Thursday, June 25, 2009

Police have let us down, say three in four Britons in damning Whitehall survey

Confidence in the police used to be extraordinarily high in Britain -- but not now that 12 years of Labour government has turned them into political police and form-fillers. You will get a visit from the police if you use a forbidden word in Britain but if your car is stolen, who cares?

Three quarters of the population believe the police have failed to get to grips with anti-social behaviour and drink-fuelled violence, a damning Whitehall survey showed yesterday. It found police forces and other public services are said to neither listen to what people say about crime and rowdiness nor do anything to stop it.

The poll of more than half a million adults also suggested that councils are out of touch, unpopular, and take too much of residents' money. The inquiry, conducted in more than 300 council areas, found only a quarter of respondents thought police were willing to listen when they complained about crime and disorder. The same proportion said they believed the police and other local services were dealing properly with drunken violence, vandalism and local drug dealing.

The survey said a majority are dissatisfied with the way their town hall goes about its business, and two thirds do not believe local government gives value for money. Fewer than a third think they have any say over what the town hall does, according to the poll carried out by councils themselves for the Department of Communities and Local Government.

The findings appear to reflect deep disillusion with years of promises that initiatives such as ASBOs and greater efforts by the police and the justice system would make streets safer. They suggest the great majority do not believe everyday crime has been successfully tackled. They also point to public disaffection through the impact of high council tax and a widespread view that town halls are arrogant and incompetent.

The findings drew a rebuke for councils from Local Government Secretary John Denham, who said: 'The improvements we have seen in local services are not being reflected in people's perception of their council. 'I want to see local councils do more - and gain more power - to shape the services offered in their area. 'There is an untapped demand for local people to have more say in what goes on.'

Tory local government spokes-man Caroline Spelman said: 'Under Labour, satisfaction with local councils has plummeted. 'It is no surprise that local residents are so unhappy given council tax has doubled thanks to Gordon Brown, while frontline services like weekly rubbish collections have been slashed back due to Whitehall diktats.'

The Place Survey was carried out by more than 300 councils which collected nearly 544,000 filled-in questionnaires. Only 33 per cent agreed that their local authority gave value for money, while 45 per cent said they were satisfied with the way their council ran things. Fewer than three in ten, 29 per cent, said they thought they could influence council decisions.

The survey said that 78 per cent were happy with their refuse collections - a finding at odds with other surveys and with election results that have punished councils introducing wheelie bins and fortnightly collections. But fewer than half were satisfied with transport information, sport facilities, museums or theatres run by councils.

The Local Government Association, the umbrella body for councils, said: 'This survey shows that the vast majority of residents are happy with services which their councils provide.'


Are we sure that it is the BNP who are the Fascists?

What would it be like to live under Fascists, I wonder:-

They’d make sure everyone carried identity papers and you’d be arrested if you failed to show your papers to a policeman, a policeman who would be armed with stun guns and two handled billy clubs and who’d beat unarmed demonstrators to the ground if they protested government policy. The police would be granted the right to intern suspects without charge for months and if anyone spoke out against the government they’d be arrested as “terrorists”.

There would be constant monitoring of every citizen by CCTV on every street corner, the government would have access to your emails and phone messages, crikey, they might even do crazy stuff like implanting computer chips in your bins to monitor your rubbish!

Anyone who happened to dislike some aspects of the government’s social policy would be forced out of business and making jokes or speaking your mind about certain protected classes of people could see you losing your job or even your children.

The state would gain control over the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of citizens and anyone who deviated from “acceptable” standards of behaviour would be punished by being deprived of health or welfare assistance.

The state run media would be intimidated into parroting government spin and lies and everyone from doctors and nurses to teachers and neighbours would be expected to report to the government any behaviour which was deemed to be outside government decreed standards.

Who knows they might even go crazy and start invading other countries.

From a comment on IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL. Those who know modern-day Britain will recognize in the description features of Britain as it already is

Why Women Are Unhappy

The National Bureau of Economic Research released a study to be published soon in the American Economic Journal that shows women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. It's no surprise that this has stimulated much comment.

This study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation or feminist movement. The correlation demands an explanation. You can read the entire study at

One theory advanced by the authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, is that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. A second theory is that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming.

I'm neither an economist nor a psychologist, but I'll join the conversation with my own armchair analysis. Another theory could be that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach.

Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers -- if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.

Another theory could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (now 40 percent of American births are to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth" policies.

In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. The private enterprise system constantly produces goods that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers and paper diapers).

Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book "The Feminine Mystique," which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the role of fulltime homemaker socially disdained.

Economic need played no role in the feminist argument that marriage is archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force was upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband.

Women's studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist.

A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal wrote in her book "Spin Sisters" that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions."

According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance their political, legislative and judicial goals.

The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said: "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children ... precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers unnecessary and irrelevant. Most divorces are initiated by women, and more women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers.

Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20 percent of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. I suggest that women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth


Notes From the Liberal Front

by Burt Prelutsky

The question that’s been weighing on my mind is, who is best suited to study those strange beings known as liberals? It strikes me that they’d be fit subjects for psychiatrists, who might be in a position to figure out why they revere the people they do -- people such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy -- men who haven’t a single notable accomplishment to their name, aside from either winning elections or eliminating them altogether. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for biologists to delve into the left-wing organism, and determine how it is possible that creatures without brains could have survived so long in an often hostile environment.

If you don’t believe that liberalism is a serious malady, consider that Paul Krugman of the New York Times, when addressing Sonia Sotomayor’s remark about a Hispanic woman being better qualified than a white man to be a judge, said that she was merely entertaining. Even if Mr. Krugman is, as his comment suggests, more easily entertained than a backward three-year-old, I have a feeling that he wasn’t nearly as forgiving when Trent Lott, on the occasion of Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday in 2002, said it was a shame that the old Dixiecrat hadn’t been elected president in 1948.

Yet another recent example of liberalism in action took place at Harvard, where bright young people go to have their brains exchanged for a pound of hay and humongous egos. It seems that the mucky-mucks at the university found $1.5 million lying around and decided that the best possible use for the money was to create a visiting professorship in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender studies. I guess the good news is that if Barney Frank decides to do us all a big favor and get out of politics, there’s a job opening at his alma mater.

Speaking of liberal goofiness brings us inevitably to Barack Hussein Obama, as he now proudly identifies himself -- at least when he’s addressing Muslims, praising Muslims and, as usual, slandering America. By the way, isn’t it the least bit odd that he never condemns Muslims for clinging to their religion and their suicide bombs? Even if you’re a liberal, doesn’t it seem peculiar that during his speech in Egypt, he didn’t take a moment to mention how much blood and national treasure America has spent -- and, I would suggest, wasted -- defending Muslims in Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan? But, then, we mustn’t forget that this is the same chap who went to France and took the opportunity to apologize for America’s arrogance without once mentioning the number of American G.I.s who died making sure that the French wouldn’t have to give up wine and foie gras for beer and bratwurst.

By the way, do you think the day will ever come when he’ll quit apologizing for America’s arrogance and apologize for his own?

Before setting off for the Middle East, where he gave a thumbs-up to Iran’s nuclear program while condemning Israel for building houses, Obama mentioned that America is home to one of the world’s largest Muslim populations. As anyone with even a passing interest in facts would know, there are roughly three million Muslims in the United States. Just to give you some idea of how far off Obama was, Indonesia has 195 million, Pakistan has 160 million, India has 154 million. Even Burkina Faso, a place you’ve never even heard of, has seven million. There are, as one of his advisors should have told him before he shot off his mouth, roughly 40 countries in the world saddled with larger Muslim populations than America.

But, then, as we all know, Obama has notoriously weak math skills. It certainly explains why he announced during the campaign that that the U.S. is made up of 57 states. Heck, it may even help explain the way he tosses around our money. It’s a scary thought, but isn’t it just possible that he can’t really tell the difference between million, billion and trillion? Of course an even scarier thought is that the president actually knows what $1,000,000,000,000 is, and that by burying this nation in insurmountable debt, he can make the 1,000,000,000 Muslims in the world adore him.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: