Friday, 4 September 2015


In the light of the serious migrant problems at Calais, Budapest and elsewhere across Europe, the UK government has been exposed to considerable criticism from some other EU countries and the Labour and SNP opposition parties for failing to do enough. The crisis has reached a critical stage and with millions of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees (call them what you will!) attempting to get into Europe, the infrastructure and social framework of our country, and others, is being considerably threatened. At the time of writing, Cameron has not stated the numbers of Syrians that will be permitted to enter the UK, but estimates range between 4,000 and 10,000. But surely, this will just be just the start and once these have been granted permission to come, there will be hundreds of thousands following on behind all intent on reaching the UK or other sympathetic EU nations. By agreeing to admit Syrians currently residing in the camps around that country will not solve the plights of other migrants that threaten the Channel Tunnel and port of Calais almost nightly. How will they react to the the 'rescue' of several thousand others that our government proposes to select from their homeland. These, of course, have not made the arduous and dangerous journeys from the Middle East and Africa at the mercy of murderous traffickers? Britain is certainly sending out a message by accepting a new wave of migrants ... but is it the correct one? I think not!

The concerns of a large number of UK inhabitants, and no doubt shared by similar numbers of German citizens and in other EU nations, is whether or not the arrival of so many young and fit Syrians presents a security problem. After all, we do not know the backgrounds or political leanings of these people, nor do we know whether any of them (or indeed how many) are ISIL members intent on infiltrating our countries to render death and mayhem. We are righ to be concerned but can the government offer the asurance that we will be safe? We simply don't know! 

Similarly, with Cameron's well-intended back-track of policy this morning, there has been no mention of whom will provide housing for several thousand new arrivals, or where they will go or who will pay for their keep. With local authorities being forced to cut their budgets to the limits, where will this money come from?  People are also concerned about an already overstretched NHS that is near breaking point and how this will ever be able to cope with an influx of more people demanding medical facilities. Patients that have already spent considerable periods of time waiting for essential surgical treatment will be wondering whether this is going to extend their waiting times for vital operations.

These are all very genuine concerns that need to be addressed, but at the moment there are no indications that anyone is willing to answer. 

An article relating to the current migrant issues and the very tragic drowning of a three-year-old migrant boy, written by RICHARD LITTLEJOHN has appeared in the Daily Mail.

I believe this is worth reading. 

This child's death was tragic but it was not our fault 

Wednesday, 10 June 2015


I though this article published in the 'Chronicle of Britain and Ireland' is interesting.

England 1679
"New names for old faces can now be heard mentioned in the houses of parliament with the advent of tags for adherents of different political philosophies.'Whigs' and 'Tories' - both terms of abuse - denote government supporters and opponents. Broadly, the Whigs form the court party; they back the established church and the monarchy, and their instincts are conservative. The Tories are broadly anti-government and support the Roman Catholic Duke of York

The word 'Tory' was originally used to describe a particular unpleasant type of Irish robber. A 'Whig', on the other hand, is a Scottish outlaw, covenanter and sanctimonious prig.

Political commentators go further. "A 'Tory' is a creature with a large forehead, prodigious mouth and no brains," says one pamphleteer. A 'Whig' "has principles like chaos" and "prays for the kind with more reservations than the honest man" says another.

The 'Whigs' were a major political party from 1679-1832 that held liberal principles and favoured reforms and later became the Liberal Party. In later use the term was used to refer to conservative members of the Liberal party.

The article therefore seems quite apt when considering our political parties today. It might also be considered appropriate for Labour MP Dennis Skinner to refer to the Tories in a statement he uttered in Parliament by saying - "50% of those on the benches opposite are criminals". After the Speaker had asked him to withdraw his remark, the quick-witted Member for Bolsover responded: "50% of those on the benches opposite aren't criminals".