CAVALIER OR ROUNDHEAD.

The BBC appears to operate a different ethos with its 'Freeview' digital channels. In general, they seem to avoid their left wing bias. However, they can't help offering low shots, probably when they think our defences are low. Well, the author's defence is never low.

In a recent production regarding the influence left by the British civil war in the 1640's; are we still either supporters of Charles I (Cavalier) or Cromwell (Roundhead)? The programme created a simplistic view, suggesting the Cavalier as a gung ho, happy go lucky type, this could be construed as being close to the mark. The Roundhead's attitude, conversely, was built upon discipline and organisation. Probably the reason for Cromwell's success, based on his 'New Model Army', the forerunner of our current armed forces. The Beeb, nevertheless, felt the need to inject its own brand of stupidity. We were obliged to hear frequently from a QC (Queens Council) name of Robertson, a spokesman for the 'Human rights act', who went unchallenged, informing us that this was built on Cromwellian Parliamentarian laws. Well I'm sure that we can dispel that swiftly, by pointing out that Abu Qatada would have been despatched quicker than that, had Cromwell been around today.

Although the writer is far from being anti-royal, Oliver Cromwell was truly a great Englishman.


SO I MUST BE A ROUNDHEAD

EVERYTHING'S ON THE HOUSE.

One of the headlines in the daily press this week points out the cost of abortions performed by the NHS, at around £1million per week. These are mostly for single women, some may have repeat terminations in excess of half a dozen through their teens and twenties, all at the expense of taxpayer GB. How, in a supposedly advanced, moralistic society, can an act of ending lives with such flippancy be tolerated?

Other concerns, from the current trend that the Government (taxpayer) should  also fund, crop up regularly. Doctors are being asked to reconsider thousands of cases of what we call 'disabillity'. These are not cases of obvious disablement, but drug addiction and alcoholism, self inflicted problems. The way these benefits are spent, in many cases, continues to fund their habit. We can add to the fracas, increased special needs education. It seems strange, that in recent years, the numbers have risen considerably. Perhaps, of course, it could be the way the 'left wing' of the teaching fraternity wish to assess the situation, in an endeavour to extort more funding from the hard working public.

Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner explain the kind of thinking that has brought about this nonsense in their books 'Freakonomics' and 'Super Freakonomics'. They have taken subjects affecting society, pointing out that, very often, the main beneficiaries are the group operating the system. The consequence is more state employment. Again, with additional cost to the diminishing private sector, which produces the cash through  taxes.


OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ENORMOUS DEBT.

BUSINESSES TO BE HAMSTRUNG.

We are aware of the way socialism attacks business, it is, however, difficult to swallow when the conservative led coalition includes, in the Queen's Speech, measures to obstruct future productivity; by the introduction of legislation, offering, not only mothers but fathers, if they can be traced, considerable time off, following the birth of an offspring. Existing rules are already being exploited by mothers with regard to maternity leave. They can produce a child every year, not necessarily by the same father, generally avoiding work, but having a fairly healthy income. A life style based on other people's efforts. It is understood that after a few years, and a suitably sized family, she can give up this part-time, well paid situation, and move onto benefits.

Another example of weak central government. We have written previously about the extended tram system in my home city of Nottingham, although we live just over the border, in the county. Much of the funding is acquired by taxing workers for parking at their place of employment, a nominal £300 per annum. Just another example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Government should have stopped the funding as soon as it came to power in May 2010.


SO FORGET INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY.

SOCIALISTS LOVE INCREASED TAXES.

Here in Britain, a number of council elections have taken place, and as often happens mid term, the opposition makes gains, although local  elections have nothing to do with national decisions; they are about local services, and therefore local (Council) tax. One can only derive from the sudden rush of votes for the Socialists, as a type of suicide note; the only predictable outcome that will surely occur, is that the Council Tax will go up. This might not be the disaster that their supporters need concern themselves over, as many of them will be on benefits, leaving others to pay their dues.

The astonishing thing about modern Britain, is that children are badly under-educated, due to the fact that the teaching fraternity is mainly socialist, which keeps youngsters away from facts regarding simple domestic economics. The theory being, that a Labour Government will deliver all ones needs. We only have to look at the state of the economy to crush such a thought. The last Labour regime left the finances in such a parlous state, a fact that was acknowledged by an outgoing member. If we then compare that with Conservative controlled Councils, who for a number of years have frozen the Council Tax, the incoming Labour Councils will, as mentioned earlier, increase local taxes. This is done for the reason of employing more folk in non-productive jobs, hoping to retire long before those occupied in productivity, with far better pensions. However, the real reason is for the inflated unionised staff to make more contributions, which in turn, finds it's way back into Labour Party coffers.


WORKER'S MONEY RECYCLED BY STRIKE LEADERS.

THIS TOM WATSON WON'T WIN A MAJOR.

Unlike his golfing namesake, Labour MP Tom Watson will struggle to make an impression with the more open minded Brit. Here we have someone who has developed a personal vendetta against the Murdoch media empire, suggesting all kinds of activity, which may, or may not be true; hardly the type of person that we should expect to appear on a select committee, looking into the 'phone hacking scandal.

The author doesn't carry a torch for the Murdochs, never having purchased one of their range of newspapers, or subscribed to Sky TV. However, it could be argued, that much of the daily press exists mainly due to the fact that he, Rupert Murdoch, saved the Times/Sunday Times from extinction, which would have had a knock on effect for other Titles. What he did was to bypass the print unions, who had a strangle hold on the workforce.

What has transpired regarding 'phone hacking is undoubtedly a disgrace. Although disclosures about so called celebrities don't overly concern the author, since their aim in life is to keep impressing their followers, whoever these simpletons are? The likes of Tom Watson and the licence funded BBC, a Sky competitor, love the opportunity to kick the so-called opposition, at somebody else's expense. The BBC is naive and appallingly profligate, and Tom Watson an absolute nonentity; who, incidentally, would be unfit to run any business.


WATSON, YOU MIGHT GUESS, HAS WRITTEN A BOOK ON THE SUBJECT.