web analytics

Shock! Horror! Jack Straw is a silly ass …

By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 4:15 pm

donkey3.jpg… at least according to Ann Widdecombe, who attacked Jack’s announcement about the use of “gender-neutral” language in future legislation, and the removal of the term “chairman” from parliamentary committees. From now on, in keeping with many public institutions, the term “chair” will be used.

Ann, who’s long made a point of arguing against any form of positive discrimination, remarked “a chair is a piece of furniture. It is not a person. I am not a chair because no one has ever sat on me. All he is doing is distorting the English language and I would have thought he had better things to do."

At one time the PC vogue was to substitute -person for -man, but the invariably ugly words that this produced were ridiculed out of use. Not to be thwarted, the compilers of Newspeak came back with more inventive alternatives. If fireperson or policeperson wouldn’t graft, fire fighter and police officer would serve the non-gender specific purpose. Where male/female equivalents existed, such as headmaster / headmistress they were expunged in favour of headteacher, and now the Guardianistas like to call Dame Judy and Helen Mirren fine actors, even though their minds must still have to juggle confusing mental images, and that there is absolutely no negative implication in the term actress.

When it comes to legislation referring to the third person singular and the default use of “he”, a simple statement at the beginning should satisfy the dunderheads that women are indeed included. Perhaps if the English language had not disposed of gender as a grammatical categoriser of nouns, distinct from gender as a synonym for sex, we wouldn’t have such arguments. In any case, no murderess has ever claimed an exemption from the Law on the grounds that it didn’t say “he or she”.


Tunnel end reached; still dark!

By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

A Parliamentary Bill, brave in intent, possibly faulty in drafting but no less worthy for that failing, sputtered briefly in the Commons before falling foul of the time allowance, and failing to reach a First Reading. Readers might query why I write about this Bill, when so many other good ideas have also fallen in amongst the chaff; so allow me to explain. The House of Commons Participation Bill, authored by one Bob Walter, attempted to solve the one item within our Parliamentary system, identified many years ago, which has generated more steam than many others; namely the ‘West Lothian Question’! Simply put, the question posed was whether Scottish M.P.’s should be allowed to vote on Westminster matters pertaining peculiarly to English legislation, when English M.P.’s are unable to vote on Scottish matters, because they are covered by the Scottish Assembly!

The ramifications of this deceptively-simple question entwine throughout our political system, including such anomalies as the fact that Scotland gets, per capita, around sixty percent more from the public purse than England or Wales. Any attempt to quash the rights of Scots Members to vote on all Westminster legislation would bring an extra wrinkle to the brow of Gordon Brown, himself a Scot; mainly because the only reason that his Party commands a majority in the House is by the extra voting numbers supplied by Labour M.P.’s from north of the Border! So when a M.P. brings a Private Member’s Bill forward which attempts to remove this anomaly from the legislative quagmire which is Westminster, you can probably guess that it didn’t bring any joy to the Chancellor’s mind!

The Speaker would have been given the right to suspend Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh Members from taking part or voting in the debate; and although extremely reasonable in thought,  in practice, the Bill might have started more problems than it attempted to solve.  The Labour members talked things along until time ran out, and the Bill failed, but there is a point which must be resolved, and if sufficient pressure is brought to bear upon Members, perhaps sometime in the future we’ll see fair play for England, but not right now!



By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 10:35 am

So here we are, the Saturday morning after the final election results have come in following the Northern Ireland election. Saturday tends to be a quieter day here on the boards and it so it can be a useful time for a little reflection without facing the white heat of ATW Monday-Fridays!

I wanted to do a follow-on post to my "The Frankie Goes to Holywood election" piece yesterday. Contrary to what some felt, it was NOT written in an anger-fueled state. In fact, I was more entertained than anything else. You see where I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused…..

First, I wanted to congratulate all those who have won, and to commiserate with all those who lost. Politics is a tough old game – an emotional roller-coaster, and certainly something all sensible people should avoid!

I am reminded of the old adage…"He knows nothing, but he thinks he knows everything. This clearly points to a career in politics!"  There will be some this morning who will be looking forward to the lucrative financial payments to come, and there will be those who now have to try and find gainful employment in the real world. The margin between victory and defeat may be small, but the cash margin is always huge!

Next, I wanted to posit the question; When the electorate speaks, do we have to agree with them? People have asked me if I will accept the clear view of the NI electorate that establishing a power-sharing executive with the IRA’s frontmen is both morally acceptable and politically the way forward. My answer is – not at all. In fact, not a chance!!!

I choose to dissent from the common view. In a democracy, that is my right. I also can seek to establish a voice of opposition to that which is being done in the "name of the people". Remember, almost 40% of "the people" chose NOT to vote for any party at all. This is sizeable chunk of the populace. So when we hear unionists waffle about speaking "for the unionist people" – that is untrue. They only speak for those who voted for them, no more and no less.

The media has been asking who are the big winners and the big losers. I think it must be recognised that Paisley’s DUP and the IRA’s Sinn Fein are the big winners. The big losers are those who thought that the electorate was sophisticated and moral enough to reject bombers and gangsters in Government. Far from it – they salivate at the notion. "Get into power and help us" is their pitiful plea.

The Ulster Unionists are also big time losers – seeing a third of their seats vanishing, and it could have been worse. Next time it WILL be worse as they appear to have concluded that things can’t get any worse and that they continue with Si Reg as their gloriously inept leader! Likewise the SDLP, under the hapless Durka Durka Mark Durkan struggle along, losing to IRA/Sinn Fein, and claiming that things can only get better when it fact they must have worked out that they will only get worse!

The media want to pretend that a One Seat gain for Alliance and the retention of a seat by the UVF linked PUP are monumental triumphs for common sense. What nonsense. I have stated that I like the Alliance Leader David Ford and so I wish his Party well. I have no time whatsoever however for the PUP "Leader" Dawn Purvis, who has managed to retain a seat for her paramilitary-linked Party in East Belfast. I note the media kept quiet about the annihilation of the PUP candidates in the other two constituencies where they stood.

Also amongst the losers are the anti-power sharing with terrorists fringe unionists, most notably my former colleague Robert McCartney. I am genuinely sorry that Bob has lost his seat, though would rather he had decided to follow Andrew McCann’s advice and NOT stand in the first place. As for the others, they were an odd bunch and all predetermined to lose. I think the lack of a well-funded well-known central Party structure determined their fate.

The capture of a seat by the Green Party has also been hailed as a "breakthrough". For moonbattery, perhaps, but nothing else. North Down has always been a maverick constituency, and the fact that the Green’s scored here is unsurprising. I’m sure that the good citizens of North Down would also probably welcome an Islamic candidate. How awfully nice of them to stand here, don’t you think?

And so, the dust settles. Those who place their faith in politicians "doing a deal" can get on with it. I put MY faith in my Maker, no-one else.  I was very touched when Charles from Texas started a web site called "Jeremiah’s Helper" – picking up on a reference I had made regarding myself. Still am – a great compliment. I shall continue to be Jeremiah if needs be – but I notice that on ATW there are more than a few others who are also prepared to speak out – to challenge the political consensus – to dissent from that which is often done in our name. The Northern Ireland electorate have spoken. Well, I’ll also keep speaking and thank God that there are plenty who seem curious in hearing my point of view! My trip through the modern political wilderness gets more interesting…..and I get more determined – thanks to all my helpers.


By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last" – so said Sir Winston Churchill. It remains as true today as when he made this famous observation.

Today, the appeasers within the current US Administration sit down around the table with the delegates of the Iranian Mad Mullahs with the surreal aim of "winning regional support for efforts to stabilise the situation in Iraq."

Given that Iran (and its client state Syria) is dedicated to ensuring continued instability in the Middle East, and that the Mullahs will view this sitting down with them as evidence that their strategy is working, I can think of no more dangerous message to be sending at this time. And yet the MSM hail this as a courageous step forward. Over the cliff.


By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 9:41 am

Well, I note that the tyrants in EU are for literally  putting our lights out.

The death knell for the traditional lightbulb has been sounded. Tony Blair and fellow EU leaders agreed that it should be phased out within two years to make way for the low-energy version.



They told the European Commission to rush through proposals to phase out incandescent bulbs – the conventional version with a filament – in private homes by 2009. The most likely plan is to ban the sale of such bulbs from that date, although existing stocks could still be used. The replacement low-energy fluorescent bulbs are more expensive to buy. But they are longer-lasting and allegedly work out cheaper in the long run, as well as seemingly using far less electricity. This will cut greenhouse gases because CO2 is produced in generating the electricity which powers the bulb.

See the trend that is developing? The Euro-political class are imposing new taxes, curtailing consumer choice and raising prices – and all in the name of C02 reduction! I believe we will witness a continued imposition of new taxation and restricted liberty and all in the name of the environment. This is Enviro-fascism – and the European elite know all about how that works.

It Takes a Village – NOT!

By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 5:08 am

When my son was in kindergarten, only one family in his class of 20 was divorced. By the end of 5th grade only 8 families remained intact. 11 couples, bored with their obligations, had walked out on their marriages.

If this is the “village” that is going to provide community support and  childcare, good luck.  Because it is a village of feckless egotists who get bored easily and walk out on their obligations.

One mother took up with her paddle tennis instructor. Another mother became angry at her poor husband because  he didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t make more money; she divorced him.  Three Dads found lovers, one of them with a mother whose child was in the same class at school!!  Another (my best friend)  – tiring of 3 kids and all of the laundry – just walked out, leaving her three kids with her husband.  All of the families breaking up were fairly affluent and nobody took drugs or beat each other.  They just got bored.

I was shocked. Still am. What’s wrong with these people?!?  Do parents getting a divorce not notice the sad eyes of their children, the tears, and the unnecessary fears they create in those they supposedly love?

Nobody in our school community said anything  “judgmental”  about this wave of divorces.  It has been drilled into us by pop culture and leftist activists that it is more or less taboo to judge another person’s   “life choices.”  

Current wisdom submits:  who are we to judge?

I submit :  we must  judge.

Judgment establishes values; it  establishes consensus within a community about  right and  wrong. It helps people to make the choice that is right in the long term, when the wrong choice is so much easier.

 I submit that the ability to keep a promise, to endure, to remain faithful – these are values to admire.  

We should stop offering soothing words to our divorcing friends by saying: “kids are so resilient and it’s important that you be happy…”  We need to point out that a vow is a vow, and therefore should be kept, even if in the short term happiness is not maximized. We need to entertain the truth that divorce causes debilitating stress in the young and that it is irresponsible and cruel to willfully do this.

Fight the Future

By ATWadmin On March 10th, 2007 at 12:14 am

The Future’s bright, the Future’s green.

Or so the waves of moslem immigration, reproduction, and proselytisation suggest. All indications are that within a very few generations all of Europe will be under the moslem thumb. One doesn’t need to be an educated reader of Robert Spencer or Bat Ye’or to see the increasing concessions being made to that ‘religion of peace’. Consider the possibility: St Paul’s turned into a mosque in the manner of the Anatolian church of Holy Wisdom; no freedom of speech or religion from Fleet Street to Land’s End, and certainly not in such Parliament as would be left; a dhimmi status for non-moslems; God alone knows what fate for the Jews. This is just the beginning of an idea of what a Britain under islam could look like, and that’s a very civil version, providing it doesn’t return to the form as portrayed by Moulay Ismail (see Giles Milton’s book White Gold) or the ‘prophet’ Mohammed himself (see Robert Spencer’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam).

However, there are some who would resist.

There will be a demonstration on the 11th of September this year outside the European Parliament building. The organisers describe it thus:


Demonstration outside the European Parliament

September 11th 2007

Europeans are saying



So join the call

All European nations must be represented




The organisers of the demonstration are:

SIAD (Denmark) sioe@siad.dk    phone: +45  96771784

No Sharia Here (England) sioe.nsh@btinternet.com

We have contact with Akte-islam in Germany who organizes the german participation: http://akte-islam.de/1.html

We seek people/organisation from all other european countries who will organize participation from their own country.

For questions or coordination inbetween the countries contact SIAD or No Sharia Here.



Stop Islamification Of Europe (SIOE) is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe.

It originated with the joining of Stop Islamseringen Af Danmark (SIAD) a political party dedicated to stopping the Islamification in Denmark with a loose association of people in England whose rallying cry “No Sharia Here” who want to maintain English law and stop the creeping growth of sharia law in England.

SIOE is growing in Europe with the amalgamation of similarly minded groups.


SIOE exists to legally combat the overt and covert expansion of Islam in Europe.

SIOE condemns racism as the lowest form of human stupidity, but considers Islamophobia to be the height of common sense.

SIOE states that Islam and democracy are incompatible due to teachings within the Koran itself and some of the hadiths which comprise sharia law.

SIOE sees that such incompatibility is self-evident when those tenuous democracies in countries where Islam is the dominant religion are scrutinized.

Such “democracies” have only existed in the post European colonial period, since the end of World War Two.

It has always been the case, but also increasingly so, that in Islamic countries, whether “democratic” or not, non-Muslims are at best treated as second class citizens, or at worst oppressed.

SIOE believes this to be due to the teachings of Islam, which encourages Muslims to feel superior to non-Muslims, and that Islam must prevail over any other religion and political system, by any means.

SIOE finds the concept of “moderate” Muslims difficult because of the Islamic practises of Taqiyya and Kitman which are designed to deceive and mislead non-Muslims in order to promote the ascendance of Islam over any other religion and political system.

Therefore, if a political party’s leaders and members may be accused of lying and their policies challenged, then so should a religion’s, especially Islam, which considers lying to be not only acceptable, but obligatory in the furtherance of its doctrine.

Furthermore, SIOE wants all religions to be treated in law the same way as political parties with no special legal protection. This should apply especially to Islam because it is a combined political, legal and judicial system administered and overseen by un-elected theologians, completely contrary to Western concepts of democracy.

This is why democracy is failing in Islamic countries and giving way to Islamic theocracy.

SIOE considers that those Western politicians, journalists, academics and social groups, who support Islam, are deliberately misleading Europeans as to the nature of Islam.  This is particularly evident in the non-reporting of Islamist atrocities around the world, but also in the re-writing of history to portray Islam in a favourable light as a non-aggressive religion.

SIOE reflects the attitude of most people in Europe that Islam is being favoured above indigenous European cultures and that Muslims are being selectively protected by politicians and lawyers at the expense of non-Muslims who often find themselves unprotected.  

SIOE challenges the funding by Saudi Arabia for the building of mosques and other Islamic institutions in Europe and elsewhere around the world, when that country outlaws religions other than Islam, politics other than Islam and legislature other than Islam.  Such asymmetric funding must be stopped.

No more mosques until we see churches in Mecca.



“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!” is the rallying cry of all liberty-loving Europeans who are tired of seeing their values and ways of life eroded.

Arguably, more than any other continent, Europe has suffered most to achieve its present happy condition of liberal democracy.

Centuries of international conflicts and civil wars, most notably of course the two world wars of the 20th century, were endured by the ordinary folk of Europe.

However, conflict, strife and warfare are not the preserve of Europe.  The USA suffered its own civil war; China and Russia are still staggering out of the rubble of revolution down the rocky road to democracy.

Out of the centuries of Europe’s internal strife blossomed the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which in turn bore the fruits of democracy.

Freethinking men and women fashioned this fragile, imperfect political system, with its many nuances, which nevertheless survives and grows because of its intrinsic fairness and popularity.

Democracy in turn released those lucky people enjoying its benefits, to form the most medically, scientifically and artistically productive part of the world we call “The West”.

Many of the West’s achievements have come in the
period since the Second World War, and its people determinedly defended their hard earned principles of democracy and freedom against the totalitarian doctrine of Communism.

In winning both World War Two and the Cold War, the West defeated two of its greatest enemies, one the European cancer of Nazism, the second the contagion of Communism.

Unfortunately, the existence of both has led to the adoption in modern political parlance of the fatuous terms “left” and “right.”

Even more unfortunately, in Europe at least, “left” has misleadingly come to mean “good” and “right” to mean “bad”.

The table of political oppression is a round one, at which the power-ravenous “right” and “left” sit shoulder-to-shoulder, gnawing the bones of freedom’s cadaver.

Rational people know these truths.

Totalitarianism is the antithesis of liberty.

Theocracy is the antipathy of democracy.


So why have rational people allowed irrationality to rule?

It is because the main danger to liberal democracy is its inherent liberalism, which opens itself to being hijacked by self-styled liberals.

A Nazi will punch you for the good of the state. A Communist will kick you for the good of the state.  A liberal will do both while shaking your hand and telling you it’s for your own good.

Rational people recognise that the only liberality self-styled “liberals” indulge in, is liberally banning everything they disagree with.

Lamentably, top of the banning agenda is free speech.

Understandably, because of the events of World War Two and also our colonial past, Europeans have become wary of persecuting minority groups.

This has led to Europeans encouraging people from around the world to settle in Europe and to share the benefits of Western ideals.

However, this laudable intention has been usurped, not only by some of the groups of people coming to Europe, but worse still by self-loathing, guilt-laden politicians not only of the “liberal” persuasion, but also capitalist free-marketeers.

Such people have inculcated themselves into positions of power.

Together, they undermine our ways of life, stifle dissent from their diktats and spread feelings of political remoteness and hopelessness among the majority of European people.

This is exactly the kind of totalitarianism we fought against in World War Two and the Cold War.


So what is different about the present battle (some describe it as a war)?

This time around the struggle is against a theocratic totalitarianism called Islam.

The very fact that it is a theocracy, in other words a religion, protects Islam from being challenged.

Political constitutions (written or otherwise) across the West enshrine the principle of freedom to religious practise.

Therefore, religions may not be attacked in the same way as political parties.

In the West, politicians and their parties come under continuous verbal and written onslaughts in the media regarding their policies, performance and personnel.

Religious practise, however, is protected.

Despite this, Christianity, Europe’s main religion, has constantly been ridiculed, criticised and condemned, more often than not with impunity.

This is because Christianity is an easy target, mainly due to the fact that calling for Christian heretics to be killed is deemed more than unacceptable by Christian clergy, and actually killing heretics contravenes laws drawn up by democratically elected legislators.

Certainly leaving Christianity, or any other religion besides Islam, does not merit any punishment, in this world at least.

As we all know, this is not the case with Islam’s sharia law, which stipulates a death sentence for apostates leaving Islam for any reason.

Until recently, religion has been put in its place in Western society. It has become a matter of one’s own personal belief and private conscience.

For generations, offending a religious person has not been regarded as being more than bad manners. One of the fundamental benefits in the West is the right to offend and be offended.

Religion has not been a threat to society and the clergy has not formulated legislation in the West, although it has been allowed to lobby the various elected governments.

All this is changing due to the imposition of Islam.

No other religion demands more from those who do not adhere to its doctrine.

This would not be a problem in the West, if our leaders actually stood up for Western values and insisted that Muslims live within our laws and accepted our cultures and social systems.

Instead, it is we who are told we must abandon our values, cultures and societies in order not to offend Muslims.  It is Islam that is being rammed down our throats and the throats of our children.

It is not only in the West that Islam is causing misery and mayhem. All around the world Islam is battling the “infidels”.

In response all our politicians, journalists, social commentators and religious leaders do is avoid mentioning the murderous activities in places like Indonesia, Thailand and sub-Saharan Africa.  However, if an Israeli soldiers so much as farts within earshot of a Palestinian mosque the whole world knows about it within minutes and politicians resoundingly condemn Israel.

Such sanctimonious, selective conscience is contemptible and Europeans are fed up with being oppressed for the sake of what most believe to be the most corrosive and intolerant political system ever devised.


So what do you think, dear readers? Time for a little stroll to Europe?

digi switchover

By ATWadmin On March 9th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

CityUnslicker has pointed out that the end of the analogue signal is fast approaching.

In the autumn of this year, the first switch off will occur in the absolute cutover to the digital format.  How we get and view television going forward will be significantly altered.

He notes also that the long term shift in the way tv is run will impact on stations as their share of advertising revenue is reduced. The government is looking to reduce the costs of ITV and C4. But what about the BBC? How can it justify its position?

I agree in the comments that follow about some public funding improving quality but that we ‘dont need the BBC monstrosity to achieve it’. One idea put forward is that ‘in future all companies could bid for government funded public service broadcasting; thus removing the need for a BBC monopoly and licence fee’. ‘A market for TV PSB is a much better idea than the current system; we still get the content and have to pay, but not to support the whole administrative monolith that is the BBC’.


Political policing

By ATWadmin On March 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Gerry McGeough, a former member of Sinn Fein/IRA’s Executive, stood as an independent in Fermanagh/S. Tyrone in protest at the party’s decision to endorse the PSNI.

However, Mr McGeough must now be wondering what he was worried about.

He was detained outside the count centre yesterday and is being questioned about an attempt to murder a part-time UDR officer in 1981.

Added to that, Vincent McAnispie, the husband of a Sinn Fein/IRA councillor, was arrested in what appears to have been a linked operation.

Given that Sinn Fein/IRA now claim to support the police their reaction was interesting. One of their TDs branded the development an “outrageous” example of “political policing” while Adams demanded the immediate release of those being questioned.

Does Sinn Fein/IRA believe that crimes committed during the Troubles should not be investigated? They certainly didn’t take that attitude when Mrs O’Loan published her report on alleged RUC collusion with “Loyalists”.

Why on earth would Sinn Fein/IRA feel that if someone runs for election they should be exempt from the rule of law?


By ATWadmin On March 9th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

You all know how pro-American I am. Given the choice I would sooner be PART OF the US than the EU.

I DO so enjoy American politics, though am no expert on it! Over 25% of our readership on ATW is from the States, a statistic of which I am rather proud. (Not so many readers in Belgium, oddly enough)

I am also someone who enjoys reading the female take on the issues of the day, which is why I am so pleased that Alison blogs here with us. Indeed, it was Alison’s recent post on "IWD" that encouraged me to seek more lady writers prepared to join our demanding but ever growing blog!

DRUM ROLL…. and so it is that I can announce that PATTY will be joining us – all the way from LA! Yes, we’re going global on ATW and I hope that Patty will introduce herself to you in the very near future. I believe she will add to the mix here, provide you with thoughtful takes on the events of the day, and bring extra gaiety to our happy blog. So, the VRWC grows and I’m delighted to welcome Patty to our team.