The Mayor Of London and Naked Bodies on the Tube

The new Mayor of London has banned all advertisements which portray 'an unhealthy body image' from appearing on London's transport network. There will now be no new advertisements that might 'pressurise people to conform to unhealthy or unrealistic body images'.

Khan sahib goes on to say, 'As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies. I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.'

Unhealthy and unrealistic? Who decides what is unhealthy and unrealistic? Khan has the answer - he's created this new 'Advertising Steering Group' (More non-jobs paid for by YOU, the reader) which will work (force into compliance, using moral outrage and misogynistic medieval values) with  advertisers to ensure their future ads are 'fit for London.' (His London, not the international London that belongs to its citizens, the nation, and the world that gravitates to it.)

This so-called Steering Group of course, will be made up of people who 'reflect the 'full diversity of London' (Anti-capitalists, religious conservatives, misogynists, White-guilt-ridden apologists, and those currying favour with City Hall - you know the types).

Well, I for one don't think I've seen any unhealthy bodies in any advertisements on the Tube. If anything, they're super-healthy, super-fit, and take a lot of hard work and dedication to achieve. I'd call them aspirational if anything. That's why they're models. A good-looking semi-nude body doesn't offend me, or my kids - I've brought them up better that that - nor do any of us feel obliged to conform to those standards. We appreciate them for what they are, and we're comfortable with what we are. And we'd love to be as fit and as healthy as they are, fully aware of the fact that we may not.

But why stop there, Sadiq Mian? While you're at it, how about you ban adverts portraying Cumberbatch, or Sir James Dyson, or Branson, or Leona Lewis? Most of us will never reach the dizzying heights they have achieved - after all you do want to protect us from feelings of inadequacy, innit?

But you know, some of us are just happy with our little nine-to-five on £22K-a-year and resent having to use a public transport system that pretends to look after the little guy while fleecing them for all they've got. It costs about £40 for a family of 4/5 to get to the other side of London and back. Forty quid, Mr Mayor. That's the kind of tip you'll leave at a restaurant most of your voters can only walk past and peep into. Which of course us little folk pay for.

Or better yet Mr Khan, how about you do the job expected of the Mayor of London? So many were conned into thinking you were about affordable homes, curbing rises in bus and train fares... whatever happened to that?

A lot of my SocMed timelines tried to convince me that you'd be a breath of fresh air for Londoners. A foul stench is all I'm getting. And it's not beach ready.

The EU Bingo Game

Should Britain choose to be neutered on the 23rd of June, here's a fun little game:

Note the names of 100 politicians, civil servants, journos, and business leaders making highly vocal & very public Remain arguments.

Assign each one a number from 1 through 100 and distribute Tombola/Bingo cards amongst your friends.

Over the next decade or so, tick off the number for any of the 100 that lands a sweet job, position, or deal within the EU apparatus.

You win nothing, of course. There will be nothing left to win anyway.

Zac Goldsmith should be Mayor of London

On Thursday May 5th London will choose its next Mayor.

"So what," you might say, "what does it have to do with me? I don't do politics."

Well, everything, if you live, work and commute to and from London. You see, you may not 'do' politics, but politics does you. Politics 'does' you for every aspect of your life: your business, your shop, the tax you pay for the privilege of renting a shop and employing people, your safety & security, your children's education, and the general environment you live, work & breathe in, how you express yourself and how much your hard work rewards you.

The Mayor runs London’s transport network – a thousand kilometers of tracks, tunnels and roads - the veins and arteries of this great city, with City Hall as its beating heart. If your trains are always late, or you can never get a seat, the buck stops with the Mayor. If the 3:00pm school run takes an hour, it's the Mayor that can sort it. If your local Borough isn't able to house you, it's the Mayor that can pull them up by setting housing and planning policy. The Mayor is in charge of the Metropolitan Police, not only the biggest police force in the country but also the UK’s counter-terrorism force. 

The Mayor is the face of London, our wonderful city's global ambassador, representing us the world over. The Mayor sets the tone for how London is viewed. London, I submit, is only as good, as business friendly, as flamboyant, as bright, as welcoming, as attractive, as sexy, as cool, and as classy as her Mayor is. The Mayor sets the tone for the rest of Great Britain. THAT is what it has to do with you, like I said, everything.

In addition to the above, what do we need in a Mayor? How about someone who, when the Chancellor is writing the country's budget, deciding how and where infrastructure and development spending is allocated, is in the room, sleeves rolled up, negotiating hard for the best possible deal for London.

Zac & Kawal

So who should be our Mayor? It's a fairly binary choice for us Londoners on the 5th of May - it's between the Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith and the Tooting MP Sadiq Khan. It wouldn't come as a surprise to readers of this blog that I am backing Zac Goldsmith. There are two ways I could go about this - I could talk about why Zac is right for London, or I could rabbit on about why Sadiq is wrong for London. I'll stick with the former, although for contrast I'll touch on Sadiq for comparison.

Here's my case for Zac Goldsmith...

Zac shows up. Over the last year Zac has been to just about every Hindu or Sikh event going: Janamashtmi at Bhaktivedanta Manor, Navaratri in North London, Rath Yatra in Stanmore, Diwali in Kingston.  He’s spoken at Gurdwaras in Southall, temples in Brent and just last week Zac addressed 3,500 people in London’s iconic BAPS Neasden Hindu Temple. He was also at the Modi rally in Wembley when Labour’s Khan was nowhere to be seen. I'm normally cynical of politicians that do this, but do this they must. These events are important to the communities concerned, I would EXPECT a Mayoral aspirant to turn up. I concede that some sections of the Indian Sikh and Muslim diaspora aren't too keen on Indian Prime Minister Modi, but how exactly DO you treat the leader of the world's largest democracy, elected with the largest mandate achieved by any leader anywhere in the history of the world? Modi's visit was about India talking to Britain. Sadiq made it about Hindus, versus Muslims, versus Sikhs. This is as petty as petty gets. Just the kind of politics we don't want to import.

Zac belongs to a party that takes communities seriously - all communities; Labour just take brown votes for granted. I have several historic blogposts on this subject, which I'll hyperlink here later. Instead of offering cheap platitudes and utterly pathetic virtue signalling, the Tories have been snapping up top British Asian talent, people like Sajid Javid, Priti Patel, Lord Dolar Popat, or Shailesh Vara. These aren't just little boxes ticked in the name of diversity - these are serious heavyweights within the Conservative party. And not just that, this engagement extends into foreign policy. David Cameron has made it his aim to build a special relationship between Britain and India. Barely a week goes by without a UK ministerial visit; the PM himself has visited the Indian subcontinent four times as Conservative leader.

London is already on the map, like it's always been. Zac will make sure we remain there, shining on the world stage like we have always done. You only have to spend a day in Sadiq's hood, and another in Zac's to see the difference between the two. Zac has been fierce in standing up for the people that elected him - all of which is a matter of public record. At the last election Zac increased his majority by more than any other MP in the country. You don’t get a result like that unless you stand up and actually deliver for the people you represent. Nothing speaks for Zac than his principled stance on the 3rd runway at Heathrow, which went against his party. I have no doubt he'll do the same for London. When Zac says he'll break the stranglehold of unions on TfL, and use the money saved to deploy another 500 police on the trains networks, I believe him. When Sadiq says he'll throw millions at the unions, while running a £1.9 billion deficit - I believe him too. Guess who's going to pay for that deficit eventually?

Zac has a plan. Read up on what he calls his Action Plan for Greater London: more homes better, transport, cleaner air and safer streets – all paid for while freezing council tax. Unlike his opponent he’s got a decent chance of actually delivering it. Not only because he can get a good deal from the Tory Government who ultimately hold the purse-strings, but because he’s that rare thing in a politician – someone who actually keeps their promises. 

Before I move on to Sadiq, I have to say this: Cack-handed as Zac's team was about threats of taxes on family jewelry, it was CORRECT - Labour DO have plans to tax family wealth, or bring it into the remit of means testing for benefits. This is nothing new, it's always been Labour policy. That they've done nothing about it yet is another matter. Now, with rabid socialists in charge... 


And now Sadiq.

While he may blow hot and cold with admissions or denials of his closeness or distance from the hard-left socialists (communists with cuddly PR) Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone, who seem to think the highest point of human achievement was 1970s union-run Britain. You remember that time, when corpses lay unburied? These people sneer at success, they think business is evil, they want to tax anything that moves and they have some highly questionable bedfellows. 

The Sadiq Khan leaflets that are shoved through my door scream "The Council Estate Boy" and "Son of a bus driver", and not much else. The way I see it, is has little to do with his background, but an indirect dig at Zac Goldsmith's family wealth. Cheap, below the belt and so very typical of the politics of envy.


Zac is the man with the record of engagement, the clear plan and the means to deliver it. Standing against him are Corbyn, Khan and their union chums, who if they get the chance, will grind this city to a halt.  Zac represents the London and the Britain most immigrants came here for. Sadiq simply is a path to turning this place into the very drudgery and dirty politics many of us escaped from and chose Britain as our home.

You may or may not agree with all I have said, and I urge you to do your own research. This election will be close, so if I have made a modicum of sense, please get out there on the 5th of May and vote. Ignore the polls, and we'll end up with Sadiq. Remember, last time Boris won by just 62,000 votes. Every vote counts. Yours more than anyone else's. 

Londoners, you hold the fate of the city in your hands.

The Prime Minister's Mother

I'm kinda coming late into this bit of news, having been busy with the intense wedding season that's happen to hit early this year; the minute I landed my keyster on my sofa that missed me more than I missed it, and turned the television on, the first thing that hit me was journalists speculating and having hour-long discussions about the Prime Minister's mother - how long she is expected to live, how much the taxman will lose if she dies a few years from now, or how much the taxman will gain if she dies next week.

I'm serious. This is what was being discussed: The death of the Prime Minister's mother. On the hour, every hour. On all news channels. 80,000 quid more to be had to pay for a couple of Ofsted inspectors, if only David Cameron's mother would just die.

For a while, I began to miss dressing in coats and tails and chucking down chicken kebabs doused in acidic tenderisers and overpriced vodka, and duck-faced young girls gyrating to misogynistic Punjabi-fusion-hip-hop, where being called a "Ho" is a good thing, wearing £400 dresses they'll never ever wear again and repetive tunes that'd make Stock, Aitken & Waterman regret what they did to music. (Another topic I'll rant about another time). 

The "impartial" state broadcaster (The Ministry of Truth, Aunty, The BBC) said, "David Cameron's mother gave him a £200,000 gift after his father's death which could potentially avoid inheritance tax, his accounts show." Sky and ITV pretty much said the same thing.

I have a problem with that. I have a problem with "which could potentially avoid inheritance tax". Potentially? As in, if the Prime Minister's mother doesn't die before the time the opposition and Lefty journalists and Labour supporters would like her to? Is THIS what your politics has descended to? Just what is about inheritance tax that the you love so much? I mean really, you're like vultures, circling overhead, waiting for people to die, or scavengers prying off rings and gold teeth and even boots and clothes off corpses. You're scum.

Keep repeating the lie as long as you want, a lie it will remain. I never thought I could hate the Left wing more than I always did - I just happen to discover a new low for them. Envy is an ugly and debilitating condition. You are the embodiment of it.

Banging on about “Tories” and “tax havens” in a sarcastic tone doesn't make any sense to me. I know many, many Tory voters, and "tax havens"  is the last thing on their minds. These be little shopkeepers working 60-hours a week, with a wife, and kids that chip in. These be the BULK of the Conservative vote. Go ahead, call them scum. They employ most of you - or through their taxes, pay your wages.

We all know David Cameron was born into wealth. It's not his fault. He has had the best education money can buy, and I'm glad it's him representing us on the world stage, rather than the clutzy Miliband or Kumbaya Corbyn. Britain punches well above its weight the world over, and it certainly isn't down to Messers Corbyn, Sadiq and Galloway.

Miliband is a spent force, no one knows what that force actually was. Neither did he.

Sadiq Khan is busy trying to say the PC thing, when I know different. He doesn't believe in a single word of the crap he spews. I wish some of the Ahmadis in Tooting I have spoken to have the guts to go public with their fears and appehensions...

Corbyn has had a long career, every single day of which was paid for by taxes inflicted on the rest of us. 

And his pension is invested in an offshore fund.

Wake the hell up people.

EU, Eeeeww!!

I had this email sent to me by an avid Conservative Party Europhile, where she made some points about why we must stay in the EU. Rather than just reply her directly and have to repeat myself over and over again, I've listed each one of them here. Her words in red, mine in blue, naturally. 

I haven't provided hyperlinks like I usually do, but I'm a bit busy right now. I've used bits from a post I did a few years ago. For now please have a read and let me know what you think, I'll hyperlink it soon...


"What did the EU ever do for us? Not much, apart from: 

Providing 57% of our trade;
Duh! - they're our immediate neighbours. It's plain geography. Countries in the European mainland have always been our main trade partners. This has nothing to do with being in or out of the EU. Countries of the EU don't buy from us because we're in an exclusive club with them. Only a deluded fool would think France will buy ships from us instead of South Korea because we're in the EU and they're not. Besides, we're one of the top markets for German cars and French wine. I call this the let's-join-a-trade-cartel-argument, which goes against the very idea of free trade. European countries will continue to provide trade opportunities for UK businesses, with or without trade restrictions the EU might place on us out of irrational spite. The EU didn't grant us a favoured trading status, economics and geography did.


Structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
Ah yes, the old, European Funding argument. Funding that comes out of a pot to which we contribute significantly more than we receive. Please check your facts. We paid for it. The EU didn't do this for us. We tax our enterprising citizens the way the EU wants us to tax our enterprising citizens. We can't even abolish taxes on tampons, despite it being the most ridiculous tax ever, because of the EU. We can't help our steel industry, not because we're unable, but because in part to EU regulations. There's a reason Kazakistan and China can make steel cheaper than the UK and the rest of Europe: The EU.


Clean beaches and rivers; Cleaner air; Lead free petrol; Restrictions on landfill dumping; A recycling culture; 
Our rivers, our beaches. The EU didn't clean them up, we did. Same with landfill dumping. One country's priorities are not the same as another's. Landfills are a highly localised issue - if landfill sites and incinerators are opposed locally, and research supports their protestations, they will NOT go ahead. That's why we have MPs and Councillors, and a parliament. That's why we have democracy. Tell me why a politician in Bulgaria knows anything about or cares for the wishes of people living in rural Devon? 

You would think that Britain is a barbaric outback, completely unable to formulate any policies to look after its citizens. What people seem to forget that most consumer protection legislation, were by some measure, brought about in Britain by Britain. Many international standards find their origin in BSI. We're capable of keeping our beaches clean and can label our food by ourselves, thank you very much. In any case, there are international protocols we're bound to (Kyoto, et al). There is no need for an extra bureaucratic machine, duplicating everything. The EU didn't do this for us.


Cheaper mobile charges; Cheaper air travel;
Nothing to do with the EU, but everything to do with free trade and private enterprise. Roaming charges are pure profit for mobile phone operators who ALREADY have the infrastructure and capacity to provide mobile communications and data all over the world; they're encumbered ONLY by LOCAL taxes and levies, not operational costs. That the EU gives back what it takes in the first place is not magnanimous in any way. The EU didn't do this for us, the private cellular communications operators did.


Improved consumer protection and food labelling; A ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; Better product safety; 
The UK is fully capable of consumer protection. Caveat emptor is actually a thing. People decide, not civil servants on £150,000-a-year packages, gleaned from the meagre wages of waiters and care workers, and shopworkers. "The customer is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption of our work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outsider of our business. He is part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us a favour by giving us the opportunity to do so" has been and continues to be the bedrock of all businesses everywhere in the world. The EU didn't do this for us, business seeking to attract and retain customers did.


Single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; 
Read: Single market homogenisation. Overbearing regulations that favour only large corporations with deep pockets to be able to implement them, in leiu of tax loopholes that only they can use. A supermarket chain can afford an army of lawyers and accountants to find ways around the spirit of the law, a little operation with 12 employees can't. The EU didn't do this for us. They did it against us.


Break up of monopolies;
Which ones? Name some, don't just say it, prove it. All EU legislation does is protect larger players and crushes the little shop round the corner. The EU didn't do this for us. They did it for big business.


Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; No paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
Examples? The World Intellectual Property Organization and international copyright protection is adequate. The EU cannot claim credit for this. The world is bigger than the EU. Free trade has nothing to do with the EU, it has everything to do with countries that are open. Some are, some aren't. Some choose to be, some don't. Free trade is all we signed up for. The EU has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with a protectionist trade bloc and and eventual political union under a socialist ideology. The EU certainly didn't do this for us. Any guesses who they did this for?


Price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
Again, it is in the interests of banks, travel agents, and currency exchange operators to keep prices down. Legalise the Hawala system and watch charges drop to near zero. Money needs to flow freely, and it will, one way or another. The EU can't claim credit for this. The EU didn't do this for us.

Freedom to travel, live and work across Europe; 

Any European passport already allows that. It pretty much did before the idea of United States of Europe was born. If you have a job, and/or means to support yourself in the country you choose to live and work in, this was never a hindrance in past and it is not a hindrance anywhere in the world now. The EU didn't do this for us. This young lady gets it: "We can have someone unskilled, within Europe, coming in without any questions, but a really talented doctor from India has to go through a intensive process. It doesn't make sense!" See video below...

Funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad; 
Funded by whom? Think hard about this before you say another word. The EU didn't do this for us. Mind.


Access to European health services;
Easily covered by health insurance, which is cheap and accessible. Nothing to do with the EU. The EU didn't do this for us, it was already in place. It is in place pretty much everywhere.


Labour protection and enhanced social welfare; 
Oh of course. As if the UK does not have a unionised labour movement at all. As if labour protection and enhanced social welfare policies aren't part and parcel of ANY UK political parties' policies. The EU didn't do this for us. Marx happens to be buried here, not in Brussels...


Smoke-free workplaces; 
Again, a local issue. Smoke-free environments are highly desirable, and local communities with local representation should be able to decide. Smoking is a choice. Smoke-filled workplaces are a choice. They stink like a dogs arse, but they are a choice. What does the EU have anything to do with my local? Those that don't mind won't mind; those that do, won't go. In the end it's the establishment that benefits from attracting or loses out from alienating customers.


Equal pay legislation;
Most civilised countries ALREADY have equal pay legislation, as do we. Before the EU, without the EU, despite the EU. The EU didn't do this for us. And really, how come National Minimum Wages differ from country to country within the EU? What equal pay legislation?


Holiday entitlement; The right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; 
We have the strongest union-led movement in the world. In fact the second most popular political party in the UK is sponsored by unions. Workers rights in the UK are and have ALWAYS been better than anywhere else in the world. Fact. Why lament the fact that someone WILL choose to do what you will not? For less than you would? How can that even translate into law? The EU didn't do this for us. They did us in. They made it illegal for us to sell our labour at a price WE are happy with, rendering us unable to compete. The EU didn't do this for us. They did it to feel good and appear good. More on this here.


Strongest wildlife protection in the world;
Ah yes, from the country that produced David Attenborough, do tell me about Britain's or indeed, all of Europe's wildlife. We don't really have any, mainly because we didn't have much to begin with, and we reserve our moral right to tell other countries how to manage their own. That's rich. The EU didn't do this for us. They did this to show India and Africa that we're all white and moral, and superior. And we're soooo sorry for colonising you. And we regret all those Coldpay/Beyonce videos... we're ashamed of our opposition to dowry and bride burning and FGM, and female infanticide. Wildlife is so precious, innit? The EU didn't do this for us, we're laden with enough white-guilt as it is.


Improved animal welfare in food production;
Don't make me laugh. We still condone the slow, deliberate slitting of the jugular while the animal writhes and flails in desperation, fully aware that it is going to bleed to death. I'm not sure what that is an improvement from... The EU didn't do this for us. They did it to pander to their double standards - and their vote banks. I'd have more respect for the EU if it banned the practice of halal and kosher altogether.


EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; 
One: Funded by whom? Britain pays £8 billion a year more than it receives into the EU project. Two: Acted on by whom? Three: Resulting in what? Examples, please!

Airbus is often cited as an example; research some and you'll find it has nothing to do with the EU. The EU didn't do this for us. Airbus operates as a private business with the clout of a private business largely unencumbered by the state. Read into this some before you try and refute it. Boeing makes better planes anyway.


EU representation in international forums; Bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
Bloc EEA negotiation. EEA. Not EU. Don't confuse the two. We signed up for one of them, and were conned into the other. The EU is perfect example of when when the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Besides, bloc negotiations representing 28 wildly varied economies (and societies) is the worst idea ever. We're nothing like France or Greece or Poland, and they're nothing like us. Why would the EU do anything for us, after all, Britain forms 16% of the the EU population and yet have less than 4% representation and voting power. 


"... diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty'; 
Oh yes, of course. But guess what? Most countries that sought to acquire nuclear weapons despite what you call the 'non-proliferation treaty' have already done so. Those who haven't, will acquire them in time. There is nothing the EU could do anything about India, Pakistan and North Korea, and there's nothing they can do about Iran and ISIS. The EU-Blob is deluded if it thinks it can influence the arms race, when it is in part funded by it and quite frankly, profits from it. Hypocrites.


European arrest warrant; Cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; 
Yeah sure. The United Nations, INTERPOL and UNHCR, mean nothing. The West's intelligence works together anyway. Meanwhile, Assange is still at large. Qatada took years to extradite, Several Ex-Guantanamo Bay inmates (Ex because of the EU's stance) promptly left for Syria on release. Pound shop thieves the EU can combat, big ticket offenders, it can't - or won't. The EU didn't do this for us.


European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; The EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. 
Nope. It was the United Nations, NATO, thousands of American troops stationed in what used to be West Germany and billions of US dollars that ensured the little European nations behaved themselves. That and sheer exhaustion from two bloody world wars. As for Africa, the EU is impotent against the forces that drive those nations. You failed to mention the Middle-East, too sticky a subject perhaps? Another time perhaps. 


Investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
Examples, please. Social and cultural capital follows freedom and opportunity - and acceptance, not law. The EU has nothing to do with this, individuals in individual nations do.


It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Yep, the EU drained the former Soviet countries of their best talent, their youngest, sexiest, bravest, hardiest working age groups to help build their ageing economies and jaded populations. Some of them learned and went back home to contribute to their countries, and some of them stayed behind to contribute to ours. The EU allowed this brain-drain to happen, I'll admit - and so would have the UK, with its history of immigrant contribution. What the EU DID do, is turn sections of the UK population against immigration for reasons more than just xenophobia. It's just economics baby.


Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £8bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.
No, neoliberal economic globalisation is not a challenge, it's the way of the world struggling to get along with each other in economic and social cooperation. Eventually common ground will be achieved - not by force, but by natural attrition and common economic interests and demand led resource allocation. The EU's challenges are not worsened by it's own systemic weaknesses, the EU's challenges are are simply the defence of its systemic weakness and its spurious, and meaningless existence.


And finally, this....

We are not now that strength
Which in old days moved earth and heaven
That which we are, we are
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Made weak by time and fate
But strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find
And not to yield.


What else have you got? Bring it on. Educate me.

The Progressive Income Tax

The Progressive Income Tax

Leave Google Alone!

Are you one of those getting all purple-faced over Google not paying what is rightfully your money? Corporation Tax? You know, the tax that corporations pay. You need to hear me out on this. Get to the end of this post before you begin shooting from your hip. Someone has to tell you.

So where was I? Ah yes, Corporation Tax. You know, the tax that Corporations pay. Nameless, faceless corporations - conspiracy theorists will have you believe in conjured images of a middle-aged white men, a la Mr Burns from the Simpsons. Those scheming, devious corporations, cornering every bit of the market, obliterating competition by unscrupulous practices, funding corrupt politicians into power so they can screw us poor vulnerable folk for every penny we earn.

While that imagery may be true for some organisations, it is NOT true for the vast number of businesses. Not the little taxi firm you buy a £16 ride from, not the little neighborhood mom-and-pop shop that sells you bread, eggs, milk, clothes, loo brushes and cheap toilet paper; not your local off-licence and cigarette shop; not the DJ that ekes out a living performing at your wedding, your birthday or your anniversary, or your precious kitty party, and nor is it the little company that offers life-changing careers' advice.

Thing is, we shouldn't be taxing companies in the first place. A company is simply a legal construct, composed of people – people who own it and people who work for it. Any tax or levy on their economic output is a tax on those people. Those people are usually someone like you. These are the people who bear the burden through lower wages, or through lower returns on the investments they make, and you, through higher prices.

Less corporation or no corporation tax means more income for the the business owners. That income is subject to personal taxes, at a much higher rate than corporation tax. That income is also subject to National Insurance contributions, and pretty much every Pound spent from what remains is subject to further denudation through VAT. Somehow in your rage at a service you choose to use, for free - you fail to see how baying at Google, and Facebook and Amazon and your misplaced campaigns hurt the little business owner being you did not have the guts to be.

You did not have the guts to be. Chew on that for a bit. If you'd known about what it takes to put your credibility, your life's savings, your social and personal life, and pretty much your entire being on the line for your enterprise - you will probably not wail so much. You don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. You care for it, and you nurture it.

Going on about Google, YOU make Google what is it. The government doesn't. Aliens don't. Google are an American company offering a service we all want. For free. Think about that for a bit - FOR FREE. They cost nothing. They cost you nothing, the cost your neighbour nothing, and they cost your government nothing. They can operate in ANY country WITHOUT any government funded, sponsored or, subsidised patronage. 

They're online, they're everywhere and they pay taxes on their earnings wherever they choose to be headquartered. The law allows that. Common sense allows that. 

You could use Bing, or AltaVista, or Dogpile, or Yahoo. They're ALL free.

But, but, Google can only work and be successful because of the security and infrastructure provided by government! You know, telephone wires, satellite link ups, electricity, road networks, police...

Erm no. That's nonsense. You can get Google in Somalia. Somalia doesn't even have a functioning government.

None of these were built to serve Google. You pay for connectivity. You pay to be online, what you do with that is nobody's business. The government charged internet companies over £22 billion in license fees, despite the fact the airwaves cost the government nothing. Eventually of course it was you that bore the cost the internet companies had to pay to buy bandwidth. You can now get a superfast broadband connection for under the price of two pints and a packet of crisps.

Asking Google and the likes of Amazon to pay taxes in the UK over and above what is legally required of them is akin to DEMANDING an artisan exporting handcrafted stonework in Agra or model Mallards from Tennessee or brass Hindu Goddesses from Muradabad to be taxed in UK, even after their own countries have battered them with their own taxes. Despite it meaning it might render their businesses unsustainable or the fact that in the end YOU'RE the one who'll pay through raised prices.

I mean, do we want free trade or not? Who the hell are we supposed to protect: those who can, or those who won't? Surely, we can't protect those who can't, if we don't empower those who can to help pay for it. How about we try and encourage them instead of trying to strangle them?

What we need to do, is level the playing field. Google shouldn't be paying the same rate of corporation tax as everyone else. Google shouldn't be paying a penny. And neither should anyone else.

People invest in business because they expect returns. Returns that they will pay tax on. Why do we need to kill the corner shop because we want to take a swipe at a business that costs us nothing and one we CHOOSE to use?

What will really bake your noodle is that fact that substantial chunks of most large companies' shares are held by pension funds. Yep, your pension fund. You know when the tell you things can go up as well down. Hounding the likes of Google is doing the down. Another substantial chunk of shares in most companies are owned by millions and millions of little people.

Corporation Tax is wrong and it must go.

While we're at it, we should chuck out inheritance tax too. It is the single most immoral levy I can think of. It's like vultures descending on your corpse, to pry out your gold teeth, your rings, your wallet, your belt buckle and anything that could hold a monetary value, like the home you want to leave your children, - that little piece of property you spent your entire life paying for -AFTER you have paid your taxes and your enforced debt to society.

Your moral high ground is a fraud, and as you read this, you know it to be true...

'Cause I Gotta Have Faith

This is a post lifted directly from Batsby's Blog.

There was a time when – like the adherents of mohammed – most people, even the intelligent ones, believed in a god. How else to explain the rising of the sun and the bounty of the earth? But there is something in the human psyche that demands their god be so insecure in his omnipotence that he insists on an exclusivity clause – thou shalt have no other god before me – and brings down a righteous smiting on all who demur. Naturally, being aloof sort of characters and somewhat reclusive, all gods seem to need the hand of man to do their smiting, but as long as one puts such small details out of mind, sustaining belief isn’t so hard for the not so bright.

But then, as society evolved and we became better at survival without strife, overcoming the vagaries of nature and freeing some from grubbing for subsistence, our big, busy brains began fizzing with enquiring thoughts and doubt. Science showed us that in the absence of proof the existence of anything is not a matter of fact but a matter of faith and in time the continued absence of proof has worn away at faith; in the developed world the bishops no longer have the power to control by edict and divine threat.

But Voltaire said “If god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him.” And he had a point. What is filling the void left by the church? Science may have done for god in Europe, but science if anything is a harder master to follow than god. Science demands reason and reason demands education. It seems we are demonstrating that you can’t have an easy freedom from religion without the intellect to exist in the world beyond it. In the twentieth century it looked as if secularism was getting somewhere as education freed the masses from unthinking faith (apart from the USA, but that is a work in progress).

So what went wrong? By now we should be a free society of intelligent people, grateful for our liberty and running our lives at a profit, not by a prophet. We should be settling our disputes by reason and coming to consensus, not fracturing into ever smaller, selfish, special interest groups. And we should be absolutely resisting the encroachment of medievalism in the form of men in dresses and women in sacks. And yet the latest OECD report has British teenagers among the thickest in the world; barely able to tie their shoelaces by some accounts

God is in the detail...

Six billion years of evolution?

Maybe Voltaire was right; in the absence of intellect gods will have to do, but do we really want the old gods back, with all that smiting and human sacrifice? No, we need to invent a new god and a proper one at that – reality TV won’t do - and money has had variable results. No, we need a proper, inclusive, omnipotent, unprovable deity again and a congregation without the wit to challenge ‘him’. 



The OECD report shows the way; if we can’t make everybody clever, let’s make everybody stupid again – so that they can accept the lord and be saved.

The Cultural Appropriation Bollocks

I'm not a Beyonce fan by any stretch of anyone's imagination and just about am on the borderline with much of Coldplay's Bono-esque drivel, but I love this song. I like it for its imagery and I hope they get richer from it. 

More than that, I like it because it's riled up the professional butthurt, forever-offended Rhodes-Must-Fall, Bomb-Out-The-Bamiyan-Buddha, Demolish-The-Mosque brigade. You're all the same to me.

What the actual proverbial is this new bat-shit crazy PC cultural appropriation concept? Which bored 'suit' got paid to come up with this nonsense? Are Bollywood actors going to be called out for wearing Western clothing? Do we all go back to just wearing our own traditional attire? 

Seems like I'd have to go shopping for kurta-pajamas and juttis, forget cakes and switch to ladoos, stop miming to Bon Jovi and stick with Assa Singh Mastana...

You don't help eradicate the racial divide; you exacerbate it. Not that it affects you in any way, ensconced in your plush leather Chesterfields in your leafy Hertfordshire homes.

It's as though the Taliban infiltrated the Guardianista intelligentsia.

Watch this video. It's a joy to behold. And there's not a single snake charmer or flying carpet in sight...

Tax

Tax his land, tax his bed

Tax the table at which he's fed

Tax his work, tax his pay

He works for peanuts anyway

Tax his cow, tax his goat

Tax his pants, tax his coat

Tax his smoke, tax his drink

Tax him if he tries to think

Tax his car, tax his gas

Find other ways to tax his ass

Tax all he has and let him know

You won't rest, till he has no dough

Should he scream; should he holler
Arrest him; grab him by the collar
Then tax him some more

Tax him till he's good and sore

Tax his coffin, tax his grave
Tax the sod in which he's laid

When he's gone, do not relax

Screw his corpse with inheritance tax

YOUR God? Your Devil More Like

If you have to be taught about tolerance, your parents raised you wrong. If you have to take classes to teach you about discrimination and racism, you've acquired a blinkered approach to people and the world of your own accord.


No one-day seminar on "Diversity Training" will ever change your mind; no law or legislation will ever change the way you feel inside, despite how you may act on the outside in resentful compliance.


Once you've been led to believe that your God is the right one, and the only one; that prescribed and codified morality is superior to your untainted natural instincts; that you are somehow of the chosen ones, you will always believe there are others that are inferior and lesser.

I submit that your beliefs have more to do with hatred than to do with love. Well, guess what? There IS a hell and eternal damnation.

You're smack bang in the middle of it.

The Printing Machine - by Kalki Koechlin

This has got to get as much airing as it can get.

Or you might prefer the unplugged version...

Being A Sikh

As a Sikh, I don't care what religion you follow or whatever label you ascribe yourself to; as long as you are kind, treat others how you'd like to be treated, and understand that all humanity lives in a symbiotic relationship with one another: In the end, that's what it's all about. 

You might want to remember, most of the Gurus and heroes from the Sikh pantheon bled and died for far more than the narrowly defined beliefs of any one faith or way of thinking, INCLUDING their own. 

Call God whatever you you want, I don't care. Neither would a single one of the ten, nay, eleven Gurus we hope to emulate. The starting point of our scriptures define God as without form, without fear or hatred or prejudice; without beginning or end, and in one word, indescribable.

That, I believe is what Sikhism is all about. Despite our beards, turbans and long locks, we are NOT the Taliban. We are not separate from you; we are part of you, and we care about you. We care about you because our humanity and our compassion expects us to be.

When your argument rests on the nature and length of your beard or your underwear, or the fact that you believe YOU, and not God are the moral arbitrator of who a Sikh can marry without the blessings of the the  "establishment" or conversion to your narrow little constraints, you actually limit and contradict the very God you pretend (yes, pretend) to follow, you belittle the Mool Mantar - the very basis of what Baba Nanak stated God is.

I'm sorry, the only "establishment" I recognise is the Shri Guru Granth Sahib. If you'd read it purely, and without the contamination of the so-called leaders and defenders of the faith, you'll probably wise up some.

We're NOT a seprate ethnic identity; Sikhism is bigger than mere skin colour or geographical culture. Sikhism is about sanity, reason, compassion, kindness, acceptance and love, and I'm happy to challenge anyone who believes otherwise. I dare you to debate me. By all means, bring your scriptures and fatwas along.

This isn't an anti-Sikh or anti-religion tirade. This is an anti-idiot rant. Tell me I'm wrong, and prove to me I don't get it; I'm happy to learn and change my way of thinking - if you make sense.

Anyone?

War!

A sizable portion of my SocMed timelines, both on Twitter and Facebook are filled with the ‪#‎notinmyname‬ hashtag and passionate pleas about not bombing people. I agree with all of them. Bombing people is wrong. Killing people is wrong. Killing little children is wronger still. These messages and proclamations are accompanied by graphic images of dead children, lamenting widows and dismembered bodies, bodies of people with horrific burns and wounds that would chill most Stephen King and SAW fans. A lot of these images are from unrelated events from decades ago - another time, another place, another reason and quite frankly completely unconnected to where we find ourselves today. War is horrible. War is undesirable. But for every conflict to be caricatured with a 1972 image of the Napalm Girl, is unfair. This is not the same thing.

That we have to go into Syria is about revenge for the events in Paris is just lazy thinking. It's an easy narrative to sell.

If that were the only reason for Britain joining in with the international, United Nations sanctioned offensive against ISIS/Da'esh/ISIL, I'd have been the first one to condemn it, but it is not. Britain's (and France's) colonial past and the West's knee jerk reaction to 911 lends itself to this kind of convenient labeling. This is nothing of the sort.

Forget for a moment that Wednesday's vote ended up in a win for the government, forget for a moment that those against any action against Da'esh are still hung up on the Tony Blair and Iraq debacle, nostalgic about the peace and prosperity under Saddam Hussein and his courage, his strength, and his indefatigably. Forget all that. Think for a moment about the ground as it lies now, in December 2015.

That Da'esh presents a clear and present danger to the West and the West's way of life, is but a small fraction of the wider spectrum of the danger posed by theocratic orthodoxy and absolutism. I don't say this to defend Western foreign policy, but to attack the extreme religious right. Da'esh, RSS, Westbro, Taliban, Pakistan, Khalistan - one way or another, they're all after the same basic things: Convert or die, comply or die, we're better than you, and because you don't believe as we do, you will have to be killed. We want to segregate and insulate ourselves. We're not "humanity", we're right. We're God's chosen ones. Our way is the right way and therefore it must be the ONLY way.

I'm not sure that's the kind of world I want to live in or raise my children in.

Leave aside my wishy-washy, hippy, make-love-not-war philosophy, and leave aside the overwhelming support in the British Parliament for action against Da'esh, there are some very real and practical things we have to consider:

(a) A total of 7, yes SEVEN bomb plots in trendy Guardanista infested London hotspots were foiled in the past year. It could have been you there, typing away on your iPad, about how the people that protect us are the bad guys before your corpse is identified from the teeth they pick from the Haymarket pavement outside Tiger Tiger, so your kids know their Dad died a noble death. In the hands of the very people they thought they were a voice for.

(b) An ideology cannot be defeated by military force. The pen IS mightier that the sword. You can kill people, but you can't kill an idea. I agree, however, remember how the world dealt with Nazi fascism? It merely exists today as a fringe movement with zero power. We crushed the head of the snake and we spent the next 5 decades hunting down those that seemed to have got away. The Nazis weren't a death or Satanic cult - they just did what they believed to be right. Today however, none of the theocratic ideologies, based on centuries old theology are questioned, scrutinised, ridiculed or challenged. They call the shots, despite the strife they bring. What's worse, is that we let them - and we protect and help propagate them.

(c) Followers of ISIS/Da'esh/ISIL - and others - from religions other than this twisted, misappropriated brand of Islam - believe they're in some kind of moral crusade. They're not. They're medieval, barbaric, Timur-e-Lang-esque hordes of plunderers in search of glory, justifying their blood lust with scripture. They're not the only ones. Any religio-policitcal movement is exactly the same - it's just that some of them have more money (and therefore, firepower) than others....

(d) Most people living under these oppressive religio-politico regimes beg and are desperate for intervention from anyone that can make a difference. They speak in simple terms, their desperation is a basic instinct. They want out, and the best the West's white-guilt-ridden sensibility can do is force us to act in ways as if to say, "No, you can't get out. This is your culture. Stay put. Stay where you are. We like you there. It makes us feel better. And intellectually superior. And more civilised. You are exotic barbarians after all."

Many South Asian people I speak to are dumbfounded by the fact that more white people are offended by the term "Paki" than the Pakistanis themselves. It may have been strongly offensive at some point a generation ago, but the only reason it remains offensive today is the constant reminder and force-feeding of its historic connotations to a generation who couldn't care less.

(e) And there is no conspiracy. Yes the world NEEDS a steady supply of hydrocarbons, and a lot of it lies under the sands of the Middle East. The world's economies are built on reliable supplies of petroleum. We're not escaping that fact any time soon. Despite the billions we could pump into alternative sources of energy, we're NOT going to match the Petro output. The world as we know it would collapse - if you think we live in turbulent times now, imagine mayhem a hundred times as much. A lot of the present-day strife hinges on the prevention of oil shocks that could result in events too drastic to even comprehend. Another topic, another time maybe.

So what has all this got to do with Britain's leaders voting to bomb Syria? You need to know a few things:

(1) We're not bombing Syria. We're bombing ISIL/Da'esh in locations we KNOW to be their strongholds. If you do not know that, if you think Britain is invading Syria, you shouldn't even BE in this debate. Just get a Stella and a bacon butty and go to sleep. Or tell your prayer beads - our boys on the frontline could use your prayers. This isn't shock and awe. We're sending 8 planes. It's not even a pin prick.

(2) We're ALREADY engaged in military action against Da'esh in Iraq. You didn't know that, did you? You just read "British Politicians Vote To Kill Muslim Children In Syria" in your confirmation-bias-laden Social Media timeline... Da'esh is spread over a third of Iraq and a fair bit of Northern Syria. They flit over and and back without any recognition of national borders, while we pussyfoot around arbitrary lines in the sand in a sandstorm. Their strong-hold is in Raqqa, in Syria. We're not invading another country - we're just chasing the guys who would behead you if they caught you because of your passport or the fact that you like the occasional Bacardi Breezer, or keep your head uncovered, or happen to be Shia, or Ahmadi, or Ismaili, or sane, or a woman too old to fetch a decent price in the flesh markets of the so-called paradise.

(3) In the last 400 sorties the RAF have conducted in Da'esh controlled Iraq, there have been ZERO civilian casualties. Not a figure you hear bandied about a lot, is it? Or a figure you choose to ignore completely? It'd be stupid to claim that there will be no collateral damage, there will be, but you know what? Inaction will kill more people and radicalise even more.

(4) This is not a war against Islam and you have to be completely screwed up in the mind to think so. It's a fight against a murderous cult with a medieval mindset. Trust me, this is not Omar Kahayyam land. If he were alive today, Da'esh would have killed him and uploaded a video of it.

(5) Parliament did the right thing this week. ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh has to be taken out. I predicted their rise a long time ago, and was derided for it - and I hate that I am right. I predicted (well, speculated) that the Arab Spring could end this way, and it did.

But hey, what do I know? There are people who have degrees and years of study who know better. I only have experience and a life I escaped. Twice. I only know what I see and people I talk to.

It's a pity the books don't talk of those stories.