Monday, July 09, 2007

The bizarre British government response to Muslim attacks

We began with the usual and - this time - quite surreal assurances from politicians, Muslim leaders and, in particular the BBC, that the latest attacks were `nothing to do with Islam'. This is what we always hear when a bomb has gone off, or failed to go off - and it is always a silly statement, based upon nothing more real than wishful thinking and a quick, thoughtless, unnecessary genuflection towards crowd control. On this occasion, though, it was subtly undermined by one of the perpetrators, doused in flames outside Glasgow airport, screaming `Allah! Allah! Allah! Allah!' before being peremptorily battered by a passer-by. Also, they parked their car at a mosque - and yet, according to every bigwig, policeman and community leader interviewed, this was a mere case of coincidence - NCP being full at the time, presumably.

Then, as always happens, we had the next stage of wishful thinking. Led by the BBC's bizarrely pro-Islamist Frank Gardner, we were assured by assorted correspondents and politicians that Britain's Muslim community were, in their entirety, appalled and outraged by the attacks. Well, maybe they were - but how do you know? Did you ask 'em, Frank? Don't forget that more than half of our Muslims feel sympathy for suicide bombers in Israel and a fairly hefty minority (one in eight, at the last count) for similar action against the cockroach imperialist infidel scum (i.e. you and me) over here. Not to mention almost half of Britain's Muslims who want Sharia law in this country and do not remotely, therefore, share our norms and values.

We are told these sorts of things in order to stop us coming to unpalatable conclusions, because the government still clings, ever more precariously, to the vestigial tail of that discredited ideology, multiculturalism. Take, for example, the issue of immigration. The aspirant, useless bombers who missed their targets at Glasgow and London came here from Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. A recent Mori opinion poll commissioned by the government's Commission on Integration and Cohesion showed that almost 70 per cent of British people thought that we had let far too many immigrants into the country. This figure, incidentally, included almost half of all black and Asian British citizens polled. It was a remarkable poll not so much for its statistics, however, as for the strange response to those statistics. The establishment - the government, the BBC, the race charities and so on - professed themselves very worried and wondered what on earth should be done. A task force charged with dampening down trouble in the immigration hotspots, maybe? A few more lessons in English for the incomers and maybe fewer translators? But at no point did any of the powers that be suggest the one thing which an overwhelming majority of those polled wished for: an end to immigration. A moratorium. Or, at the least, an influx which was vastly reduced and better regulated. This suggestion, implicitly supported by almost 70 per cent of those questioned and opposed by only ten per cent, was not even considered; it simply didn't figure on the radar.....

But then, even if we had been told that the 12 or so aspirant bombers were members of al-Qa'eda and about to launch an attack against British citizens, it is unlikely we could have done very much about it, even if we had their home addresses and mobile phone numbers. Every month or so we read that the immigration appeals court has allowed some murderous lunatic from the Maghreb or beyond to stay in the country, despite his clearly stated homicidal impulses, because it would be an infringement of his human rights were he to be returned to the Islamic hellhole from which he arrived....

The public is perpetually outraged by such clear absurdities and, on this occasion at least, the government seemed a little vexed too. But there was no resolve to enact legislation (or repeal existing legislation) to prevent such outrages occurring again. Faced with the law - and in particular, international treaties to which we gladly affixed our names in simpler times - the government feels and perhaps is impotent. It is surely only a matter of time before someone who comes before the immigration appeals court is allowed to stay and later blows himself up in a public place. Perhaps it has happened already.....

The odd thing is that on all of these issues - immigration, human rights legislation, the notion that British Muslims do not share very many of our liberal values, the war against Iraq - the public seems to get it and our political leaders simply do not. There will be many more attempts at carnage on our streets before they do get it, I suspect. In the meantime, I suppose we'll just have to put our faith in al-Qa'eda's continuing incompetence.

More here

British pupils pass key English test with 30pc mark

A mark of 30 per cent was enough for 14-year-olds to pass national tests in English A mark of 30 per cent was enough for 14-year-olds to pass national tests in English this year, it has been revealed. In maths, they could achieve the required level with a score of only 39 per cent. The news prompted claims that pupils are being let down by an education system which allows them to be seen as successful despite poor performance in exams.

The pass marks in this year's tests were revealed by the National Assessment Agency. Eleven-year-olds needed 43 per cent to pass English by gaining the expected level four, 46 per cent for maths, and 51 per cent for science. These pass marks are either the same or slightly higher than last year's, suggesting the papers were judged to be marginally simpler. National curriculum levels run from one to seven in English and science and one to eight in maths. The Government expects 11-year-olds to reach level four. At 14 - Key Stage 3 - pupils are expected to reach level five at least, which this year required a minimum 30 per cent mark in English.

Parents' leaders voiced concern over the low level of the pass marks. Margaret Morrissey of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations said: "We are not doing children any favours with these low pass marks. It may look good for schools to have many pupils clearing these hurdles, and maybe it makes parents feel happy for their children. "But when they go out to work, it is going to be picked up by employers. In anyone's book, if you have got 30 per cent of something, you have not succeeded."

A spokesman for the National Assessment Agency defended the marks, saying it used "a range of evidence in order to maintain standards".


Shaky British universities

A swath of universities were in financial crisis even after the introduction of tuition fees, according to a secret government list made public last night. More than 40 institutions feature on the list, which classifies them as at risk of financial failure after 1998, when means-tested tuition fees were introduced. Those on the list include South Bank University in London, Liverpool John Moores University and Queen Mary, University of London.

Another three institutions were deemed to be so at risk that their names were kept off the list, which was revealed after a Freedom of Information request by The Guardian newspaper. The Higher Education Funding Council for England published the list only after pressure from the Information Commissioner, who ruled that students applying to certain institutions had a right to know their financial buoyancy.

The disclosures highlight the problems institutions face, despite the introduction of fees, after decades of under-investment and the explosion in undergraduate numbers. In the academic year 1998-99 students started paying up to 1,025 pounds a year each to attend university, putting an end to free higher education. The move started generating thousands of pounds of extra income. But many of the universities and colleges named have been struggling to recruit sufficient numbers of students and keep their spending under control. Many have been forced to combine their strengths through mergers with other universities

A spokesman for the funding council said: "We work with these institutions to ensure that they develop a robust recovery plan, and this normally results in their restoration to financial health. "The information is historical in the sense that it refers to situations in existence more than three years ago. Much has changed since then." The Guardian, however, named one of the three endangered universities whose identity was not disclosed as Thames Valley University.



Keeping a cat can irritate the lungs and exacerbate the symptoms of asthma, even in people who have no specific allergy to the animals, researchers say. Up to 15 per cent of people are allergic to them, with their sensitivity attributed to a reaction against at least one particular protein that is secreted from the cat's skin.

A Europe-wide study by a team from Imperial College, London, took samples from the mattresses of 1,884 people with certain common allergies. They found that increased exposure to cat allergen was associated with greater sensitivity of the respiratory system in the volunteers, and encouraged symptoms of wheezing or breathlessness in those who were not known to be allergic to cats.

The increased symptoms, known as greater bronchial responsiveness (BR), suggested that reduced exposure to cats may be beneficial for allergic individuals, regardless of their specific allergies, the researchers said. "This was an unexpected finding," Susan Chinn, lead author of the study, said. "We presupposed that we would find increased responsiveness only in those individuals . . . whose blood tests showed that they were allergic to cats. But our study suggests that all allergic individuals have signs of asthmatic responses if exposed to cat allergen, even if blood tests show that they are not allergic to cats." Dr Chinn and her team report their findings in this month's issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, published by the American Thoracic Society.

The study included measurements of house dust mite and cat allergen in mattress dust samples, and data on sensitisation to four main allergens - cat, house dust mite, Cladosporidium (a common mold) and timothy grass. Participants were given a methacholine challenge test, a medical procedure used to diagnose asthma, and the results were compared with the allergens found in the mattress samples.

This study lends weight to previous research that found asthma to be strongly related to indoor allergens. However, that all patients exposed to cats showed greater responsiveness was unexpected. "Our primary results showed no correlation between levels of house dust mite and BR among individuals with sensitisation to any of the four tested allergens," said Dr Chinn. "But even moderate exposure to cat allergen resulted in significantly greater responsiveness."

The researchers said that they could not rule out the possibility that cat allergen exposure could be a proxy for exposure to endotoxins, which are found in bacteria that is thought to encourage asthmatic symptoms. Such compounds are found in higher concentrations in the homes of cat owners. "Based on the current research, it appears that many individuals could benefit from reduced cat ownership and exposure," Dr Chinn said. "However, because the findings were unexpected, it is important that results are replicated in other studies before firm recommendations are made.

Muriel Simmons, the chief executive of the charity Allergy UK, said yesterday that the link between cat allergy and asthma was well established. "We know that cat allergens are among the most sticky and resilient particles, and the most common source of allergies after the house dust mite. Even if you move into a house where cats have previously lived, allergens can maintain even after thorough cleaning."



Dog poo matters more than climate change!

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested. The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change. There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate. The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change. Ipsos Mori's head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was "still a lot to do" in encouraging "low-carbon lifestyles". "We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this," he added. "However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped." People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.

Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: "People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change. "The science very clearly points towards the need for us all - nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate."


A comment on the above sent to the BBC by John A [] of Climate Audit:

Your latest piece of alarmist propaganda will be added to the dossier that I will be sending to the BBC Trust, detailing the ways in which the BBC still seeks to distort climate science, demonize scientists who question the Greenhouse dogma, suppresses evidence showing that the effect of carbon dioxide rise is very small, deletes comments that the BBC doesn't like to admit exist, and repeatedly seek to propgandize in favour of a thoroughly Marxist solution of higher taxes, massive State intervention of the commanding heights of the economy and most of all, the continued promotion of scientific frauds like the Mann Hockey Stick principally through suppression of news stories which show it in its proper (bad) light.

It is to the credit of the British people that despite salting nearly every weather related story with references to "climate change" and "global warming", people are more worried by dog mess than the environmental obsessions of a small cadre of environmental propagandists working at the BBC. Your journalism is a disgrace and I am determined to make sure that everyone knows how you distort your reporting in such a gratuitously partisan way.

NHS only for the peasants: Doctors won't go there for their own treatments

MORE than half of the country’s hospital consultants have turned to private medical treatment instead of using the National Health Service. A survey commissioned by Bupa, the health insurer, found that 55% of senior doctors pay medical insurance, despite the reduction in waiting times for operations on the NHS. [No mention of the endemic superbug problem?]

The Patients Association, a pressure group, criticised specialists for spurning the NHS when most patients cannot afford private care. Katherine Murphy, communications director, said: “Those who work in the NHS at the highest level should have enough confidence in the system to use it themselves.” Consultants earn, on average, 110,000 pounds from their NHS work.

Dr Jacky Davis, a consultant radiologist in London and a founding member of the campaign group Keep Our NHS Public, believes doctors are deserting the NHS because they are no longer guaranteed special treatment. “Until recently, doctors could go to any of their colleagues for treatment for themselves or their family and that was accepted as one of the perks of working in the NHS. Now there is less leeway for doctors to treat each other,” said Davis.

Bupa surveyed 500 consultants, more than 90% of whom work in the NHS. All the consultants questioned carry out some private practice. Dr Natalie-Jane Macdonald, medical director of Bupa, said there was a gulf in the differing expectations of private medicine and the NHS. “The NHS target of having to wait no longer than 18 weeks by December 2008 is ambitious but our members would still see that as a very long time to wait,” she said. As well as having shorter waiting times, private hospitals advertise their lower rates of MRSA – the so-called superbug.

About 6m adults and children in Britain, one-tenth of the population, are covered by private medical insurance. Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the British Medical Association consultants committee, defended doctors’ preference for private treatment. “What consultants do with their own healthcare is very much a personal matter,” said Fielden. “Consultants will try to minimise the time they are away from work in order to maximise their ability to care for patients.” He also maintains that consultants might switch from the NHS to avoid being treated by colleagues or recognised by their own patients. He claimed that if the NHS could guarantee privacy by offering more single rooms, doctors would feel less need to go private. “This certainly isn’t a reflection of the consultants’ faith in the NHS,” he added.


Discrimination against the English

A comment from Prof. Brignell on what the British government does to keep the Scots happy (i.e. give them more money):

Two elderly neighbours live either side of the English/Scottish border. The one to the north is entitled to free drugs to combat cancer, dementia or blindness due to macular degeneration. The one to the south is denied all of these. The body that is responsible for this denial not only has an Orwellian name, but also an Orwellian acronym. It is NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

How the BBC inspires Muslim terrorism: "How could Muslim doctors want to bomb innocent young party goers in their own country? Because for decades the BBC has been telling them how evil Britain and the West really are, every single day, without ever being questioned. Even without imported Pakistani imams to brainwash gullible young men into bloody jihad, sixty million people in Britain receive daily wall-to-wall indoctrination from the Left. Forget those two million Pakistani Muslims in London; the tax-funded BBC has become the single most suicidal force in Britain.... This is the mindset ...that believes the West is the perpetrator of just about every ill that has ever befallen the world - from colonialism to global warming... today's young Muslims are more radical than their parents. What do you expect, when they keep getting the same hate-Britain message every single day from the tenured radicals at the tax-supported BBC?"

1 comment:

Alwyn. said...

Excellent work John

I am big fan.