Marchessini Blog & Forum

Prisoners

In a recent column in the Daily Telegraph, Mary Riddell has her facts completely wrong on crime and prisoners. It is important to understand that, contrary to Miss Riddell’s statements, the UK has the most number of crimes in Europe (6,523,706, at a recent count), slightly ahead of the Germans. Furthermore, crime as a percentage of total population is 10.3% in the UK, according to U.N. figures. This is the second highest in Europe, after Sweden which is 12.9%. By contrast, although the U.S. has vastly more crime, the percentage per population is only 3.8%. Finally, again by U.N. figures, although the UK has the most crimes in Europe, it is only 15th in the number of prisoners. In other words, the UK imprisons relatively fewer criminals than many other countries. The number of prisoners in the UK recently was only 1.2% of the crimes committed. As she seems to have no idea what the truth is, it is not possible to take her assertions seriously.

Miss Riddell alleges that our prisons are overcrowded and undermanned – that is quite true, but it is not because we put too many people in prison. It is because neither political party has built a jail in a very long period of time, while crime has been increasingly continuously. Her statement that “Crime has been falling inexorably for decades, and both Britain and the world have grown more peaceable” is a travesty of the truth. The truth is that in 1954, there were 4 armed robberies in England – in 2004, there were over 4,000. In 1980, the total number of robberies was 15,000 – in 2001 there were 121,375. In 1947, there were approximately 500,000 crimes in the UK. In the year 2000, there were approximately 5,170,000 crimes, and today there are over 6.5 million crimes. Miss Riddell’s assertions are insane. The simple fact is that if you have criminals, you have to have jails for them. Instead of providing more jails, both parties want to put their heads in the sand, and pretend that crime is falling. The only way to reduce crime, and the prison population, is by handing out long prison sentences. Criminals admit that this is the only thing that frightens them – long prison sentences.

Recently, the Labour Government committed an act so dishonest and disgusting that if a private individual had done it, he would have gone straight to jail. Because crime kept going up, they stopped taking the crime figures from the Police, and started taking them from an organisation called the British Crime Survey (BCS). This is a survey organisation in the Midlands, that surveys 40,000 households for crimes that they are aware of (not necessarily reported to the Police), and on the basis of those figures, they estimate the total for the whole country. Even a half-wit would see that this is a scam. The BCS naturally co-operated with the government, and in its first year, it estimated that over 19 million crimes were committed. Yet, in the same year, the Police recorded approximately 5 million crimes. So the BCS figure was ludicrous. But having started with such ridiculously high figures, they are able to reduce the number every year, and give the impression (to naive people), that crime is falling, whereas, in fact, crime, as recorded by the Police, has been continuously rising. The amazing thing is that when the Conservatives came into power in 2010, they did not abolish this absurd method, and they continue to use it. A Tory grandee tried to persuade me that it was necessary!

Miss Riddell is also confused about what Churchill believed. He certainly thought the treatment of criminals was a mark of the strength of a nation, but what he meant was that nations should be firm about crime, and protect their citizens from it, not, as Miss Riddell suggests let our criminals out of prison. She is also confused about, so called, “Human Rights”. When a man commits a crime, he forfeits any rights he has, starting with his right of freedom. He has to accept the punishment of society. Miss Riddell should consider the fact that prisoners today have colour television. I can remember when none of us had colour television.

Top

Responsibility

There was an interesting report in the news today, telling the story of a girl aged sixteen, who had been abused twenty years ago by a group of Pakistani men in Leeds, just after she had left care. A worker at Barnardo’s Leeds Leaving Care project, stated that the situation could have been avoided if the “victim had not been party to the antics of a group of young men … having consumed a quantity of alcohol and taken three Valium tablets, the girl was not able to maintain control or respond to the situation”. This report has now been criticised – twenty years later – and a Barnardo’s spokesman (a lady) said “The view that any child is responsible for their own sexual assault is wrong and totally unacceptable”.

Now, there are two things wrong with that statement. The first is that a sixteen-year-old girl is not a child. Many women have been married at that age. The second is that it has been one of the elemental principles of civilisation from time immemorial, that one must be responsible for one’s own actions. We are now being told that anyone under sixteen is not responsible, and, therefore, free to do what they like. This is, I fear, one of the biggest reasons that the behaviour of young people in England is no longer civilised.

Top

The Sin, Not The Sinner

An article by Christopher Howse in the Daily Telegraph (15th October – The bishops say they don’t hate gays after all) about the Catholic Church and homosexuality, contains an important misconception. What he has not grasped is that it is an article of faith in the Catholic Church (and in all other Christian churches), that “God loves all sinners, but abhors their sins”. So the fact that Cardinal Erdo wishes to welcome homosexuals does not in any way contradict the 2005 document that states that homosexuals should not be admitted to train as priests. Mr Howse is quite right that the word homosexuality did not exist until the 1890s, but he does not seem to be aware that the reason was that it was a euphemism, the normal English words for homosexuals at that time – pederast or sodomite – sounding too harsh to some people. Now, we have the word “gay” (which has been invented by the homosexual lobby), because the word “homosexual” is now thought to be too frank. “Gay” is not only a euphemism, but a lie, because most homosexuals are rather gloomy and not at all gay.

Mr Howse quotes Pope Francis’ famous statement from Rio (although, of course, he did not use the word “gay”), but does not seem to be aware that the phrase “seeking the Lord” means desisting from homosexual acts. Anyone who continues homosexual acts is not considered to be “seeking the Lord”. He also said that he was not sure what the word “lobby”, which Pope Francis used, means. What it means is that there is a large group of homosexuals, and Left-Wing homosexual sympathisers, who try to publicise and promote homosexuality. This is unheard of in the history of the world. In the past, everyone kept their sexual lives to themselves.

Finally, he does not understand the phrase “objectively disordered”, which means the desire and inclination to do things that are not normal. Adultery is a sin, but is not abnormal, neither is contraception. But it is perfectly clear that Nature did not intend men to bugger each other. The fact that they do means that they are “disordered”. That does not mean they are not worth saving, but it does mean that they cannot pretend to be good boys.

Top

An Open Letter To Nigel Farage

Dear Nigel,

Although I am no longer a member of UKIP, I still hope that UKIP will do well in the coming election, and will be able to play a role in government after the election.

Lord Tebbit, a very respected former Cabinet Minister, has added his voice to those calling for a pact with the Conservatives, and he says

“If UKIP and the Conservatives were to agree, there is little doubt that the Conservatives would emerge as the largest party, probably with a majority”.

I note that you have dismissed the idea of a pre-Election pact with the Conservatives, but may I suggest, with great respect, that that depends on what the pact was. Certainly, none of us would like to see UKIP sell out for two ministerial positions. But that is not my idea of a pact. My idea of a pact is as follows:

  1. Cameron has to go, to be replaced by David Davis, or someone else suitable;
  2. The Cabinet has to be reshuffled, and moved much further Right;
  3. The most obnoxious legislation of the last fifteen years must be repealed, specifically:

    a. The ban on hunting, which is violently against freedom and tradition in this country;

    b. The Equalities Act of Mrs Harman, which is also violently against individual freedom;

    c. Finally, same-sex marriage, which is an insult to all Christians.

Naturally, other people may choose other laws, but it is very important that it is promised before the election that the obnoxious laws will be repealed. If you were able to come to a sensible agreement with the Conservatives, there is no doubt in my mind that a Conservative-UKIP Coalition would win.

Top

A Good Slap

A recent column by Camilla Long in the Sunday Times, about Mr Dave Lee Travis, raises some interesting points. There is no question that Mr Travis liked to grope women, and there is also no question that Miss Long had a very unpleasant time, when she went to interview him. But that does not settle the problem.

Traditionally, in polite society, if a man took liberties which offended a woman, she would slap his face. That would be the end of the problem. I remember once a young woman, whom I knew, told me that on a drive to the country with a man, she had to slap him three times. Today, society is no longer very polite, but there is also another problem, which is that women work. Women thought that by working, they would become equal to men, but, in fact, the opposite has occurred. In the past, if a woman sat next to the Prime Minister at dinner, they would be on equal terms, and if the Prime Minister took any liberties, the lady would be fully entitled to slap his face. But if a lady journalist today goes to see the Prime Minister, in order to get a story from him, they are not equal. The woman wants something, and it is up to the Prime Minister, or any other man, to give it to her, or not, but in any case on his terms. In fact, work breeds inequalities. One is always subservient to people higher in the company; one is subservient to possible clients; one is subservient to people who may help one in one’s career, etc.

I wonder why Miss Long did not slap Mr Travis’ face? The answer, of course, is that she wanted her interview, and that if she had gone back to her office, and told her editor that she had not got the interview because she had slapped Mr Travis’ face, her editor would not have been very pleased. Now, no one can blame Miss Long for doing what she did. In order to get her interview, she put up with Travis’ unpleasantness. But the point is, if so, she then cannot complain about it later. By not complaining at the time, she had implicitly accepted it. It is not possible to have it both ways – either object at the time, or do not bring it up later, and certainly not ten, or twenty or thirty years later.

There was an amusing story about the LibDem politician, Lord Rennard. He had dinner at a political convention with a young LibDem woman, during which dinner he kept touching her knees. After dinner he invited her up to his hotel room. Any sensible girl would have understood what he had in mind. This girl accepted, and then pretended to be surprised when he tried to go to bed with her. She refused, but some time later brought the incident up. She had accepted his invitation, because she thought it was in her self-interest to do so. Yet, she later complained. That is exactly what one cannot do. By walking into his hotel room, she had accepted whatever happened there. She can no longer complain. It is one thing or the other. She cannot have it both ways.

There are two other interesting points. One, which does not apply to Miss Long is that a lot of this “abusive behaviour” happened 20 or 30 years ago, when it was not against the law. How can one try, by today’s laws, things that were not illegal when they occurred? Indeed, the trial of Mr Travis was a shambles, because he was convicted only on one count, for which he received two months suspended sentence. Yet, for this, hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent by the taxpayer.

The other point is that since the beginning of time, women have had a sense of self-preservation, in order to survive in a dangerous world. One of the allegations against the notorious Rolf Harris was that he had taken a 15-year old girl driving in his convertible in Spain, and molested her. Now, this girl was living in Spain with her parents. Harris came and met the parents, and they allowed him to take their 15-year old daughter out driving. Would any sane parents agree to such a thing? And this happened not once, but three times. Yet many years later, the girl and the parents complained, and sued him. How can a girl, who has gone voluntarily in a car three times, complain about what happened in it?

Top

The Windsors

The Times‘s article about the Duke of Windsor yesterday (Wallis and her gay playboy lover broke duke’s heart) contains several inaccuracies and misconceptions. First of all, it repeats the common fallacy that “He gave up his throne for love”. He did nothing of the sort. It was made very clear to him that he could continue being King, and marry Mrs Simpson morganatically. He refused, because he insisted that Mrs Simpson become Queen. In other words, he behaved idiotically, not romantically. Nor did he feel “passionate love” for her as the Times suggests. The Duke of Windsor was not a passionate man. He did not “love” the Duchess, he needed her, both sexually and in his life. She was the first woman to give him oral sex, which galvanised his sexual activity (his previous mistresses had let it be known that he was a very poor lover) and Mrs Simpson also bossed him around throughout his life.

As regards Jimmy Donahue, the Duchess’s rich homosexual lover, he began seeing the Windsors in 1950, and went on seeing them until 1954. The Times says “it was not long before the Duke found out” about their affair, but four years seems quite long enough. During all the time they travelled together, Donahue picked up all the bills. The Duke of Windsor freeloaded for four years. What did he expect? Furthermore, as the Duke liked to go to bed early, he would invariably leave the Duchess together with Jimmy night after night – again what did he expect?

Top

Hell Hath No Fury …

I do not always agree with India Knight, a columnist for the Sunday Times, but I agree with the statement in her latest column, regarding Mme Trierweiler, that she has “zero sympathy with women who nick other people’s husbands”.

Instead I would like to ask Mme Trierweiler the following question – “If Mr Hollande left his wife of more than twenty years and four children, why are you surprised that he has left you?”

Top

Where Is The Right-Wing?

With reference to a recent letter in the Daily Telegraph, there seems to be some misconceptions about Mr Carswell. The point is that it is not only Mr Carswell, but many other people, both in and out of the UKIP, who consider that the U.K. has three Left-Wing parties, and no Right-Wing parties (except for UKIP). The “key objective”, therefore, is no longer getting out of Europe (that is the number two objective) – the key objective is to get rid of Cameron, and one is not going to achieve that by voting for him. One has to vote against him.

Nor do most people believe that Mr Cameron will produce a referendum. You must keep in mind that he refuses to promise to leave the EU if his “negotiations” fail, and he also refuses to say what concessions he will be trying to get. His intentions are strictly dishonourable. I am sorry to see the word “treachery” used to describe Mr Carswell’s behaviour. His behaviour reflects the fact that he is a true Conservative, and anyone who considers that “treachery” is clearly not.

Top

The Way To Deal With Putin

A recent correspondent in the Financial Times has not grasped the point about the Ukraine and Russia. The point is that the Russians do not consider the Ukraine a separate country. They consider, and have always considered, it a part of Russia. It is important to remember that the Ukrainians and the Russians come from the same race, which is called “Rus” (hence the name Russia). Their language was identical for hundreds of years, and, even today, it is very similar. Even more importantly, until the Soviet Union was dismembered twenty years ago, the Ukraine had not been independent since 1240, when the Mongols sacked Kiev. Finally, Russian blood has been spilled in defending the Ukraine and the Crimea. Has any American blood, or English or French blood been spilled in the Ukraine? As for the Germans, they fought to subdue the Ukraine, so they are now in a very poor position to criticise the Russians.

The Crimea, where more Russian blood was spilled, was never part of the Ukraine until Khrushchev, who was Ukrainian, arbitrarily gave it to the Ukraine in 1954. In those days, it did not matter, because it was all part of the Soviet Union. But today, it does matter. The Crimea has always been the base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and is vital for Russia’s security.

The most important question is, what right does the West have to interfere in a country that is not attacking it in any way? The West, it seems wants to bring the Ukraine into the EU and NATO by force. And yet, it keeps talking about peace.

Top

Minister of Logic

Mr Cameron has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to reason, but in the recent discussions about Europe and the referendum, he has outdone himself. As regards the “negotiations”, he has refused to confirm that if negotiations fail he will take us out of Europe. He pretends that the reason for this is that he does not want to upset the Europeans. The fact is, whether the Europeans like it or not, unless he has the threat of exiting behind him, why should the Europeans pay the slightest attention to him? His real reason, of course (because Mr Cameron combines duplicity with lack of logic), is that he does not want to leave Europe, and he hopes to find a way to stay, whether the negotiations are successful or not. He also made the statement that he “does not expect” negotiations to fail. As any serious negotiations are against the rules of the EU, he is very much odds against to get anything worthwhile. So his confident statement is a farce. One cannot speak like Alexander the Great, when one is only Cameron.

The other point is that he refuses to say exactly what he will be asking of the EU. He tries to support this statement by saying one should not disclose one’s aims from the beginning. Again, this makes no sense. How can you gain your objectives if you do not make clear what they are? Again, the truth is that he does not want to leave the EU, and regardless of what he is able to negotiate, wants to pretend that it is a triumph. If he stated his objectives, then it would be clear which ones he failed to obtain.

What is amazing is the low level of this duplicity, and how Conservative MPs are swallowing it. It is disastrous that our Prime Minister does not understand logic. Perhaps if he had gone to a better school …?

Top
1 2 3 49 Page 1 of 49

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.