Category Archives: equality

The hypocrisy of suffrage


Today marks 100 years since women were given the vote – admittedly only those over 30 but it was a start.

Let me be quite clear. I applaud equality for women in all things. Equally I condemn the hijacking of the word ‘feminist’ to mean more than equality and for it’s use in what has become the ‘War on Men’. Hence, as a lover of equality, I was unimpressed with this mornings offerings on breakfast TV.

On the one channel was Amber Rudd having what was quite an intelligent conversation with Piers Morgan. Morgan feels the same as I do. He supports equality between the sexes and abhors the hijacking of feminism. Rudd was commenting on the push to pardon all suffragettes. Rather sensibly, she said that she would look at each case on it’s own merits but condemned campaigners who broke the law by, for example, setting fire to buildings. These, as she rightly poiints out, are law breakers not law makers.

On the other side – good old Al BBCeera – was Harriet Harman. I have little respect for her and it diminishes every time she opens her mouth. Harriet was banging on about underrepresentation in Parliament because there are still more men than women. She supported the use of female only selection lists to address this ‘unacceptable situation’

What dear Harriet fails to understand is that you cannot bleat about sexual inequality in the House and then use sexual inequality to ‘solve the problem’. This is sheer hypocrisy. You cannot exclude either sex in order to have equal sexual representation. It’s simply illogical.

You could argue that constituency short lists should contain equal numbers of men and women and that the selection committee should be composed of equal numbers of men and women. The best person is then selected.

The Labour Party on the other hand would exclude men like Churchill, Atlee, Disreali, Wilson, Blair – some of our most noted PMs – and many others on the basis that they are not women and therefore wouldn’t qualify to apply.

It makes no sense and, I believe, the suffragettes themselves would have agreed that two wrongs don’t make a right…

…not even in the modern Labour Party

Advertisements

Destroying our heritage


Frankly, I was a pissed off when a rather stupid Rhodes scholar wanted to tear down a statue of Cecil Rhodes – the man who’d just funded his university education – because he was a racist. For an intelligent ( sorry, well educated not intelligent ) Oxbridge student to come out with such rampant bollocks left me speechless. Speechless is not an easy thing to achieve in my case!

And after the bullshit in the States where the non-whites want to tear down statues of confederate war heroes, we’ve now got the same bollocks over in this country. It’s been suggested that Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson was a white supremacist and therefore Nelson’s Column – a landmark of the Capital city and massive tourist attraction – should be torn down.

So what idiot is proposing this nonsense? Afua Hirsch is a 36-year-old half-British, half- Ghanaian journalist brought up in London who, until this week, scarcely anybody had heard of. Her attention focuses on Nelson’s friendships with West Indian slave traders, and his description of the ideals of abolitionist William Wilberforce as ‘a damnable and cruel doctrine’.

Notably, Nelson treated all his sailors equally – black and white – chastising those who screwed up and commending those who performed their duties well. He was a man of his time. He would undoubtedly have opposed women getting the vote, but this would not make him a misogynist. He hated the French because we were at war with Napoleon not because he was a xenophobe.

Cecil Rhodes was by all accounts an unpleasant man, but he served his country diligently and did his bit for the empire. And let’s not conveniently forget that Britain was the first country to abolish slavery.

These men and their attitudes were of their time. We don’t expect the Japanese or Germans to apologise for their actions in WWII despicable as many of them were. The modern generation were not the ones responsible, and yet idiots like Hirsch think we should be atoning and apologising for the actions of our ancestors.

These people are the real racists. And let’s not forget that racism is only white on black and never the other way around. Personally, I’m proud to be English and refuse to apologise to anyone for what my grandparents did. I object strongly to calls for Rhodes statue to be torn down, Nelson’s column to be demolished and – let’s not forget this one – Waterloo Station to be renamed because it’s offensive to the French.

These things are part of our heritage and are what make Britain British. In New Zealand there are calls for the statue of Captain Cook to be torn down because it offends the indigenous people of that country. And yet in the UK it’s open season on the indigenous peoples whose culture is being eroded on a daily basis.

To those people who espouse such things, I have a simple message : Fuck off and live somewhere else..!

You’re NICked…


First of all let me declare an interest : I spent the best part of the last 20 years of my working life as a self employed contractor in the IT industry. I’m also a chartered accountant so I was particularly interested in what the Chancellor had to say yesterday about National Insurance contributions.

There’s been a lot of nonsense spouted by various self employed people over yesterday’s announcement, not least of all by one particular blogger – whose blog I’m banned from accessing – that I read this morning (working well, that ban, isn’t it?) who simply doesn’t seem to understand the situation at all, frankly. However, in the interests of fairness, you can read his slant on all this here even if I’m not allowed to! (sic.)

What the Chancellor has done is to abolish Class 2 NICs and incorporate that saving into the Class 4 NIC. The Class 4 NIC has then been increased by 1% this year and a further 1% next year.

The bleat from the people who don’t like this seems to revolve around around their employment rights. The self employed have no employment rights, so the argument is irrelevant. The government provide the NHS and a state pension in return for NI. Here’s an important point : The State Pension has been changed so that self employed people now have the same pension rights as employees. They also have the same access to the NHS, so why should they pay less?

Even after these changes, the self employed still pay a lower NI contribution that employees whilst getting the same access to the NHS and the same pension rights. Employees pay 12% compared to the current Class 4 rate of 9%. Over £43,000 p.a. everyone pays 2%.

The net effect of the changes is that self employed people earning under £28,000 per annum will pay less NI. From £28,000 to £43,000 they will pay the same. Over £43,000 they will pay more.

This seems fair to me. Maternity rights, sick pay and paid holidays are not the responsibility of the government. When I worked as a self employed contractor, I earned more than I would have done as an employee. This was precisely because I had to earn enough to cover unpaid holidays, sickness, gaps between contracts and the like.

There is a class of people in this country and others who believe that things should be given to them as a right and that they shouldn’t have to contribute in order to get them. My fellow blogger’s rant calling the government ‘thieving scum’ and the taxman a ‘blood sucking leech’ shows a fundamentally bad attitude and is typical of the ‘something for nothing’ mentality. I won’t bother to argue the case with him because that would be like trying to teach a pig to sing.

The case for this change is clear. It’s about fairness. If you want the same rights, then you should pay the same contributions towards them. And, at the end of the day, nobody forces you to become self employed. It’s a choice for you as it was for me and I fail to see why there should be a financial incentive funded by employed people for you to do so…

The Entente Cordiale

002B516800000258-3628876-image-a-1_1465287276673
In a break from moaning about the negative campaigning in the EU referendum, let’s turn to the more friendly side of Europe – the Euro 2016 football tournament. It’s time to be patriotic and turn out to support our national team! It’s a feelgood factor. What could we possibly find there to be negative about?

Well, actually quite a lot. For a start the BBC kicked it off earlier in the week (no pun intended) when it announced that the knight costumes worn by England football fans could be offensive to Muslims.

For more than two decades, England supporters have dressed as knights for matches, sporting fake chain-mail and St George’s cross tabards, but ahead of Euro 2016 the BBC’s iWonder website published an article entitled: ‘Is it wrong to dress as a crusader for an England match?’ After all, crusaders were the perpetrators of violent attacks across Europe and the Middle East on Muslims, Jews and pagans.

It went on to say that the St George’s cross can be associated with ‘far-right nationalism’. So basically it’s alright to dress up as a daffodil if your Welsh, or for Scots to paint their faces blue and white, or the Irish to dress in green – but if the English do it, then it’s not patriotic it’s fascist racism. What a load of bollocks!

So as Euro 2016 gets under way, it’s good to see the English cementing the entente cordial with their French hosts – in this case literally by tearing up paving stones and throwing them at them. Down in Marseilles they’ve been having pitch battles with the French, showing that good old fashioned EU peacekeeping role by kicking the shit out of Russians and displaying religious tolerance by chanting ‘ISIS where are you?’ in the Islamic quarter. Makes you proud to be British doesn’t it?

Now where’s that flag of St George…?

Equality is fine, but…

…only when equality actually means equality.

Sandi Toksvig was spouting off on the appalling BBC One Show the other night about her new political party, the Women’s Equality Party. She was banging on about how women are still paid on average less than men and how it’s all wrong and her new political party is going to campaign to put it all right.

Well the thing is, Sandi, that it’s the law that men and women doing the same job get the same pay. The reason that the average earnings of women are lower than men is because they’re not doing the same jobs.

Then she banged on about the number of women MPs being much lower than the men. Well, that Sandi is because they didn’t run or didn’t want get elected. Labour tried to buy the female vote with all female selection short lists, completely ignoring the fact that by doing so, they were denying equality to men. Worked well, didn’t it? Two wrongs don’t make a right, you know!

As I said, I’m all for treating men and women equally. When they open doors for me and stand up on buses to give a male pensioner their seat then I’ll be truly impressed and admit that real equality has finally arrived.

In the meantime, let’s just accept that everyone is different and no two people are equal – regardless of their sex.

And I’d also like to point out that the party’s title including the word “Women’s” rather discriminates against men. I think the irony of that might well be lost on Miss Toksvig…