…the NHS is so short of resources that patients in some areas had to be treated in a hospital car park. But if that is true, was not Nigel Farage right to condemn the health service for putting the treatment of foreigners above the needs of those who have paid for that health service and now find themselves being treated in a car park?
Mr Miliband’s solution to hospital car park treatment in the NHS is to promise £2?5 billion in extra funding. But such a promise shows the Labour Party to be in total denial about the nature of the economic problems facing the NHS.
Consider this fact. Public Health England estimates that of the almost 108,000 people who are HIV positive, almost 60,000 are from Africa. The cost to the NHS of anti-retroviral drug treatment for these African health tourists is well over £1 billion annually and rising, as more and more Africans and others hear about what’s on offer from the tax payer.
Your ads will be inserted here by
Easy Plugin for AdSense.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
And it’s not only HIV tourists. There is the same costly problem with Hepatitis B, another big crowd-puller from all over the world to the NHS, and a disease which can be even more costly than HIV to treat.
But the costs of health tourism to the tax payer are not confined to medical treatment alone. Many of those HIV tourists would be in receipt of housing and other welfare allowances, quite possibly for the rest of their lives.
…The British Labour Party, once a genuine British workers’ party, has now morphed into a fanatically pro-immigration welfarist party that uses the NHS for its own political ends. It turns all debate on the NHS into a party political competition about who will pour the most money into a voracious NHS bottomless pit.
Unless we eradicate the scourge of Obamacare, that’s the future of health care here in the U.S.
The latest “talks” aimed at Iran abandoning it’s plans for obtaining nuclear weapons are nothing more than a sham.
“Iran’s not being asked to dismantle the nuclear infrastructure,” the Israeli official said, having seen the proposal before the weekend. “Right now what they’re talking about is something very different. They’re talking about Ayatollah Khamenei allowing the P5+1 (the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany) to save face.”
It seems that the world community is only worried about not looking bad, instead of keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen.
Historic negotiations with Iran will reach an inflection point on Monday, as world powers seek to clinch a comprehensive deal that will, to their satisfaction, end concerns over the nature of its vast, decade-old nuclear program.
But sharing details of the deal under discussion with The Jerusalem Post on the eve of the deadline, Israel has issued a stark, public warning to its allies with a clear argument: Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of a crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit.
The deal that is on the table for Iran is a weak one, at best.
World powers have presented Iran with an accord that would restrict its nuclear program for ten years and cap its ability to produce fissile material for a weapon during that time to a minimum nine-month period.
Should Tehran agree, the deal may rely on Russia to convert Iran’s current uranium stockpile into fuel rods for peaceful use. The proposal would also include an inspection regime that would attempt to follow the program’s entire supply chain, from the mining of raw material to the syphoning of that material to various nuclear facilities across Iran.
But Israel sees right through it.
Israel’s leaders believe the best of a worst-case scenario, should that deal be reached, is for inspections to go perfectly and for Iran to choose to abide by the deal for the entire decade-long period.
But “our intelligence agencies are not perfect,” an Israeli official said. “We did not know for years about Natanz and Qom. And inspection regimes are certainly not perfect. They weren’t in the case in North Korea, and it isn’t the case now – Iran’s been giving the IAEA the run around for years about its past activities.”
“What’s going to happen with that?” the official continued. “Are they going to sweep that under the rug if there’s a deal?”
It looks like the world community is still intent on taking Iran’s word instead of actual verification on their nuclear program’s progress.
On Saturday afternoon, reports from Vienna suggested the P5+1 – the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany – are willing to stop short of demanding full disclosure of any secret weapon work by Tehran.
Speaking to the Post, a senior US official rejected concern over limited surveillance capabilities, during or after a deal.
“If we can conclude a comprehensive agreement, we will have significantly more ability to detect covert facilities – even after its duration is over – than we do today,” the senior US official said. “After the duration of the agreement, the most intrusive inspections will continue: the Additional Protocol – which encompasses very intrusive transparency, and which Iran has already said it will implement – will continue.”
Once again, we are stopping short of demanding Iran cease and desist in all nuclear activities.
But compounding Israel’s fears, the proposal Jerusalem has seen shows that mass dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure – including the destruction, and not the mere warehousing, of its parts – is no longer on the table in Vienna.
Yet, more than any single enforcement standard or cap included in the deal, Israel believes the Achilles’ heel of the proposed agreement is its definitive end date – the sunset clause.
“You’ve not dismantled the infrastructure, you’ve basically tried to put limits that you think are going to be monitored by inspectors and intelligence,” said the official, “and then after this period of time, Iran is basically free to do whatever it wants.”
“You’ve not only created a deal that leaves Iran as a threshold nuclear power today, because they have the capability to break out quickly if they wanted to,” the Israeli official contended. “But you’ve also legitimized Iran as a military nuclear power in the future.”
From the moment this deal is clinched, Israel fears it will guarantee Iran as a military nuclear power. There will be no off ramp, because Iran’s reentry into the international community will be fixed, a fait accompli, by the very powers trying to contain it.
“The statement that says we’ve prevented them from having a nuclear weapon is not a true statement,” the Israeli official continued. “What you’ve said is, you’re going to put restrictions on Iran for a given number of years, after which there will be no restrictions and no sanctions. That’s the deal that’s on the table.”
What does all this mean? It means that once again, our best, most trusted ally in the Middle East is left to fend for themselves, yet again.
Without an exit ramp, Israel insists its hands will not be tied by an agreement reached this week, this month or next, should it contain a clause that ultimately normalizes Iran’s home-grown enrichment program.
On the surface, its leadership dismisses fears that Israel will be punished or delegitimized if it disrupts an historic, international deal on the nuclear program with unilateral military action against its infrastructure.
By framing the deal as fundamentally flawed, regardless of its enforcement, Israel is telling the world that it will not wait to see whether inspectors do their jobs as ordered.
“Ten, fifteen years in the life of a politician is a long time,” the Israeli said, in a vague swipe against the political directors now scrambling in Vienna. “In the life of a nation, it’s nothing.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened the use of force against Iran several times since 2009, even seeking authorization from his cabinet in 2011. Iran’s program has since grown in size and scope.
According to his aides, the prime minister’s preference is not war, but the continuation of a tight sanctions regime on Iran’s economy coupled with a credible threat of military force. Netanyahu believes more time under duress would have led to an acceptable deal. But that opportunity, in his mind, may now be lost.
Whether Israel still has the ability to strike Iran, without American assistance, is an open question. Quoted last month in the Atlantic magazine, US officials suggested that window for Netanyahu closed over two years ago.
But responding to claims by that same official, quoted by Jeffrey Goldberg, over Netanyahu’s courage and will, the Israeli official responded sternly: “The prime minister is a very serious man who knows the serious responsibility that rests on his shoulders. He wouldn’t say the statements that he made if he didn’t mean them.”
“People have underestimated Israel many, many times in the past,” he continued, “and they underestimate it now.”
The parents of a child suffering from a severe brain tumor signaled Monday they would defy efforts to force them to return to Britain, days after their family fled.
So why did they feel the need to escape a presumably civilized nation?
It seems government-run healthcare isn’t exactly on the cutting edge when it comes to life-saving treatments.
The family had fled to Spain in hopes of selling a property to obtain enough cash for a new treatment in the Czech Republic or the United States they hope will help their child. Police pursued them and issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of neglect after Southampton General Hospital realized their patient — Ashya King, 5 — was gone, without their consent. British authorities have made no apology for the warrant.
I can’t resist interrupting the main focus of the story at this point because the story then includes this line.
The case has riveted Britain, which is proud of a health service that offers universal care.
Maybe Brits are proud of their NHS, which would be a poor reflection on the collective IQ of the nation, but it certainly doesn’t offer universal care.
…the saga has…raised volatile questions of how much power authorities should have in interfering in some of the most sensitive of questions — and whether it has the right to insist that treatment dictates be followed. …Television images have shown the Kings being loaded into a Spanish squad car in handcuffs. When asked by the BBC on their views, the couple told the reporter they are just trying to help their child. …The family has criticized Britain’s health care system, saying he has a serious tumor that needs an advanced treatment option called proton beam therapy and that it wasn’t being made available to him. …Unlike other types of cancer treatment, it doesn’t indiscriminately kill surrounding healthy tissue, so there could be fewer long term effects.
Doesn’t this remind one of the old Soviet Bloc, who had to build walls to keep their own people from escaping? Now, they are too cheap to build walls, but they will have the nations to which they flee arrest them and send them back. Now, apparently, getting over the border doesn’t allow you to escape the suck, unless you’re there in the US to commit acts of terror, or become future democrat voters, but I digress.
Socialized medicine is going to kill this child, and the authorities in the UK don’t want then escaping to defy them. He just has to be a good little Brit and die for the government, that’s all.
In a story only a scifi original movie writer could love, a cruise ship, the Lyubov Orlova, is thought to be adrift in the Atlantic, and possibly headed for the UK. And, just to make it creepy, the ship is said to be filled with disease ridden, cannibalistic rats. The Independent has more…
The Lyubov Orlova cruise liner has been drifting across the north Atlantic for the better part of a year, and salvage hunters say there is a strong chance it is heading this way.
Built in Yugoslavia in 1976, the unlucky vessel was abandoned in a Canadian harbour after its owners were embroiled in a debt scandal and failed to pay the crew.
The authorities in Newfoundland tried to sell the hull for scrap – valued at £600,000 – to the Dominican Republic, but cut their losses when it came loose in a storm on the way.
Sending the ship off into international waters, Transport Canada said it was satisfied the Lyubov Orlova “no longer poses a threat to the safety of [Canadian] offshore oil installations, their personnel or the marine environment”.
Experts say the ship, which is likely to still contain hundreds of rats that have been eating each other to survive, must still be out there somewhere because not all of its lifeboat emergency beacons have been set off.
Yeah, they could find it, claim it as salvage, and take it to the breakers for scrap. Or, the Royal navy could use it for gunnery practice. But, it would make a great setting for a scifi movie; with disease ridden, cannibalistic rats! The possibilities are endless!
I know what you’re thinking, besides the fact that it’s terrible. You’re likely thinking that this happened in Egypt, or perhaps was done by Obama’s Syrian Allies Al Qaeda. But, it’s even worse. This not only occurred in the UK, but assaults on Christian Clergy are an increasingly common event in that nation. Shoebat has more…
The heresies of atheism and Islam are flooding England, and there are consequences to this, consequences that are both innate and inevitable to the dangerous acceptance of religious tolerance: violence toward Christianity.
In England, the body of the Rev John Suddards in Thornbury who was discovered, stabbed to death with a note which read ‘Christian scum”.
Over the last five years, 200 priests and vicars have been physically attacked in England. One priest was beaten in his church, another was hit over the head by a wooden stick, and another was bitten in the hand, not by an animal but a satanic hater of God.
Christian persecution is not just happening in the Middle East, its occurring in the western world.
Father Timothy Lipscomb, the vicar of Preston, said:
I think the trouble is you don’t really do an effective job as a parish priest unless you make yourself vulnerable. It is sad that you have to protect yourself to protect others. It’s completely wrong that people should attack clergy. I am not surprised.. I think it is terrible.
The UK is just ahead of the US on this issue. As this nation becomes increasingly evil, we will start seeing this here as well. It’s only a matter of time. There are is plenty of anti-Christian hate in this nation; just waiting for an excuse to act.
LONDON, May 14, 2013 (Acton Institute) – Barbara Hewson, a London barrister, has made the call for lowering the age of sexual consent in the United Kingdom from 16 to 13. Her reasoning (if one may call it that) is that the current age of consent leads to the harassment and “persecution of old men.” She also believes that underage victims should have no right to anonymity, and that law based on the best interests of the child should not trump the “rights” of men who like to kiss a 13-year-old, or put one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt.
It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest. Adults and law-enforcement agencies must stop fetishising victimhood. Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime. As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are: remove complainant anonymity; introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions; and reduce the age of consent to 13.
Nope, nothing to see here. Move right along. There is absolutely no efforts to normalize pedophilia here!
I wonder of the #FreeKate supporters have any other easily debunked statements to make?
If Obama supporters thought he was going to change how the world views us, they were right. Obama is a failure, an embarrassment, and a fool. And frankly, the whole world sees it, except the MSM, and the few OFA drones left in place.
Margaret Thatcher, the so called “Iron Lady,” had passed away at age 87. The UK’s first female prime minister, she was in power at a pivotal time in the UK’s history, restoring the economy and international prestige of her nation. She was seen as a partner with Ronald Reagan in confronting Soviet Communism, winning her the title, “Iron Lady,” from the Soviet Press. The Daley Gator has more…
He said: “As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds, and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country, and I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.
“Her legacy will be the fact she served her country so well, she saved our country and that she showed immense courage in doing so and people will be learning about what she did and her achievements in decades, probably centuries to come.”
Mr Cameron was in Spain at the start of a European tour to push for a more flexible EU when the news broke but immediately cut short his trip.
It is understood that Lady Thatcher was consulted about details of the funeral arrangements and made clear that she did not want to lie in state.
The streets between Westminster and St Paul’s will be cleared for the procession, the date of which is yet to be decided. The route will be lined with members of Armed Forces.
US President Barack Obama said that America would “never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan” and that she had “with moral conviction” helped to shape history.
He said: “With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.
“As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best.”
As a pivotal figure in British history, we will miss Baroness Thatcher, but her legacy lives in in the UK that she had restored and strengthened.
Today we say goodbye to a towering figure of the 20th century. With the passing of Margaret Thatcher, we’ve sadly lost the last living member of that great triumvirate that included Ronald Reagan and John Paul II — those giants who defeated the evil empire of Soviet Communism and allowed the liberation of its captive nations. We’ve also lost one of the great champions of economic freedom and democratic ideals.
Many will focus on the fact that Margaret Thatcher’s career was a collection of “firsts” for women — she was the first and youngest female Conservative-party member to stand for election, the first woman to hold the title Leader of the Opposition, and the first woman prime minister of the United Kingdom.
But Thatcher not only broke a glass ceiling; she broke a class ceiling. She was a grocer’s daughter from the back of beyond who advanced to the height of power in a class-conscious society. Like her friend Ronald Reagan, she was an underestimated underdog and political outsider. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Evening Standard, once said, “There was no Thatcher group within the Tory Party. . . . She was utterly and completely on her own. She simply was an outsider in every way.”
She was at heart a populist taking on the Conservative party’s old guard, who disdainfully referred to her as “That Woman.” The disdain was mutual. She referred to them as “the not so grand grandees.” As Thatcher later said, “It didn’t matter what they called me as long as I got the job done. I mean, to me they were ‘Those Grandees.’ They just don’t know what life is like. They haven’t been through it. And eventually if they didn’t help our cause, they had to go. But it didn’t bother me too much that they were patronizing like that. Frankly, the people, who are the true gentlemen, deal with others for what they are, not who their father was. Let’s face it: Maybe it took ‘That Woman’ to get things done, and the real reason why they said it was because they knew they just hadn’t got it within them to see things through.”
It seems that not everyone enjoyed peace and prosperity. And, just as the American left has a tendency to celebrate death, the Brit left has the routine down pat. Here is a video from the Daily Mail…
As usual, leftists show class and dignity are NOT part of the Alinsky handbook. But, I guess it can be expected, after all, Thatcher did stand against communism.
But, I don’t want to end this post on the terms of the leftists. Instead, let’s look at some highlights from Thatcher’s career…
This is one of the best “take downs” of socialists that I recall ever seeing. It is a fitting tribute, and as fine a political legacy as I can identify. She clearly showed the difference between freedom and slavery-and like Reagan, the left hates her, even in death.
Then again, to be hated by communists, even in death must have meant that she did much in the cause of freedom. For that, we thank her, and she will be missed.
You can support the CH 2.0 with your Amazon Purchases, at no expense to your self!
In the US, most of us are lamenting the fact that while our calendars say “spring.” the season has not really “sprung” as of yet. However, for the Brits, the season has been much worse, suffering their coldest winter since 1962. Doug Ross has more…
[England] is on track to suffer its coldest March in more than 50 years as conservationists warned that the prolonged winter weather was damaging wildlife… The unrelenting cold weather is showing no signs of slowing this week as snow continues to fall across the North.
…Friday will see a return of heavier snow storms, which will spread further south to the Midlands. The Central England Temperature – covering an area bounded by Lancashire, Bristol and London – shows temperatures have been 2.8C lower than normal for the month.
The last time March was so cold was in 1962, when the average temperature was 2.4C (36F) – or 4.1C below the norm…
It is said that 5000 people have died due to the cold, which I am absolutely sure was caused by global warming the big lie, right?
Let’s see what effect once great Britain’s draconian authoritarianism has had. Here’s a report from 2009:
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year — a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
Tony Blair and his gang of Labour leftists used the Dunblane Massacre as a pretext to inflict the Nazi-esque Firearms Acts in 1997. They banned private ownership of all handguns.
Lancashire suffered the single largest rise in gun crime, with recorded offences increasing from 50 in 1998/99 to 349 in 2007/08, an increase of 598 per cent. …
The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent.
OK then, the UK banned handgun ownership, and gun crime went up?? You mean, when the government bans something,people still possess it? Do you mean, that when good, law abiding people turned in their firearms, that they then became prey to the bad folks that didn’t? Doe it mean that even though it’s illegal to have guns, that the folks that don’t follow other laws didn’t follow the gun law either?
Who could have saw that coming? Obviously not the bleeding hearts in the UK, who created more crime, and more misery, and probably won’t admit their guilt in creating more gun crime. And, neither will our liberals, should they be successful here. The MSM won’t report the predictable increases in crime, and if they do, they’ll blame it on someone else.
Yes, best friends have been banned in some British schools. For the details, kindly consider the following, from the SUN…
TEACHERS are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don’t get upset by fall-outs.
Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.
Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.
She added: “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together.
“They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.”
Why not ban them from loving their parents, just in case they die one day? Or, don’t let them have a pet-it might get hit by a truck! Part of living is dealing with relationship changes, and loss. It’s part of life. Kids need to do it, or they’ll never learn to cope with more important relationships, or the losses that sometimes come with them.
I guess they’ll always have the nanny state though. It’ll never go away-even when you want it to.
Most all Conservatives would classify abortion as a great evil. And, consistent with evil, we have read horror stories about abortion clinics, including babies that survived to procedure, only to be killed. Now, there is news from the UK regarding doctors aborting babies based on their gender. For more, kindly review this excerpt from the Telegraph…
Doctors at British clinics have been secretly filmed agreeing to terminate foetuses purely because they are either male or female. Clinicians admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions even though it is illegal to conduct such “sex-selection” procedures.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said: “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.”
The disclosures will add to growing concerns about the regulation of abortion clinics and the apparent ability of women to secure terminations “on demand”.
The Daily Telegraph carried out an investigation into sex-selection abortions after concerns were raised that the procedures were becoming increasingly common for cultural and social reasons.
For me, this story is horrifying on multiple levels. Of course, that abortions are ever provided is horrific, and that babies are killed based on their gender only makes it more so. But, there is something odd about this story, and it deals with the fact that killing babies based on gender is illegal in the UK. To play devil’s advocate” here, I have to ask, why? Because, if you ask any feminazi, worth her vitriol, a fetus isn’t human, and it isn’t a person. Feminazis will also tell you that it is nothing more than a “fetal tissue mass,” and removing it is no different than having an appendectomy. But, we don’t apply gender to an inflamed appendix, do we? And, it isn’t unfair or illegal to remove a gall bladder, because it is not an appendix, is it? So then, what is different about a “fetal tissue mass” that is has to be protected based on it’s gender, and why does a “thing,” that is most definitely not a person, have a gender to begin with?
Or, are the feminazis trying to have their abortions, while also not killing little girls because they are girls?
But, the liberals face another interesting quandary. While it isn’t mentioned in the article, the practices discussed in it have far reaching consequences for other liberal populations. For example, the gay rights crowd maintains that their lifestyle is a result of nature, not nurture, or even choice. However, if that is indeed true, and that there is a “gay gene,” how long will it be before some smart scientist creates a test for it? And, if people are aborting due to genetic defects, or even by gender, how long will it be before potentially gay “fetal tissue masses” are being aborted?
Of course, there might be a protest by gay rights folks to prevent there being testing for a “gay gene,” or even aborting “fetal tissue masses” for possessing that trait. However, I must again play devil’s advocate and submit that if a “fetal tissue mass” is not a person, and has no rights under the law, that there can be no protections for them of any kind. Because, if you give them rights that an inflamed appendix does not also possess, you must be suggesting that they aren’t simply a “fetal tissue mass,” but something more, right?
Furthermore, If we go along with the feminazis, and deny the unborn personhood, can we simply commit “genocide” against gays by preventing them from being born in the first place? After all, “fetal tissue masses” aren’t people, right? And, what if we follow the advise of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who said that abortion is meant to prevent us from having the kind of people that we “don’t want too many of?” This situation should be exceedingly alarming to homosexuals, as there is a potential, by their own self-description, for being exterminated via abortion. Since we already know that one of the primary reasons for Planned Parenthood’s founding was the extermination of the “Black Race,” we probably ought to assume that other groups are not immune.
In the end, the problem with some populations being “disposable” or “inconvenient” is that the definition of who is “disposable” or “inconvenient” can change.
Note from Matt: Waiting for someone to accuse me of wanting to kill gay people in 5, 4, 3, 2…
One of the liberal narratives, that guns cause crime, is taking a shellacking via reality. Of course, what you are about to read will NEVER appear in the MSM (unless they want to give Obama credit for it). Let’s take a look at two countries, and their attitude towards guns.
Between November 2005 and October 2009, nearly every month’s requests were higher than the year before. (For example, there were 12.4% more NICS requests in September 2009 than in September 2008.) The sole exception was December 2007, which saw 1.9% fewer requests than December 2006. On an annual basis, each year’s total saw double-digit growth over the previous year beginning in 2006.
NICS data mirror the estimated sales data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which also show double-digit growth beginning in 2006. (Not all background checks result in one gun being purchased.)
The chart below shows that after gun sales attained record growth in 2006, violent crime rates began to fall in 2007. As gun sales continued to register records each following year, violent crime rates decreased at an accelerating rate.
Consider this; the decreases in crime have continued since the recession/depression started. This kicks another liberal narrative in the teeth; that crime increases in bad economic times.
In reality, this has been studied many times, I wrote college papers about it in the 80’s. The consensus is this, more guns=less crime.
Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, “there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people,” according to Professor Malcolm. “Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides — an average of one a year.”
The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England — or at least the law-abiding part of it.
It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. “As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen,” Professor Malcolm points out.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.
While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons — and have begun locking up more criminals.
In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.
I think Sowell’s last paragraph sums it up best. Facts have absolutely nothing to do with the left’s position on gun control. To show the actual intent, I think a quote by Thomas Jefferson has the answer:
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
As a government grows more powerful, it is natural that said government would infringe upon the rights of its citizens. An armed populace complicates and thwarts that acquisition of power. Therefore, there government will seek to disarm the populace, rendering them impotent to fight the government’s theft of their freedoms.
We need the government to fear us. If they do not fear us, they will take whatever they can, until they are stopped. With history as our guide, we know this to be true.
They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.
And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder.
Weather patterns were more like those in the late 1970s, experts said, while Met Office figures released on Monday are expected to show that the country is experiencing the coldest winter for up to 25 years.
Patterns from the late 70’s? You mean, when the climate alarmists were predicting an impending ice age, cause by human activity? You know, the ice age that never happened?
On New Year’s Day 10 extreme weather warnings were in place, with heavy snow expected in northern England and Scotland.
A spokesman for the Met Office said: “It is certainly a while since we had cold weather like this and there isn’t any sign of any milder weather on the way.”
Considerable amounts of “showery snow” is expected over Scotland and eastern England over the coming days, he said, whilst the rest of the United Kingdom would remains dry but very cold.
He added that temperatures in the Scottish highlands could dip to minus 16 degrees while even southern areas of England could see lows of minus 7.
The cold weather comes despite the Met Office’s long range forecast, published, in October, of a mild winter. That followed it’s earlier inaccurate prediction of a “barbecue summer”, which then saw heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years.
Hmm, so, did they use some of the “cooked” data in their predictions?
Paul Michaelwaite, forecaster for NetWeather.tv, said: “It is looking like this winter could be in the top 20 cold winters in the last 100 years.
Wow! That AGW is really making it…cold? How are they going to hide THIS decline?
Seriously though, they will blame the cold on human activity. In the 70’s, they said we were going to freeze to death in an ice age and our CO2 emissions were to blame. Then in the 80‘s to now, they’ve been telling us that we’re going roast, starve, be drowned by the rising seas, and so on, all because of warming. And again, it is our CO2 emissions that are to blame. They were wrong in the 70’s, and a growing body of evidence seems to point that they are wrong now as well.
But, they will not let the actual “inconvenient truths” interfere with their efforts. The scientists and private companies have billions, if not trillions, of dollars at stake. Politicians have tremendous power to gain, or lose, based on the actual state of the climate. So expect that the “party line” will be carbon output is causing climate change no matter what happens. It won’t matter that the “science” has been wrong at every turn. The goal is a socialist nanny state, and climate is the rationale. If reality interferes, it will be interpreted, and re-interpreted as many times as needed to achieve the goal.