Having been severely and deliberately conned by the international banking and money-making fraternity, at what stage do we declare that enough is enough? Unfortunately a government, comfortably cushioned as its members are, that allows streams of homeless, jobless immigrants and their families to enter the UK to partake of scarce UK resources, seldom if ever consider the traumatic effect on the welfare of the tax-paying public of the government's generosity to outsiders. I've nothing against immigrants, they all have human needs, but surely it would be better to aid them in their own countries, or at least limit the number of new arrivals to our shores until we have the resources to cope with them? To word it another way, "You can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot". So why try? From where could we obtain these much-needed resources? Assuming that the European Union rules and regulations demand that the UK accepts a flow of immigrants from far and wide, surely the EU; that insists upon this ongoing tide, should be the main source of funding to provide the required extra homes and welfare benefits?
To be British in 2013 is not very enjoyable. Anti-terrorism has been the vogue word and media theme since 9/11, and we all have been fed an indigestible diet of fear ever since, even though in the mostly non-gun-toting UK one is more likely to be struck by lightning than to ever be directly affected by a terrorist. For all of that our leaders via the media do their best to convince the voters and our military forces that by fighting a war abroad our brave troops are in some unexplained manner protecting the UK and its civilian public. The USA apparently regards itself as the self-appointed policeman of the world. Today several years after the Bush era of freedom-suppression thinly disguised as patriotism that authorities this side of the Atlantic slavishly emulated, the UK, European, and USA publics are left floundering and bewildered at having been drawn into continuing highly expensive wars proved to be based in lies, greed, and the thirst for oil and power. A side effect of the anti-terrorism industry band wagon is that today every UK citizen has no choice but to be under surveillance should he or she dare to step out of his or her front door.
We have to expand the frontiers of our imagination to fully comprehend the multitudinous ways in which computers and security cameras are already entwined into our daily activities. Today we receive our e-mail and Spam via our computers, after those e-mails have been monitored for keyword content. In this way government computers can monitor our supposedly private communications. If we enter a shop or service station to make a purchase or to buy petrol a security camera linked to a computer records our movements, and another computer records our transaction and credit-card details. When we stroll across a public square a selection of security cameras affixed to buildings dutifully records the fact. Under the blanket of national security here in the UK we even have in some public places some CCTV cameras fitted with Tannoy systems so that should we drop a piece of orange peel or a sweet wrapper, a highly-paid policeman monitoring at a distant screen can bellow admonishments at us. When we drive upon the public highways increasing numbers of roadside cameras record our vehicle registration number plate, insurance details, our vehicle's speed and closeness to the vehicle ahead of us and so on. All of these high-tech devices are, I assume, installed to give us all a feeling of being safe, secure, and lovingly watched over at all times. Not so reassuring is the fact that all of these various sources of information are to be linked and made widely available to interested and caring parties, although of course not to the general public.
Here I must pause to make a point that may have been missed about those roadside security cameras although my point has more to do with the vehicles the cameras are installed to monitor. Manufacturers of motor vehicles will be faced with a major technical challenge and that is to design a vehicle capable of travelling at speeds at and below the official speed limits. To date I have yet to drive a modern vehicle that doesn't require its driver's eyes to be dangerously riveted upon the speedometer instead of the road ahead to keep the speed down to the 30 MPH of town speed limit. Here I will mention that my old 1936 Austin 7 used to cheerfully cruise at 29 MPH; admittedly it was reluctant to go any faster than that, but as modern vehicles are already endowed with unusable high speeds far above the legal speed limits this further refinement should present few problems for the manufacturers.
It must be difficult for UK governments always forced to think in terms of re-election when faced with the demands of powerful lobbyists, and pressure groups as opposed to fulfilling the generally held wishes of the wider public, which is, believe it or not, made up of freewill-endowed individuals, whose massed public-demonstration themes are always studiously ignored by current governments. Another case in point is that of smoking, and of drinking alcohol. The impression we are left with is that under the cover of undeniable health-risk concerns especially to young people, the government, rather than courageously ban smoking and drinking, is determined to tax all smokers, drinkers, and as a side-effect, public drinking houses, out of existence.
I consider myself to be adult enough to make my own educated decisions as to health risks in regard to smoking and drinking and so, although I no longer smoke, I don't feel the need for government intervention on such a wide all-encompassing scale. By all means strictly enforce the laws regarding the sale of alcohol and tobacco products to, and consumption of by, under-age people, but please leave us adults to make our own choices. Instead use the decades of ever-increasing taxes drained only from the smokers' and drinkers' pockets by the government, to supplement the National Health Service finances; depleted we are told by smokers' and drinkers' illnesses.
As a proud Englishman I could ramble on indefinitely but won't, but will ask this. If a loaf of bread that cost four pence half penny old money when I was a boy, and now in 2013 costs around two pounds decimal money, does this mean that today's pound is only worth two pence farthing old money? If so is this progress?
Obediently yours
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
