French back burka ban - by Richard... Wednesday, July 14, 2010

French back burka ban - by Richard... Wednesday, July 14, 2010

"French back burka ban as only ONE MP votes against move to outlaw Islamic 'walking coffins'," reports The Daily Mail. This is seriously good news, but it will be interesting to see whether the multi-cults try to get it to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and, if they do, whether it sticks.

Of course, it would be better news if the gutless wonders on this side of the Channel got stuck in. I think we've had enough of these little madams and their menfolk over here as well. If they don't like it here, they know what to do.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Day 4 – Battle of Britain - by Richard... Tuesday, July 13, 2010

That we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain from 10 July is the result of a somewhat arbitrary choice by the then head of Fighter Command, Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding.

It was he that chose the day, but in fact the German actions that his fighters were then experiencing stemmed from Hitler's War Directive No. 13, dated 24 May 1940. It instructed that "as soon as enough units become available, the Luftwaffe should embark upon its independent mission against the British homeland." 

The first deliberately planned attacks against the British homeland were recorded from 3 July. History was made on 8 July at 3.45 pm when the first German fighter was shot down on British soil. 

This, according to this superb website was a Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 from 4 Staffel, Jagdgeschwader (JG) 51, flown by Leutnant Johann Boehm. It was damaged in combat by Sergeant E A (Boy) Mould in a Spitfire of No 74 Squadron and forced to land at Bladbean Hill, Elham, Kent (pictured). The pilot was taken prisoner (pictured below right – note the old-fashioned courtesy).

By today seventy years ago, therefore, active operations had been going on for well over a week. On this, the official Day 4, Kanalkamph was still very much in progress, with shipping attacks off Dover and Portland. During the night, there was airborne minelaying in the Thames Estuary, a tactic which was to damage and destroy more ships than direct attack and, for a time, close down the Port of London, then the biggest port in the Empire.

Weather through the day was fine, with fog in the south of England, hampering operations, although it had cleared by mid-morning. The German bombers were out after shipping, under the command of Kommodore Johannes Fink, designated Kanalkampfürher, operating from an old bus set up near a statue of Louis Blériot on top of the cliffs at Cap Blanc Nez. From the windows of his bus, he could follow the course of the Channel battle.

There were attacks on two convoys off Harwich, and two sharp air engagements off Dover, in which the Germans claimed two Spitfires and six Hurricanes, admitting the loss of five. In fact, the RAF lost one aircraft while the Germans lost seven, including a FW 200 of I/KG40.

An interesting footnote occurred at this time, with pilots reporting being fired upon by "old and dirty" Hurricanes which bore no roundels or lettering and had two-bladed wooden airscrews. No official records exist but it is possible that the Germans were using one or two captured machines, liberated during the fighting in May ... from the Belgians. Nothing much changes, it seems.

Battle of Britain thread

Print ready

Read this - by Richard...

... if you want to learn more about how the EU works. Don't look if you prefer your ignorance (applies to most Tories and almost all MPs - but then they rarely come here, for that very reason).

Print ready

Chinese downgrade West's credit - by Richard...

China's leading credit rating agency has stripped America, Britain, Germany and France of their AAA ratings, accusing Anglo-Saxon competitors of ideological bias in favour of the West. 

So writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who tells us that Dagong Global Credit Rating Co used its first foray into sovereign debt to paint a revolutionary picture of creditworthiness around the world, giving much greater weight to "wealth creating capacity" and foreign reserves than Fitch, Standard & Poor's, or Moody's. 

The US falls to AA, while Britain and France slither down to AA-. Belgium, Spain, Italy are ranked at A- along with Malaysia. Meanwhile, China rises to AA+ with Germany, the Netherlands and Canada, reflecting its €2.4 trillion (£2 trillion) reserves and a blistering growth rate of 8pc to 10pc a year. 

It would be unwise to read too much into this, however. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, chief of the IMF, declares that the rising East is a transforming global force. "Asia's time has come," he says. But politically, China is a basket case and big Asian countries like India and Indonesia are so mired in corruption and bad governance that they are not going to realise their potential any time soon.

We may be down and out – largely a self-inflicted wound – but there is no real sign of Asia being a replacement.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Beyond demonstrable failure - by Richard...

"Renegade Afghan soldier kills three British troops." That's the headline inThe Guardian with similar replicated elsewhere and more detail here. 

Two (or four, according to some reports) more were injured during what is termed a "joint patrol" with local forces in southern Helmand, part of the mentoring process which is supposed to be improving the capabilities of the Afghan National Army (ANA) so that it can take over duties from ISAF.

This is not the first time we have seen such an incident. In November last, a rogue Afghan policeman killed five British troops. In December, an Afghan soldier also shot dead one US soldier and wounded two Italian troops at a base in Badghis.

Sadly, over the weekend I was discussing the process with a very senior member of the previous administration, observing in my own inimitable style that: "The mentoring scheme is crap, always was crap, always will be crap ... a very expensive and stupid waste of money ... and by now a demonstrable failure."

"Consistently," I wrote, "we turn our faces away from experience, from tried and tested systems that have a track record of working, to embrace something with a poor record of success. We then pursue it well beyond the point where it has become a demonstrable failure ... and express surprise that it does not work."

This was written before the piece in the Independent on Sunday by Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady. This revealed that the strategic plan of creating an Afghan security force to replace US and British troops is in serious disarray with local forces a fraction of their reported size, infiltrated by the Taliban at senior levels, and plagued by corruption and drug addiction.

Rather than be negative (which I am not when talking to people who are prepared to listen), I had observed that, in nuts and bolts terms, the interesting thing is that to pacify the plains tribes, you often had to use hill tribesmen. This was in the days of the Raj. Conversely, it was almost impossible to get plains tribesmen to go up into the hills and fight effectively. 

The trouble is, I then noted, that we have cut ourselves off from the hill tribes. They are now in Pakistan ... except that they come of the hills raiding and looking for work. But it is rather remarkable that we are prepared to hire Nepalese and use them but not raise native regiments, drawing them down from the hills with bribes and offers of work. 

In fact, one of my many earlier suggestions had been precisely that we should raise native regiments, officered by the British, but as part of the British Army, not the ANA, equipped by us, with British NCOs, and paid by us. Once knocked into shape, we could then hand them over to the Afghan government. 

The native levy system was one which helped us conquer the Empire, the regiments so formed then going on to form the core of the post-colonial forces. And the best examples currently are the Pakistani and Indian Armies, living testament to our past military skills.

But the point has been made. Consistently, we turn our faces away from experience, from tried and tested systems that have a track record of working, to embrace something with a poor record of success. We then pursue it well beyond the point where it has become a demonstrable failure ... and express surprise that it does not work.

The only thing we seem to be able to excel in these days is consistency.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

We tend not to make statements - by Richard...

The Toronto Sun has picked up on the "Amazongate" story with journalist Brian Lilley reporting the response of the WWF, which says "it cannot be held responsible for how the UN climate change group used its data."

Privately, Brian tells me that the WWF was extremely reluctant to make any statement at all. He says that it "essentially tried to tell me that this is all too complex for my pretty little head", then declaring (on the record): "We tend not to make statements in contexts where there seems to be limited interest in a balanced appraisal of an issue." 

How different that is from last January when Keith Allott, the WWF's climate change campaigner was affirming his pride on the "accuracy" of his organisation's reports.

He pledged to carry out an "internal investigation" into how its Global Review of Forest Firescame to miss out a reference to what it claimed was the source of its material, Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute). "We have a team of people looking at this internationally," Allott said.

In an official statement on 31 January, the WWF then noted that some commentators had concluded that potential climate impacts on the Amazon "are overstated and unsupported." It thus declared, "WWF refutes this conclusion and stands by the credibility of its report."

Then on 7 February, its UK chief executive, David Nussbaum, told The Sunday Times that the WWF report was "fully supported by peer-reviewed literature". Author Andy Rowell claimed that the key figure in the report "had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication."

This was backed by another statement from WWF on 10 February, announcing the outcome of its inquiry promised at the end of January. The reference (Fire in the Amazon), it said, "was drawn from an authoritative source, was factually correct and is supported by the peer-reviewed literature."

Last week, though, UK head of media Benjamin Ward was only prepared to argue that Fire in the Amazon was "quite appropriate" for use in their report, A global overview of forest fires., while admitting the source was a Brazilian advocacy group website. Asked whether it was peer reviewed, he could only say stiffly, "We have never claimed it was peer-reviewed." 

Just a day earlier, though, the WWF was signatory to a duplicitous statement in a press release urging news outlets that reported on the original "Climategate" controversy to set the record straight. 

These outlets were urged to highlight recent developments "that completely disprove" much of the evidence that supported the alleged "Climategate" scandal with the same forcefulness and frequency that they reported the original charges.

Citing The Sunday Times article alleging that the IPCC had issued an unsubstantiated report claiming 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest was endangered due to changing rainfall patterns, it happily lifted chunks of text from the retraction, even though by then it knew the retraction to make false assertions: 

... the IPCC's Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change.

"Failure to publicly correct the record undermines the very heart of journalism - to report the truth," declared the WWF. 

Now, when given the opportunity to set the record straight, all it can manage, is: "We tend not to make statements in contexts where there seems to be limited interest in a balanced appraisal of an issue." How interesting.

Comment: Amazongate thread

Print ready

The dregs of the dregs - by Richard...

One is aware occasionally of rather unpleasant deposits on the footpath, despite the prevalence of dog-fouling laws – but that does not mean that we rush home to write about them.

In like manner, one becomes aware of the performance of certain MPs. The immediate impulse is very much the same – to ignore the unpleasantness and hope the rain washes it away ... except that it doesn't.

Thus, for our own record – late into the day – we must note The Daily Mail recording how "dozens of MPs took part in a six-hour drinking session on the House of Commons terrace shortly before a crucial vote" last Tuesday.

Many were said to be under the influence when they finally made their way to the Chamber to take part in the debate on the budget and one Tory admitted he had been too drunk to vote after he fell to the floor of a Commons bar, where drinks are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. 

In The Daily Telegraph we recently read of MPs exploiting new expenses rules by prolonging a debate past 1am in order to claim up to £130 each for staying in hotels, this not being unrelated with the episodes of drunkenness. 

My immediate response is to rail at the stupidity of these people. Given all the recent events, the one thing you would be expecting of an MP is that he should be asking himself constantly of his own actions, "what would my constituents think – what would the general public think?" Given that they are now so obviously ashamed at their own behaviour, one wonders whether such morons are safe to be let out on their own, much less to represent us as MPs.

Not far short of two years ago, I wrote a piece about parliament entitled "this is not a game". Too few have listened – they seem incapable of listening. But what do these half-wits expect us to think? How do they expect us to react? What do they expect us to say? Are we supposed torespect these creatures?

And now, looking at the "cuts", one can see the ripples spreading – the story having reached the Australian press and all points in between. So does it mark yet another step in our decline. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for our cretinous MPs. This we do not deserve.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Day 3 – Battle of Britain - by Richard... Monday, July 12, 2010

This was settling down into what was becoming apparent as "phase one" – clearing the Channel of shipping, the so-called Kanalkampf. The British were not to know that that was the plan, although this was now very evident on the third day of sustained attacks.

Formations of early-morning fog in the Channel hampered the Germans and until 8.50 am activity was slight. Several radar plots were then picked up, heading for convoys "Agent" off North Foreland and "Booty", twelve miles north-east of Orfordness. The heavier attack was aimed at “Booty". Sections from six squadrons were scrambled.

Action was seen in Scotland later that morning, with an He 111 being shot down off Aberdeen. Several more German aircraft were shot down during the day – one off the Isle of Wight. Poor visibility throughout the day, though, made interceptions difficult.

By midnight, the Germans had suffered only eight losses, against six from the RAF, in the course of 670 sorties. Already, some squadrons were running short of pilots, an issue which was to dominate the battle. But, while this first phase was the Stuka war, these vulnerable aircraft were soon to be withdrawn from the English campaign. This was the beginning of the Spitfire legend.

Battle of Britain thread