Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Keep the scroungers out of the casinos

F.U. is slightly taken aback at all the fuss that is being kicked up regarding the go-ahead being given to Manchester for a super casino, and for other casinos to be sprinkled across the kingdom. What exactly is the big deal?

Loads of commentators including the usually sensible Simon Heffer of the The Daily Telegraph (31st January) have started bleating on about it as though it is the end of the world. In Mr. Urquhart’s number opinion it really isn’t anything to get your knickers in a twist over.

People can gamble anytime they like in this country, and they do. This is evidenced by the thriving bookmaking business in the United Kingdom. Having a cluster of casinos won’t make much difference there.

Many of the anti-casino brigade, in desperation for a reason why there shouldn’t be casino based gambling provision in Britain, state that there is a moral case against their operation, and that the Government is at fault for facilitating gambling. Mr. Heffer struck a particularly sensationalist note by saying we might as well legalise prostitution and drug taking. F.U. thinks he should remember that the Government isn't making people gamble, it is merely providing them with the choice. Although, Mr. Urquhart does find it odd that an allegedly 'democratic socialist' government should make such an offering at the Temple of Greed.

But regardless, shouldn’t private individuals, F.U. suggests, have the freedom to decide whether they gamble or not? Hark, no! For gambling hath ruined many a life! This is true, Mr. Urquhart would riposte, but so has drinking, smoking, and the plethora of human vices, and these operate perfectly within the sanction of the law. Frankly, it is faintly reminiscent of the time of Oliver Cromwell to slap these moralistic overblown concerns over activities such as gambling.

F.U.’s only major concern about gambling and the construction of casinos in Britain is that down-and-outs, welfare dependents and the panoply of scroungers and idlers that clog up this country, never getting up off of their economically stagnant arses don’t swarm to the casinos to spend their dole more. He says “their” but actually it is the taxpayers’ money.

Perhaps the only major regulation fit for casinos in Britain would be ensuring that all of those who squander their money on the one arm bandits, blackjack, poker, and the roulette wheel are not being drip fed money from the state. Make ‘em show proof of income!

A Labour MP Hypocrite? Surely not!

Well, well, well…would you believe it, says F.U., Dr. Des Turner, Labour MP for Brighton Kemptown was nicked just before Christmas for drink driving.

So what? Mr. Urquhart can hear you say. Members of Parliament are only human (except John Prescott who is half-man half-pie), and prone to all the human vices, inadequacies and contraventions of the rules; moreover it is arguably healthy for our representation in the House of Commons to have these 'human' facets. But Dr. Des is a prominent campaigner against drink driving, and was a lead member of the “Des” – Designated Driver initiative.

In the same way that disgraced Keith Vaz MP carps on and on about 'violent computer games', Dr. Des makes his political impact by talking about drink driving. F.U. supposes Des can talk with greater authority on that subject now. Come to think of it, Mr. Urquhart wouldn't mind giving Keith Vaz a thrashing or two on Doom, or Mortal Kombat so that Mr. Vaz can comment with even great gravitas on his chosen specialist area.

Fear not, pissed up MPs won't be thundering down your street in their flash Saabs just yet, as Des only had “one or two, not that much”.

Not much? Enough to plough into the back of another vehicle, Des. Another hypocritical dipshit is on the Labour benches. Surprise surprise.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

The Aussies don’t realise how lucky they are to have Howard

F.U. notes that the people of Australia don’t realise how lucky they are to have the Hon. John Howard MP as their Prime Minister.

Mr Howard is without doubt the most successful conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher. The Australians are lucky to have him, and this has come sharply into focus within the past view days when Howard slammed ridiculous suggestions that the Australian flag is to be banned from the well known outdoor rock concert ‘The Big Day Out’ because it might cause tensions. Apparently, according to these PC cretins, it might cause “racism disguised as patriotism”.

It seems that political correctness is a problem in Oz as well.

Howard was having none of it though. He said: "The event organisers should not ram their peculiar political views down the throats of young Australians who are only interested in a good day out."

The Aussie PM has a feel for the public mood, tapping into commonsense. He also said that the idea that the Commonwealth’s flag should ever be prohibited in display "is offensive and it will be to millions of Australians". Damn right, mate.

F.U. wishes that the United Kingdom had such a Prime Minister, unafraid to stick two fingers up to the politically correct liberal elite and their bizarre and offensive views.

Could another peer be joining UKIP?

Rumours are rife that another peer is ready to pack up his ermine and join the UK Independence Party. The current speculation is that Margaret Thatcher’s former Trade and Industry Secretary, David Young, Lord Young of Graffham is having his loyalty to the Tory Party tested to the very limit. Apparently Lord Young met up with the rising star leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage MEP, for ‘breakfast’. That’s one round of toast, tea and marmalade F.U. wishes he was a fly on the wall for.

Mr. Urquhart wonders how easy it is for a peer to decide to ditch the Conservative benches to join the UKIP ones, after all they don’t have the face the onslaught of the electorate, and wonders if a Member of the lower house could ever be pushed to such breaking. F.U. suspects that several MPs on the Tory benches have probably been approached. And it’s probably not too hard to figure out which ones, either. But, not for the first time, Mr. Urquhart has more confidence in the individual consciences and integrities of members of the Lords, rather than the Commons. He is not holding hid breath.

Does the UK Independence Party have a particular appeal to the titled aristocracy, one might ask? Well, F.U. says we know that Charles Manners, the 11th Duke of Rutland has held fundraising events at Belvoir Castle. Perhaps His Grace might throw his coronet in the ring the next time a hereditary peer dies, and join his brother peers on the UKIP benches. Richard Bridgeman, the 8th Earl of Bradford supports the Eurosceptic party. The same could apply.

F.U. wonders how long it will take for even more Tory peers to jump ship, and turn the famous red benches purple. Would F.U. be tempted if he were a Peer of the Realm, with no electorate to appease?

Not bloody likely. The Conservative Party is well over 150 years old, with some of the greatest leaders of the English Speaking World drawn from its ranks. F.U. might not always agree with every tone of party policy but nor would he associate himself with some of the less than admirable looneys nestled in the UKIP ranks.

Friday, January 26, 2007

"Today, Class, we're going to learn how to be British"

Teaching Britishness? F.U. is appalled by the idea. To be British is not something picked up in the classroom

To adapt that great Briton Cecil Rhodes’ comments slightly, “to be born British, is to have won first prize in the lottery of life". But to become British by accepting the great island nation’s values, history, culture, tradition, customs, and way of life by full and firm integration is also that much coveted first prize.

To be British is not to be a certain colour, sexuality, or creed. It is to accept the gift that the British way of life presents. Our heritage, our traditions and all the things that have made Britain the envy of the world.

It is NOT to come to this country and attempt to change it, distil it, and bastardise it, all in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance”. F.U. asks why should we tolerate elements that wish to destroy the British way of life, our attitudes, our history and our culture?

Why should we tolerate the radicals and extremists (in all their guises, irrespective of colour or creed) who take everything that our great nation has to offer, and then systematically seek to destroy it?

Mr. Urquhart will never accept that Britishness can be taught in the classroom, and nor should it. With New Labour’s stranglehold on the national curriculum, he severely doubts that this disgustingly shameful politically correct Government, which endlessly dances to the tune of British-hating metropolitan liberal elite, could ever offer a single lesson in Britishness that would even remotely tally with the decent average working Briton’s interpretation of that worthy idea.

This is just another example of the liberal elite trying to tamper, manipulate and ultimately destroy everything that should be British. Because what do these Guardian reading arses really know about being British? Absolutely nothing.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Forget your Gods, we have The Church of New Labour!

What an absolute stink these Sexual Orientation Regulations are causing, F.U. notes. As the nation’s over powerful homosexual lobby gets its handbags out, and the nation’s much maligned Churchy types get the Big Book out – so, who’s right and who’s wrong?

Well, truth be told, F.U. thinks neither of them are ‘right’, but then F.U. maintains that neither of them have the monopoly on morality.

What does stink, according to Mr. Urquhart is not the rightful defiance of prejudice against homosexuals, nor the outdated religious orthodoxy of a mainstream religion, but the intolerable influence of the Church of New Labour, and the preachy gits proclaiming themselves Bishops of Morality.

Why does the New Labour project and all its vile adherents feel the need to make moral judgments for religious groups, faiths and people of conscience?

Why shouldn’t Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc be able to make their own decision on homosexual practice, and ultimately use their religious principles to inform services such as adoption agencies?

In effect, the rights of a minority group are being elevated above those of an entire set of religious faiths. Why should the state interfere in the religious principles of individuals? Should it not be the state’s role to ensure that individuals of conscience have that precise freedom to make moral judgments?

Anyone who knows F.U. personally will be aware that he is a libertarian, and does not believe in discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, try-anything-sexuals, you name it, but he does object to the state condemning people who hold strong beliefs – rightly or wrongly – and supports their right to practice their faith, and hold their own beliefs on sex and other personal matters, within the boundary of the law.

In short the state, which is now the pulpit of the Church of New Labour with its relentless hatred of strong held belief, tradition, conscience and individuality has overstepped the mark.

F.U. has to laugh at an amusing comment made by a Crossbench Peer in the Lords, last week, which somewhat sums up the ludicrous nature of the Labour experiment. Lord Moran said: "People may begin to wonder if they (the Government) are planning to make homosexuality compulsory.”

Don’t hold your breath, my Lord.

Forget Reid’s brain, where are his balls?

F.U. read the front page of The Sun today and could not help but laugh, however his laugh soon subsided when he realised quite how serious this issue really is.

The Rt Hon Dr John Reid MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department managed to extract some marginal respect from F.U., because of his plain speaking, no nonsense, and occasionally common sense attitude. Positioned on the right of the New Labour machine, Mr. Urquhart thought there might be scope for Dr Reid to not be quite as bad as the rest of this Labour riff raff.

It has transpired that F.U. was gravely mistaken. Reid has no backbone, and no bottom. He is JUST as bad as the rest, if not worse.

In the United Kingdom we are now in the scandalous situation where judges are told not to send criminals to prison unless they are "serious, persistent and violent offenders”. F.U. asks what kind of message does this send to all Britain’s burglars, muggers, and thieves?

"Don’t worry about getting caught, lads, keep on thieving, robbing, and burgling because we won’t send you to jail, as scum like you deserve."

"Go ahead a kill someone if you like, but we can assure you it’s likely you’ll be out in less than 20 years."

"As for downloading child porn, don’t sweat it, we won’t bang you up. Just don’t do it again, alright? Mind how you go." See:

Reid was supposed to be the hard man who was going to mop up after that cretin Charles Clarke, and his equally as stupid, incompetent and irresponsible predecessors in the office of Home Secretary. However, F.U. says, Reid has turned out to be just as shite as the rest of them.

Build more prisons, give tougher sentences, and ensure that the criminal justice system finally starts penalising those who break the law and make decent hard working Briton’s lives a misery.

Frankly, the incompetence of these new Labour twats is criminal. Reid’s got a brain, but chooses not to use it. F.U. says that what Reid really needs is some balls to get the job done.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Born Free...Taxed to Death...

Well, there we have it. The Tax on Death has reached an all time high catchment-zone.

F.U. is utterly dismayed that the inheritance tax is no longer a dubious penalisation for the ultra-rich, but now a way for Gordon, Tony, and the rest of these callous aspiration hating New Labour tosspots to crush the efforts of the middle classes.

That stalwart of Middle England, and last bastion of the Middle Market Tabloids The Daily Mail (23rd January) has decried – among others, and rightfully so – the recent revelation that a record 10 MILLION British families are now subject to the morally repugnant 40% tax.

Of course, it makes perfect sense, Mr Urquhart notes, to penalise those who contribute the MOST to society, not only economically but also socially.

Of course, this seems absolutely right to F.U. to forget those who pay through their nose for public services that are not only virtually non-existent to those to whom they matter the most, but absurdly over-regulated and controlled by a remote and incompetent central Government firmly in the pocket of a self-appointed metropolitan liberal elite.

So, what are the alternatives to this ridiculous over-taxation to this New Labour Government that is ALLEGEDY the friend of Middle England, Mr. Urquhart asks? Cast your eyes, he suggests, to the ‘democratic left’ think tank/pressure group/socialist love-in gangbang ‘Compass’ and their latest publication “A New Political Economy”. According to these crackpots we all need a new way to measure economic success, and it is implicit within their argument – although they have denied this under pressure from The Daily Express – that taxes should be raised to 62%. Hmmm.

But rest assured, fellow Britons, that this is not a mere necessary evil according to the left wing statist maniacs that fill Compass’ ranks, but: “(a) positive good - a contribution that we each make to our own well being and the common good”.

F.U. says that if you don’t believe it, see for yourself:

Would Mr. Urquhart therefore find himself in favour of a flat rate on income tax?


Monday, January 22, 2007

Sir Ming's Illiberal Democrats? Pah! Not likely

F.U. simply cannot believe his ears when he hears such ‘tough’ rhetoric from the woolly confines of the Liberal Democrats. But does he buy it? Not a chance.

“Life will mean life,” says Sir Menzies Campbell in regard to life sentences in the Criminal Justice system. “Tough community work” as an alternative to doing porridge. And prisoners in chokey working with the earnings going to victims? Sounds like something the old hang ‘em and flog ‘em Tory Party would have said.

Tough guy Sir Ming, who is trying to look increasing resembling his Flash Gordon namesake (pictured), also said: "Liberal Democrats believe that sentences should mean what they say. Life will mean life: only those that judges believe should stay in prison forever will be given a life sentence. And nobody will be released earlier than the minimum term that they are given." Well, F.U. is sure Campbell means well, but let’s be honest most of the establishment’s judges are as steeped in liberal conceit as the Liberal Democrat Party.

Week in, week out, our national papers (and not just the right wing tabloids) detail horror story after horror story of criminals being let off with absurdly light discretionary sentences.

Murder, in the English law, carries a mandatory life sentence. But how many instances are there of whole life tariffs being imposed for murder? Pitifully few. As it stands there are around 20 people on a whole life tariff. As it stands, the vast bulk of the convicted murderer community swan out of gaol after a piddling 20 or so years on what these lovely liberal bleeding heart Parole Boards call a ‘life license’. Awww, bless.

So, Mr. Urquhart suggests we look again carefully at what Tough Guy Ming has said: “only those that judges believe should stay in prison forever will be given a life sentence.” Given the existing regime, and the entrenched liberal attitudes of the judiciary and out politicians is it really like that Sir Ming’s new Illiberal Democrats – heaven forbid they should ever get elected – would live up to this new ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric.

Would F.U. therefore find himself in favour of capital punishment for the very worst offences, I hear you say?

You might very well think that, but he couldn’t possibly comment.

Tim Yeo? You wouldn't give him the time of day

Sometimes F.U. wonders about the Conservative Parliamentary Party. A few notable buffoons do tend to stick in his mind somewhat, and today it’s Tim Yeo MP, Member for Suffolk South, former Environment Spokesman – among other things.

Mr. Urquhart read in The Telegraph (Comment, 22nd January) that the Honourable Member for Suffolk South fancies moving the clocks forward an hour, through the year.

Now F.U. is well aware of the penchant displayed by our esteemed parliamentarians to delusions of grandeur, but even he is shocked to see Mr Yeo usurping Father Time’s throne.

Mr. Yeo is introducing his Private Members Bill to push into line with our continental chums. The winter months then leaving us + 1 hour ahead of GMT, and + 2 during the summer period. The rationale for this sweeping change meaning many of us will have even longer, drearier winter mornings? It will address the issue of climate change by saving energy. Oh, yes, and it will prevent a whole bunch of car accidents, apparently.

According to Father Time MP’s Press Release (11 December 2006) putting the clocks forward and hour will lead to us “creating a safer and greener country." Hmmm.

This isn’t the first indication of Mr. Yeo’s odd grasp on reality that has caught F.U.’s attention. Having googled for a bit he found on Iain Dale's Diary Tim advocating abolishing all of the UK’s domestic flights within 10 years, and bumping up the existing price radically to stop people using the service. Again, under the highly dubious banner of combating global warming and climate change.

Climate change is a noble cause, and the scientific case is compelling, but surely there are better ways to combat the onslaught of climate change than putting the clocks forward and restricting travel within the United Kingdom. Using our influence with America to radically reduce its carbon emissions, and researching new technologies perhaps?

Three Lords-a-leaping...

F.U. watches with interest as three conservative Peers of the Realm have joined the purple ranks of the UK Independence Party. Whilst being dubious of the broader effect these defections might have on British Conservative Politics, Mr. Urquhart does wonder why this hadn't happened a bit sooner.

On Saturday it was revealed that William Legge, the 10th Earl of Dartmouth has decided to return his membership card, fold away his plumed blue rossette to done a purple one instead. This revelation comes within two weeks of two other peers (although these noble lords retained their seats in the House of Lords, unlike Lord Dartmouth thanks to the House of Lords Act 1999) have ditched Cameron's Tories for Farage's incorrigible Eurosceptic party.

Lords Pearson of Rannoch (pictured) and Willoughby de Broke have cited the party's lack of a "sufficiently Eurosceptic policy" as the final straw in their decision to leap from the Conservatives.

It has long since been UKIP's claim that they are the "only party telling the truth on Europe", and indeed UKIP have been on the political map in a serious way since 2004. So, what, pray tell, has taken these noble lords so long to make that all important leap?

Michael Howard was forced to put a bit of stick about in 2004, after more than a few peers on the Conservative benches suggested a vote for UKIP was advisable, but it would appear that hasn't worked in the long run. Baroness Cox of Queensbury, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, as well as Lords Pearson and Willoughby de Broke all received warm backsides for the offence, whilst Lord Laing of Dunphail quickly ran into the headmasters' office to retract his earlier misdeamonours. We all knew rats at school, and F.U. knew how to deal with them when he was Head of House.

So what broader significance will this have on the Conservative Party, and more accutely, it's line on the EU?

Well, firstly, Lord Dartmouth hasn't solely indicated Cameron's EU stance as a cause for discontent. Recently, Toby Horton, one of Willie Hauge's aides and Constituency Chairman, posted back his Tory membership card saying the "tipping point" was the Tory Party's flirtation with the odious little goblin of The Guardian reading left, Polly Toynbee. Mr Horton (not a peer) said "I didn't leave the Conservative party; the Conservative Party left me."

What fickle people grass-roots Tories can be. Yet it often takes a lot of abuse from CCHQ before they will finally cut their ties for good. Fond memories of better days are often used as security blankets, used to weather the storm. But Cameron should be cautious, he can either put some stick about, or he might lose more than three leaping lords, academics, and constituency chairmen.

Sunday, January 21, 2007

The Iron Frau: Not quite the reformer we thought...

F.U. is disturbed to hear the Chancellor of Germany’s plan for the European Union during her nation’s presidency. Dr Merkel wants to resurrect the unsuccessful European Constitution, so it seems.

They just won’t give up will they, these wretched EU-devotees? Not satisfied with creating 70% of Britain’s laws, regulating business to death, scratching for more power, stripping national sovereignty and much more, they want to breathe life into the deceased EU Constitution – which was resolutely thrown into the dustbin of history by the eminently sensible citizens of France and the Netherlands.

F.U. learnt two things in his ‘A’ Level Politics. These precious maxims were 1) the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, and 2) countries have constitutions. Good lord, they already have a flag, an anthem, and a parliament. Can’t they just be satisfied with that? Do we honestly want to be part of a country called Europe?

Now, before you think it, Mr Urquhart is not a dyed in the wool Eurosceptic – quite the contrary.

F.U. would be more than happy to endorse the EU and the Single Market if only they took a leaf out of Britain’s book. We are, after all, the cradle of democracy, and the envy of the world – so why do we allow our country to take lessons in democracy and governance from France, Germany and all the rest of the European Club? Some of their track records are less than impressive.

F.U regrettably is not enthusiastic about the German Presidency of the EU, and certainly doesn’t think pointlessly banning the swastika and stupidly outlawing Holocaust Denial across the Union is a particularly good start.

After all, is it not profoundly British to tolerate religious expression, in this instance the holy Hindu symbol of the swastika; and to permit free speech regardless of how utterly ridiculous and offensive one’s opinion may be?

There was previously some talk of Frau Merkel's reforming nature, but it appears she is as bad as all the rest.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Big Brother? Big Deal

Mr. Urquhart is certainly not an avid Big Brother viewer, but he has found this latest piece of media frenzy regarding the alleged racism of ‘housemates’ rather interesting.

Normally F.U. couldn’t give a monkeys who said what in ‘the BB House’, or who is having ‘sex under the covers’, or who has had the latest over the top emotional outburst in the ‘Diary Room’ but the public interest that the recent furore over ‘racism’ warrants his attention. Now David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Keith Vaz, and the Republic of India have waded into the issue, making it not only of the utmost political import but also an international incident.

It makes the Suez Crisis look like a lover’s tiff, and the Cuban Missile Crisis a mild disagreement. F.U. takes this very seriously.

According to the British media and tens of thousands of Britons Miss Shilpa Shetty is a victim of racism because Jo from S-Club wouldn’t eat Miss Shetty’s curry. Additionally the gang of racist thugs including such notables as Britain’s thickest and least attractive ‘human being’ Jade Goody, Massive Chinned Jo from S-Club and some wannabe WAG called Danielle Lloyd took the mickey out of Shilpa’s accent.

Now, far be it for F.U. to defend the likes of Jade, Mega-Chin, and Lloyd he isn’t exactly convinced refusing to eat a curry (which he is sure was delectable) or having a giggle at an accent are the hallmarks of KKK activity.

F.U. had a curry before Christmas and found himself French-kissing his toilet for two days. By the second day, as F.U. was plucking up the courage to ask the said loo’s hand in marriage as it was the honourable thing to do, he realised that he felt no animosity towards the Indian people, and that he was a complete muppet for requesting a doggy-bag and failing to reheat a bit of Tandoori chicken wing.

The point F.U. is trying to make is that the combined intelligence of Reformed Bunter Jade, Give-my-chin-a-seat-on-the-UN-Security-Council-Chin-Jo, and Danielle-thought-Winston-Churchill-was-the-first-black-President-of-America-Lloyd are a motley crew of brainless Z-List cretins and quite frankly not worth the time of day.

It’s all too easy to make a mountain out of a molehill, although even the biggest of mountains would struggle to compete with Miss Goody’s gob, or Jo’s chin.

Shouldn’t all these goody two shoes letter-writers to Channel Four, and our leading politicians (excluding Keith Vaz who actually wasted House of Commons time on this issue in an Early Day Motion) save their ink, breath and effort for combating the real knuckle dragging racists?

Mr. Urquhart considers it a matter of priorities, which in this case are horribly skewed.

As Cameron has suggested, if you disapprove turn the channel over.