Things about which I tend to get uptight:

..e.g. the amount of water in supermarket meat. Particulary the fact that it is simply impossible to fry bacon nowadays without boiling the water off first. Ridiculous! Why does the British public allow it to continue?

It's your fault!At any rate, it is the fault of the British public so you probably carry your share of the blame. You should complain when things are not right, but you don't.

An example -
I recently bought a pineapple from Morrisons. Took it home, cut the top off and found that its flesh looked a touch dry. Sampled it and found that its flavour was nothing but a touch of sourness. No pineapple flavour whatever. Took it back, was told 'It's probably a one-off'. Was given another pineapple. Took it home, found it to be the same. In the meantime a hundred or so others had been sold and NOBODY ELSE COMPLAINED!
When I showed this one to the dept manager he agreed with me immediately and said he would speak to the buyer.
I can not believe that anyone ate those horrible pineapples, but presumably they all threw them away and said nothing. Ridiculous.

Use you local butcher...

I bought some well-known brand beef burgers a while ago and was surprised to find that after grilling I had a pan full of molten fat. (Not mentioning names, but their initials are 'Bird's Eye'). I weighed the remains of the burgers and found that they were precisely half the starting weight (as on the packet). The ones I buy from my local butcher lose a small portion of their weight in fat and taste MUCH better.

Such as words and phrases made popular by television many of which downgrade the english language...

  1. "incredible": has replaced "very, amazing, good, fantastic, big... and so on. The only meaning it does not have is what it means.
  2. "celebrity": now means nonentities who want to be seen and heard in public.
  3. "OhmyGod!": particularly when spouted by a person with their hands over their mouth, on walking into a room which has been decorated by someone else in their absence.
  4. "cup-cakes": = "buns"
  5. "How does it feel?": usually means "I'm an insensitive *** and I want to see you in tears"
  6. "Because you're worth it": usually means "Give us your money"
  7. "iconic": the current "in" word. There have been others such as "at this point in time", "sacred cow", now fallen out of use.
  8. "quiche": this is England. We have called it a "flan" for a few hundred years.
  9. "sex worker": = "prostitute".Is someone actually paid to sick these things onto us?

Use your local milkman

A recent feature on telly was of a return to milk on the doorstep in some town. (incidentally, it was in cartons). So what? We have been getting milk delivered for years, in bottles, from a local farm. When we started it cost a little more than supermkt milk. Now it costs a little less!
That supermkt stuff has probably been all round Europe.

Do we have some corrupt local councils?

Jeremy Paxman said in his book 'The English': "A visit to town centres in most counties of England will...demonstrate that the redevelopment of English cities has been left in the hands of stupid, short-sighted and sometimes corrupt local councils..."!

In 2015 Bradford council approved development of an 'all-faith' (but Muslim initiated) cemetery on the site of a former quarry which had been used as a tip and which was across the road from a local natural amenity of many years' standing.
After this approval, a number of us compiled the impressive list of reasons to show that the council was corrupt and that the approval was entirely unreasonable and asked the Secretary of State to intervene. He refused, confirming what others have said - that the establishment exists for itself, not for the public good.
The meeting at which it was approved was a disgusting charade. The pdf in this link is my answer to it:
'AFTERLIFE' or 'Bradford Uber Alles'

I sent it to the chair(man) and vice chair(woman) of the meeting and to the planning department. At least I have the small satisfaction of knowing what many Keighley residents think of them.

The banks would like to kill the cheque system. Please keep making as many payments as possible by cheque to keep it alive.

And if possible, do them at the Post Ofice. This will help to forestall the ongoing closure of local Post Offices.

If you are contacted by 'The National Workers' Office' note:
  • They withhold their phone number
  • There is no phone number on their web site
  • The email address given as 'info@thenationalworkersoffice.co.uk' is a front, emails are redirected to 'info@scorp.co.uk'
  • No postal business address is given on their web site.
In other words, the whole thing is set up to be misleading. Most likely their '100% free hearing test' will be followed by offer of a hearing aid at a high price.
If 'scorp' refers to Scorp(UK)Ltd then they are at
Jardines Accountants, Brookfield Hse 16 Brookfield Way, Solihull, West Midlands, B92 7HA
and appear to be involved with immigration.

To the Cecil Rhodes Trust, Oxford, January 2016:
Dear folks
Please do not be persuaded to remove the statue of C Rhodes.
1. Such an act is too closely associated with the abhorrent practice of re-writing history.
2. I am sick of the tendency of recent generations to insist that England should be ashamed of its past. No person or body of people is perfect. To admit ones mistakes is fine but the admission should be borne without shame. In fact, empire building had many positive and beneficial results. The world has certainly not improved without it.
3. Cecil Rhodes also was neither all good nor all bad - like any of us.
4. I suspect that a substantial portion of those who object to his statue are foreign or of recent foreign extraction.
5. I strongly support the suggestion that the objectors can choose elsewhere for their education. Why did they come here in the first place? I question their motives.
6. And where will these silly children direct there ire next? They should have the sense to see that their indignation will be frustrated with no visible target.

I sent this letter to Age Concern after receiving news that they were forming a link with the 'Staywarm' system, then operated by E.ON (2008)

Dear Age Concern

I have received your letter introducing your alliance with E.ON.

I find this somewhat surprising since in my view the service referred to as 'Staywarm' is a disgusting rip-off, as I told Powergen when I transferred away from them 2 years ago.

Through our first year with Staywarm, 2004 – 2005, we were charged £66.45 per month which I found to be marginal but the fixed charge was attractive. For the next year they charged £83.74 per month which I accepted because of threatened price increases. For 2006 – 2007 they wanted to charge us £104 which was clearly outrageous.

I obtained a quote from another supplier, based on our total fuel useage during the past year, of £72 per month. In spite of Powergen's statement that we were 'high users', we finished that year in credit and are now paying £60 per month. This is merely half of what we would now be paying Staywarm.

I have since heard of other instances where people much older than I have been overcharged by Staywarm in their second and third years. Therefore I am fully justified in telling anyone with an ear that Powergen's Staywarm was designed to extract as much money as possible from old and gullible people.

It does not speak well of Age Concern that it should be associated with these rogues. The best advice that can be given to any person regardless of their age is to compare quotes on the internet, or get someone to do it for them.

Yours sincerely

The following essay was written in 2004. On reading it now I find that I can not offer concrete evidence for all statements that I have made. Nevertheless I find it to be substantially correct.

We hear much said nowadays about ' rights', both human and animal. It is common for opinions on the subject to be put forward as if they were established facts. The fact is that the concept of rights exists only in the human imagination and can never be any more substantial than an individual opinion. Collective opinion,  perhaps even to the point of  becoming established as Law, is as fickle as fashion  and is swayed by information disseminated by the mass media, led by television. Such information is rarely, and in the case of television perhaps never, purely factual and unbiased. The impossibility of it being so is obvious when one realises that the appointment of television personnel who will be responsible for the compilation and presentation of documentary evidence relating to any topic is subject to national and intra-television political expediency. Perhaps the reader holds the belief that this is untrue, that the BBC masters, for example, are above reproach - utterly fair and British. Fair they are not, and as to what constitutes 'British' is something in which they currently participate in altering. The writer is aware of one person earmarked as a documentary presenter who was rejected because of his (non-extremist but currently inconvenient) politics. Observe also the over-exposure of some minority groups for the sake of exaggerated 'political correctness'. The upshot is that the information offered represents such a narrow view that it is almost an individual opinion. As the population becomes more reliant on television and less on personal experience, public opinion comes to have no basis in reality and hence no validity. Regarding topics where this situation has occured, it is farcical that relevant laws should be changed in response to a ' public opinion' which has been artificially created.

I am not a devout  Christian but I do believe in Christianity as one of  the more sensible bases for human society, from the widest range of viewpoints. (That this society is becoming unstable as a result of its Christian foundation being undermined is outside the scope of this essay). Within any sect of the Christian Church there is much dogma which I find logically unacceptable (any person who from his own faith states that I should not rely on human logic is overlooking his own belief that God made me what I am - in his own image). Often also, the interpretation of God's rules for everyday life do not appear to be universally acceptable. But equally often it has occurred that the Church's explanation of some aspects of life have struck me immediately as being right, logical and workable. One such explanation is that relating to Responsibilities and Rights.

In my youth, I learned - in church - that Rights are earned by the acceptance of Responsibilities. It is my own view that 'privileges' would be a more apt word than 'rights' in all situations, leading to less misunderstanding. A new-born baby, assumed to be in innocence,  has the right to be protected and nurtured by its parents and, more significantly, to perform actions - within the limits of its ability - which in an older person would be viewed as socially unacceptable. As a baby develops, these infant rights are modified or maintained only as a result of the child's acceptance of  responsibilities. Firstly, simple responsibilities within the home. Then as the child's awareness increases, more general social responsibilties.

 I have stated that 'rights' exist only in human imagination. Responsibilities and subsequent privileges are more tangible in that they do have some real existence in the natural world. They form the very basis of the structure of each and every animal society, whether it be a pride of lions, a herd of wildebeest or a coral colony; and no society could exist without them. However, the farther down the evolutionary chain one travels, the more these qualities are a part of the inescapable genetically-controlled activity of the animal and the less it is a matter of individual choice. The most important point to be here understood is that these superficially abstract functions have real existence as part of the genetic structure of living creatures. That MUST apply to humans as to other animals.  It is only in humans that the ability exists (or perhaps it would be better viewed as disability) to propose different social structures with different interpretations of responsibility, to invent the concept of 'rights' , and more than that the ability in the individual to abnegate ones responsibilities. And now we come to the crunch.

Nature allows no compromise where a transgression of the rules occurs. Within any animal colony, an individual which fails to act in accordance with its proscribed responsibilities has no status. It will be humbled, cast out or killed. The only alternative to this consequence is that the animal society in question will fail and die: natural selection in action. The primary responsibilities are: to protect the society/self/offspring, to provide food for the society/self/offspring. There is not necessarily a hierarchy within this list (unlike Asimov's Robotic Law) and conflicts can arise, but it is unlikely that any society will ever tolerate an individual that puts itself first, much less one that actually endangers the society. The same situation has historically applied to human societies, though often with deviously constructed complications. It has commonly applied to societies within societies in the form of class division, where one class imposes restricive rules on another for its own benefit, forcing the sub-class to run the gauntlet of those rules which are in opposition to its own survival. But at this point in history, in British/European society, we have imposed on ourselves a probably unprecedented and almost unbelievable situation: we allow those who abnegate their responsibilities and are even defined as 'criminal' according to our society's rules, to have 'rights' which allow them in very many cases to continue with their selfish and antisocial activities and even to turn the law against their own victims. Relevant to the latter case, the victim who attempts to defend himself or his property risks being 'criminalised'.

Nearly all of us within this society do not want this situation to prevail, but seem powerless to reverse it. It has been brought about partly by our elected government (which, may I point out, comprises individuals who are supposed to directly represent the rest of us) but largely by a more remote legislative group over whose election to office most of us had no influence. Let us be clear; according to (my understanding of) Christian teaching, also according to natural 'law' -and we are, despite the sophistry which stems from our 'intelligence' still very much a subject of the natural world -  those who abnegate their responsibilities FORFEIT THEIR 'RIGHTS'.  It may well be that a responsible attitude on the part of their victim and/or on the part of society as a whole will result in their being treated with lenience, but their is no moral precedent for this to be expected. From another angle, it may be said that whatever ill befalls any person who is currently transgressing the law is brought about by his own action and the agent of that ill can not sensibly be seen to be culpable. If we are forced to sustain the current 'human rights' policy, then natural law says that our society is destined to die. Link that conclusion with the suggestion in the first parentheses of the second paragraph, and one can clearly see the writing on the wall.

So much for human rights. Alongside that fallacy, we are burdened with pressure groups who require us to recognise 'animal rights'. ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS. If you consider this too bald a statement, let me say that my first line of defence is to claim that THERE IS NO LINE OF ARGUMENT THAT CAN CONVINCINGLY AND PLAINLY SHOW OTHERWISE.  Any argument offered will almost certainly turn out to be a prime example of sophistry. Having said that, I am morally bound to offer a clear line of argument to support my statement.

In the world of nature and barring the special case of symbiosis, no species gives any quarter to another. In winter I watch the robins chasing the bluetits away from the food we leave for them and in turn they are chased away by the blackbirds. Even within a species one social group will often compete with another. That is the nature of war. (incidentally, T.H.White said that the ant is the only species which, in common with man, goes to war with its own kind  to gain territory). Actually, that statement in the last paragraph was not quite accurate. It is not so much that animals have no rights but that the concept of rights, shaky even in the human situation, is simply meaningless when applied to animals. We humans are, I repeat, just another species in the natural world and subject to the same natural laws as the rest, and we are under no constraint to surround ourselves with artificial regulations.  No-one  apart from a few 'alien-origin' cranks will deny that we are OF the world and IN the world. It is claimed by some that we are set above the animals; but to cut short a necessarily long discussion of this weird concept, it will be seen that whilst this might be taken to show that we have some special responsibility toward animals (inspite of the demonstrated inability, on a global scale, to govern our own society sensibly), it can equally be seen that our having or assuming responsibilities is not the same as animals having rights. Therefore there does not exist a single precedent for claiming 'rights for animals'.

The following letter was written in 2004 to our local paper, following reports of postal ballot fraud. It was not printed.

So, Bradford councillors are shocked at the suggestion of fraud during the postal ballot. Well, I am by now thoroughly sick of the head-in-the-sand posture of most politicians and of the intelligence-negating effect of this age of political correctness. Anyone with a scrap of intelligence would have predicted that this would be the result of trying a postal ballot in the Bradford district. It is, I believe, closely related to a prediction made by Enoch Powell some years ago (and he was, as I remember, stated by somebody to be the most intelligent person in politics at that time).

Furthermore, I would add the prediction that over the Bradford district there will be a large number of wives who will never see their ballot papers - their husbands will open them, make their own selection, sign with another cross and add their own names as witness. Anyone in public office who was involved in the decision to carry out this trial and does not know this to be true would do us all a favour by getting out of public office asap. This great British democracy of which I was taught to be proud is being turned into a farce.

A few years ago we "putting the 'Great' back into 'Great Britain' ". If we tried now we would have difficulty finding anywhere to put it. More and more I find myself thinking that mortality was God's greatest gift to mankind.

I received the following by email in 2010:

Australian Prime Minister does it again!! This man should be appointed King of the World.. Truer words have never been spoken.
It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Australia's beliefs.

Whole world needs a leader like this!

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia

“Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.. “

Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:

'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom' 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'