You may link to my blog but if you want to copy my article to your own blog, please give the following credit: From "Ampers' Rants" at Thank you.

There is a box below (left) which enables you to translate into many languages.

If you like what you see, why not subscribe to the blog? You can follow Ampers' Rants by adding your email address in the box below (left) Notifications are also shown in my Twitter account: AmpersUK.

Sunday, 22 November 2015

An interesting story of an Imam (Muslim Priest) who converted to Christianity.

As a Deist, I do not believe in any religion organised to take money from their poor subjects, who are worth billions, nor religious ruled by killings and beheadings, I tolerate the gentler religions, but do not accept them. I call myself an atheist, more out of not having to explain further. But I am a Deist, in that, through observing nature, I feel there is a stonger power somewhere, stronger than anything we have observed on our planet.

The following video is about a young Muslim Imam, who converted to Christianity. This is a brave thing to do, as I am sure all my readers instinctively know, this is a death sentence for the Muslim converting. In fact his father tried to kill him before having a heart attack and falling on the knife he was going to kill his son with.

I wish him well, although in my eyes, he has just moved from one fabrication to another, albeit a gentler one which has moved with the times.



Thursday, 19 November 2015

More insights into Islamism - OIC explained. (long)

The following blog is long, over an hour - 74 minutes to be exact, and I am afraid the speaker isn't what I would call a first rate speaker, but the message is important.

If you think OIC stands for Officer in Charge, and nothing else, you are going to learn something. Bookmark this now if you haven't an hour to spare.

A bit of writing first then the sound and the lecture.


A lesson on the Saudi Wahabis and the Muslim dilemma.

One of two articles to help explain the Middle East and the Muslims there. The second will follow in minutes and is a rather long video

Saudi Wahhabi dilemma in spotlight after Paris attack

Saudi Arabia's harsh religious tradition is seen by many outsiders - and some Saudi liberals - as a root cause of the international jihadist threat that has inflamed the Middle East for years and struck in Paris last week.

However, while Riyadh has cracked down hard on jihadists at home, jailing thousands, stopping hundreds from traveling to fight abroad and cutting militant finance streams, its approach to religion has raised a dilemma.

It assails the ideology of militants who proclaim jihad against those they regard as heretics or infidels, while allying with a clerical establishment that preaches intolerance, although not violence, against exactly those same groups.

Wahhabism, the kingdom's official ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim school, regards Shi'ism as heretical, lauds the concept of jihad and urges hatred of infidels. Its clerics run the Saudi justice system and have funds to spread their influence abroad.

"Muslims should be fair to non-Muslims. They can do business with them and should not attack them. But that does not mean they should not hate them and avoid them," a senior Saudi cleric said in a background discussion with Reuters last year.

For the government, focusing on that distinction, between accepting hatred and inciting violence, has let it retain the support of Wahhabi clergy and ultra-conservative Saudis while also carrying out a massive security operation against militants.

Modern jihadist organizations, including Islamic State and al Qaeda, follow an extreme interpretation of the Salafi branch of Islam, of which WRead the rest on the Reuters Website.ahhabism was the original strain, and whose clergy still enjoy great influence in wider Salafist circles.

Friday's carnage in Paris at the hands of an Islamic State cell follows a series of bombings and shootings by the same group's followers in Saudi Arabia over the past year that have killed dozens, mostly from the kingdom's Shi'ite minority.

The government defends its record on combating Islamist radicalism, pointing to its detention of thousands of suspected militants, its intelligence sharing with allies and its barring of clergy who praised militant attacks.

Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Major General Mansour Turki in an interview this summer rejected the idea that Wahhabism itself was a problem, comparing the 2,144 Saudis who had gone to Syria with the estimated 5,000 European Muslims who had done so.

He said the clerics and firebrands now exhorting Muslims - including Saudis - to go and fight in Syria or Iraq, or to launch attacks elsewhere, were themselves living in territory controlled by Islamic State rather than in the kingdom itself.


The Grand Mufti and the council of senior scholars, the top Wahhabi cleric and institution, denounced the Paris attacks and have for years decried militants as deviants and heretics.

But Saudi clerics openly defame Shi'ites as "rejectionists", a term in common currency among Sunni militants in the sectarian bloodbath afflicting many Middle East nations, and often refuse to accept that Shi'ites are Muslim.

Their teaching on jihad - that it is a blessed activity in defense of Islam against infidels and heretics, and will win rewards in heaven - differs from that of militant groups only in requiring the approval of the king and Saudi official clergy.

To outsiders and to liberal Saudi critics of the ruling Al Saud, such intellectual gymnastics, reinforced in frequent clerical messages and a centerpiece of the kingdom's militant rehabilitation program, sometimes look like hairsplitting.

However, they fall squarely in the context of Saudi Arabia's idiosyncratic internal politics, in which the unelected dynasty depends on the Wahhabi clergy to support its legitimacy and often voices fears of a militant uprising against its rule.

Certainly, the biggest historical threats to stability in the world's top oil exporter and the birthplace of Islam have come from conservatives reacting against liberalization.

The Ikhwan tribal army of the kingdom's founder Ibn Saud rebelled against him over his treaties with non-Muslims. King Faisal was assassinated in 1975 in revenge for the 1966 shooting of a prince during riots against the introduction of television.

In 1979 a group of militant Islamists inspired by anger at Westernization overran Mecca's Grand Mosque in a bloody siege. Widespread Islamist protests seethed in the 1990s and last decade al Qaeda staged deadly attacks.

Those shootings and bombings, which killed hundreds, helped prompt the Al Saud to address open militancy among the clergy and to introduce liberalizing reforms aimed at encouraging tolerance and getting more young Saudis into jobs.

They included a scholarship program that sent hundreds of thousands of Saudis of both sexes abroad to study, a big drive to get more women into jobs, glacial reforms to the justice and education sectors and the banning of hundreds of preachers.

These reforms led to a crescendo of Wahhabi outrage against their progenitor - the late King Abdullah. While the new King Salman gets on better with the clergy, nine months after he took power he has made no big moves to roll back social change.


The dynasty's critics counter that the state-financed clergy are more pliant to the ruling family's wishes than they appear and that the Al Saud holds up the threat of militancy to avoid making reforms that could ultimately endanger its own power.

They add that previous concessions made against fears of a conservative backlash gave Wahhabi clerics influence that simply reinforced their intolerant message.

One problem the Al Saud have in attempts to soften Wahhabism is that the school was founded expressly to end what it saw as heretical and wrong beliefs. Another is the terms of an 18th century pact between princes and clerics dividing authority between the political and religious spheres.

To challenge either of those two principles would be to strike at fundamental beliefs and a social contract that lie at the heart of Saudi society.

Yet some changes have been made. After Ibn Saud defeated the Ikhwan, he promoted clerics who endorsed a more inclusive version of Wahhabism that recognized more liberal Sunnis as being Muslim and accepted the idea of relations with infidels.
Read the rest on the Reuters Website.
Over the decades, the positions of official clergy have grudgingly softened further still, and the Wahhabi tent is now broad enough to include firebrands as well as clerics who are comfortable engaging with the West and modern ideas.

Meanwhile, although Saudi Arabia finances preachers, mosques and madrassas around the world, and although Salafism has become common among Muslims globally, Saudi Arabia's own influence in the movement has become diluted.

Its Umm al-Qura seminary in Medina remains one of the principle centers of Salafist learning for international students, but its graduates have no greater clout than those of institutions in other countries.

Read the rest on the Reuters Website.


Friday, 13 November 2015

Sales, Corporates and Robots, a collection

During my conversations today four ideas struck me.

A new United Kingdom

The present system seems to have run its course or, in modern parlance, past its sell-by date.

I would like to see England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland become totally self sufficient with their own parliament making all their laws. In a fairly central point, I'd like to see a federal parliament perhaps Manchester, for a United Kingdom parliament, concerned only with matters outside these islands, such as the Foreign Office, the Military, and embassies.

Then I'd like income tax divided into a federal tax and a regional tax. A federal tax for the UK parliament, and a regional one for each country. Then, if you don't look after the job producers, a company may move to another region.

Then I'd like to go back to county councils running their counties and, instead of VAT, and council tax, I'd like to see each council have a sales tax.

Sales Tax

We could, as an idea, allow councils to charge a sales tax between 10% and 20% on any goods or services bought within the county. And, like America, if you buy goods out of county, then you pay that county's sales tax and not yours. County "a" charges 12% and the next county charges 18%. Guess how soon the other county will lower its sales tax!

This would enable County Councils to be totally free of government interference. It would also create a situation where, if they didn't keep their sales tax down, people would buy goods in counties with a lower tax rate. Councils would have to learn to be competitive.

Corporation Tax

Corporations hate competition, whereas smaller companies strive harder with competition. I would lower Corporation Tax quite a lot for companies with up to twenty personnel. Then the normal Corporation Tax until we come to corporations.

Corporations which are British and have no branches abroad are taxed at the present rate but International Corporations British or foreign, to pay a higher tax rate.

The future is to grow our companies to larger companies. Corporates tend to throttle smaller companies.

Finally, Robots

Robotic inventions and applications are growing at a rapid pace and it is time to seriously reconsider what we want.

Do we want thousands and thousands of jobless people because work has been so mechanised, or do we want our people to enjoy more leisure hours and a much shorter working week?

If we put people on a 25 hour working week, this could, even with robotics, cost companies too much. But not if we can save them money by increasing their production and make better use of their premises and capital equipment.

My idea is to work on a three days on and three days off routine. We could call one three day team the A team and the second three day team the B team. Then happily married couples could both get jobs in the 'same letter' team, and not so happily married couples could choose 'alternate letter' teams.

If people stuck to the same letter, their contacts in other companies would remain the same, and companies would have seven days output to pay for the same cost of premises and capital equipment.

As we mechanise even more with robots, the seven hour day could then have the hours reduced, without having to change everything.


Anyway, these are just some ideas, they need to be better thought out, and expanded, but hey! I left school at 15, there must be some brighter people here who can make better suggestions.

Tuesday, 10 November 2015

Some tips on leafleting, For volunteers of Leave.EU especially.

Over the years, I have always had part-time jobs, giving out leaflets, even when I was a CEO. Why? The answer is simple, it was my way of keeping fit. Contemporaries paid money to join gyms and health clubs, I earned money by getting my exercise. Climbing up and down steps, bending down to those letterboxes right at the bottom of doors, opening and shutting gates, walking miles, it was all great exercise and, in addition, exercised different parts of my body.

Some things I learned included:

Don't deliver if a note says “no leaflets” it is impolite, but on the other hand, if it says “no junk mail” and you are delivering community or political stuff, the word “junk” is relative isn't it?

Watch out for dogs behind a letterbox - especially silent ones - and don't put your hand in.

If the postman or another leafleteer has left mail or a leaflet sticking out in view of passers by, push them all in as a favour to the householder who may be at work and won't want potential burglars noting that there's nobody in.

If a thin leaflet, curve it as you put it in the letterbox as it gives it strength to push through those awful “claws” and push up the flap at the other end.

If you see the householder, a loud and cheerful good morning, good afternoon or good evening will help. It also helps them to smile, I often grin and say, I should be at home with a glass of wine (women) or a glass of whisky (men) and this usually brings a smile to their face.

If they have a small porch between their door and their front door and you see them, it helps to mention that a strong lock should be on the porch door more than the front door, as if a burglar gets into your porch, he has all the time in the world, out of sight of the neighbours, to work on your front door. Unless, of course, they have a strong lock on their porch door.

If you are a husband and wife team, play leapfrog. This is when you are doing one side of a street together, do one house, your partner does the next house, and so on. Then you will always be close together should one of you need “assistance”.

I could go on, but this is a good starter for making your life easier.


Monday, 9 November 2015

Four in five people agreed that laws and regulations “fail to achieve what they are meant to”

New Institute for Economic Affairs poll: most people don't think politicians make decisions based on what’s best for the country

New polling figures out today reveal just how disaffected the British public is with government.

More than three-quarters of British people say they feel they have not very much influence, or no influence at all, on the national government’s decision-making, according to a new ComRes poll for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free markets think tank.

Half of Britons think that the level of influence governments have over people’s lives is too high, and just eight per cent of respondents said that politicians make decisions based on what’s best for the country.

The poll also found that four in five people agreed with the idea that laws and regulations “fail to achieve what they are meant to” and “often create problems even if they are introduced with good intentions".

The polling was carried out as part of a new IEA project called the “Paragon Initiative”.

Commenting on the project’s launch, IEA director general Mark Littlewood said: “For too long, people have accepted mediocrity with a government monopoly as they don’t know anything different.”

“The public clearly believe that the politicians are acting in their own interest, at the expense of what’s best for the families up and down the country,” he added.

Read the rest of the article.


Saturday, 7 November 2015

The difference between the "Vote Leave" and the "Leave.EU organisations [short]

The "Vote Leave" is the Westminster House of Commons and House of Lords group. They have put in, as one of the leaders, an 83 year old man, Nigel Lawson, possibly to ensure the Stay in group wins? Rather peculiar is that one of the directors of this group is listed in Company's House as a former director of a pro EU group. It all seems a little foony (as those in Yorkshire might say) to me.

The "Leave.UK" group is a collection of business people and doners who want to keep the politicians out of this. This is the one that UKIP feel would be the best one to support - I wonder why?

Both "Leave" groups are fighting it out to be chosen to be the official group. Why are they fighting? The answer is simple, read the following:

It will be up to the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission, to designate which of the groups will become the official "Leave" campaign - though no decision has yet been taken. The chosen group (as well as the official "In" campaign) will benefit from increased spending limits of £7m during the campaign period, campaign broadcasts and a free mail-out to all households. They all get access to public meeting rooms and to the electoral register, and are entitled to public grants of up to £600,000.

So there you have it in a simplified nutshell.

Why you must sign up to Leave.UK if this is your choice.

They need more names, at the time of writing, 250,000 have signed up. They don't ask for much information, and there is nothing to pay. They just need names in quantity to ensure they are the group that is picked.

Remember, if the parliamentary group is chosen, you can be sure there will be people hoping for a peerage, who will do Cameron's bidding, and ensure the "Leaves" lose.


Friday, 6 November 2015

Frederick Forsyth tells us about the wicked Establishment.

Here is part of an article by Frederick Forsyth in the Daily Express. Here is the full article.

I refer to a sort of rift or schism that is developing between the governors and the governed. As for the first-named, I mean the Establishment. There is nothing fictional about the Establishment. Every society across the time zones and the ages has had one. It is not a body with a head office or a president but that does not mean it does not exist.

It is in fact a loose amalgam of institutions and common interest groups whose upper echelons effectively govern and run the country, regardless of which group of politicians believe they are in power. Of all these groups about 80 per cent are in the public sector, meaning they are on the public payroll, wholly subsidised in their high places by the taxpayer without whom they would be nothing.

Only the tycoons, masters of commerce, business, trade and industry pay for themselves. The governed are the rest of us, the broad masses of the people.

We work hard, or used to before we retired. We abide by the law, we pay our taxes. We hope and expect to be governed fairly and reasonably well. In a good society what flows upwards from the people to empower the Establishment is trust, what flows downwards is respect. In a bad society the people regard the governors with mistrust or active dislike and from the governors the lower orders are treated with dismissive contempt.

Despite the extreme ease of communication afforded by modern technology, all in real authority seem to wall themselves off from any contact with customer, client or taxpayer behind impenetrable screens of anonymity or unavailability. The classic recourse is the telephone that never answers, the recorded tape loop that repeats endlessly but masks a phone that is never picked up because no one is there.

If human contact is ever made, anyone in real authority is never available, always off that day, in conference or not in the office at that moment. One knows one is being fobbed off.

Worth reading the rest.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (and UKIP Lawyers)

Taken from Kalvin Chapman's blog

On 4 November 2015 the UK Government announced its new snooper's bill.  This is the bill that regularises the unfortunate snooping being done that was essentially illegal, but as no one knew about it it didn't matter.  Then the US Government thought it was a good idea to try and shut Edward Snowden up - then try and kill him.  So, we found out everything about what the US and UK Government have been doing.  And, before you read this, this is not an exhaustive list.  It's just the most obnoxious shite I can find - it is, though, 300 pages long and frankly I have a box of chocolates sitting here that will not gorge on themselves.

If you are not angry by the time you finish this, you should be.

The Act has what you have heard - I am ignoring that because the media is covering the bits that the Government told them to cover.  I am covering the bits that needed someone to actually read the 300 pages.  There is a reason that a) there is a 35 page explanation before you get to the legislation (ie. you'll be bored to death so won't read further and the media will just borrow from that to write their articles) and b) no one will read 300 pages of legislation so the nasty bits won't become public.  They forget that UKIP has many lawyers amongst its ranks who just love reading 300 pages of legislation.

1.  Who has power?

One of the oddest things is that the Act allows a senior person in certain Government agencies to request communications data that the act requires telecommunications companies to keep for one year.  So, answer me this.  In Schedule 4, which lists these agencies (see page 2010 of the document) why are the following agencies entitled to request access to my highly sensitive data?

Dept of Health

Dept of Transport

National Health Service Business Services Authority

An NHS Trust

Scottish Ambulance Service

I can just about understand the Dept of Health or Transport - maybe.  But the NHS Business Services Authority?  The Scottish Ambulance Trust?

2.  Authorisation

The frightening part should not just be that these surreal agencies can get access, it is that the decision would normally be taken by the Secretary of State who would balance the needs of national security against your rights as an individual.  No, under section 67 the Secretary of State can make regulations (which therefore do not go before parliament) that will allow these public bodies to make the decision on her behalf.  Yes, the guy at your local council (see section 57) who wishes to investigate you because he is an idiot and mixed up your file with the yob who lives two doors down, he can authorise himself to carry out an investigation of you under section 46(7) by asking his mate at the council to make a decision only the home secretary should make, but which have been devolved down to him under section 67 regulations.

And do not think that this will not happen.  We know from the Snowden disclosures that the door being opened after 9/11 - and how many of us (including me) said that this only happened to allow the Governments to impose privacy invading laws - that door being opened has led to the security services doing whatever the hell they want.  And now, now the Government is handing down the right to spy on you and what you do on-line and in private down to your local council.  We all know what oafs and idiots work in councils up and down the country.  Why on earth does the Scottish Ambulance Service (but not the English or Welsh) need access to this for?  Why do they need powers to authorise the release of this data?  Do you honestly think it will not be abused?

3.  Extraterrestrial

I suppose this on its own is not a surprise.  But section 69 allows the Home Secretary to authorise disclosure and operations outside of the UK.  The problem is, she probably created this section in cahoots with her good old friends in the USA and every European country - all of which will have similar powers.  In other words, even if the UK Government is not snooping, similar provisions from other countries will allow them to snoop on you in the same way as section 69 allows Ms May to snoop on you abroad.  Just think of the issues relating to that, let it sink in.

4.  Section 46(7) Implications

Section 46(7) is the most important section, as it sets out what the Government is allowed to a disclosure (not fogretting that this may be devolved to all public bodies listed in Schedule 4 - including the Scottish Ambulance Service).  Section 46(7) says this:
Remember, detection or preventing a crime.  Do you know how many things can be made into a crime now?  If you decide that you want to hold a march against low pay for Junior Doctors you are potentially going to create a breach of the peace and consequently s. 46(7)(b) bites and the Senior Officer at the Scottish Ambulance Service can legitimately ask to see the last year's worth of facebook messages.  And do you think that the security services will not take massive advantage of that?  Do you think that a police officer who is mad with jealousy that his husband is carrying on with the neighbour - do you honestly think he won't be able to create a credit "crime" that would allow him access to yours or your neighbour's emails and facebook etc?  It has happened many times - this and the use of s. 67 can allow someone senior at the police station (see the Schedule 4 I mentioned earlier) to agree it.  No judge, no Home Secretary, no boring straight as an arrow mandarin who would stop such abuses.  No, PC Bloggs only needs to tell his officer that your neighbour is a drug dealer and hey presto.

We know from has happened since 2001 that we cannot take this on face value.  We know that it will be abused.  The security services no longer even need to get their own feet dirty - they can pressure poor old Jim at the Scottish Ambulance Service wit

Remember, detection or preventing a crime.  Do you know how many things can be made into a crime now?  If you decide that you want to hold a march against low pay for Junior Doctors you are potentially going to create a breach of the peace and consequently s. 46(7)(b) bites and the Senior Officer at the Scottish Ambulance Service can legitimately ask to see the last year's worth of facebook messages.  And do you think that the security services will not take massive advantage of that?  Do you think that a police officer who is mad with jealousy that his husband is carrying on with the neighbour - do you honestly think he won't be able to create a credit "crime" that would allow him access to yours or your neighbour's emails and facebook etc?  It has happened many times - this and the use of s. 67 can allow someone senior at the police station (see the Schedule 4 I mentioned earlier) to agree it.  No judge, no Home Secretary, no boring straight as an arrow mandarin who would stop such abuses.  No, PC Bloggs only needs to tell his officer that your neighbour is a drug dealer and hey presto.

We know from has happened since 2001 that we cannot take this on face value.  We know that it will be abused.  The security services no longer even need to get their own feet dirty - they can pressure poor old Jim at the Scottish Ambulance Service with photos of him having sex with a prostitute and he will abuse his s, 67 rights without batting an eye lid.  And if it goes tits up it won't be the security services that get the blame, will it?

4.  Massive Abuse

I note above that someone wishing to access the sensitive data would have to go and ask a senior authorised person for agreement (subject to him having the rights under regulations made under s. 67).  However, as with everything, under s. 47(2) he can grant himself the right to access it if: But, if the designated senior officer considers that there are exceptional circumstances which mean that subsection (1) should not apply in a particular case, that subsection does not apply in that case.

Reckon that won't get abused much?

The authorisation lasts only for one month, but can be renewed "at any time" during the period it is live.  So, effectively, it is open ended.  There is no long-stop date, so if necessary it could go on for 100 years so long as it was renewed monthly.  There is no regulation that requires a periodic review of why an authorisation is constantly being re-authorised.  Essentially, they put a safeguard in it (one month) but left the back door wide open with no safe-guards.

The only potential is s. 50.  If a communications company refused to hand over the data then the home secretary (or presumably any body that she has devolved the powers to under s. 67) can issue an injunction and it would need to be resolved by a Judge.  But is there anything a company could do to defeat this?  I cannot see anything - if there is a notice then it must be complied with, there are no grounds for refusing.

5. More Massive AbuseOn 4 November 2015 the UK Government announced its new snooper's bill.  This is the bill that regularises the unfortunate snooping being done that was essentially illegal, but as no one knew about it it didn't matter.  Then the US Government thought it was a good idea to try and shut Edward Snowden up - then try and kill him.  So, we found out everything about what the US and UK Government have been doing.  And, before you read this, this is not an exhaustive list.  It's just the most obnoxious shite I can find - it is, though, 300 pages long and frankly I have a box of chocolates sitting here that will not gorge on themselves.

If you are not angry by the time you finish this, you should be.

6. 61 Commissioner approval for authorisations to identify or confirm journalistic sources

This section I think typifies why I really loath Teresa May.  This section allows authorisations to be made to allow the sources of journalists to be identified.  There has always been a maxim that journalism is outside of the purview of politicians because the sign of a democratic country is a free press.  S. 61 erodes that substantially.  I would expect this from Iran or Saudi Arabia - but we will live in the UK.  We should not be allowing journalistic freedoms to be quashed simply because the security services could not nail the Guardian when it was releasing the Snowden disclosures.  To my mind, this is the sickest part of this bill and I hope that every person who reads this gets angry.

I cannot do any more.  I am so angry.  I may do some more tomorrow.

An open letter in South Africa in citizen's firearms.

Your Excellency,

I attentively listened to your recent interview on SABC 1 during the course of which you discussed many of the issues facing contemporary South African society. Near the end of the discussion the topic of firearms and the control thereof was broached, and you stated that in your opinion no private citizen should possess firearms, and that such weapons should be the sole domain of the armed forces, the police, and security companies. You then further mentioned that firearms are used in the majority of homicides, and that these firearms are stolen from civilians.

I fear, Your Excellency, that whomever provided you with the statistics from which you quoted has either bungled spectacularly, or deliberately misled you. I do hope that it is a case of the former and not the latter, for such mischievous machinations indicate a hidden agenda on their part. In order to preserve you from unwelcome discomfort, because being caused embarrassment due to the follies of others is indeed discomforting, I will gladly supply you with the true facts of the matter here.

Regarding the question of firearms and their use in perpetrating homicide I can confidently state that knives and other sharp objects are used in the commission of by far the vast majority of murders. The statistics themselves vary according to their official sources, but their ultimate conclusions are the same.

According to Statistics South Africa in their release Mortality and Causes of Death in South Africa 2013: Findings from death notification approximately 85,1% of homicides are perpetrated by use of sharp objects such as knives.

Rather less dramatic, another study concludes that 33% of people murdered in 2009 were killed by use of a firearm.

Most credibly, Dr. Pieter Groenewald of the FF+ presented statistics to Parliament which were sourced from the Forensic Pathology Service of the Department of Health. According to these numbers firearms were used in merely 35% of all homicides, and sharp objects in approximately 50,5%.

It is thus patently clear that firearms are by no means used in the majority of homicides, but rather only in a minority of cases. Considering that our homicide rate sits at around 31,9 per 100 000 population, which is very high, I think that our nation is saddled with a murder problem that goes far beyond the question of which arbitrary objects are used in the perpetration thereof. Cain killed Abel with only a rock, after all.

This brings me to your observations regarding weapons stolen from lawfully armed citizens, and the role they play in supplying criminals with their firearms. Although some firearms are indeed lost due to negligence on the part of their owners, the vast majority of firearms lost are stolen from their owners by use of force. Blaming gun owners for having their weapons stolen by armed and violent criminals amounts to victim blaming. No sane person would blame a woman for her rape because of her choice of dress: we blame the rapist for the heinous crime. The same courtesy should hold for firearm owners who are the victims of crime.

Firearms stolen from civilian gun owners are far from the only source criminals have access to. The SAPS have lost thousands upon thousands of firearms during the last three years, and the SANDF has contributed automatic military weaponry and thousands of rounds of ammunition to the criminal stockpile. Some of these losses can be attributed to policemen and soldiers being robbed of their weapons, but in many cases weapons are leaked to criminals through corruption. Even firearms handed in to the police by their lawful civilian owners during previous amnesties have found their way into criminal hands. I have yet to hear how the State intends on addressing these serious shortcomings within their own realm of influence, but fingers are pointed at civilian gun owners instead.

Since no criminal has ever obtained an automatic weapon from a civilian gun owner, there is also the uncomfortable question of what happened to firearms from the Apartheid era.

After the birth of the New South Africa in 1994 hundreds of thousands of former homeland firearms went missing, and remain unaccounted for. As a veteran of the armed struggle against Apartheid, Your Excellency is likely familiar with the great success with which the ANC and Umkhonto we Sizwe managed to smuggle tonnes upon tonnes of illicit arms and ammunition into the Republic of South Africa during the 1980s. Estimates vary between 80 to over 100 tonnes of smuggled weapons, of which approximately 40 tonnes were brought in by the African Hinterland Safari company. What exactly became of these weapons after the struggle is anyone’s guess, and many have found their way into criminal hands.

Considering that our neighbouring states are saturated with Cold War era arms caches, and our borders are porous and mostly unguarded, it is no surprise that criminals have access to an ample supply of illicit military grade weaponry.

I was heartened to hear Your Excellency say that you believe a social dialogue needs to take place, and that society should discuss whether or not we believe in the need for stricter gun laws. Your Excellency then further spoke of the need for citizens to empower their political representatives to make the right decision regarding the matter.

I am thus pleased to inform you Mister President that such dialogue and discussion has indeed been taking place since An open letter in South Africa in citizen's firearms.March of this year under the guidance of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Policing, and involved a multiday summit. South African gun owners and their respective association have contributed in no small part to these proceedings, and we still have a very large role to play in ensuring the successful and fruitful outcome of the stakeholder engagement process which is currently ongoing. I am optimistic that with cooperation between the SAPS and gun owners we will be able to find solutions to the many challenges facing our respective interests.

In closing, I would like to leave Your Excellency with the seed of an idea. Considering that South Africa is a member of the BRICS group of nations, it stands to reason that we can learn much from the experience of our fellow members. In November last year Russia significantly relaxed their gun laws to allow citizens to carry firearms for self-defence for the first time in their history. This was in response to rising violent crime, with President Vladimir Putin enacting the amendment to the law in the interest of the Russian people.

Similarly another BRICS nation, Brazil, recently passed a draft law to strip away limits on gun ownership. Strict gun control legislation has done nothing to stem the tide of rising violence plaguing the South American nation. The changes to the law will allow average Brazilians the ability to protect themselves against violent criminals, which is sensible considering that restrictive gun laws there have entirely failed to do so.

It is not constructive to think that further restrictive legislation will work in South Africa when it has been proven to be a failure in nations like Russia and Brazil, who face similar problems of violence.

I would thus like to humbly request Your Excellency to make it easier for South Africans, especially the poor and previously disadvantaged who suffer the most under the onerous Firearms Control Act of 2000, to own firearms for their protection. I gathered from your statements that you are indeed concerned about the safety and wellbeing of your citizens, and making it easier for us to protect ourselves from the scourge of violent crime will greatly help in making us all safer.

I hope that this letter may prove an asset to your decision making.

Faithfully Yours,

Gideon D Joubert

Thursday, 5 November 2015

What, exactly, is the British position in the true world?

The following article is from this Wordpress blog and I find it extremely interesting
We are constantly being told by the MSM and the Westminster elite that the UK has the sixth strongest economy in the World. Hmm! 
If this is true:
  • Why are vital services being cut to the bone?
  • Why are our roads crumbling?
  • Why is our rail system the worst in the Western World
  • Why is the NHS in dire straights?
  • Why have police resources and manpower been cut to a bare minimum?
  • Why is local government so strapped for cash that it is closing down vital services such as mental health and maternity outreach?
  • Why, again according to our Westminster elite, are we so dependent on the EU for the continued growth of our economy?
Something just doesn't add up and I suspect that it is the government balance sheet or, is it? 

Why TTIP should terrify all of you.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”

Since before TTIP negotiations began last February, the process has been secretive and undemocratic. This secrecy is on-going, with nearly all information on negotiations coming from leaked documents and Freedom of Information requests.

But worryingly, the covert nature of the talks may well be the least of our problems. Here are six other reasons why we should be scared of TTIP, very scared indeed:sovereign powers of individual nations.

Taken from the Independent. Click on: Six major reasons to fear TTIP for the whole article.


Wednesday, 4 November 2015

An Army Veteran’s View on UKIP Military Policy

Lee Harris is a former soldier in our armed forces, having served in Afghanistan and Canada.  He was permanently based in Germany from 2009 until he left the service in September of this year. 

Lee now serves as YI County Chairman for Durham.

 Now I am of the belief that if you want to target a set demographic with policies built to better their lives, then you should actively involve those who you wish to appeal to, and it pleases me no end, to have been asked to write this article on UKIP policies for the military due to my background. I have served with the army in locations the world over, with the highlight of my career being given the opportunity to serve in and help stabilise a war ravaged country, in Afghanistan.

UKIP have stated that they will honour the military covenant unlike consecutive governments in recent times. To do this, they have set out ways and means of giving those who gave the most for not only their country’s national security, but global security too, by giving back to them something that will go a long way to showing the nations gratitude.

Having seen firsthand the brutal way that the Conservative led coalition have hacked into the manpower of H.M. Armed Forces by way of redundancies, effectively reducing this once global military powerhouse to nothing more than a militia, it pleases me to say that UKIP have vowed to fully resource our assets and personnel. This would include providing the vitally important, life-saving, mission critical equipment which we all know the UK military lacked when it invaded Iraq in 2003. By upgrading existing equipment and making sure it is available to all military units, UKIP would make the UK is a force to be reckoned with once more. More importantly, it would reduce casualty and fatality numbers.

Having seen the aftermath of IED attacks on personnel, UKIPs policy to introduce a Veteran’s Service Card which would ensure that they are fast-tracked for mental health care and services, if needed, is one of the best policies I have seen from any political party. This is a policy that really strikes a chord with me, as I personally have suffered with severe depression and PTSD which left me on the verge of suicide, since returning from Afghanistan. There should be nothing that hinders or prevents service men, women and veterans alike from receiving the best professional help possible when needed.

Ultimately this policy would help to keep service personnel and veterans from straying down the path of substance misuse, both legal and illegal, as they would have the best care possible at their fingertips, and would help to prevent homelessness amongst ex-service personnel. I have seen this happen on many occasions, and I personally drank myself into a psychiatric unit as I, like many veterans, refused to accept that I was suffering with mental health issues due to service, mainly because of the stigma that is attached to mental health illnesses. I would like to see more awareness programmes set up in partnership with the Veteran’s Service Card being rolled out as the two would work hand in hand together.

Over 30% of London’s homeless are veterans! This is a national disgrace, and UKIP are the only party that have said they will change the points system for social housing to ensure that ex service men and women are prioritised. A veteran who is homeless, generally tends to have suffered or suffers with depression, PTSD and will most likely also have an adjustment disorder which have all contributed to him or her becoming homeless. By changing how the system works, and by prioritising ex service men and women, this policy will effectively help toward giving a person a fresh start in the civilian world. It will help to prevent the majority of veterans from turning to alcohol and substance misuse, and dependency which is quite often caused by depression and other mental illnesses which can see them made homeless. By involving local authorities, veteran’s services, and social housing services, along with the promise of a job in the police force, prison service or border force, UKIP will be keeping their promise to veterans by allowing them to have the best possible start to a life outside of the military. This brings me to my next point.

A great multitude of ex forces personnel like me, join the military from school with little or no educational qualifications. We wind up being employed in roles which do not require a person to be intellectually gifted. Whilst there is a great education programme within the military which aims at helping personnel gain qualifications which are acknowledged by civilian companies for when they leave their respective service, they do not in my opinion prepare a person for a role on ‘the outside’. Having a policy like UKIP do, which guarantees a person a job in the police force, prison service or border force when 12 years of service in the military has been completed, will be beneficial to thousands of service men and women who would otherwise struggle to find gainful employment.

As we know, unemployment among the veteran community is sky rocketing, and this policy will not only create jobs for those who have given the most to this country, but it would also help to create a more peaceful and safer environment for the general population to live in. Having recently left the military in September 2014, I am struggling to find any employment at all and the possibility of a guaranteed job in one of the aforementioned sectors would undoubtedly have changed my mind on whether to leave, or stay in the military until my 12 year point. This would be the case for many thousands more. Not only would this boost border enforcement along with the police and prison services it would also help in the retention of valuable and experienced personnel within the military. Experience harbours knowledge. Having this knowledge kept in the service for that extra few years would help to make the military a much more professional force, as the knowledge and experience the older men and women own, would be passed down to the younger generations of recruits coming up through the ranks.

Having served with men and women from nearly all Commonwealth countries, UKIP policy to extend all entitlements to them would solidify the United Kingdom’s position as a world leader, by showing all other nations that we not only look after our own, but we also look after those who wish to serve Her Majesty the Queen. That it does not matter what their nationality, race, colour or religion is. We would be saying thank you to the many hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth personnel who have left their home countries in far flung corners of the world, such as Nepal, Fiji, Ghana and Kenya, that their service to help protect the United Kingdom, from the ever present threat of domestic and international terrorism, and other nations around the world, was not in vain, but that it was appreciated. UKIP would show that all are appreciated and would not cast any former member of the military aside, like the past and present crop of elitist Westminster politicians have done for many decades, and still continue to do so today.

UKIP is the only party that will deliver what it promises. UKIP can and will make ‘cast-iron’ guarantees, because UKIP, unlike the other parties, will not renege on its promises. UKIP is the only party that will truly honour the military covenant. Other parties have paid lip service to it in the past, but none have ever followed through on it. That is evident when you look at the streets of our capital city and other major towns and cities, the length and breadth of the country, and you see the scores of homeless ex service men and women, or when you compare the suicide rates of ex service men and women to civilians.

My brothers in arms have been failed time and time again by establishment figures and politicians, whose only experience of military life is when they are invited to watch a military parade. It is plain for all to see that the legacy parties have not only failed the military and veterans, but they quite frankly, couldn’t give a stuff, sat in their ivory towers in the Westminster bubble. UKIP is the only viable solution for a well equipped, well looked after military force and a well looked after society of veterans.

Lee Harris
Chairman, Young Independence County Durham

Draconian instructions to local Conservatives by CCHQ

I wonder how many local Conservatives will think this is the last straw and move over to UKIP?

Tory HQ has written to Conservative associations warning them not to step out of line on the EU referendum. Well aware that Eurosceptic local Tories are not going to swallow Cameron’s renegotiation package, they are banning them from using any party resources on campaigning to leave: 
“The Party Board has decided that Party resources, which includes any buildings, equipment, or finances, must not be made available to either campaign or any third party participants in the campaign.” 
Association employees will only be allowed to campaign “in their own spare time”, while “Staff who wish to get more fully involved in the campaign must request unpaid leave of absence”. The draconian rules also state that anyone who expresses an opinion can’t do so as a Tory: 
“Individual members of the Party may of course take part in the forthcoming campaign on any side they wish, but they may only do so as individuals and must not suggest that they are representing the Party nor must they make use of any party resource to which they have access.” 
There is also a ban on associations holding any public meetings to discuss the referendum. Any discussions must be done in private: 
“Associations may wish to hold meetings of members about the Referendum to which both sides of the argument should be put. They may not however hold public meetings.” 
So Tory Outers are banned from talking about Europe in public meetings, banned from using their offices or office computers to campaign, and have to make clear they are speaking as individuals not Tories.
Come on over, the waters fine! And we are a decent friendly bunch!


Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Choosing the right person for the UKIP NEC elections

I have just had a mailing from UKIP and have to choose 6 people from 41 names, a real nightmare.

Over the years I have perfected a method of choosing to try to get "the best man for the job". I have resigned from UKIP four times over the last 20 years and joined them five times, this time as a £1,000 a year Patron. I am less interested in UKIP than I am in getting Britain out of the EU, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in UKIP.

OK, here's what I do...

I type out the list onto two sheets of paper, then go through as follows:

I delete anyone under 21 or over 70 (over 60 then they must have a lot of experience to offer)

I delete anyone under 25 (in this case, nobody).

Anyone coy about their birth date gets deleted. I believe in the equality of effort, not of sex or ethnic birth.

I look at single and married and divorced, in relation to age.

I look at how long they've been in UKIP ever fearful of “plants” from other parties. Two years, deleted, three years, with suspicion.

By now, I amend the list on the computer and the names will fit onto a single page.

I check their occupation to give me some idea how much they can bring to the party.

As yet, I haven't read their candidacy statement.

Out of all those left, I check the women, and choose the best one for one of my choices. It is extremely important to choose at least one woman, but only if they have ability.

Out of those still left, I read their candidacy statement, and mark them out of 10. 10 absolutely exceptional, 1 absolutely no way. When in doubt, I read their other information again.

Then fill the remaining places by the highest score.

Finally, if more than the six names remain, I stick a card onto a dart board with the remaining names!


Saturday, 24 October 2015

South Africa and the British left.

Hardly a week goes by that some lefty is talking about South African problems, often hinted their present misfortune was caused by the Apartheid government.

My parents were doing rather well, but I was an avid reader of history from a young age and knew that subjecting a people could never last and often ended in total violence.

At 14, I was caned in front of the Afrikaans school I attended. My crime? It was the writing of an essay in which I suggested that if we gave the vote only to those with Matric, black or white [very few blacks had Matric in those days (1954)] and then concentrated on educating blacks to Matric standard, in about thirty years [1984] there would be an equal number of black and white voters, and the peoples of South Africa would be more used to working with each other.

Anyway, a year later, I left school, I left my parents, and I left my country as I couldn't live under a government which I knew was doomed to fail. I came to the Northern Hemisphere. I have lived in America (three years) and France (three years) and the rest of the time in England. I married an English girl which is why I haven't returned.

The blacks took over in 1994, and at first, everything seemed OK. Then Mandela died, and things have got from bad to worse ever since.

Going back to my first paragraph, I think we have passed the point that the ANC government can blame apartheid for all the ills of the country. The ANC still hate the whites and are doing their best to drive them out. In fact there are about twenty whites in America who have become billionaires. The owner of the Tesla electric cars, Elon Musk, being the more well known. These are the people Jacob Zuma of the ANC doesn't want in his South Africa. Are these guys devastated? Work it out for yourselves.

But now, and lefty broadcasters take note, not only the whites are suffering. The top echelon of the ANC are more interested in increasing their personal wealth than helping the poorer of their black constituents. As for the whites, several of my Afrikaner friends have echoed this. They tell me that even with the government doing all it can to inconvenience them, they are a tough people ** and can fend for themselves. But the poorer blacks are just getting poorer by the day. Nkandla, the presidents palace, cost £19.000,000 to create, about the time we gave South Africa £17,000,000 in aid.

I support two charities in South Africa. One set up to help Afrikaners, and the other set up to assist poor blacks who have landed up in hospital.

** This is the first paragraph in The Great Boer War by Dr Arthur Conan Doyle. [he wasn't knighted then] I have altered it by creating paragraphs to make reading it easier.

Take a community of Dutchmen of the type of those who defended themselves for fifty years against all the power of Spain at a time when Spain was the greatest power in the world. Intermix with them a strain of those inflexible French Huguenots who gave up home and fortune and left their country for ever at the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The product must obviously be one of the most rugged, virile, unconquerable races ever seen upon earth. 
Take this formidable people and train them for seven generations in constant warfare against savage men and ferocious beasts, in circumstances under which no weakling could survive, place them so that they acquire exceptional skill with weapons and in horsemanship, give them a country which is eminently suited to the tactics of the huntsman, the marksman, and the rider. 
Then, finally, put a finer temper upon their military qualities by a dour fatalistic Old Testament religion and an ardent and consuming patriotism. Combine all these qualities and all these impulses in one individual, and you have the modern Boer--the most formidable antagonist who ever crossed the path of Imperial Britain. 
Our military history has largely consisted in our conflicts with France, but Napoleon and all his veterans have never treated us so roughly as these hard-bitten farmers with their ancient theology and their inconveniently modern rifles.

Friday, 23 October 2015

Every British family would be £1,000 better off if we leave

An interesting "part" article from the Daily Express. Link to full art
Revealed: How every British household would be £1,000 better off if we leave the EU
By Scott Campbell Published: 02:45, Tue, Jun 23, 2015 | Updated: 12:55, Tue, Jun 23, 2015 
The UK is overpaying billions for trading benefits with tariff exemptions amounting to just 66p for every £1 paid in, according to Business for Britain
The group claims that quitting would be "quite manageable" because the savings would "vastly outweigh" the cost of supporting the industries that would be hit by the move. 
According to its research, British exports within the EU and 29 countries with trade treaties linked to the bloc in 2013 and found tariffs would have cost the UK up to £7.4 billion if it had not been a member. 
That works out to £3.9 billion less than Britain handed over to the Brussels during the year. visit its page in the Daily Express
British exporters would be hit by an average additional cost on tariffs of 4.3 per cent if the UK severed ties with Brussels. 
The BfB report found the average household "With Britain currently overpaying for access to tariff-free trade, there would be significant scope for a future government to assist industries affected by potential tariffs, and households would also be significantly better off through lower prices.would be better off by up to £933 outside the EU. Britons would enjoy lower prices on food and clothing, it said. 
Around £145 of the annual saving equates to Britain's contribution to the EU budget, while £361 covers agricultural subsidies. 
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Business for Britain, said: "Supporters of the status quo in the EU often assert that the worst case scenario would result if Britain left the European Union. visit its page in the Daily Express
"However, as these latest excerpts from Change, or Go show, even the so-called worst case scenario would be better than life inside an unreformed EU. 
"With Britain currently overpaying for access to tariff-free trade, there would be significant scope for a future government to assist industries affected by potential tariffs, and households would also be significantly better off through lower prices.
... for the entire article visit its page in the Daily Express.


Monday, 19 October 2015

Get Britain out directors open letter to Lord Rose

Open letter to Lord Rose by Jayne Adye, Director Get Britain Out

Dear Lord Rose

With respect, and as we are great admirers of what you achieved while you were at M&S, it pains us to say that as the Chairman of the new ‘Remain’ campaign, you have been rather cynically used by those spin doctors and politicians who dominate your new campaign. We are afraid many of the so called ‘truths’ of our EU membership which you are now preaching, are quite simply not in accordance with the true facts.

May we give you a few examples?

In your speech on Monday, you stated 3 million jobs are at risk should the public decide to quit the European Union – yet a report by the IEA, backed up by Treasury officials, has proved this to be a falsity. With less than 5% of UK businesses directly trading with the EU, the number of jobs potentially lost in the event of Brexit would be minimal. The only jobs which will certainly be lost in the event of Brexit will be those 73 UK MEPs who will have to find other gainful employment.

Your assurance that the benefits of being in the EU clearly outweigh the costs also fails to ring true. Since 2004, cost benefit analyses (CBA’s) by Britain’s leading economists, have consistently shown the costs of the UK’s membership of the EU outweigh any positives. The net costs have been consistently above £100 billion since 2008, with a £185 billion figure estimated in a detailed 40-page analysis by respected economist Professor Tim Congdon CBE in 2014.

Lord Rose, you are attempting to try and trick voters into believing the EU actually saves British households money are in vain. The cost of damaging red-tape legislation on small British businesses is estimated to be as high as £30 billion, and as the former head of a major company, you should appreciate how this can cause a major strain on those looking to break into the British market.

You have called for Britain to lead change in the EU, yet you have neglected to examine the European Council voting records. The UK has not managed to block a single proposal since 1996, despite attempting to do so 72 times. Please can you explain how we can bring any positive change to the EU when we are constantly outvoted 27 – 1.

It saddens us to see such an eminent businessman as you being manipulated in this way. Whatever happened to your calls in 2013 for fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with the EU in order to preserve ‘Britain’s prosperity’? Why are you now determined to stay in the EU at any cost?

We fundamentally hope you recognise the cynical manner in which you are being manipulated by these minions in Brussels, and will repent this foul betrayal of the Great British Public.

Yours sincerely,

Jayne Adye,

Director Get Britain Out

For people unsure or undecided about the EU Referendum

The History of the EU

or how the British public were hoodwinked

Thirty-two minutes of irrefutable proof of how the "Establishment" have lied to the British public over the years.

If you are in the "Stay Camp", it will make you question your decision. And, if you really disbelieve it, add comments with a website which decries the information you are questioning. All links will be checked for advertising and, if so, deleted.

If you are undecided, it will help you with references which are out there in the public domain so you can verify everything said in the video.

If you are in the "Leave Camp", then this will give you all the ammunition you need when discussing matters with friends.

Please make sure this will travel. I have done my bit, with placing this on two websites and emailing it to fifty on my contact list.

What will you do?


Friday, 16 October 2015

Why the Greenpeace founder resigns from Greanpeace

Following his interview with Breitbart London, Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore addressed the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London last night, telling them why he left the environmentalist group and became sceptical of man-made global warming.

Here is his speech:

My Lords and Ladies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you for the opportunity to set out my views on climate change. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age. If there were such a proof through testing and replication it would have been written down for all to see.

The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.

But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees. Tonight I hope to turn this dangerous human-caused propaganda on its head. Tonight I will demonstrate that human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than two million years from today.

But first a bit of background.

Read the rest at the Breibart news website.