• Mirror mirror on the wall: Who is the cruel-est of them all?

      0 comments

    At this time of year as Christmas approaches those of us with young children or grandchildren will be doubtless looking forward to the pantomime, a British institution. Last night the BBC gave us political anoraks who watch Question Time on Thursday night a pantomime of a political nature. All pantomimes have a “Goody” and a Baddie” Last night’s cast included Nigel Farage and Russell Brand – an interesting twist for the audience (studio and viewer) could select which of these characters filled either role. As those who watched will doubtless remember one vociferous member of the studio audience clearly had Nigel Farage as the Baddie.

    It caused the Editor to ponder on an appropriate pantomime to put these two characters in. Unfortunately there is one but there is a slight casting problem. The pantomime is “Snow White” but the lead characters are female. Yes, we know there is a tradition of Cross Dressing in British Pantomime but the roles of Snow White and Evil Queen have always been played by women.

    To get the words right, British Gazette readers will of course remember the actual fairy tale: Every morning, the Evil Queen asked the Magic Mirror the question “Magic mirror in my hand, who is the fairest in the land?”. The mirror always replies: “My Queen, you are the fairest in the land.” The Queen is always pleased with that, because the magic mirror never lies. But, when Snow White reaches the age of seven, she becomes as beautiful as the day and even more beautiful than the Queen and when the Queen asks her mirror, it responds: “My Queen, you are the fairest here so true. But Snow White is a thousand times more beautiful than you.”

    Getting back to the politics: The topic that provoked the most fury was that of immigration with the inevitable word “racist” being banded about. Well, let us examine this (immigration) issue and a couple of others in terms of how it affects who and how. Who gains and who looses. Also who are assumed to be the advocates of and opponents of (mass immigration). The results are revealing.

    It is commonly put forward by such as the Brussels Brainwashing Commissariat that those who oppose immigration are on the right and those who support it are on the left. This supposition tends to be supported by evidence. That in and of itself is in fact bizarre as by the [Unalterable] Laws of the Medes and Persians it should be the other way around! [Daniel vi. 8: “Now, O king, ... sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not.”]

    Why?

    Well immigration (such as what the UK has experienced of late) benefits the rich and hurts the poor. Those landowners in Kent (last night’s programme came from Canterbury) the county that is known as “the garden of England” who have crops of soft fruit and vines benefit enormously from immigrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere who are willing to work for long hours on zero hours contracts for the minimum wage (or less) picking fruit.

    If there are any Readers who think this other than hard work they should try it!

    Along with fruit picking such immigrants are willing to do other arduous work for low pay. This has the effect of driving down wages costs. Those who gain most are the employers. Of these employers one must remember to count those wealthy individuals who live in the mansions of the gated St. George’s Hill estate betwixt Weybridge and Byfleet. One of the bane’s of their lives is recruiting domestics. Large numbers of migrants make their lives much easier.

    As well as David Cameron, his friends and relatives others too gain from immigration. As the start of this article we made a reference to Christmastide and pantomimes. Let us face it: What makes Christmas magical are children. Remember when you last went to the pantomime with young children? It would not be the same without them would it? For those with young children or grandchildren this is the magic of Christmastide but for many folk who are childless this magic is strictly within the confines of Memory Lane. Childlessness of course affects people in other ways. Taken across a society, a low birthrate combined with an ageing population is an economic time bomb. The UK however is not one of those countries adversely affected for the high levels of immigration have resulted in a higher birthrate within the UK than other similar first world economies. This means that those childless folk such as the Editor can face their old age in the knowledge that there will be a good number of younger taxpaying workers around to support him.

    Of course relying on young foreigners from across the world to supply the next generation has significant demographic implications: cultural, ethnic and religious change from one generation to another. In such a case as the UK where the nature as well as the numbers of the population are changing so rapidly it can be said that a citizen will be born in one country and die in another without ever moving house!

    Immigration is not the only paradoxical issue in British Politics. So to is climate change. The obsession to generate electricity by such ludicrously impractical and expensive methods as wind turbines (on the land of wealthy individuals) and photovoltaic cells on the roofs of those who can afford them push the cost of what is a basic commodity (electricity) to all. Those most affected are those who can least afford it: the poor. But who are the biggest proponents of such things? The left. And the biggest gainers? The rich.

    Bizarre! Truly bizarre!

    Then let us come to the old chestnut of the TV Licence.

    This is in effect a regressive tax. Naturally those adversely affected have long complained. Finally, after years of hearing the travails of their poor constituents the MPs have finally decided to do something about it.

    Of course the MOST obvious thing would be to scrap the TV Licence by scrapping the institution that is fed by it: the Brussels Brainwashing Commissariat!

    But then as we all know: that is NEVER going to happen.

    So, what do these elected luminaries propose to relieve the suffering of their poorest constituents?

    Decriminalisation.

    Yes, Dear Reader, that is not a typo!

    Of course, it does not need the Editor of the British Gazette to inform its Readers of the consequences of such. You Dear Reader as one experienced in life know that to expose a poor desperate single mum who probably has visited a food bank of more than a couple of occasions to the bailiffs (whose charges of £200 to £300 are added to the debt) is more than careless: it is cruel.

    At present, most magistrates try and enforce the law with discretion and leniency: things notoriously absent in bailiffs. Fines are generally minimal and are allowed to be paid in small installments weekly.

    Are the MPs who advocate such a reform Cruel? Callous? No. Just completely ignorant and out of touch of how their constituents live their lives.

    These cretins are in fact as out of touch with their constituents as was Marie Antoinette, Queen of France and of Navarre consort of Louis XVI was alleged to be with her husband’s subjects.

    Marie Antoinette of course is most famously linked with the phrase, “Let them eat cake” that is the traditional translation of the French phrase “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”, supposedly spoken by “a great princess” upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was made from dough enriched with butter and eggs, making it more expensive than bread, the quote supposedly would reflect the princess’s disregard as to the condition of the people.

    Historical note: While it is commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette, there is no record of this phrase ever having been said by her. It appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, his autobiography (whose first six books were written in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was nine years of age, and published in 1782). The context of Rousseau’s account was his desire to have some bread to accompany some wine he had stolen; however, in feeling he was too elegantly dressed to go into an ordinary bakery, he thus recollected the words of a “great princess”. As he wrote in Book 6:
    Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d’une grande princesse à qui l’on disait que les paysans n’avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu’ils mangent de la brioche. (Finally I recalled the stopgap solution of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread, and who responded: “Let them eat brioche.”)

    Write a comment