We Are Living in Crazy Times When Strictly Come Dancing Goes PC

FAR too often when I open the papers it’s as if I’ve been transported to a parallel universe in which all the rules of common sense and logic have been suspended, where shrill, bullying minorities tyrannise normal folk.


Let me list some of the stories that have caused me to drop my marmalade recently and see whether you’re as mystified as I am by this bizarre new world we inhabit.

A lesbian comedian has been vilified for choosing to dance with a man rather than another woman on Strictly Come Dancing.

A gay vicar on the same show has said it’s about time men were allowed to ballroom dance with men too.

A Christian couple are trying to sue their child’s primary school because it now allows boys to turn up in a dress, meanwhile across Britain more and more schools are – at considerable expense – replacing single sex toilets with gender neutral ones.

Read the rest in the Express.


Bring Back Child Discipline

MY HERO of the week is Barry Smith, the new head of a Norfolk secondary school so strict and terrifying that he makes the Demon Headmaster sound as lovable and benign as dear old Professor Dumblebore.

St Trinian’s girls’ antics may make us smile but the conduct in real life is no laughing matter Credit: ALAMY

Partly he’s my hero because of the magnificently uncompromising nature of the list of demands he has just issued to parents and pupils at Great Yarmouth High School in Norfolk.

After attacking parents for the “lack of support” which has previously helped make the school one of the worst in the country, he goes on to warn pupils that mobile phone usage and chewing gum are now banned, that breaches of the uniform code will be punished by “isolation” and more detailed rules will follow shortly.

These rules – we know from a leaked internal memo – include an extremely low tolerance for skiving (“If you vomit – no problem! You’ve got your bucket. If you are really ill we will make sure you get all the attention you need.”); mobile phones (“if it accidentally goes off or accidentally falls out of your pocket we confiscate it”); paying attention (“only ever look at your teacher or where your teacher has directed you to look”); and bedtimes. Pupils are advised to go straight home after finishing school, to be in bed by 9pm and set their alarms for 6.30am.

Read the rest in the Express.

TFL Gender Neutral Rules Are an Assault on Traditional Values

LADIES and Gentlemen… was there ever a phrase more redolent of the qualities that make us such a civilised nation?

It’s good-mannered, it’s old fashioned and it’s generous in spirit. Of course not many of us really qualify to be called a “lady” or a “gentleman” any more – at least not in the sense that we are rich, leisured, landowning folk.

But the phrase charmingly conspires to pretend that no matter how lowly we are we’re all deserving of the same respect.

Often it’s a phrase that precedes one of those formal events we do so well: the Loyal Toast, school speech day, weddings.

And it’s also used in the context of safety announcements whether on aeroplanes, at train stations or on the London Underground.

Or rather it was: London Underground has decreed that from henceforward it will no longer be addressing its passengers as “ladies and gentlemen” on the tannoy.

Why? Because apparently it might be offensive to those customers who don’t identify as either a man or a woman and so prefer not to be called anything so gender-specific.

Read the rest in the Express.

So Why Shouldn’t Older People Live in Large Houses?

THERE is a famous scene in Shakespeare’s King Lear where our elderly tragic hero’s horrid daughters Goneril and Regan are encouraging him to downsize.

Old Persons
The Government has advised our elderly that their houses are too big for them.

Lear, having ruled Britain for many years, has got very used to having a splendid retinue of staff.

But now he has retired and moved out of his castle, Goneril and Regan impertinently insist he really must learn to make do with fewer servants.

“What need you five-and-twenty, ten, or five?” asks Goneril.
“What need one?” asks Regan.

This prompts the moving speech which will be familiar to anyone who has studied the play for GCSE or A-level.

“O reason not the need…” laments the hapless, put-upon Lear.

O reason not the need. Yes, indeed.

These are the words I always think of every time some horrible upstart tic from the Government tries telling our elderly that their houses are too big for them and that it’s about time they downsized to make room for the younger generation.

Read the rest in the Express.

I Prefer My Cod in Batter, Thanks Very Much

August 15, 2015

Whenever I find myself choosing my next meal I always like to look out for the sign that says “healthy option.” In this age of variety and abundance it can often be hugely difficult making up your mind as to what to eat next. “Healthy option” makes things so much easier. It tells me: “Avoid like the plague.”

Good news, then, for takeaway customers in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. No fewer than six local fish and chip shops have taken on board the advice of their local council’s Healthier Choices Manager and introduced special, non-greasy, low-fat menu options. So now when customers find themselves torn between the battered sausage, the chicken nuggets and the “rock salmon” at least they can be sure of what they don’t want: that insipid-looking fillet of steamed cod on a bed of salad, with so few chips they barely even qualify as a garnish.

“It’s too early to say if steamed fish will be a hit,” says an article on the council’s website. And I’ll bet when they know the answer they won’t tell us. That’s because this well-meaning scheme is doomed to flop like a wet kipper. Of course it is. No one in their right mind goes to a takeaway as part of a calorie controlled diet. You do it when you fancy a treat.

And the reason it’s a treat is precisely because that food is so deliciously greasy. As the late Clarissa Dickson-Wright, the generously girthed cook from TV’s Two Fat Ladies, once explained to me, fry-ups, sizzling bacon, battered fish, and so on will always taste nicer than the “healthy option” because fat is a great carrier of flavour.

Clarissa (who was as big an expert on the science of food as she was on cooking and eating it) remained, to the end, a great defender of butter, cream and full-fat milk. She claimed they were much better for you than most of the supposedly healthy, low-fat alternatives. And it turns out she was right. Recent studies have shown that it’s the “trans-fats” in artificial health products like margarine that are the killer, not natural animal fats you find in butter.

What’s more, the evidence increasingly suggests, that it’s sugar not fat which is most responsible for our supposed obesity epidemic. So by trying to stop customers eating fried fish in Rochdale, the council is barking up the wrong tree. It’s the cafes pushing sweet cakes and doughnuts they should be investigating.

If, that is, you believe it’s a council’s job to be lecturing takeaways shops, cafes and the like what should and shouldn’t be on the menu. Which personally, I don’t. Surely, if you’re forking out hundreds of pounds every year for your council tax, it ought to be things you actually want and need like regular dustbin collection, not for the services of some nannyish, finger-wagging lecturer treating you like a small child who refuses to eat his Brussels sprouts.

When I read that Rochdale Council employed a Healthier Choices Manager, I assumed at first it was a joke. But no: the job exists and it’s currently held by someone called Clare McNicol. Well I’m sure she’s a nice, caring, well-meaning person and she’s clearly very persuasive to have got all those chippies to participate in this ludicrous scheme. Really, though. Oughtn’t the council to have more urgent priorities than creating such busybodying non-jobs?

For example, three years ago, Rochdale was at the centre of an ugly, grooming gang scandal when a group of Pakistanis were jailed for 30 ‘horrific’ counts of child rape. With its limited budget, wouldn’t the council be better off beefing its apparently lacklustre Children’s Services Department, rather than trying to decide the local fish and chip shop menu? Isn’t the safety of vulnerable girls maybe a bit more important than the danger that someone, somewhere might put on a few more inches as a result of too many ill-advised takeaways?

Councils are always telling us how underfunded they are, how they’re expected to do more and more with less and less money. But I suspect that this is at least partly a problem of their own making. If they stuck to the basics – schools, street-cleaning, lighting and so on – and cut out all the dispensable luxuries like recycling awareness, sustainability, lesbian outreach, diet fascism, and so on, then I’m sure they’d find it much easier to live within their means. I expect most council taxpayers would be a lot happier too.

My fear, though, is that councils, especially those in inner-city Labour strongholds like Rochdale, really aren’t so interested in the dull but essential bread-and-butter stuff. (Let alone in confronting issues like the growth of intolerant Islamism). Rather they see it as their holy mission to mould the whole world in their progressive image. Hence, that multitude of different coloured bags you’re expected to sort your rubbish into, each week: they want to teach you that recycling as an act of religious devotion.

Hence too those healthy eating menus. They don’t want you to see food as a source of fun or sensual pleasure. They want you to see it as they do – worthy, tofu-eating, vegan types as most of them probably are – as a source of guilt, self-hatred and neurosis.

Never mind the fact that cod – or haddock, come to that – is really quite disgusting when steamed and that it desperately needs the improving influence of a nice, crispy layer of beer batter, a side order of thick chips swimming in vinegar, and a squeeze each of tomato ketchup and tartare sauce to make it palatable. Enjoying the stuff was never the point. These people don’t just want you to be healthy and thin. They want you, above all, to be miserable.

From the Express

Related posts:

  1. Eat local organic food if you like, but don’t kid yourself that it’s ‘green’
  2. So butter is good for you? Just like global warming, then
  3. What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…
  4. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?


Labour’s Hypocrisy on Immigration Is Breathtaking

EVERY time I pop to the shops, I’m reminded that the Britain of my childhood has gone for ever.

These days I’m as likely to hear Bulgarian, Polish or Romanian as English. And while I have no objections to any of these no doubt decent, hard-working, law-abiding people individually, I cannot help but feel the country I grew up in is no longer my own.The burgeoning popularity of Ukip suggests that I’m not alone. But until recently it wasn’t something you could admit in public without being called “racist”. This was one of the Labour party’s most successful and dangerous achievements in the wake of Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech.For four decades, Labour created a climate in which even to question the idea that mass immigration, “multiculturalism” and “diversity” were an unmitigated good was tantamount to being a member of the National Front.Typical of this was Labour’s response during the 2005 general election campaign to a speech by the then Conservative leader Michael Howard in which he said: “It’s not racist to talk about immigration. It’s not racist to criticise the system.

It’s not racist to want to limit the numbers. It’s just plain common sense.” According to Labour spokesman Peter Hain these were “scurrilous, Rightwing, ugly tactics”.

But will Hain, I wonder, condemn the comments by a senior politician earlier this week that “It isn’t racist to be worried about immigration or to call for immigration reform”?

Somehow I’m guessing not. Though the words sound remarkably similar to Howard’s the MP speaking them this time was none other than Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. As breathtaking hypocrisy goes, this takes some beating.

Not only does it breach Labour leader Ed Miliband’s pledge last week that: “What we will never do is try to out-Ukip Ukip” but it is also an outrageous attempt to duck responsibility for a crisis which is of Labour’s making.

The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government

House of Lords

Between the 1997 arrival of Labour’s Tony Blair as prime minister and the departure in 2010 of Labour’s Gordon Brown, immigration in Britain soared by 45 per cent – from around 327,000 immigrants per annum to 596,000.And those are just the ones officially recorded by the Office For National Statistics.Once you add illegal immigrants that figure may double to more than one million a year.

“The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government’s Managed Migration policies.”

That’s a quote from a 2008 House of Lords economic affairs select committee telling us something that Labour is now very reluctant to admit: that the 2.3 million migrants added to the UK population between 2000 and 2009 didn’t arrive here as a result of some forgivable border control oversight.

They came as a direct consequence of Labour policy. We know this because of a Labour whistleblower called Andrew Neather – a former speechwriter to Tony Blair, as well as Labour home secretaries David Blunkett and Jack Straw – who later became a newspaper columnist.

In one of his articles he revealed that Labour’s wholehearted embrace of mass immigration had a “driving political purpose” – to “make the UK truly multicultural”.

Read the rest at The Express

Related posts:

  1. Ayn Rand’s books are deliciously anti-statist, but her philosophy is borderline Nazi
  2. Say what you like about Prince Andrew, at least he wasn’t caught posing in his underpants
  3. In praise of Lord Tebbit
  4. General Election 2010: My mate Dave…


Wind Farm Fanatics Are Bankrupting Us With Their Hot Air | James Delingpole

February 20, 2012

THIS week the chairman of the National Trust finally admitted what the rest of us have known for some time: wind farms are the ugliest, most stupid, environmentally damaging, expensive, wasteful and utterly pointless monstrosities ever to deface the British landscape.

Not that Sir Simon Jenkins put it quite so bluntly. But from the chairman of a conservation organisation with four million members, 28,500 acres and 700 miles of coastline this was still pretty powerful and damning stuff.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. The Great Wind Farm Disaster (ctd)
  2. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  3. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  4. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report

One thought on “Wind Farm Fanatics Are Bankrupting Us With Their Hot Air”

  1. Anonymous says:21st February 2012 at 4:58 pmI would like to hear of any info on DIM YEO, MP, fake conservative of his parish, and his links to this idiotic “technology.”

Comments are closed.

The curious rise of bottled water | James Delingpole

August 18, 2011

It is virtually free out of a tap and yet millions of us pay a fortune for it every day. The bottled water industry is a phenomenon with public bodies and private citizens alike content to part with good money to buy it and vast quantities of it being shipped all around the world…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. The curious double standards of Simon Singh
  2. Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’
  3. The problem with God is He thinks He’s Bob Geldof
  4. Uppers and downers


Who Would Spend So Much on a Loaf? The NHS, of Course

July 21, 2011

HAVE you heard about the amazing bread the NHS hands out on prescription to gluten allergy sufferers in Wales?

Gluten free: But this bread is very expensive whichever way you slice it.

It’s made of fairy-dust-sprinkled hypoallergenic wheat harvested by pixies at dawn, hand-ground by hedge-fund managers and then baked to perfection by Parisian masterchefs in ovens made of pure gold!

Well that’s one explanation for the £984,185 the NHS in Wales (where prescriptions are free) blew last year buying 47,684 gluten-free loaves at £20.64 a pop when, in a supermarket, you can get them for a 10th of the price. The other is more prosaic…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Radio Free Delingpole XVI: buying Britain’s gold back
  2. How I became a 24-carat goldbug
  3. Wales is in danger: why isn’t the Prince of Wales saving it?
  4. It is left to me to point out this regrettable, overlooked fact: Dave blew it

2 thoughts on “Who would spend so much on a loaf? The NHS, of course.”

  1. JimmyGiro says:21st July 2011 at 8:51 amLet them eat cake, oat, rice, and potato.

    If gluten is the problem for those individuals, as it is for about 5% of the Irish gene pool, then it’s time for those ‘sufferers’ to revert back to the diet of their ancestors, whose wheat avoidance led to their celiac condition in the first place. And since it is an ancestral left over, they cannot, or should not, claim it as a birth right to eat the foods of other tribes, or as in this instance, the expensive simulation of ‘other’ food.

  2. L Anderson says:21st July 2011 at 6:22 pmJames Delingpole is wrong.
    Please see below.

    Welsh Health Minister Lesley Griffiths said:

    “This claim is inaccurate. The actual cost for the single loaf of gluten-free bread in question is around £2.82, not the £ 32 claimed. The £32 cost quoted is for an average prescription on which several loaves are ordered at a time.

    “If a GP determines a patient requires these products, they should be prescribed to maintain their health. It is wrong to question the judgement and professionalism of health professionals – who have best interests at heart in determining what is prescribed. It is important to note that the loaves ordered from pharmacies are often not of the type routinely available in supermarkets.”

    Loaf of bread
    Over the last 12 months there were 27 prescriptions issued for the gluten free bread quoted as costing £32 per loaf. On the 27 prescriptions, the total amount of the bread prescribed was 123,600 grams. Each loaf is 400 grams. Therefore, 309 loaves were prescribed for £ 871.36 ie £2.82 per 400 gram loaf…


No surprise that the BBC has been caught out in a lie


has had to apologise after being caught out telling porkie pies in one of its Panorama documentaries.

Though it claimed to show genuine footage of exploited Indian child labourers sweating for a pittance to make cheap fashion for Primark, these scenes had in fact been staged.

A voice in the background heard saying: “Get on with the work little boy” and “keep quiet and get on with job” was provided by the Panorama crew’s driver/translator.

Are any of you surprised by this? I’m not. To me, “BBC twists evidence to make Leftwing propaganda point” is about as shocking and unusual a story as “dog bites postman”, or “children seen eating sweets” or “Pope found worshipping regularly at the Vatican”.

Sure, in theory the BBC is committed by its Charter to neutrality, fairness and balance.

But in reality it is – and long has been – a shamelessly biased mouthpiece for the achingly PC values of the tofu-eating, metropolitan, Guardian-reading classes.

This shamelessness is all too evident in the response of the BBC Trust – the supposedly independent body whose job it is to keep the BBC in line.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Say what you like about Prince Andrew, at least he wasn’t caught posing in his underpants
  2. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  3. Australia’s green orchidectomy*
  4. Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again

3 thoughts on “No surprise that the BBC has been caught out in a lie”

  1. JimmyGiro says:19th June 2011 at 1:12 pmThe BBC’s computer is riddled with the virus of Marxist-Feminism. It needs to be purged, and rebooted back to the last known good configuration.

    And with its proven track record of false-hood, can Kate Adie’s reports from the ‘front-line’ be believed, since it is possible for the professional microphones to pick-up distant gunfire, as though it were near.

    I wonder if Kate’s camera crew are forbidden to write memoirs?

  2. Terrible But True says:19th June 2011 at 5:58 pmActually… I was prepared to concede that, in the great scheme of things, ‘one summer doth not a summer make’.

    However the unremitting ‘Who, us? We’re perfect because we just are’ posts on the BBC ‘The Editors’ blog has rather got under my skin and I now feel a wee bit more inclined to be less forgiving as the culture at the top pretty much ensures this will continue… in a downwards spiral.

    And the reaction of one of the top table was gobsmacking, complementing the ‘sure it was pants, but other stuff might not have been so it all evens out’ mindset of some very less than market rate talents drawing down hundreds of k a year.

    I can’t imagine the BBC coming over quite so forgiving if one of their pet targets strays from the ethical straight and narrow.

    The Corporation has now become almost synonymous with bare-faced hypocrisy.

  3. right-writes says:19th June 2011 at 7:26 pm@JimmyGiro… I am afraid there was never a “good configuration”… During the lead up to WW2, they adopted the side of the appeasers… They have always taken sides…

    Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant, it is unbalanced and that is not part of their mandate as the state broadcaster.

    Incidentally, before they became the state broadcaster they were known to be a bit more people centric in that they concentrated on entertaining mainly, news was a brief interval that was delivered anonymously.

Comments are closed.