. It burrows quite deeply into the banks of the waterway. 

Is that burrowing causing a higher risk of failure to our canals? Either through burrowing into the banks of the canal itself, or burrowing into the culverts that run underneath the canal embankments.

Is the burrowing not being detected during maintenance?

The rumour is, the Whitchurch embankment and it's culvert were only inspected a few weeks ago. So is burrowing into the culvert by crayfish not being spotted? 

2. Is it a lack of Maintenance?

Well, as I just noted, the Whitchurch embankment and culvert were inspected recently. But was that inspection thorough enough? Has something changed that makes the inspection not thorough enough, like changes to the safety regime? i.e. are workers not allowed to crawl into culverts? 

But the inspections are being done, it seems. But are defects reported and dealt with in a timely manner?

Again, knowing the issues involved, repairs to culverts require confirmation with the Environment Agency, the body in charge of rivers and streams. Repairs require planning, impact assessments, risk assessments, etc. A whole raft of "stakeholders" from the various agencies like English Heritage (if the stretch of canal or included infrastructure is listed), the Environment Agency (If a stream or river is involved), maybe National Grid or British Telecom if the towpath carries power lines or network cables and last but not least local landowners (possibly different either side of the canal). 

You can see that the number of agencies that need to be consulted explodes and makes maintenance difficult. Is that causing drag on the number of projects being raised and completed?

After all, it's easier to keep your mouth shut and kick the can down the road to the next inspection, hopefully nothing dire will happen in the meantime....

3. Is it a "Not My Job" Problem?

Is the job too problematic? Is ignoring issues and kicking the can down the road a real problem? Are CRT staff just ignoring defects or are they being told to ignore them, or are they told to only report the most major of defects when in the past minor defects would have been reported and assessed?

Or is it that in some instances, Canal and River Trust aren't responsible for maintenance of parts of infrastructure? For instance with culverts and Aqueducts, are the rivers and streams that run under the canal the responsibility of the Environment Agency and not Canal and River Trust? If so, do the EA put priority on maintaining CRT infrastructure?

Do CRT pass defects to EA and the EA sit on them?

Are independent contractors being used to make the inspections and they are missing critical failures of infrastructure?

Certainly it's quite common in the UK for a third party to be responsible and not do the job. The UK management structure when it comes to the various agencies is so messed up that it wouldn't surprise me that some completely unrelated agency is causing the problem.

4. Is it a Lack of Money?

Well, there is a case to say that the huge project to repair the dam on the Toddbrook reservoir that almost burst it's banks back in 2019 has drained CRT of funds and those funds have been withdrawn from maintenance of the Northern Canals. and that's causing the issue.

Except for the fact that the Bridgewater Canal is not owned by CRT. It's owned by Peel Holdings. 

So the same problem is affecting canals owned by two different entities. Which seems to suggest the problem of failing culverts and embankment breaches is independent of the ownership of the canals.

Which then suggests that the signal crayfish issue may be valid, or maybe both companies use the same contractors to make inspections and it's them that are failing. Or in both instances a third party, like the Environment Agency are failing to maintain watercourses under their control.

What needs to Happen?

Well, it's clear that the risk of canal breaches has increased. I know of one leak in Llangollen itself . I don't know if it has been fixed, but one of the houses at the bottom of an embankment on the  Llangollen canal has had a problem with water from the canal for a number of years.

There needs to be some sort of enquiry. This issue is now widespread and not confined to canals owned by a single company. The problem is endemic and getting worse. This time it was only by luck that no-one was killed. The boats that have been destroyed can be replaced. People can't.

At some point, there will be a loss of life. If this latest breach isn't a sign to the various canal owners that something needs to happen to assess what is causing these breaches, then I don't know what will be. I guess we'll have to wait for someone to be killed and a huge lawsuit 

I mean, a simple thing would be to assess the number of signal crayfish in certain waterways. If it's understood they burrow into the banks of the canals, shouldn't there be an assessment of if that increases the risk of breaches? Then, if it's identified that the crayfish are in an area where the risk of breach is high, they can be eradicated from that area to protect the canal infrastructure.

If it's an inter-agency thing, then legislation needs to be requested to force the requisite agency to act, or act faster.

Bu it seems that nothing is being done to investigate the rise in the number of breaches, or the cause.

It seems as I've always conjectured, that climate change is used as an excuse to do nothing proactive. In other words, it's the climate (and we're not going to even bother to confirm that theory, or to look for other mechanisms that may be causing the problem).