web analytics


By ATWadmin On November 29th, 2006 at 9:12 am

Shock Horror news headline! Street robbers often carry out their crimes for the thrill as much as for the financial gain, a report has said. Well WHO would have thought that then, eh? I mean, it had certainly never crossed my mind that the thugs who prey on the vulnerable do so because they can! I always assumed it was to do with societal deprivations like not having two holidays a year, or perhaps a wounded ego caused by our capitalist values, or maybe even global warming.

Thank goodness for these academic studies, that add SO much to our understanding of human nature.


By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 10:19 pm

Ranting Stan has tagged me with "Ten Things I would never do". Normally, I would never do these things (LOL!) BUT being a natural born contrarian (!) , other than Stan’s excellent top 10 which I too share,  I do have 10 suggestions for things I’m not planning on doing anytime soon….GRRRR

1. I would never ever submit to the Islamofascists.

2. I would never bow the knee to Republican and Loyalist terrorists. They’re scum.

3. I would never accept power-sharing with terrorists. Ever.

4. I would never forget the victims of terror in Northern Ireland.

5. I would never forget the events of 9/11.

6. I would never forget 7/7.

7. I would never back off from fully supporting the global war on terror.

8. I would never back off from my own Christian principles.

9. I would never embrace dhimmitude.

10. I would never wear a brown tie and a purple shirt. It’s not right.


By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 10:00 pm

I commend you to visit this LINK and read the story Tom has written up concerning a revolting attack on a fellow blogger, if anyone can help follow the advice given..


By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm

ATW is proud to provide you with the BEFORE and AFTER photographs of Northern Ireland’s first ever FACE TRANSPLANT.…don’t795151-558301-thumbnail.jpg you agree that the transformation has been truly….ahem…remarkable?trimble1.jpg

Auntie’s in Bed with Bri

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 9:33 pm

Did anyone listen to the Radio Five Live debate this morning on what should be done with the BBC?  The debate took place within the context of Michael Grade’s departure as Chairman of the corporation.  I was tempted to call, but resisted on the grounds that my opinions of the BBC would not be suitable listening material for young children who happened to be tuning in.  Look at this coverage on the IRA’s ruminations on whether or not to back the PSNI as an example of the BBC institutional Leftist bias.

Under the terms of the St Andrews Agreement, the IRA has to call its cod with muscles (hard fish) to formally approve a change of policy.  Who does the BBC choose as the ‘historian’ to give an impartial account of the RUC?  None other than Bigoted Bri, of course.  If a blue whale converted to Catholicism it wouldn’t supplant Feeney as the ne plus ultra of Fenian bigmouths.

Feeney gives the traditional slant you’d expect from a poisonous republican by peddling the myths that:

  1. The RUC stood by and did nothing whilst Bombay Street was attacked (in truth they were so overwhelmed by the numbers rioting there was little they could do to hold the line), and;
  2. The Battle of the Bogside was all about the RUC wading in to attack ‘da poor little Ketholics’ (when they were actually defending the right of Apprentice Boys to parade on a public road without fear of being attacked and severely injured by intolerant republican yobs).

We then move on to that hoary old chestnut about the RUC discouraging Catholics from joining.  Piffle!!  Opinion survey after opinion survey concluded that by far the biggest single deterrent to Catholics becoming officers was the fear of ostracisation (or worse) from within their own community.  Catholics who did join the RUC (and I salute and support them 100%) were bigger targets for IRA assassins (the alter-egos of those who now salivate at the prospect of deputising a morally-bereft DUP) than Protestant officers.

Returning to Bigoted Bri, we almost feel like we’re being urged to tug at the violin strings as the IRA grapples with internal dissent (incidentally, violin string would have looked a treat around the necks of these murderers) before signing up to the rule of law.  Feeney opines that:

‘Sharing power is nothing compared to saying that they recognise the state and urge people to join the police force and support law and order within the state. And for a lot of republicans that will be a step too far.’

Diddums.  My heart bleeds.  Aside from the fact that everyone who wishes to have power in a state should recognise the legitimacy of that state, wasn’t the Belfast Agreement supposed to settle this issue for republican dross?  Unlike the BBC and its pretensions of impartiality, I am no way impartial when it comes to the police in Northern Ireland.  The RUC was a proud and professional constabulary who helped to prevent a province with mass violence turning into a civil war zone.  They were awarded the George Cross in recognition of that role and, as far as I and hundreds of thousands of people throughout the UK are concerned, whether the IRA choose to endorse their successor or not is irrelevant.  The IRA, as murdering criminals and terrorists, are not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the most dedicated police force in the United Kingdom.  So pick the bones out of that Feeney, and ask your lickspittles at the BBC to do the same.

Leave Well Alone

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 8:22 pm

Honestly I really think that there are some battles worth fighting but that this isn’t one of them.  The existing legislation doesn’t need tinkering with – access is already adequate, one or two doctors signatures on a form makes little bureacratic difference in surgeries staffed by several and the involvement of a doctor should surely remain paramount as a duty of care (it is ridiculous to suggest a nurse be in charge).  Additionally rattling cages gives rise to this sort of nonsense.

The call, at a time of concern about teenage pregnancy, will increase concerns that women will turn to abortion instead of contraception.

Will we? Thanks for telling me. What an absolutely appauling and ludicrous generalisation. To suggest that most women would seek abortions rather than contraception is a sensational press tactic aimed at ramping up the abortion debate for all the wrong reasons.  The regulations on abortion ‘bureaucracy’ don’t need messing with, and even less so when they are seized upon to present all women as heartless thoughtless morons or conflate the issue with failing attempts to reduce teen pregnancy, another scaremongering tactic – and all in one fully loaded alarmist sentence!

If an objective is to lower the numbers of teen pregnancies then start by looking at the ‘incentives’ to leave it to chance in the first place.  A pregnancy represents a shoe-in to a council property, the socialist legacy of rewarding you for being ‘poor’.  

An abortion remains a last resort for most women and more worryingly now in the UK is becoming an increasingly contentious ‘right’ (if you can call it that).  The arguments in favour of attacking legislation use statistics to present their case. This one from Canada where completely relaxed legislation is argued as the factor for 90% of abortions being undertaken early on in a pregnancy. But compare that with the UK where the stats are the same under existing tighter legislation. (89% of abortions were carried out at 13 weeks; 67% were at under 10 weeks).

If anything amending the law will send out an unnecessary and confused message on such a sensitive issue. I think The British Pregnancy and Advisory Service should leave the more than adequate UK legislation as it is and refocus their efforts on the teen pregnancy debate, eg prevention.

At the same time today the same issue is viewed from the other end of the spectrum by The Washington Post reporting on the effects of Nicaragua’s absolutist abortion laws.  An estimated 32,500 women get illegal and potentially unsafe (‘backstreet’) abortions in Nicaragua every year and account for 16 percent of the more than 100 maternal deaths there annually.  Worldwide – 70,000 women die each year from the same.

For the UK pre-the 1967 Abortion Act it was estimated by a parliamentary committee that the treatment of abortion accounted for as many as 20% of gynaelogical admissions. An estimated 100,000 to 150,000 abortions were carried out illegally in 1966 ~ this compares with 185,000 legal abortions carried out in 2005.

a new order cometh!

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 4:08 pm

Visited the Adam Smith Website, and discovered this fascinating piece on E-government, and it’s application by Estonia, or, as they themselves like to say, E-Stonia (I kid you not!). I downloaded the .pdf file which accompanied the post, and show 795151-568073-thumbnail.jpgone page here. This one page shows and says more about our own governance and Government than a whole encyclopaedia would do because it gets to grips with the ‘immediacy’ of how a truly ‘modern’ Government can be seen to be operating; and what’s more, can be ‘seen’ in almost ‘Real Time’!

Just imagine if the No. Ten Downing Street Website, and the pages listing the e-petitions, could be guaranteed to impact upon both Government, and the delivery to the British subjects living here, in the same fashion as is happening right now in E-Stonia!

Apart from anything else, this extraordinary British reliance on secrecy, which protects the guilty from their mistakes being immediately available to all, would perforce be swept away, and the Government would have had to own up to mistakes as they were made, rather than have them excavated, as happened with Hutton! Mind you, that last is possibly a bad example, because the wolf was being scrutinised by another type of wolf, and the hen-house was blamed for Dr. Kelly’s death!

So we’ll continue to dream on, while others forge past us; because the Civil Service grandees couldn’t possibly face such a deep scrutiny before a comfortable, pension-buffered retirement along with the customary K.C.M.G.; because the politicians of all hues wouldn’t allow their machinations to be looked at in depth; and because it’s not really British, Dont’ye’know?

Don’t Upset the Darkies

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Can there be a more pathetic society in the world than the one Britain is turning into?  We know certain fundamental truths about our society, yet are increasingly restricted in our ability to say them out loud.  What do those in government and authority think they are going to change by censoring free speech?  For example, if a law was passed making it a criminal offence – punishable by 20 years of hard labour – to say you disliked Muslims, it would not alter one iota what people thought.  I’ll admit it, I don’t like Muslims. 

One bastion of free speech in this country used to be the Conservative Party.  This enduring political philosophy produced such greats as Enoch Powell (whose ‘rivers of blood’ speech is something I think will be a certainty on our streets within the next 20 years if unchecked and ungrateful minorities keep burgeoning here.  One could already argue it occurred on July 7th 2005), who first suffered the overbearing political correctness surrounding everything to do with ethnic minorities and immigration when rebuffed by Edward Heath.

Today, in a Conservative Party without the conservatism, others who dare to point out the truth behind common perception, are once again silenced by leaders desperate to lick ethnic butt at all costs.  Take Castle Point MP, Robert Spink, who has been carpeted by Cameron and company for suggesting that the majority of criminals are black.  I think what he was referring to was not a statistic in absolute terms, but in proportion to the percentage of the population.  Is there anyone out there (who doesn’t idolise Polly Toynbee and the like) who could disagree?  Blacks have a far higher percentage of those involved in crime relative to their overall numbers than white people do.  That is also the case in the United States.  What’s wrong with saying it?

There is this inability to speak the truth about groups of people these days.  Society is too prone to be offended.  Let’s look at Bradford city centre, for example.  Anyone who has to visit that sorry city for any reason cannot help but be overwhelmed by the number of cheap discount stores in the place.  Why?  Because Bradford is a city that caters to certain demographics who reside within its borders.  On the one hand you have the bargain-basement Pakistanis, who flock like flies on dung to anything where rock-bottom prices are to hand (and I’m not talking about the traditional concept of a bargain, either); on the other you have the sink estate ‘I know nowt, don’t want to know nowt, and view brainy folk as poofs’, unskilled, pig-ignorant societal rejects.  I remember when Chris Tarrant was lambasted because he made disparaging remarks about Bradford.  Why should he have been?  Like Spink he was telling the truth.  Bradford is an ugly city, dotted with despicably ugly 1960s architecture, catering for bargain-basement Pakis and Jim Royle-esque low IQ trolls.  

I can only congratulate Spink for his forthright views and hope he will not be issuing a grovelling apology for telling the truth.

On This Day…28.11

By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm

1520 – Portuguese navigator Ferdinand Magellan sails around the southern tip of South America and reaches a new ocean, which he names the Pacific on account of its relatively calm waters.

1843 – Britain and France formerly recognise the independence of Hawaii.

1935 – Britain’s first set of quads – Ann; Ernest; Michael and Paul Miles born in Cambridgeshire.

1948 – In the United States, the world’s first polaroid cameras go on sale in Boston, Massachussets – developed by Edwin Land.

1967 – In Britain, horse racing is suspended after an outbreak of foot and mouth disease among cattle and there’s a ban on the movement of livestock around the country.

1997 – In the House of Commons, a large majority of MPs approve a Private Member’s Bill, introduced by Labour MP Michael Foster, to ban fox hunting.


By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 6:30 am

RMcsmlshdw.jpgI have to go along with my former colleague Robert McCartney who has branded the DUP as a "born-again pro-Agreement" party. Slap. In the Assembly yesterday, Bob said that only DUP pragmatists pretended the St Andrews Agreement was anything but a "sugared version" of the Good Friday Agreement and still required enforced coalition with Sinn Fein.

"The DUP acceptance of these terms makes it a born-again pro-Agreement party with policies essentially indistinguishable from those of the Ulster Unionists — policies which brought electoral disaster upon the UUP. The core of (David) Trimble’s policies was power-sharing with Sinn Fein (and) attempts by the DUP pragmatists to disguise the stench of that U-turn from the party’s grass roots has failed."


I rather agree with this, and congratulate Bob on saying what needs to be said. Speaking truth is always to be encouraged, regardless of who takes exception to it. The DUP Leadership has chosen to become UUP lite, failing to stand by solemn promises as it ruthlessly pursues power.  I had a letter published in The Newsletter on Monday challenging the DUP position on this and I suspect I am not the only one who sees things this way.