Britain - A Menace to the World?

It emerged today that America is blaming Britain for the rise in Islamic extremism. 

Leading policy makers in the American administration have accused Britain of being "a menace to the rest of the world" because of its failure to tackle Islamic radicalism within its borders. Is the accusation justified? Most certainly!

For years the British people and government have been pandering to the Islamic minority of the country for fear of being seen as anti-Islamic - Islamophobia. 

This sickness has found its way into every facet of British life to the extent that to utter a single word of criticism against Muslims or Islam, means you risk being   branded a 'racist', much the same as the sixties and seventies during the rise of 'Black Power'. English traditions going back centuries are slowly dying out because they may offend the Muslim population.

This criticism of Britain has come to light after the failed suicide bomb attack on a Detroit-bound airliner by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who, it is said, was radicalised in London. For a time, he was president of the Islamic Society at the University College London (UCL) which has been severely criticised for allowing, and even actively encouraging, extremist Muslim preachers to give lectures on campus. 

There are many universities in Britain with the same lax attitude towards Muslim extremism, and these places of learning are a fertile recruiting ground for groups like al Qaeda. 

Evidence of this can be seen in the atrocities list of the past few years; Omar Sheik who killed Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 (London School of Economics); Asif Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif who blew themselves up in Tel Aviv in 2003 (King's College London); Abdullah Achmed Ali leader of the liquid bomb plot in 2006 (City University London), the list goes on. All received an education in British Universities, and all were most certainly recruited there by visiting 'lecturers' like Anwar al-Awlaki a well-known radical Yemen-based priest who has preached on various occasions at UCL among others, and gave spiritual guidance to both the failed Detroit bomber, and the Fort Hood assassin Nidal Hasan.

This institutionalised acceptance of allowing extremist and radical Islamic preachers to openly infect the minds of impressionable young men is beyond doubt a scandal, but all comes under the heading of Islamophobia. 

Another accusation, levelled by Marc Thiessen, former speech writer for George W. Bush and Pentagon aide, was that Muslim immigrants into the UK were marginalised, and segregated into 'ghetto's' instead of being integrated into society as in America. 

This I cannot agree with for the simple reason that Muslims in Britain do not wish to integrate into British society. They form these 'ghetto's' of their own accord by taking over entire areas, and even towns in their desire to live together as a separate community. This Islamization of towns is an on-going process and results, among other things, in them demanding Muslim schools, and British Schools teaching the National Curriculum in Arabic. This is wrong, but symptomatic of the failure of the government to ensure the immigrant population is spread wide across the country. How would Mr, Thiessen feel if Muslim immigrants in the States demanded High Schools taught their children in Arabic? 

Charles Allen, a recently retired CIA operative, claimed there is "a lack of assimilation, a great deal of alienation" towards Muslims in Britain, and to some extent he is correct, but not completely. 

When the immigrant population of Britain and the rest of Europe are ready to admit they should adopt the customs and language of their new country relations will  improve, but instead they demand we change our customs to suit them. If we do not, we are racist. 

The lack of willingness to assimilate on the part of most Muslims, coupled with the past failure of successive governments to ensure that ghetto's were not allowed to form in the first place, has led to a feeling of mistrust by many members of the British population which has of course been crystallised by the terrorist attacks in recent years. The one feeds off the other.

There is much to support the American feeling that Britain has become a 'hotbed' of extremism in the world, but the problem has gone too far for a simple solution. 

Britain, and indeed all European countries, need to stamp down hard on the  Imams who preach their hatred in the mosques, turning peaceful young men into extremists willing to sacrifice themselves in the name of Allah. 

It is also imperative the European Union law enforcement institutions project a more robust attitude towards the threat of terrorism within its borders, and as suggested by the news article, treat the terrorists as enemy combatants instead of just criminals.

However, in the long term it is only the Muslim people themselves who can put an end to this hi-jacking of their Faith for the purposes of terrorism. 

May peace come to all - Inshallah!

Roy.

The Shame That is British Justice

Once again the British system of justice has failed by jailing a man for defending his home and family from three armed career thugs. To compound the error, the thug he caught has received a non-custodial sentence - AGAIN!

Millionaire businessman Munier Hussain, 53, returned home on September 3rd with his wife, 18 year-old daughter and two sons, to find their home being ransacked by three masked thugs armed with knives. The family were threatened and held at knife point, before being  tied up and told to lie on the floor if they did not want to be killed. 

One of the sons managed to break free and ran to alert Mr. Hussain's brother who lived close by. Mr. Hussain himself managed to break free and threw a coffee table at the three armed men. When they fled, he and his brother chased after them armed with a cricket bat and metal pole respectively. 

They caught up with Egyptian born Waled Salem, 57, a career criminal with over 50 convictions ranging from possession of firearms, to fraud and theft, and set about trying to restrain him until the police arrived. For this 'attack', Mr. Hussain received a two-and-a-half year sentence, and his brother, who the judge said had less motivation, received three years and three months. The longest sentence Waled has ever received for any of his 50 crimes is 42 months, of which he served only half. For more than 70% of his crimes he has received no more than a fine or a Community Order i.e. a slap on the wrist.

Salem, who sustained a fractured skull and 'brain damage' from the 'attack' was given a non-custodial sentence by Judge John Reddihough in Reading Crown Court, he of course being viewed as the 'victim'. He was heard by many people outside the court bragging to his son that the law could not touch him.

The Judge reasoned that the Hussain brothers had 'used unnecessary force' when apprehending Waled Salem. He said in summation "If persons were allowed to take the law into their own hands and inflict instant and violent punishment rather than letting the Criminal Justice System take its course, the rule of law and criminal justice would collapse". 

To that I have but one retort; Balderdash!!! (and I am being polite).

For a start, if Salem had got away, the chances of him being caught by the police were infinitesimal, and both he and the police know that. Most burglars get away with their crimes and are never caught because the police do not have the manpower or resources to catch them. 

Also, if more burglars were tackled by their victims and put in hospital there would be less of them, because they may well think twice before taking the chance of being caught by an irate house-owner.

The aftermath of the affair has led to Hussain's father having three strokes and his wife a heart attack. The family have since surrounded their house with alarms and surveillance cameras for fear that the other two, who have not yet been caught (see what I mean), will pay them a return visit.

The law enforcement system in the United Kingdom is totally incapable of protecting us honest citizens from the activities of criminals, as is evidenced by the soaring crime rate. In fact, it has been amply demonstrated that the law is actually on the side of the criminal, for they receive far more protection from it. 

A recent law amendment states that a person may defend his property and family using only force that is 'reasonable and not excessive'. But force that is reasonable to me may not be to you, and vice versa. It would seem the judge is left to decide.

If I and my wife are threatened by a knife or gun yielding thug and I belt him with a baseball bat, is that reasonable force? It would seem from Judge Reddihaugh's standpoint I should ask him politely to go away, and if he refuses I should request he hold out his hand so I may give him 'six of the best' with a cane. Would that please your Lordship??

It's time more Judges and MP's were on the receiving end of crime.

Roy.

Future Cars: Electric, Hydrogen, Hybrid or Bio?

In 2020 the number of cars in the world is expected to reach 1.1 billion, based on the current annual increase. 

For years the buzz has been about what will replace the petrol/diesel engine in the future. What will finally condemn them to history in this increasingly environmentally conscious world?

Many say it will be electric cars, and there are already some models on the market. Some experts believe the future lies in hydrogen-powered cars, which are infinitely cleaner. There are people who swear by bio-fuels and the hybrid, but what is the most realistic alternative?

In my opinion, electric cars are a non-starter for several reasons. Firstly, they do not have the range and sustainable speed of the current power plants, and the battery banks are large, heavy, expensive to manufacture and dispose of. World-wide, the national power grids could not hope to handle the huge demands made upon them by a billion cars that require regular battery charges. Imagine any country, where millions of electric cars would be plugged into the mains supply every night to charge the batteries for the following day. There isn't a national system in the world that could cope with such a demand. 

It would require massive investment in new power stations all over the world, which in turn would cause more pollution. It is fairly certain that to minimize any environmental impact they would all need to be nuclear, which then provides a massive headache and poses the problem of what to do with huge amounts of spent nuclear fuel rods. No, I think our attention should not be distracted to this non-starter.

Many believe in hybrid cars where the vehicle has both petrol and electric power and doesn't need an external electrical supply. This would go a long way to reducing the environmental emissions for a while, but it would not get rid of them. There are claims by the manufacturers that a 40/60% saving on petrol consumption is possible. These vehicles are still dogged by the battery manufacture and disposal problems mentioned earlier. They are not the answer, but could be a stop-gap until a real alternative comes along.

Another major commodity in the equation is hydrogen power, but this too has its drawbacks. It is clean, easy to produce and its only emission is water, but, it is highly explosive. When mixed with air, the result is a highly inflammable gas and when heated, say in an accident where the vehicle catches fire, the result is a major explosion. These traits do not really make it a safe candidate to replace the petrol/diesel engine either.

Bio-fuels have oft been quoted as an alternative, but they too are not practical. There are already areas of the world where a shortage of many crops exists because farmers have turned over their land to growing the plants required for bio-fuels. No, bio-fuels as a replacement would mean many having to choose between keeping the car on the road or eating.

There is however one alternative that is cheap to run, has no effect on the environment, and any and all waste is extremely good for the roses. The horse!

Whichever way it goes, not much will happen for a long time to come because most of the patents for alternative power sources seem to be owned by the petrol companies, and they are not likely to want to see advancement in this field until the oil runs out.

May your journeys be short, and safe!

Roy.

Look Who Escaped the Loony Bin!!!

In today's world you need not look far to find a real nutter! They are everywhere, and occasionally emerge from wherever they dwell to expound their loony ideas. Today I found a doozie.

I bet you had no idea that Santa Claus was a universal health hazard did you? Well according to Dr. Nathan Grills and Illustrator Brenden Halyday from the Monash University of Melbourne in Australia, Santa promotes obesity, drink-driving, speeding and an overall unhealthy lifestyle! 

These two idiots have written this in a serious article for the British Medical Journal.

According to these two 'Experts', Santa should not be riding everywhere in his sleigh but should get out and start walking or jogging. They further go on to say, that instead of eating all the mince pies and drinking the brandy  left out for him by children, he should be eating celery sticks and carrots stolen from his reindeer. So they are now promoting him as a thief????

I had no idea that Santa was subject to speed limits with his sleigh. I have never seen the cops chasing him, have you? I mean, after all, he does have to deliver his presents world-wide in one night.

They claim that Santa is used  everywhere to promote unhealthy food and drink, and a general unhealthy lifestyle, and it should be changed or stopped.

I would find it hard as a child to accept Santa running around with a super-fit body in a jogging outfit chewing celery. Somehow it just doesn't seem the same as the fat jolly Santa in his red suit.

Can someone ship these loony's to the moon. PLEASE!

Merry Christmas
Roy.

Copenhagen "Police Brutality"?

Here we go again! Another demonstration and more cries of police brutality. It seems the police are always the scapegoat for unruly demonstrations these days. If they use the 'soft glove' they are ineffective, and if they do their job correctly they are 'brutal beasts'.

I for one am sick and tired of hearing the whining complaints from protesters whenever they are on the streets. If you break the law of the land you can expect action by the police, and their response is proportional to yours.

At the Copenhagen Summit, a group of around 100 youths wearing masks, many dressed in black, went on the rampage which prompted the police to take action. They were corralled by Police and arrested.

The news picture of demonstrators sat on the ground and handcuffed has raised a furore of  protest from demonstrator groups, but look closely! They are for the most part the masked youths who caused all the trouble, and not as many people suppose, innocent demonstrators. It just goes to show how misleading a single photo, and the cries of police brutality from a bunch of thugs can be.

With the exception of 13 who will face charges, all have since been released from custody. Hopefully they have learned a lesson, but I doubt it.

It is illegal in Denmark to wear a mask at a demonstration, and rightly so. If you are a peaceful demonstrator why do you need a mask?

Bricks and fireworks were thrown, and shop windows smashed in the city centre in wanton violence, and you have to ask what that has to do with demonstrating against climate change?

It is a fact that the greater majority of people who attend these demonstrations are peaceful people who want nothing more than for their voices to be heard, and I fully respect that. Democratic countries have the right to peaceful demonstration and so they should. The problem is, these events also attract the thugs and fanatics who are out to cause mayhem, anything from burning cars, smashing windows and attacking the police at every opportunity. To them it is like a sport, a drug. They get off on it!

There have been countless situations in many countries where these people have hi-jacked a demonstration for their own ends. Once the bricks and glass start flying should the police stand by and do nothing? No of course not! If it was your car or shop that was damaged, you would be yelling for them to do something.

At many demonstrations the police are outnumbered perhaps 500 or more to one and have a very difficult task to perform. Looking at news footage it is easy to see the difficulties they face. One is injured by a flying bottle or brick, but who threw it? Usually the cowardly culprit does his deed and then disappears laughing into the throng of peaceful demonstrators. So as a policeman what should you do, just take it? What would you do in the circumstances?

What is the answer? Perhaps organizers of demonstrations should make their followers more aware of the fringe element that always hides within their ranks, and make sure people know their civic duty.

If a group of thugs, fanatics, call them what you will, start masking up and throwing things, those peaceful demonstrators surrounding them could themselves take action. If the thugs were confronted by, say fifty or a hundred 'righteous citizens' and told to cease their activities it would help. People power can be used for good as well as evil, and there is strength in numbers.

Part of the problem today, and the reason these idiots get away with it, is people have become insular and 'do not want to become involved'. If you are there at all, you are involved whether you like it or not. If the peaceful demonstrators do not stand up themselves to the thugs and fanatics, we will continue to see the sort of action that took place in Copenhagen.

Many of the complaints refer to those arrested being kept outside in the cold for hours without toilet or medical facilities i.e. the troublemakers. With a total of 968 arrests for disorderly conduct or criminal damage I can quite believe police resources were stretched to the limit. What did these idiots expect, a nice warm coffee lounge with free cigarettes and drinks while they were waiting to be processed.

In my opinion, the police were doing their job to the best of their ability considering the restrictions placed upon them. The bottom line is, 'if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'!

Peaceful demonstration is a right, those who abuse that right have none!

Roy.

The Israeli Timebomb

Once again Israel and it's stance against the Palestinians have hit the headlines. This week settlers have been accused of damaging a mosque in the village of Yasuf, and leaving behind graffiti. It would seem there is little doubt about their guilt. 

The crux of the whole problem in this Middle-East conflict seems to be three sided; the extremists who consider the whole of the West Bank theirs by right; the Government which is trying to satisfy the international community by curbing settlements in the area, and the Palestinians who have lived there for over a century.

Under International Law, all settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal because it is Palestinian land under the United Nations charter of 1948 that first formed the country of Israel in modern times. The Palestinians had the land for thirteen hundred years before that, and claim it as their own. So who is right?

The Israeli's lay claim over the land in accordance with the Bible which states that Israel, including the West Bank, is 'The Promised Land'. However, the land has changed hands many times since Moses led his people there. It was conquered  by the Romans, Byzantines, Islam, the Crusaders, the Mamluk Dynasty and the Ottomans to name but a few.

Following the First World War, Britain administered Palestine on behalf of the League of Nations until 1948. It was only the horror of the Holocaust in World War 2, and the need to find somewhere for all the Jewish refugees to call home, that prompted the fledgling United Nations to proclaim the  State of Israel as the Jewish homeland in 1948. The boundaries were laid  by UN Charter and Jews from all over war torn Europe flocked there in their tens of thousands.

The main point of all this is, the land has been one of the most contested in history, and say what you will, but lands taken so often by war preclude any biblical claim by the Jewish settlers. A look at a map of the region shows that more than half of Palestine has been taken over by Jewish settlements, the majority of which, are on land stolen from the Palestinians.

The Israeli government removed all settlements in Gaza in 2005 which caused an uproar within the country, but to try this with the West Bank could probably result in civil war within the country. The settlements on the West Bank have become so numerous, and spread so wide, that the situation will never be resolved to the satisfaction of the International Community and the Palestinians. Despite attempts by the government to halt building on Arab land the settlers refuse to listen and continue to take land for themselves.

Huge swathes of Palestine are no-go areas for the local people due to restrictions placed upon them by these communities in the name of security. Roads are controlled by the settlers and access to areas near settlements is forbidden to all Palestinians. 

It makes you wonder what the reaction would be if e.g. Mexicans started building homes and settlements in Texas and then closed off the roads and areas around them to all Americans? I think we would see war between Mexico and America in a very short time if these moves were supported by the Mexican government. Just as the Jews lay biblical claim to the land of Palestine, the Mexicans have an historical claim to parts of the southern United States. So what is the difference?

To say that one party is right over the other is difficult in the charged atmosphere that has surrounded this issue for decades. President Obama is the latest in a long line of U.S Presidents who have tried to resolve the conflict, and he does not seem to be making any headway either. The main reason is clearly the settlers refusal to accept restrictions on building on Arab land. This mosque attack is only that latest indication of that.

The Israeli government is also guilty insofar as they have sanctioned, and in some cases actively encouraged  the building of Jewish homes on Arab land for several decades. To now do an about face in the light of international pressure is paramount to suicide for the government. 

Another factor is the Jewish population living on Arab land is now in excess of 300,000. To forcibly remove such a number of militant settlers would require the Israeli Army as it did in Gaza.

Jewish males and females are required to do their national service, and the number of serving recruits who have grown up in the settlements is growing. As a consequence, one of the additional problems facing the government is they can no longer guarantee the co-operation of the army for fear of a mutiny. Soldiers have already refused to fight in Gaza, and remove settlers from small outposts ordered closed down by the government. So in reality there is little chance the army could be persuaded to remove 300,000 settlers and tear down their houses. And so it goes on.

The Israeli government is caught between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place', because it must be seen to satisfy the demands of the Arab World and the International Community, but at the same time cannot go against the strength of feeling within its borders on the settlement question.

The possibility of a lasting solution to the Jewish/Palestinian problem is yet a long way ahead, and I doubt if President Obama will have any more success than his predecessors. I commend him for trying, but so long as the settlement question remains unsolved I see no end to the dispute. With Iran obviously attempting to become a nuclear power perhaps they are the ones who will finally solve the crisis. I hope not for all our sakes.

Some problems can only be solved by time, lots of it!

Roy.

The Strange Case of the Exploding Chewing Gum!

Exploding chewing gum? What nonsense I hear you say, but believe it or not it's true.

Late saturday night a student living with his parents in Konotop, Northern Ukraine, died when his chewing gum exploded.

The twenty-five year old, who studied at Kiev Polytechnic Institute, was at his computer on Saturday night when the incident happened. Downstairs his parents heard a loud pop, and when they went to his room to investigate found him on the floor with half his face blown off.

Police forensic experts later found the chewing gum contained traces of an unidentified substance thought to be explosive in nature. According to a local news agency, the student had the strange habit of dipping his chewing gum in citric acid, a mild substance found naturally in citrus fruit (lemons/Limes) and used in the food and drinks (including beer) industry to introduce a sour taste.

The Police found packets of citric acid, and a similar looking unidentified substance thought to be explosive in nature in the room, and have concluded the student confused the two and put the explosive concoction on his gum instead of the citric acid.

Experts from Kiev have been called to remove the unknown sunstance for fear it may explode if moved.

One of the more bizarre stories from around the world. Nothing like going out with a bang!

Roy.

Trucks By Rail - A Way to Clear Road Congestion

It really doesn't matter which country you are in, roads everywhere are clogged with traffic, and it will only get worse. So what can we do about it?

I have seen the ever growing number of heavy goods vehicles on the roads, and because of their mass and speed limit of 80kph they are constantly holding up traffic on the major arteries of the  world's road networks.

I do not blame the majority of drivers for they can do little about it, although there is an increasing number of 'cowboys' who have no thought for other road users.

The trucks have got bigger with much heavier loads over the past two decades, resulting in heavy goods vehicles being responsible for the majority of resufacing work carried out in both town and country.

It costs local authorities billions every year to keep the roads in a safe condition, and the life expectancy is small before they have to do it again. Nobody wants to drive on roads with holes or indentations caused by heavy trucks.

Why should it be necessary for a truck to move goods from New York to California, from Quebec to Vancouver or from Lisbon to Warsaw? Some journeys take days, some a week, and it can be done in a much shorter time at less risk to the environment.

The answer perhaps is to get as many heavy vehicles off the road onto an alternative form of long distance transport.

While driving through Austria one day I saw a train pulling flatcars loaded with trucks, and I thought at the time, what a brilliant idea. In many European countries, the rail network shuts down at night, I am thinking of, for example, Holland where all train activity ceases at 01.00hrs until 06.00hrs the following morning. There are many countries that do this, so why not use the night hours to transport trucks?

Any goods vehicle that needs to travel more than, lets say 100km, could be loaded onto a train at specific depots and transported at night to a place near its destination.

Travelling between Holland and Spain in the past I saw countless trucks thundering down the motorways day and night. Sometimes convoys of ten or fifteen vehicles. They were all travelling between North and Eastern Europe and Spain, Portugal, and the south of France. I saw trucks from all over Europe, Sweden, Latvia, Russia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, you name it. Of course it was the same going North too.

So what if all these trucks travelled by rail? Why should a truck from Poland not be carried by rail to say Madrid if that is his destination? Imagine a single train moving thirty or forty goods vehicles at a time from Poland to Spain. It is quicker, and could be a lot cheaper than by road with the cooperation of the rail companies.

In the long term, it would be advisable for local authorities to invest in such a scheme using the billions they save in road repairs. I am sure trucking companies could reduce their overheads 'Going By Rail'.

Imagine the affect on the environment with the removal of the majority of long distance trucks from the European and North American road networks. The World's politicians are arguing over CO2 cuts to stop global warming, and all the while this scheme could make a major contribution. Makes you think doesn't it!

It will mean major investment on the part of all countries concerned, and a lot of international cooperation, but that doesn't make it impossible!

The basic infrastructure is already in existance, but would require some investment  in flatbed rail cars and perhaps making changes to some of the goods depots to allow for the truck traffic. Timetables would need to be generated for 'short haul' and 'long haul', but that is a matter of an international group of people working them out. After all, it's not rocket science! Using the existing rail network across, say Europe, thousands of trucks could be moved across the continent in a single night.

I am of course aware that this system would not work for all countries, but in the congested West it would certainly be of great value. I do not know how bad things will need to get before someone thinks of putting such a plan into action, but I hope it doesn't take too long.

I will not live to see the day, but I hope you do!

Roy.

Minaret Paranoia - The Tip of the Iceberg?

So the Swiss don't like minarets! The decision to hold a referendum on Mosque minarets in Switzerland has been condemned all across Europe, but has anyone taken the trouble to see into the root cause of such a vote. Not many!

The decision has been flouted as a flagrant disregard for basic human rights, Muslim phobia, and racism. But what lies behind the vote. Why did so many Swiss vote against having more minarets in their country? After all, to date there are only four in the entire land.

In my opinion, the root cause is an awakening fear of the slow and inexorable Islamization of Europe. At this time there are an estimated 54,000,000 Muslim immigrants in Europe from a total population of approximately 328,000,000. A rough calculation puts that at between 16 and 17%. Ok! That's not so many, BUT! The big 'but' is the difference between the birthrates of native Europeans and Muslims. 

Over the past four decades the average birthrate for native Europeans has dropped well below the population sustaining rate of 2.11 children per family, to the irreversable 1.38 children per family. 

At the same time, the steady increase in Muslim immigrants from a mere 50,000 in 1900 to the present 54,000,000, plus the major contributor of a Muslim birthrate three times higher than that of native Europeans at 3.63 children per family, means in effect we will all be living in a Muslim state by the year 2050 as many experts have predicted. It is a sad fact that history has proven this theory correct time and time again. 

When the European culture is finally submerged in the quagmire of Islam, future generations of Europeans will wake up to find their governments run by Islamic Courts, Sharia Law, and no place for any religion but Islam. 

Christianity is a religion tolerant of others, preaching 'Brotherly Love' to all, but can the same be said for Islam? I don't think so. In Saudi Arabia, according to sources, Christian Churches are banned. Attacks on Christian Churches, and christians, in most Islamic countries have increased ten-fold in the last decade.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad met recently with 30 provincial governors and is reported to have declared, "I will stop Christianity in this country," vowing to shut down the country's growing 'house-church' movement. 

Does any of this leave doubt that Christianity will not be tolerated by Muslims? Not to me!

Worse is yet to come! As the Muslims gain control over our governments and legal system, you can bet the first thing they impose on us will be Sharia Law. A careless word against Allah will see you publicly beheaded or hanged. You think I am talking out of my backside? It happens regularly in Islamic countries for all sorts of minor offences, some of it filmed and put on You-Tube. If you are married, don't even think of committing adultary.

NO! I think some people are starting to wake up to the future reality of Europe. It has nothing to do with terrorism as many opponents claim, it is a deep-rooted fear that our way of life is coming to an end, to be replaced by something that to us is abhorrent. We fear for our children, thier well-being in a society gone mad with religious fanaticism. The continent will be swallowed by a religion that will not tolerate dissent in any form, and which by its own admission, is bent on world domination.

Muslims have made it clear in all countries they have settled in, that they do not wish to integrate, and will not accept the culture, the laws, and norms of their new 'home'.

Maybe the Swiss have seen the light, and this is the start of a fight-back for our culture, but to be honest, I doubt it. 

There are many who will not agree with my words, some because they are blind, others because they never take the trouble to look beyond the veil. Whichever side you are on, history will eventually prove one of us right.

As a final word. let me just state clearly, I am not a racist, I do not hate Muslims or Islam and if they were willing to live in peace with me, I am ready and willing to reciprocate. 

Beware Europe, the bell tolls for thee.

Roy.

I Was Not Disappointed.

I have had the CD on order for many months and two days ago it arrived. With anticipation I slipped it into the car stereo system and waited. It seemed to take forever to load but it was in fact a few seconds. Cue music!

With a great deal of surprise I listened to the first CD release from the 'Britain's Got Talent' Superstar Susan Boyle. I had been expecting something remarkable, and I was not disappointed as she started to sing 'Wild Horses'.

As you listen to the songs, you could be forgiven for thinking she is a long established professional like Lena Horne or Shirley Bassey. To think that this very ordinary (to some people a bit quirky) Scottish spinster of 48 who, according to the Press couldn't handle the pressure, has triumphed over her critics once again. 

It was no great surprise to me that this first album has been met with a storm of praise from her fans, and has set records for first day and first week sales. 

Looking at the effect the 'Hollywood' treatment has had on her appearance on the album sleeve photo's, I was immediately happy for her. Now, after a hairdo, a bit of makeup and a lovely dress, she looks every inch a star.

When I looked at the song list I was a little surprised at some of the songs included. In particular, I thought at first the inclusion of 'Daydream Believer', an  uptempo pop song from The Monkees (1967) may have been a mistake. I could not imagine Susan's voice being able to do it justice as a 'Pop' song. Thankfully when it started to play I realised I should not have worried. With a skillful musical arrangment, the song was delivered in a style that suited her voice, and she certainly didn't let anyone down. 

The same can be said for her rendition of the Carpenter's 'End of the World', so beautifully performed by Karen Carpenter so many years ago.

There are also two songs with a religious theme on the album, namely; 'Amazing Grace' and 'How Great Thou Art'. Both were delivered with a professionalism that was astounding. In particular, I found Susan's rendition of 'How Great Thou Art' haunting to say the least. The use of studio techniques gave the impression she was singing in Westminster Cathedral, and the affect was electrifying. 

 I also enjoyed 'You'll See' which if you listen to the words, seems to be a message for the cowardly Press who have dogged her every move, making up stories that later proved untrue. 

Although all of the songs were wonderful, for me the best was one she used to sing in the Working Men's Club in her hometown many years ago (See U-Tube); 'Cry Me A River'.

After all the sniggers and outright laughter prior to her starting to sing on 'Britain's Got Talent', after all the back-stabbing typical of the British Press, I am glad she has shown her critics that she is a real star, well worthy of the title. 

Sing On Susan! Your audience is the world.

Roy.