Silent
Majority Speaks
Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann
Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair
wants to leave his mark on history - looks more like a stain
to me.
Peter
Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I
know I'm me - why do I need an ID card?
"Sorry,
officers, I don't have an ID card. I never applied for one.
It seemed a bit steep at 300 quid. I do have my free passport,
my driving licence and my London freedom travel pass, each
with my photograph. I have my NHS medical card, with its
lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF service book with
my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to wear
a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya
bar, for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country,
or so they told me.
"I've
also got various credit cards and store cards, all with
my signature on the back, generally good for buying the
everyday requrements for life as well as the odd luxury.
If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be photographed
and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm
afraid I haven't got a pension book; it was taken away."
"By
thieves, sir?"
"No
... well, not exactly. By the Government. By the way, may
I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh
dear, they've disappeared.
E. Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO
means NO
When
does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With
the courageous French NON resounding
in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested leaders
of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious constitution
that requires ratification by all members and continuing
without one of the biggest founder members to prevent derailing
the gravy train.
As
in Ireland, they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring
the will of the people, and re-stage votes until they can
engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a string.
With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe
the EU has our interests at heart.
Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth,
Kent - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently
spent on a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature
and extravagant. Letter from
Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
|
May
31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
17, 2005 (779 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
June
26, 2005 (788 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
July
6, 2005 (798 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
Britain
has traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors
to the EU because we do not get as much money back from
Brussels in farm and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According
to Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average
contribution taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The
French - the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed
£1billion a year or £16.08 per head of their
population.
|
Saint
Tony? Don't make me laugh
As
even Tories queue up to lavish praise on Blair . . .
By
Stephen Glover - Daily Mail, July 12, 2005
Tony
Blair's path is strewn with laurels from Right and Left. Normally
sceptical pundits have fallen over one another as they marvel
at the miraculous week he has enjoyed - from almost single-handedly
winning the Olympics for London, to presiding majestically over
the G* summit at Gleneagles, to his statesmanlike performance
after last Thursday's bombs.
Muslims
bleed, too, in terror attacks
Letter
from Bilal Patel, London E1 . . . Daily Mail, July 12,
2005
One
in seven Londoners is Muslim. Half of all British Muslims
live in the capital. On Wednesday, we were overjoyed to
hear that the Olympics were going to be staged in the
East End where most of us live. As an Eastender, it was
one of my proudest moments. I love London: its diversity
and tolerance is unmatched anywhere else in the world.
How
quickly events change. None of us is immune to terrorism.
Muslims have been victims of IRA bombs, and were targeted
by the Soho nail bomber. We bleed, too.
Two
of Thursday's bombs went off in Whitechapel and Edgware
road, places with a strong Muslim presence. We too made
frantic phone calls and sent text messages to make sure
our loved ones weren't affected. However, all the calls
I received from other Muslims were fearful of the blame
which will now be fixed on our community.
It's
not enough that Muslims have to suffer attack by terrorists.
We have to face many more from politicians, the Press
and security services in weeks and months to come.
Metropolitan
Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and others have warned
against the danger of speculating as to who was behind
these attacks. Turning us against one another is what
the terrorists want.
Londoners
have shown remarkable resilience and unity in the face
of terror in the past. Left to their own devices people
will unite and deal with this latest threat They will
pick themselves up and brush themselves off. This is the
spirit of London.
But
politicians are already speculating on 'extremists who
are out to destroy us.' They talk of the elusive Al Qaeda
rather than about those G8 demonstrators who attacked
the police. Sanctimonious expressions about Al Qaeda aren't
enough. Despite all the bragging about winning the 'war
on terror' london has been attacked. Tough talk sounds
good on TV but doesn't address the issues. Are people
supposed to believe Al Qaeda suddenly bombed London for
the sake of ideology?
London
was bombed because Tony Blair joined in the invasion of
Iraq. This has infuriated Muslims world-wide, just as
Britain's blind acquiescence to the Islraeli occupation
of Palestine marks her out as an enemy.
If
politicians want to stop the terror, let them cut out
the macho tough talk and sit down to a dialogue with the
terrorists, as we did with the IRA. If we invade other
countries, or support oppression there, we will pay the
price. And we'll get nowhere without support of British
Muslims, the natural link between the West and the Islamic
world.
Blair's
government is busy making an enemy of them with its draconian
anti-terror laws, which must be reviewed.
=============================
|
William
Hague, former Tory leader, overflowed with admiration in his column
in a red-top Sunday newspaper. Michael Howard praised Mr Blair
yesterday in the Commons. Others write off the Prime Minister's
former political difficulties as though they were short-lived
aberrations. Some observers, who only a few months ago were forecasting
his imminent demise, think he will go on and on, and wonder whether
Gordon Brown will ever get his chance.
Can
I be the only person in the country who reacts to this Blair-worship
with a mixture of astonishment and nausea? I like to think that
whatever the Prime Minister may have done wrong in the past, I
would happily doff my hat to him were he to do the right thing
now. It's just that I can't see that he did so last week.
Doubtless
he won one or two converts to London's cause as he glad-handed
Olympic delegates during his brief visit to Singapore: with his
easy charm, cheesy grin and PR skills, he is adept at that kind
of thing. But the really hard work was done by Sebastian Coe and
his team over many months. Mr Blair was a relatively late convert
to the cause, only embracing London's bid with enthusiasm after
it became clear that it had a good chance of winning.
Misguided
As
for the G8 meeting in Gleneagles, Mr Blair certainly deserves
some credit for the writing-off of African debt and the doubling
of aid, but the chief architect of the agreement was Gordon Brown.
Mr Blair had long talked about saving Africa. It was the Chancellor
who came up with a plan and who attended to the detail and painstaking
negotiations before Gleneagles. It was the Chancellor who was
foremost in engaging the likes of Bob Geldof and Bono, and in
helping to promote a popular movement.
But
all this pales into insignificance when set alongside the praise
lavished on Mr Blair after Thursday's outrage. Why on earth should
his response be accounted a triumph? His televised addresses to
the public, with their contrived, actorly pauses and their 'I
am suffering too' stricken glances, were an affront to good taste.
Why can't he speak like a normal person on these occasions? Why
the striving for particular effect?
If
he had felt some sense of responsibility for what has happened,
or had been tortured by personal guilt, I would have felt some
sympathy for his predicament. But there was not the smallest sign
that he recognised that his misguided actions had in any way contributed
to the bombings. Government line is that there is no link between
the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and the terrorist outrages.
We
could argue about this until the cows come home. Mr Blair and
his defenders point out that the attack on the World Trade Centre
happened before the invasion of Iraq and that Osama BinLaden was
blowing up innocent people long before Saddam Hussein was toppled.
True. But London has not been attacked by Islamist fanatics before.
Nor had Madrid until last year. A fair-minded person would conclude
it is unlikely to have been a mere coincidence that both of America's
main allies and helpmates in Iraq, Britain and Spain, should have
been singled out in this way.
Were
the cause a good one, we could accept the consequences as being
part of an inevitable price to pay. But we were taken into a futile
war on false pretences - told by Mr Blair that Saddam possessed
weapons of mass destruction which constituted a threat to this
country. We now know that he had no such weapons, and so Iraq
cannot have posed any threat.
The
wider 'war against terrorism' in which Mr Blair has been such
an eager and complaint ally of America, was misconceived. In Afghanistan,
the Taliban are resurgent, and Osama Bin Laden and his followers
remain uncaptured, hopping in and out of Pakistan as they wish,
and offering symbolic encouragement to thousands of Moslem activists
in the West.
Terrorist
attacks in Iraq show no signs of abatement. Despite assurances
to the contrary, Mr Blair and President Bush, who is increasingly
being criticised at home over Iraq by members of his own Republican
party, are at least thinking about early withdrawal in the knowledge
that the insurgency caused by the war is likely to last for a
very long time.
If
this is a success, I hate to think what failure would have looked
like. The Anglo-American 'war against terror' has had the effect
of multiplying the number of terrorists, and served as an effective
recruiting sergeant for Al Qaeda among a small minority of British
Moslems, a few of whom may have been involved in Thursday's bombings.
Most of us feel a good deal less safe than we did before the invasion
of Iraq. I am afraid it is not a question of 'if' but of 'when'
there is another bomb.
Sceptical
French
President Jacques Chirac may be a rogue and a chancer, but he
kept his country out of a disastrous and unwinnable war. France,
which has more than twice as many Moslem inhabitants as Britain,
has not been attacked and does not face the same home-grown threat
as we do.
How
can it be that, after all that's happened, Tony Blair should be
celebrated by so many pundits and even Tory politicians, and be
judged to have enjoyed such a spectacular week? I confess that
I find it very difficult to understand. I grant that Mr Blair
is a brilliant politician who knows how to turn events to his
advantage. Even so, a healthily sceptical Press would not be so
easily led. The fact is that most of our newspapers are either
Pro-New Labour or pro-Iraq war. That doesn't leave very much room
for dissent.
As
for the Tories, they are too busy gazing at themselves to make
much difference. But they were right to call for an inquiry covering
such activities as intelligence. If our security services are
capable of dreaming up weapons of mass destruction that did not
exist, it is surely possible that their failure to provide adequate
intelligence of last Thursday's bombings was part of a more systemic
failure. But Mr Blair does not want an inquiry whose findings
might implicate the Government.
My
only hope is that the British people are not as pliable as the
media, and not so eager to connive in the beatification of Tony
Blair. When the G8 agreement on Africa has been forgotten, and
London's Olympic bid has slipped into the back of our minds, we
will live in a country made more dangerous by Mr Blair's ill-considered
championing of the 'war on terror' and the invasion of Iraq. In
the end, I don't believe that many people will count this as a
success.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
|
