Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

An Ex-Muslim’s Open Letter to Muslims of the World

27 Oct

I am reblogging the first few lines of an interesting article, then a link to the full document.  It succinctly outlines many of the questions we Kufrs ( unbelievers, a derogatory term) have about Islam


Islamophobia throughout history

9 Oct

In our times many of us feel scared by the advance of radical Islam.  In fact this fear goes back a long way.  Have a look at this website to see what better brains than mine have said.

A Loving Religion

24 Jun

I am told that the vast majority of the people from one religion are good people and loving people.  I am sure they are.

Yet the items in the list below have all been done in the name of  that  religion and a great god.  Do we want the worry of having people with these thoughts mass migrating to our country?  And demanding that their legal system can sit side by side with ours?

We, of course,  must accept these little aberrations otherwise we are racist or committing the crime of religious intolerance.  And that can land us in jail. They are welcome in our country in great numbers.

  • Bombing buildings killing thousands
  • Hijacking aeroplanes
  • Kidnapping over 200 schoolgirls for going to school
  • Young men are seduced off to a sectarian war in another country then some of them come back threatening this country
  • Female genital mutilation
  • Beheading as a punishment in public
  • Stoning to death. the men buried to their waist so they might escape, women to their shoulders so they can’t
  • Death penalty for changing religion
  • Amputation as a punishment, arms and legs
  • Forced marriages
  • Underage marriages
  • “Honour” killing of female relatives for going out with someone from a different religion or sect
  • Grooming of white girls for sex then selling them for prostitution
  • Punishing someone by gang raping his sister, who then has to commit suicide because she has bought dishonour to the family
  • Death penalty after accusing raped women of adultery
  • Anti music and dance
  • Death penalty for minor insult to the leader
  • Assassination of journalists and soldiers in the street
  • Open hatred of my (western) values
  • Insisting that women cover themselves in public
  • Segregating boys and girls at school
  • Beating children who do not learn the holy book well enough


I don’t care that Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc don’t pay tax in the UK.

23 May

So the big multinationals organise themselves so that they pay little tax in the UK !

We should get over it.

If we are to be in the EU, or sign GATT treaties, then this type of arrangement is what we signed up for.

If we want multi-nationals to pay tax here then we should reduce corporation taxes to competitive levels. That’s how it works. No point whinging.

Or leave the EU.

Anyway, as blogged earlier, big companies don’t pay tax. They pass their taxes on in higher prices. Only consumers pay tax. So as a consumer, I can’t get excited at this furore. I get caught one way other the other. Either I pay income tax or I pay the multinational’s tax bill through their higher prices.

Governments like corporation taxes because their tax collection is hidden from the consumer in the price of goods and services.  And then they have the gall to charge VAT on these hidden taxes!

Lib Dem Disenfranchisement Scandal

29 Mar

The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes proposed by the Boundaries Commission.  They did so because they did not get their way with Lords Reform.  That sounds fair enough.

Actually, it’s scandalous behaviour.

The Lib Dems who claim to be so democratic and “for the people” have decided that some people’s votes must count less than other people’s.  They have voted to block the changes that would make the constuency sizes more equitable.  How democratic is that?

They will argue that the current system for the House of Lords is undemocratic.  Maybe it is.  But two wrongs don’t make a right  and the Lib Dem wrong is by far the bigger one.  It is the House of Commons that runs the country.  The House of Lords has far less influence.

The Conservative Party lose up to 20 seats because of this blockage!  The main beneficiaries from the block are the Lib Dems and Labour, surprise surprise.  But, of course, that had nothing to do with their actions, did it?

I used to have some respect for the Lib Dems.  But this behaviour is just cynical manoevering covered in a veneer of self righteousness.

Immigration into the UK under Labour

24 Mar

Why is this story not more widely publicised? It’s scandalous.

In 2003 the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett MP, stated during a BBC TV interview that he could see “no obvious limit” to immigration into the UK. When asked if there was a maximum population that could be housed within the UK, he replied: “no, I don’t think so” – adding that he believed the net immigration rate (then running at approximately 170,000 per year) was “permanently sustainable”.11

Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed. 

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”. 

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. 

Blunkett: No limit on migration
Legal migrants bring valuable skills, says Blunkett
There is “no obvious limit” to the number of immigrants who could settle in the UK, the home secretary has said.
David Blunkett agreed some people felt swamped by new arrivals, but said legal migrants brought economic benefits.

He said Britain had always been “crowded”, and the current net inflow of 172,000 a year was sustainable.

Campaign group Migration Watch attacked his comments, saying this rate plus illegal entries meant two million more people by 2013.

This would have a “huge impact” on the country, it said.

The latest official migration estimates, published hours after Mr Blunkett’s comments, suggest the inflow – the difference between the numbers leaving the UK and those arriving – fell slightly to 153,000 in 2002.

 It is a crowded island – we’ve always been a crowded, vigorous island  
David Blunkett

Could migration boost economy?
Farms ‘rely on migrant workers’
Speaking on BBC Two’s Newsnight, Mr Blunkett said he was determined to cut the numbers of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants entering the UK.

But he wanted more skilled workers to come to Britain legally to plug staff shortages – especially in the catering, hospitality and construction industries.

Asked whether there was any limit on the number of skilled migrants who could arrive, Mr Blunkett said: “No, I see no obvious limit.

“I see a balance in terms of the different forms of entry, migration and residency in this country so that we can get it right.”

He said he did not believe there was a maximum population which could be housed in the country, saying: “I don’t think there is.”


Current migration rates were “permanently sustainable” as long as illegal immigration was under control, he added.

Economic migrants contributed £2.5bn more in taxes than they took out in benefits, he said.

“If we can get it in balance and make sure that there is a net increase in terms of our GDP, we are onto a winner,” he said.

He added: “It is a crowded island. We’ve always been a crowded, vigorous island.”


Sir Andrew Green, of Migration Watch, said he was “astonished” by Mr Blunkett’s comments.

 There is widespread concern that the government have expanded the scope of legal migration as a way to cover up their failure to tackle widespread abuse of the asylum system  
David Davis,
Shadow home secretary

A change of policy?
“We have no problem with moderate and managed migration. The problem is that it is neither moderate nor managed,” he said.

The official Home Office figures, plus illegal immigration, meant at least two million people would be entering the UK over the next 10 years, he said.

“England is nearly twice as crowded as Germany, four times as crowded as France, 12 times as crowded as the US. I can’t think what they are doing.”

Shadow home secretary David Davis suggested the government was encouraging legal migration “as a way to cover up their failure to tackle widespread abuse of the asylum system”.

He said changes to immigration policy should take place only after a debate about the economic, social and environmental consequences.

But Keith Best of the Immigration Advisory Service praised the Home Secretary, saying he believed the comments would ultimately “flush out” those using misleading statistics to oppose migration.

“It’s a pity that David Blunkett did not say this earlier,” said Mr Best.

“It is business which wants the workers and the govenrmen’s job is to facilitate this.

But the biggest commitment Mr Blunkett needs to make is to improve the statistics so we can have a rational debate.”

Marriage and Civil Partnerships

12 Mar

The whole issue of marriage vs civil partnerships vs just living together is a mess.  And yet it could all be so easy.

The problem arises because there is a huge confusion in both the Government and the public mind between romance and property protection.

We need some new definitions.

From the Government point of view there should only be one form of union.  It has nothing to do with romance.  It is merely a government backed contract for the sharing of property especially with the death of one of the partners.  It gives the default disposal of assets.  Let us call this the Civil Partnership.  Woe betide a couple of any sex who want to pass on assets but do not have a will.

If a couple want to mark the Civil Partnership with some religious / romantic celebration, that is up to them and any religious following they have.  It is nothing to do with Government.  Let us call this activity, “Marriage”.

A couple can elect to have the  Marriage but no Civil Parnership, that’s up to them but it is not recognised by the Government for asset, tax or any other purpose.

Problem solved.