Monday, 27 May 2013

The state already has more than enough money, laws and committees to protect us from Islamofascists...’s just that the people who spend that money, frame those laws, and sit on those committees are too confused, too politically prejudiced and too drippingly wet to use the means already at their disposal to keep us safe. Here are a few suggestions for protecting us  which don’t involve any of fatuous displacement activities being hysterically mooted by our rulers.

1. Why don’t the intelligence services actually use the information they already have? One of the “suspects” allegedly involved in the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby was arrested in Kenya in 2010, where he was believed to have been trying to join the notorious al-Shabab terrorist group, and deported after having received British consular assistance. Hardly flying below the radar, was he?

2. Before trying to silence “hate preachers”, what about withdrawing the benefits – paid for by the British taxpayer – which provide them with the leisure to turn young men in this country into killers.

3. I know – instead of making multiple attempts to deport people wanted in connection with terrorist offences in other countries, why not, you know, just fucking do it.

4. We are constantly being told that the young men who in the main commit the sort of bestial atrocities we saw in Woolwich and Boston are “radicalised” (ghastly word – but I’ll leave that for another post) at university or in prison. Last time I looked, colleges and prisons are both pretty much under the control of the state. We give the state shed-loads of our money to pay for prisons and universities. Why in the name of God are these allowed to be used as recruiting centres by Islamofascist terrorist groups? David Willetts is the Universities Minister and he reports to that horrid old man, Vince Cable – what the hell are they doing to stop this happening? As for prisons, I would imagine right-wing Justice Secretary Chris Grayling – a relatively recent appointment following the defenestration of that appalling crypto-communist Ken Clarke - is simply gagging to halt this nonsense. Be our guest, Chris!

5. Vast sums of tax-payers’ money have been used to keep the “Muslim community” sweet, and the government has involved some well dodgy Islamic groups to advise on where that money should be spent (where the money hasn’t actually been handed to these blisters directly). Given that all this largesse seems to have done little to halt the spread of Islamofascism in this country, let’s just stop funding ethnic and religious groups of any stripe. Being allowed to live in a country as tolerant and civilised as Britain is an enormous privilege – bribing certain groups will merely convince them that we’re (a) fools, and (b) lucky to have them here.

6. We already have laws in place to stop people inciting violence. The only problem is that the authorities we pay to enforce those laws seem unwilling to do so in an even-handed fashion: write something nasty about islam on Facebook and plod will bust a gut to bring you to justice, but turn up in public carrying placards advocating the slaughter of British troops – a clear act of treason, one would have thought – and chances are your collar will remain unfelt. Why?

7. When people living in a certain neighbourhood complain to the police that gangs of Islamic militants have taken to threatening and beating Muslims and non-Muslims for breaking what they non-Islamic behaviour, maybe the cops, instead of bursting into tears because they might be accused of racism, could actually bloody well do something about it! (Andrew Gilligan wrote about such a case in Tower Hamlets in 2011, here.)

If I weren’t such a sensible, reasonable chap, I’d suspect that there had been a vast and wildly successful conspiracy afoot for years in this country involving politically correct left-wing multi-culti enthusiasts in the government, the civil service, the police, Higher Education and the criminal justice system to afford the adherents of a deranged, violent, alien, fascist creed every opportunity to exploit confused, weak young men when they’re at their most vulnerable – full of self-loathing and fear in prison or full of uncertainty on the brink of adult life at college.

But I know there’s no such conspiracy – it’s just that so many liberal-leftists seem to think they have a perfect right to spend the money the state confiscates from us for the purpose of creating a socialist utopia which the majority of us wish no part of, and which we certainly didn’t vote for. An open, pluralistic society like ours will always be under threat from enemies at home and abroad – what’s particularly galling is that our taxes are being used in a whole variety of ingenious ways to aid and abet enemies who wish to destroy us.

The state doesn't need to add to its considerable powers - it just needs to actually use the ones it already has.


  1. Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor of the Telegraph, 29 April 2013, France shows us how to deal with jihadis. In France, re deportation, they have the same lengthy appeals process as us with one difference – you get deported first and appeal from abroad.

  2. The state may well promise to deliver security in return for surveillance. The advocates of greater surveillance may nevertheless be tragically disappointed with the bargain.

    Dominic Lawson, Sunday Times, 17 June 2012, Clarke plays a deadly game of tagging:

    ... a member of a gang known as the Northumberland Park Killers ... stabbed to death 21-year-old Steven Grisales, having days earlier ripped off the electronic security tag that was supposed to keep him under the watchful eye of the authorities.

    Because the killer was only 15 years old, we have not been allowed to know his name. What we do know is that, according to the police, he had broken his curfew conditions more than 20 times. On the last occasion when he removed his tag, this was discovered by Enfield council, which was responsible for monitoring him; but it was unable to arrange a court appearance “because the breach [of curfew] occurred on a bank holiday”. In the meantime — actually six days after the breach — he murdered Andres and Jasmid Grisales’s son, who had made the fatal mistake of remonstrating with members of the gang for hurling conkers at him and others in a London street ...

    Last Wednesday Liz Calderbank, the chief inspector of probation, released a report on electronically monitored curfews, which deserves that overused term “devastating” — it revealed that 59% of tagged offenders are known to have breached the terms of their curfew ...

    1. Thank you, Mr. Moss - I've had to take an extra blood pressure pill as a result of reading this.

      The whole of the public sector seem incapable of understanding that it's almost invariably better to fix the systems they've already got in place and use the weapons already at their disposal than running around like headless chickens setting up new systems and passing new laws. Unfortunately, reputations and careers aren't advanced by doing the hard work of improving what already exists - easier to make a splash with something new and shiny and move on before it goes tits up. How stupid or - to borrow from Roger Scruton - unscrupulouslyy optimistic would you have to have been to have believe for one moment that community service and tagging would be any substitute for imprisoning criminals?

    2. A reminder of the fruits of unscrupulous optimism, The Times, 16 September 2013, 'Bailed suspects committed over 50 murders last year', pills required before continuing:

      More than 60,000 crimes, including 50 murders, were committed in Britain last year by suspects freed on bail, new figures have shown.

      A total of 56 murders were carried out by people bailed by the courts while awaiting trial for other crimes - a 37 per cent rise on 2011, according to Ministry of Justice figures obtained by the Daily Mail.

      Another 16 people were convicted of manslaughter offences committed while on bail, and 684 for serious violent assaults, the paper said.

      It was also reported that five killers released on licence have murdered again in the past four years.

      They were among 1,900 criminals handed life sentences who live under supervision in the community, according to a written answer to Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley ...

      And so it goes. On.

    3. It might help if the self-pleasuring Pollyannas who let criminals back out into society to prey upon the innocent had to face the consequences of their sunny view of human nature - maybe they should be given the choice of resigning or, if they want to go on working in the CJS, a hefty prison sentence when their compassionate decisions lead to the innocent being mugged, burgled, raped or murdered. Should make them think twice.

  3. The term Islamofascism is a neologism which draws an analogy between the ideological characteristics of specific Islamist movements and a broad range of European fascist movements of the early 20th century.

    William Martin
    Financial Claims Made Simple

    1. Thank you for enlighteningn us - and no, I don't wish to make any financial claims.

  4. Your point 5. Apologies for the length.

    Mr Clegg said: "Over the last few days London has shown itself at its best:
    an unbreakable city once again refusing to bow to hatred and violence. Of all
    the groups and faiths represented here today, I would like to pay special
    tribute to London's Muslim community.
    An unspeakable act has been conducted in their name. Yet while this has
    provoked feelings of frustration and anger - it flies in the face of the peace
    and love that Islam teaches - Muslim organisations, Mosques, Imams and community
    leaders have responded with a call for unity and calm. They have set an example
    for us all."
    Daily Telegraph 24th May 2013.

    Nick Clegg, you are one monumental, dangerous drip. Please go away and don't come back.

    As always, after another Muslim outrage [OK, I am supposed to say Islamist, I think, but I am not good on PC semantics] , the usual cast of apologists come crawling out of the woodwork and after their knee-jerk "my heart goes out, my thoughts are with etc" sentiments to the victims they heap praise on the muslim "community" and stress how much they enrich our existence. The same reaction took place after the exposure of the various Asian sex gangs.

    The buffoon Boris Johnson has made a chump of himself, Shami Chakrabarti has re-emerged doing her Mother Teresa impersonation and even Hazel Blears [yes, Hazel "Bloody" Blears - the robotic circus dwarf-lady!] has added her two bits. I thought Blears was sent away for her eccentric views on Parliamentary expenses, but I now discover she is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee [God preserve us!]. She has this to say [DT 27th May]:

    “I don’t think this is simply a matter of banning things, you have to take on this ideology and that way you have to empower young people, people right across communities, to say ‘this is not our religion, this is not our belief’ and to tackle the extremists themselves". Empowerment and more community-bollocks. Yak Yak Yak. Yvette Cooper [our next Home Secretary] in the same issue : "There has been a reduction in work with councils and communities - and more should be done by the Communities Department to support integration and community organisations that are working to prevent radicalisation and extremism in the first place. " Enough already with all hogwash about communities and community leaders.

    And then there is the predictable part played by our national broadcaster and the airtime given to Anjem Choudary which is too painful for further comment. If the current BBC set-up had been in existence during WWII they would probably have given William Joyce a platform "in the interest of balance".

    1. I'm pretty sure the BBC would have made William Joyce their Foreign Affairs Editor. As for the ludicrous Blears and Cooper (whose judgment has to be seriously questioned, given that she chose to marry Ed Balls) I'm astonished they have ther effrontery to comment at all on a situation that is entirely of their own party's making.

      But I disagree with you about the emphasis on the Muslim "community" - after all, haven't they been out marching in their tens of thousands chanting anti-Islamist slogans and proudly carrying placards reading "NOT IN OUR NAME!". Oh hang on a second - that's right, the British Muslim community haven't actually done any of that. Yes, a few leaders have issued a few press releases, but most Muslims have preferred to disassociate themselves from homicidal co-religionists in a rather low key fashion, mumbling lukewarm comments into TV News microphones outside mosques when forced to do so (my favourite the other night, in response to the question "Will you be praying for Lee Rigby", was "We pray for everyone" -i.e. not really. When we returned to the studio, I swear there were tears of gratitude in the newsreader's eyes. No wonder out politicians are so cravenly grateful to them. Maybe all British Muslims who didn't vocally support the killing should be handed knighthoods.

    2. If not knighthoods how about a free Remington Beard Clipper to every Muslim male - there must be funds available for that. This would make them more attractive to women and encourage them to go "a-courtin" in more acceptable ways. I believe Remington have a heavy-duty model called "The Lawnmower". I think Abu Qatada should be given a gold-plated version of this as a leaving present on his way through Heathrow.

  5. A Frankophile-almost29 May 2013 at 09:24

    You mean to say France ignores Brussels-gracious me.In that case 'Vive La France.'

    1. They can "vive" all they want to as long as their useless farmers stop sticking their snouts in the EU trough. The success of their Prime Minister's policies can be judged by the fact that my part of West London is crawling with French families - all very well off, well-dressed and well-behaved. It adds a certain je ne sais quoi to our existence and keeps pushing up the value of our houses, so I'm utterly delighted.

  6. Defending a claim of policy often involves first convincing the audience that a problem exists, considering opposing arguments, and providing specific data that shows the benefits of the claim.

    Financial Claims Made Simple

    William Martin