• A fork in the road.


    In the life of every person there comes a point – at least once – when a decision has to be made. One can be carrying on, living one’s life as usual, as normal, and then, something happens. Often it is something entirely beyond you control and can in no possible way be described as “being your fault”. However there are many instances where great misfortune settling on a person is their fault and the unfortunate outcome was entirely predicable. Then there are many occasions that are in-between these two situations, where it can be said that the person’s actions have been a “contributory factor”. On many such occasions – especially the first mentioned – the victim after recovering from the initial shock feel angry and some tend to blame God. Thoughts along the lines of; “Why have you landed me with this diagnosis? Why not give the diagnosis to some evil person such as Kim Jong Un?

    Such situations need not only occur with individuals at the personal level. They can also occur with nations. Such is now the case with the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.
    The state broadcaster reported this in it’s website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-57335499
    Meanwhile, the learned Doctor North has posted this: https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/law-and-order-stabfest-confusion/
    There is an old proverb, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Interestingly, the proverb was first published in “The Colonist And Van Diemen’s Land Commercial And Agricultural Advertiser on 4th June 1833 – exactly 188 years ago tomorrow.

    What the proverb describes is that how setting out to do a or the good thing, one ends up with bad or poor consequences.

    This is very much the case with UK governments since 1945. Immediately following the end of WW2 there was a labour shortage. The government and local authorities encouraged large numbers of what were then called “West Indians” to come and live in the UK. They were needed. In the 1950s, the private owned woollen and cotton mills in the North of England recruited many South Asians from the recently created Pakistan. Indians were also encouraged, but less enthusiastically.

    Now of course, many conspiracy theorists state that this was part of a plot to Islamise the UK. This was and is nonsense. The reason was due to an organisation known as the “Indian National Army” a Wikipedia article about it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

    The Indian National Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army) was a military force organised by renegade Indians to fight against the British Empire on the side of the Japanese. Most, but not all of it’s recruits were Hindus. Conversely the British controlled Indian Army that fought loyally and bravely on “our side” were mainly Muslims and Sikhs. After India gained independence the government recognised the renegade force and paid the combatants pensions. They ignored the loyal members of the British controlled Indian Army.

    As you can imagine, this shoddy treatment did not go down well in the UK!

    Following the arrival of large numbers of what were in those days referred to as “coloured persons” many native Britons felt threatened in terms of their employment and access to housing. As a result they objected and expressed their objections in their behaviour towards the immigrants. Many of course did not and were perfectly polite and if running shops and boarding houses did not put signs such as “No coloureds” on the windows. Such instances of discrimination were not new. Yesterday’s blog-post featured a blocked out photograph of my former house in Kingswood Gardens. It was built in 1936 and the developer selling the houses – it was part of an estate – openly advertised stating “No Jews”. In 1936 it was legal to do this.

    Throughout this period, British governments (both Conservative and Labour) sought to “do the right thing”. Both political parties are still trying to “do the right thing” – but both are constrained now by the culture of political correctness that has got to such a parlous state where UK based militant activists have created their own bandwagon following the death in the USA of George Floyd.

    This campaign has been the most outrageous exaggeration of the racial discrimination issues present in the UK by seeking to make a more or less direct comparison between the racial issues in the USA and the racial issues in the UK.

    The FACT is that there is an ENORMOUS difference between the USA and the UK insofar as “race relations” is concerned.

    The state broadcaster has commendably recently brought the 1921 Tulsa massacre to the attention of the British public.
    GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
    I have third hand knowledge of some of the history of US race relations:

    During WW2, my father worked in Aldershot and lived in Farnborough. He was a “reserved occupation”. In the run up to “D Day” huge numbers of British and allied soldiers were based in the south of England. My father related his first hand eyewitness accounts of fields and the sides of roads being full of all manner of military hardware, tanks, field guns and so forth. All covered by camouflage netting. There were huge numbers of troops of which many were members of the US Army. In those days the US Army was organised with “white” regiments and “colored” regiments. My father related me an occasion that happened in a local pub. My father did not witness it first hand because he did not go into pubs. However one of his electricians did and related the following:

    Some black US soldiers walked into the pub. Noticing that there were no black people there one of the soldiers walked up to the bar as asked the barman, “Sir, are we allowed to be in this bar?”
    The barman smiled and said. “Of course!”
    To which the solider replied and said, “Thank you Sir. May we purchase alcohol?”
    Which brought forth another positive response from the surprised barman.
    As a result the black soldiers joined the other customers.
    A while later a white US Army NCO walked into the pub. Seeing the black soldiers he angrily shouted at them, “You niggers! Out! Now!”
    With that the black soldiers duly put down their glasses, got up and began to leave – without arguing or protesting in any way. The publican who was behind the bar however intervened.
    “You fellows! Stay where you are,” then addressing the angry NCO he said, “These men are my customers and they’re staying!”
    “We’ll see about that!” the NCO retorted.
    A few minutes later the NCO returned with a police officer in tow. The NCO repeated his request. The publican told the black soldiers to stay seated. At that point the police officer approached the publican and asked if he could have a quiet word – which meant out of the public bar area. The publican agreed and both men went to a place where they could converse privately. The policemen was very apologetic and told the publican what he already knew, that the police had no power to require the publican to expel the black men from the pub, but the officer asked the publican to accede to the NCO’s request as it could be awkward otherwise. The publican refused. Upon arriving back in the public bar the policeman returned to the NCO and quietly informed him that the publican had refused his (the policeman’s) request to ask the black soldiers to leave. The officer then apologised to the NCO informing the white US soldier that he (the policeman) had no legal power to require the publican to expel the men. This made the NCO very angry indeed and the NCO expressed this anger by informing (in a loud voice) the publican that he was “a God-damn nigger lover!”
    To which the publican informed him that he and his fellow white US Army solders were barred from the pub!
    The police officer again apologised to the by now incandescent NCO that the barman had the power to do this.

    This was however not cost free for the publican for when the publican’s licence came up for renewal the police objected. This caused the publican to go to the very considerable expense of appealing the decision of the magistrates who rubber stamped the police request. Appealing the magistrates decision meant going to the higher court and instructing a barrister. He won the appeal as the Crown offered no evidence. The reason why the police objected to the licence was because they were told to by the British Army authorities. This because the British Army wanted to show they were good allies to the US Army by currying favour. The Crown offered no evidence as there was no evidence and the British establishment were “going through the motions”. The establishment did not really want to rob the publican of his livelihood. They just wanted to “demonstrate support” to the US authorities by currying favour. This meant forcing the publican to the very great expense of having to appeal and instruct a barrister.

    Similar things happen today! This is whey people who have golliwogs in windows that can be viewed by passers by in a public street are told by officious “PC” PCs to remove same and are threatened with a caution. This is why the street preacher Mr Overd is repeatedly prosecuted. He is regularly convicted in the magistrates court and, like the Aldershot publican has to go to the very great expense of an appeal and instruct a barrister to act for him who succeeds in having the conviction overturned.

    The reason why the UK is in the mess it is in is that the mainstream politicians had simply refused to stand up to very aggressive and very assertive militant campaigners. Instead, they seek to curry favour with the PC brigade. As a result, the country steadily goes from bad to worse. Any person or publication that has the temerity to question or oppose this gets stamped on.

    Such persons find themselves having to pay a price. If they are a member of a voluntary organisation that is “PC” or has members who are “PC” they may be asked to resign any position they have.

    Those in ultimate power know these persons aren’t criminals or extremists but take the attitude that making these individuals suffer to a small degree helps keeps things under control.