Opinion – Labour leadership race is flawed over ‘hard left infiltrators’, say Labour MPs | Daily Mail Online – John Gelmini

It is not just the Labour Party’s rulebook that needs a rewrite as Dr Alf suggests but the nature of the Party itself needs to be redefined, so that it has at least some relevance to the 21st century.

The candidates to a man or woman fail to answer questions, are economically illiterate, and do not understand the brutal and unrelenting competitive forces we face.

Jeremy Corbyn is an antediluvian throwback to the 1970s whose solutions to the UK’s problems failed then and are irrelevant now. It is not that he could even grow into the job because he has never run anything, never employed anyone, never managed anything and knows nothing about business. The BBC, the Guardian and left-wing commentators “talk him up ” as a serious politician because they cannot bring themselves to accept that the public sees through them and decided to vote with their wallets.

His support is derived from stupid people and inexperienced young people who fail to grasp the fact that China and the countries of SE Asia are “eating our lunch” and that the UK is uncompetitive.

The Labour Party is, as presently constituted, an irrelevance, with no electoral prospects whatsoever, unless and until it refines itself ,metamorphoses into a credible entity, and comes up with leadership contenders who are fit for purpose.

Looking at the current intake of Labour MPs, there may be someone who is up to the job but from where I sit no one remotely looks as though they have the attributes required.

John Gelmini

Opinion – Greatest Dangers in the World | Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project – John Gelmini

CCTV cameras

CCTV cameras (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dr Alf talks about a “tolerant and liberal ” society with a strong foundation based on “Judeo Christian values”. This is what the UK should be but is no longer.

Tolerant societies do not spy on their people and photograph them allegedly 400 times a day (more than in Communist China); liberal societies do not try a man for the same crime twice. This ancient right under Magna Carta was abolished by one of the most illiberal Home Secretaries of all time, David Blunkett. Liberal Societies do not tap peoples’ phones, use machines like NSA’s PRISM system to read all our e-mails, texts and Skype Communications. They do not allow the police and local authorities to use RIPA to “investigate dog fouling”, intercept the contents of newspaper reporters notebooks and communications, and silence whistle-blowers.

Most recently, the actions of a man in Kent, alleged to be the UK equivalent of a “Don Corleone” were covered up by the Metropolitan Police with the help of a court order. Then, we have the case of the Hertfordshire police, putting ANPR cameras into old emptied GATSO speed camera boxes to protect and detect crime by monitoring the A505, the A10 and the old A14 out of the rural market town of Royston and tracking every single vehicle entering and leaving. These activities are those of a police state, not a liberal democracy, so we should abandon the pretense that we have one.

People are “tolerant” as long as there is enough work and enough money and they can see a future for themselves and their children. Some people can but a great many feel marginalized so they tolerate less.

With regard to religious tolerance that extends to matters of worship but not to culture or behavior. It is significant that Muslims are the only religious group which insists on demonizing people for being “unbelievers”,”apostates” and in moments of anger “infidels”. They are the only religious group demanding, often very loudly, the right to “Sharia Law” and, in extreme cases, the right to engage in “Jihad”(Holy War) against unbelievers. Muslims insist on long flowing robes, niquabs and veils and all enveloping headdress, even though the Koran is not specific on any of these points but rather calls for “modesty in dress”. Islam treats woman more like second class citizens and does not make the distinction between “church and state ” that even the Church of England makes with all its tax and legislative privileges. People look at the birthrate of Muslims versus the rest of the indigenous population and fear that, in a small crowded island, the possibility of being marginalized and overwhelmed within a generation or two.

For these reasons and recent very costly wars in Afghanistan, the Gulf and soon Syria, the UK public want our armed forces to be supported and are not enamored with the Government’s weak response to treason, sedition and home-grown radicalization. They are also unhappy about the failure of imans and Muslim religious/community leaders to control their radical elements and, like me, they worry at Muslims as being in a position to abuse Human Rights laws, with the connivance of the BBC, the Guardian, local authorities and certain politicians.

Globally the problem exists as well in Russia, China and throughout Europe.

Even in Burma, normally mild-mannered Buddhist Monks, are on the march against Muslims because of their propensity to marry younger, have bigger families and eventually outnumber the indigenous Burmese.

Greater tolerance will exist, once Muslims learn to worship more quietly, go about their business in Western dress and adapt to their surroundings, whilst accepting the rule of law, in whatever country they happen to live in. This is what everyone else manages to do.

John Gelmini