In Your Face

In Your Face
Thought provoking opinions on topical issues.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

CIA Airlines

CIA Airlines

Click the image to see a larger version.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

The Cricket Test Revisited

In the aftermath of the revelation that lthe recent London bomb attack was carried out by British Muslims, there has been an earnest volley of questions fired off at British Muslims by the media; as to what possessed these young men to murder their fellow countrymen.

Rather disturbingly many of those questioned, whilst saying that they do not approve of or condone murder, were quick to say that many Muslims are angry about British foreign policy. Whilst not explicitly saying that this anger should be an excuse for murder, those questioned imply that it may be a reason for the attack. This clutching at straws for a reason has provided a "shroud of respectability" to cover the decapitated corpses of the bombers.

This attempted "justification" for the bombing is absurd. There are many people in Britain who do not support our current foreign policy; ie they know that the Iraqi venture was criminally irresponsible, given the scandalous lack of thought and planning that had been devoted to the rebuilding of Iraq once the regime had been decapitated.

However, despite not approving of the British foreign policy, British citizens do not pack a rucksack with C4 and rush to the nearest tube station intent on murdering their fellow citizens.

I am afraid that the reason for the attack is far more simple, and basic, one of blind hatred for the West and its culture.

The bombers did not regard themselves as being either British, or indeed Western; they had rejected the culture and values of their birth country, in favour of their highly selective and morally reprehensible interpretation of the values and principles of Islam. In other words, they regarded their birth nation as the enemy.

How could such a state of affairs come to pass, whereby citizens born in Britain totally reject its values and democratic principles?

The answer, and the blame, lays full square at the door of the Muslim community in Britain. It is evident that the Muslim community, particularly in the North, has steadfastly refused to integrate into "mainstream" British society. They remain isolated and cut off; they appear as outsiders looking in, with suspicion and contempt for the British way of life.

This contempt is reinforced generation after generation, as the children born into the Muslim community are taught customs and practices (outwith religious ceremonies and worship) that are "not common practice" within the British way of life. In particular the role of women in Muslim society, as demonstrated by the dress code, is one area of significant difference. It has been argued by some, that the burqa is designed to show respect for women and the sanctity of the family; a cynic might ask why it is that men are not required to wear them as well. The emphasis within the Muslim community is on women being seen to be moral and modestly dressed at all times, Western women are regarded as little better than whores.

This contempt shown for the West is inevitably transmitted, in a closed community, from generation to generation. Western society is regarded as being morally decadent and degenerate. This is evidenced most aptly by the actions of the parents of one of the bombers. When, a few years ago, the teenager went through a rebellious period he was packed off to Pakistan; thus taking him away from the "corrupting influence" of the West. This action speaks volumes about what the Muslim community thinks of the West, and of British society.

Given the isolated and closed nature of many of the Muslim communities in Britain, it is hardly surprising that a generation is being brought up filled with hatred and contempt for their non Muslim contemporaries. Until the Muslim community recognises this failing and not seek "easy answers and excuses" for the bombing, such as British foreign policy, we will see more young men decapitate themselves in the name of a futile and evil cause.

Norman Tebbit was once mocked for his infamous "cricket test" analogy, whereby a citizen’s allegiance was tested by identifying which cricket team he supported. A similar, and very uncomfortable, question needs to be asked by British Muslims of themselves namely; which takes priority, Islam or Britain?

Where they answer in the former, it may be time for them to consider leaving. Where they answer in the latter, they must open up their communities; and accept that it is up to them to integrate with British society, not the other way around.

Friday, July 08, 2005


London has been a major city for over 2000 years.

It has survived fire, flood, plague, rioting, the Luftwaffe and the IRA.

Yesterday's attack by human scum will not destroy it, London will survive long after their intellectually and morally bankrupt theocracy has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

The EU Constitution - The Longest Suicide Note In History

Much has been written about the proposed EU constitution; there are those who claim that it is a blueprint for the future of the EU, and there are those who claim that it is the harbinger of a new European dark age.

Now that it has been placed into the deep freeze, ie killed, by the leaders of the EU I would like to add my "two cents" to the discussion. However, unlike other commentators, I will be brief and get to the heart of the matter.

The EU constitution was destined to fail for the following reasons:
  • It is over 300 pages long, no voter (or indeed politician) on the planet could possibly understand it. The American Founding fathers wrote a constitution, which was a success, of a mere 20 pages.

  • The US constitution begins "We the people..", the EU constitution begins "His majesty, the King of the Belgians..".

  • Those countries that ratified the constitution did so via their own politicians, they did not trust their people to support it. Two of the three countries that trusted their people, France and the Netherlands, were given the two finger salute. In other words, the citizens of the EU do not want a European constitution.

  • The US constitution was written with the support of the people, who had just fought the War of Independence. The EU constitution was written by an isolated political elite, who did not consult the people.

  • The EU constitution attempts to impose an outdated model of state intervention on the citizens of the EU. Many of those citizens live in countries that have abandoned state intervention, in favour of free market economies. Until the member states of Europe agree as to whether they want a free market or outdated state intervention, the European project will go no where.
Any new attempt to revive a European constitution will have to take account of the above points, if it is to have any hope of success.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Make Poverty History

There is currently quite a media frenzy over the forthcoming concert in aid of the "Make Poverty History" campaign.

People are being encouraged to go along to the concert, march on the G8 summit at Gleneagles and to buy a white wristband.

The idea being that this will spur world leaders into canceling the debt owed by Africa, and to channel more aid to that region.

This is all very well and good. However, it is naive in the extreme:
  • Canceling the debt will not serve the people of the region. At some stage they will need to borrow more money, those that have lent money in the past and have had that debt cancelled will not be inclined to lend more money in the future.

  • Channeling large sums of money into Africa does the people of the region little good. The majority of that money goes straight into the pockets of the corrupt leaders of Africa, as they equip themselves with ever more luxurious palaces and larger fleets of presidential aircraft. Until Africa addresses its internal corruption, money sent there will never reach its target. In fact aid does nothing more than perpetuate the corruption.

  • The purchase of the white wristband has turned into a nothing more than an egotistical fashion statement. People are using the band to pretend that they care, and to go along with the media frenzy that has accompanied this campaign.

  • The white wristbands have been made by sweat shop labour in China, the purchase of these fashion items in fact does more harm than good; by lining the pockets of the sweat shop owners.
The solution to Africa's ills lies in the hands of Africans, not ours.

Sunday, May 29, 2005

The Top Ten Reasons Why ID Cards Are Bollocks

I went down the pub last night, for a drink or two; and it is fair to say that, in the spirit of annoying our elected representatiaves, an elegant sufficiency of booze and cigarettes were consumed.

During last night’s celebrations, we mused on the top ten reasons why ID cards are bollocks (how sad is that?). Here is our top ten:
  • ID cards are the tools of choice of dictators, during peacetime. Don’t take our word for it ask Churchill, Bush or Thatcher; all of whom have said the self same thing.

  • ID cards can easily be forged, eg visit

  • The alleged purpose of ID cards is to prove someone’s identity, this can already be done with ease via eg; passports, NI numbers, driving licence or birth certificates to name but a few. Therefore ID cards are unnecessary.

  • Foreigners passing through Britain do not have to hold ID cards.

  • Proof of identity is no deterrent to terrorism, the determined "loon" is perfectly happy letting the world know his/her real name in a suicide bombing.

  • Whilst we may be "waging war" against others, we are not "at war"; there is no external threat to the existence of this nation, aside from the internal threat posed by Labour.

  • The cost of implementing, and managing, ID cards is prohibitive.

  • The IT requirements, necessary to effectively manage the huge database envisaged by Labour, are not feasible. No IT project implemented by politicians, of any party, has ever worked properly or met budget.

  • ID cards do not have to be carried by individuals, therefore their purpose is negated.

  • ID cards will not be issued to every citizen of Britain until 2014. Labour claims that we are all in danger, yet she is taking 10 years to address that threat.
Do you not think that Labour is being a little slow here?

Could it be that we are actually not in as much danger as they would have us believe?

This list took us around 5 minutes of alcohol fuelled deliberations to create, ie it was not very difficult to pull Labour’s arguments to shreds.

If it is that easy for us "ordinary mortals" to pull her logic to threads; why does Labour still persist in her plans, and why has the "Leader" of the "Opposition" committed political suicide by supporting the introduction of ID cards?

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Advice To Pope Benedict

The newly appointed Pope Benedict XVI faces the same challenge that any new CEO of a large failing multi national faces.

Namely, change management and scoring "quick wins" as he consolidates his position.

My advice to Benedict as to what his first "quick win" should be is simple; change the absurd catholic doctrine on contraception, and allow people to use condoms.

This one measure alone, will dramatically reduce the number of deaths in Africa from HIV; thereby ensuring that the Catholic church itself does not die out in this troubled continent.

Sunday, March 20, 2005

The End of The Olympics

The Greek government has blamed the unchecked spending on the 2004 Olympics as being the reason for Greece's growing budget deficit.

Seemingly, because of accounting errors and "omissions", this deficit is likely to grow.

The latest figures from the EU show the deficit at 6.1% of gross domestic product, more than double the cap allowed by the EU.

Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis told the Parliament:

"The burdens we face from the past are very large..".

The cost of the 2004 Olympics is now being estimated at being $12BN. The Greek government has until the end of the month to explain to the EU how it will lower the deficit.

In a statement on the Finance Ministry website, the blame is pointed directly at PASOK, the socialist government that ruled Greece in the lead-up to the Olympics.

Additionally, there is the nagging question of what to do with the now redundant white elephants that made up the Olympic infrastructure. These are costing around $100M per annum just to maintain.

In respect of the breaching of the EU deficit rules, I would imagine that some form of political "fudge" will be made. The EU is notorious for allowing its members to break the rules, this will be no exception.

After all, if the then Greek government had been honest about the costs it would never have been allowed to join the Euro.

The EU will never admit to the fact that it had been conned.

With regard to the $12Bn cost, this is surely proof positive that the Olympics as a whole need to be totally reformed and scaled down.

No one in their right mind should even think of hosting them, if they are going to cost this much.

The trouble is that politicians' egos overrule common sense.

Maybe it is now time to abandon the Games, and for countries to spend their money on something more productive instead.