Jim J

The Local elections in the UK and the European elections brought out those registered to vote, around 48-50% give or take a few percentages.

Recriminations from the established parties have said that the rise in anti establishment parties is really not that serious because of the low turn out, that puts the Anti-EU parties at an even lower popularity rating and the percentage points even lower, The Main parties forget that they to are running councils and parliament on a minority opinion platform by the same logic.

Therefore would it not be better to have compulsory voting (those that are able of course), and force the silent apathetic majority to vote for 'someone', even if it is for none of the above. Its not exactly Democracy either if a Minority can speak for a Majority. Finally what would be the main objections for the established parties against compulsory voting?

On balance I believe there is an element of truth in the statement Oprah Winfrey made, I am sure there are people out there who do despise the fact that he is described as African American.

In my opinion Obama is no better than Bush was and deserve the same objective criticism. For example it is thought Hilary Clinton stood aside to allow Obama to run for president (Affirmative Action perhaps?) Secondly he made promises that he has not kept, The patriot act is stronger than ever and Guantanamo is still open. He promised change and hope which was not delivered (although he did inherit a mess from Bush) Debt is out of control and finally he is clearly not African American but 'Mixed Race'. Now does my criticism or yours come from the notion that he is Black or is Oprah Winfrey just playing the race card again because a perceived AA president is a lame duck president?

Or in reality is there people who just hate the fact that there is a Black Man in the White House?

I have done my own calculations (they are only estimates etc) but its would be a rough idea of how much went to Africa.

Since I was about 7 years old (over 30 years ago +) I was asked by my local school to give 5p to what was termed 'The Black babies' in Africa, it was before political correctness. so seven hundred kids did that every week. that was copied by every school in my city, then the country. So in a year about 250,000 kids collected all this money for Africa. that is not all, the local church collected, multiply that by every other church, then add private donations. In Ireland where I live, say over 20 years, that is perhaps hundreds of millions. But wait there is more, add the US, UK, Europe into the equation and then add governments aid to Africa and you not only get billions, perhaps trillions. you get the picture anyway.

So all that money-aid and hard work by NGOs and Governments helping Africa since say 1960 and what has Africa got to show for it? Africa should be the envy of the world, there should be first class hospitals, a high standard of education for everyone, roads and infrastructure railways second to none. every village with proper amenities, running water, electricity, sewage works, a civilised society.

so what happened to our money, are Africans still and always will be the white mans burden? the are just not emotionally-evolutionary evolved enough to help themselves. I mean with all that money even with the corruption there should have been 'some' improvement?

Should we just give up on Africa.

Ps, the Northern African nations can help themselves, it is sub sahara Africa and negros that are the problem.

Perhaps you have been aware of the Alex Jones interview with Piers Morgan, I mean Jones did not come across as a very rational person and somewhat lost the debate (what their was off it) What it did show however that if gun owners are anything like Jones they are very passionate about their beliefs and rights.

Nonetheless I started to look at Jones points and agree with some and not with others.

I think there is a good argument that gun ownership lowers crime, Im not convinced about semi automatics though. I think the Constitution is misinterpreted, anyway I digress.

The Point Jones made about the populace being armed stops draconian dictatorships etc got me thinking. If this is correct, then examining the US federal and state Governments Americans already live in a Dictatorship, The Government 'does' do what it likes and no one does anything.(9-11) Americans complain but no one seems to take action. for example the US federal government arguably allows a mass migration invasion across the US-Mexico border and does not secure it because of the latino vote. It goes to war on dubious reasons and sends your young people home in body bags. It spy's on your conversations and denies your rights under the patriot act. Just look how people are treated by the TSA at airports. these are only examples. Just because you have guns and we in the UK-Ireland don't does not mean we are any less slaves to the corrupt system than anyone else.The USA 'is' a dictatorship just like the EU.

Nonetheless when people do try to do something about it, they are locked up for the rest of their lives and the gun lobby and freedom lovers walk away (its nothing to do with us) When Timothy McVeigh took a stand he was disowned as a radical nut.

So where are these 'well armed militia' who are prepared to stand up to tyranny. Or as usual is it all talk and no action.

Everyone should no be aware of the appalling and disgusting troglodyte behaviour of Protesters who have been angry about the Union Flag not being flown 365 days of the year as it normally did.

Belfast City Council voted in a Democratic decision to fly the Union flag on designated days, such as Royal Occasions etc. This brought the policy in line with local government buildings at Stormont, other councils and indeed the Rest of the UK.

In regards to the question, most if any of the protesters did not know the Union flag flew 365 days of the year, the would not have known of a council vote on the matter or even cared 'Until' the main Unionist parties in Northern Ireland sent out leaflets in mainly East Belfast where they lost their DUP seat to the moderate Alliance party, the leaflets wiped up tensions, made the Protestant working class more paranoid and insular as they normally are. They took to the streets and wrecked the place causing millions of pounds in damage, policing, and lost trade. The DUP and UUP walks away wondering what happened? (yeah right).

So the costs are around 13 million, should the DUP and UUP be sued for the costs of the Protests seeing as they instigated it, without any justification?

The Trial I am spcefically wriyng about is that of Robert Howard who was charged with the abduction and Murder of N,Irish teenager Arlene Arkinson. During the Trial the jury did not know that Howard was serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of 14-year-old Hanna Williams from Deptford, south London.Her body was found in a cement works in Northfleet, Kent, in March 2002.

Who would have decided to withhold this previous evidence (defence or prosecution), what is the legal precedent for it. I am sure it was so that it would compromise a fair trial, but isnt the prosecution entitled to disclose this to a jury also and why would they not object to non disclosure?

Take any emotional attachment you have away from the case of the Murder of Stephen Lawrence and answer the question objectively.

Before the trial there was a trial by Media, everyone who was anyone could not have been aware of the circumstances surrounding the trial including the jury. The jury all were under 40 which means their outlooks and opinions would be more liberal and multicultural. The video shown at the trial of Dobson Wielding a knife and chanting racist slogans was shown but no mention of the murder. Before the day of the trial Rod Liddle in the Spectator wrote an article questioning if the defendants would receive a fair trial, the next day the Trial judge was prepared to dismiss any of the jury that read it, compare this to the Daily Mail headline 'Murderers' some time before which the judge did not ask the same question. The forensic evidence could have been contaminated due to unsanitary storage.

So arguably this was one of Britains biggest show trials, It had to end in a guilty plea so as to appease society and its underlying ideology. It was rigged from the start.

The case was the first that ended the double jeopardy rule, in that the justice system specifically choose that case to retrial. This is an insult to the very basis of Britains justice system, do we retrial and retrial until we get the verdict we want?

Ok, I was driving today and a Police car was behind me. I was the lead vehicle coming up to the lights that were changing to red, they were at the amber sequence when I drove on (I hadnt enough time to stop) and I crossed the line when the light had just turned to red. So the police pulled me over and told me that I had broke a red light. I explained that it was on amber and she explained that there was CCTV and 3 other officers in the car who seen it. I asked if her patrol car had a recording camera and she explained no, She said that I was in the green cyclist box just before the lights changed, I indeed was but when they were on amber. She also explained that she would check out the cctv for proof.

I was traveling with 2 friends who seen me cross when the light was on amber but changed to red just as I crossed. They said it was touch and go.

The officer explained that I can accept a £60 fine and 3 penatly points or go to court, I accepted the points but I have the chance not to pay and go to court. I am in 2 minds which to do, I can see the officers point, but I think she was a little over zealous. She said normally she would let people off but it seemed so blatant to her that she had to give me the fine.

I was always under the assumption that when coming to lights if you dont have enough time to stop or if lights are on amber and it is safe to continue you may?

So on this basis is there a chance I would win if I take it to court, and what would happen if I did not win?

Did anyone see that Documentary on Channel 4 last night about 'Secrets of the Shopliters'? Basically a Team of store detectives security guards spent thier time catching and watching people who stole Items from stores.

What concerns me is How can security Gaurds hold and detain people often physically without it being assault? I thought the only people who could physically detain or stop anyone was the Police.

In the Programe I witnessed the Security Guards physicaly restrain people before any threat by the thief was initiated. I also seen them follow people out of the store and acompanying them back to the store. Is it law that a person has to follow security back into a store and if they refuse can they be physically restrained and taken back in? I seen the Security guys were very heavy handed at times and even took an unhealthy pleasure about it.One guy even carried handcuffs, surely a civilian cant carry handcuffs?

So what is the law regarding these issues and what exactly are the laws that a store detective has in the UK?

I just cant see how people who are not police officers acting in such a way, unless they claim to be stopping a crime perhaps.

Ok, I am walking through Dublin City centre on Saturday and there were 3 bearded Muslims standing with a stall and signs saying 'The Benefits of Islam'. Now this being Ireland that has no colonial history or any Cultural connection with them at all, They were Pakistani. So I thought it cant be us Laid back Irish they have a problem with. What have 'we' done to P**s them off?

So anyway I had the Idea to say to them, Look lads, Get yourselves a few Pints, stagger home and eat a big Bacon Sandwich smoke some strong Tobacco and then Get yourselves laid. Maybe it would calm them down a little. Maybe we should be on the streets of Muslim cities promoting this idea, What say you? How can we calm these guys down?

Northern Ireland's Joint first minister has accused the Catholic Church of the Failure to protect children. Now it is not an unjustifiable statement but Coming from McGuinness? This is a man by his own admission was part of an organisation that murdered children. That left a Generation of children permanently scarred by Conflict. Of course he wants the Church accountable for its crimes, something we all want to see, But what about him? will he now confess his part in the abuse of Children? He forgets that Sexual abuse of Children is not the only crime that can destroy a child.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-1795...

Given the pictures released by the Metropolitan police that clearly shows that the vast Majority of the Rioters were Black and Asian, is society conveniently ignoring the Race factor on the issue. Feral Blacks and Asians going wild in a White Persons city. Perhaps the Liberal elite and their obsession with multiculturalism cant stomach the fact that the riots were also part of the failure of the Multicultural project and the amount of Third worlders allowed to settle in a civilised society?We have heard a lot of excuses (some of them with a modicum of validation) but nothing on Race and Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the icon, the god to which the elite worship at the feet off, they can not and never will doubt their faith in it.

Do you believe that Race has been deliberately ignored as part of the cause of the riots?

I have a baxi gas boiler and for the past year the overflow pipe has been leaking and water running into the Garden. I have had the engineer out 3 times, he has worked around it and told me the pressure should fix itself (this is what is causing the leak). The pressure sits at 2.5bar or more when the heating is off, when its on it can rise to over 3bar. On the boiler its says if the pressure is under 1 or over 2.5 to call the gas engineer, im tired of doing that.

What I want to know is, is the higher pressure mean that I would use more gas to heat my home than I would if the pressure was normal? also what other things can go wrong with this defect?

I mean the poor guy is Just not happy here in the UK, everything about our society offends him. It must be a very sad and unhappy life he leads, what with seeing us out on a Friday and Saturday Night Drinking beer, and all those young girls in their tight fitting clothing and high heels, not too mention the Freedoms and cultural and religious liberties we have here. it must be a very lonely place for him.

So lets all not buy that last Pint, put it into a fund so we can pay for a 'One Way' ticket to an Islamic nation of his choice, were he can be happy and not have to see the sickness he so hates. I mean isn't it a Humanitarian Issue?The poor Fella is suffering.

Or lets lets face it. Would he be too scared to take the offer. I mean in a Muslim Nation he would not be anybody, He would be Just another muslim, so it may be all about ego?. There is no Universal Health care or State benefits in Most Islamic nations either, something that he relies on here.

An Indian woman is seeking in the High Court an overruling by the Home Office to allow her husband to come to Britain without learning basic English that is a stipulation of the Home Office for residency.

Her Lawyers claim that the policy of an English language requirement for pre residents is 'Racist' and discriminatory toward certain ethnic groups (I thought it would be discriminatory towards all).

So in retrospect if the court accepts that human rights have been breached all new immigrants will no longer have to sit the 'life in the UK test' or show a relevant ESOL certificate for settlement.

Therefore if her lawyers win and her claim is successful, would that then mean that any legal immigrant who has applied for ILR and perhaps spent, Hundreds if not Thousands of Pounds on English lessons obtaining a Qualification will get their money back.? (tongue in check intended)

More importantly, Is claiming abuse of Human rights just gone too far in this case? Either its a fair and rational thing to ask an immigrant to speak some English to integrate or its not.

I have a feeling the claim will be successful though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14298352

Given that 'they' are the legislators and make the laws why are they powerless to do things for the greater good of society?. Take for example today's news that the energy company centrica has made £1.3 billion in profit for its share holders however it was fined £2.7 million for bad service, pennies in real terms.. Utility companies are too important to be in the hands of private investors. People are essentially riped off to line the pockets of investors.

Another example is a man who's insurance company refused to pay out when he lost a leg, the insurance company said he should have lost 'both legs'. Insurance companies are just legalised Highway men.

The TV licencing company can pinpoint any UK address that does not have a TV licence, the efficiency of detection would put the KGB,CIA, Gestapo and Stassi to shame. Yet the government cant formulate a coherent policy for the care of our old people nor its knows nothing about the number of illegal immigrants in the country.

So I wrote and e-mailed my MP and ministers about all this, the usual reply was 'we are tied by legislation', 'There is nothing really we can do and repeat legislation to you' Bollocks!! They 'are' the legislators and Law makers, they can do it if they want. Also the packages of health care and pensions they receive is nothing that the normal man or woman in the street will ever receive.They Make the laws concerning 'Shareholding' then have the audacity to ask us for our votes at election time.

So in Conclusion, Politicians are Careerists and are only interested in the Market and the business classes. Class Politics is a burden to them, they are simply administrators of a Political system that is stagnant and corrupt. They will not touch or do anything about firms like centrica as they are Ideologically fanatical about the 'Market'. People are only there to put them in Power then they call it Democracy.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Amputee-must-lose...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14321673

A religious group in Northern Ireland (could be any other part of the UK) have attended a conference aimed at highlighting the Issue that Gay people can turn around from their lifestyle and essentially be cured. That Homosexuality is essentially a disorganisation of the workings of the Brain and retraining can help them be cured. Alternatively the Gay community and their supporters have held a protest to vent their anger and disagreement with the Churches actions and insist that Gay is a Normal sexual choice.

The Problem as I see it is that they are ‘both’ wrong. If Religious people claim biblical authority then they must assume that every section of the Bible is completely true. Have you ever tried to debate with a Christian on the matter? No objective, rational or reasonable argument is forthcoming. You can tell from a very early start that they are obsessed by Religion; they can’t think for themselves, they refer you to scripture. It’s basically a self delusional belief in a supposed Holy Relic of dubious historical origin I have seen as much bigotry and intolerance in the Christian community to last a life time. Therefore what right have they to attempt to cure anyone?

As for Homosexuals they are the mirror image of this fanaticism, doing what gays do serves no purpose but to fulfil a basic Hedonism of Pleasure, It certainly cannot be a distinct or separate sexuality on that purpose. It is just as reasonable and rational to assume that it is a biological dysfunction of an overwhelming Psychosis, a dysfunction that by today’s Ideological standards is seen as normal and part of ‘Diversity’. It certainly is not Normal but it is indeed tolerable, A mistake and a long running disease of Nature. One example of this is how the Clinical diagnosis of Male-Female dysphoria is occurring. Essentially Physiatrists have Identified that some Men have Female Brains Therefore should it work the other way in that if sexual Dysphoria exist then Homosexual men should be able to seek therapy or a cure as Transsexual men do? In other words gay culture is only accepted as normal and Tolerable because the leading Ideological hegemony says it is.

So are they both wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-1376...