With regards to the story of the execution in China of British (?) man Akmal Shaikh - where do I start.
There are so many angles to this.
1) If you go to a foreign country then you obey their laws - but of course we bend our laws and customs to suit foreigners who come here so maybe we expect them to do the same for us. But China are not 'soft touch China'.
2) Are the Labour party in attacking the Chinese for doing what they did just being imperialistic? 'That's not our way' they shrill. No it's the Chinese way.
3) We do not have the death penalty in Britain. Do we not? How often nowadays do we hear of the police in Britain shooting dead someone or other on the street? No judge, no jury, no trial, no appeal - and no mental health assessment. It happens a lot and is of course sanctioned by the government. We also export the death sentence - most notably at the moment to Afghanistan - where our troops fight and kill people who produce drugs which brings me nicely to Mr Shaikh!
He was a drug smuggler and roughly 5,000 people a year die in Britain from drug 'misuse' although I bet a little more trawling of the Internet could find a higher figure. So guilty of the crime of potential mass murder he was probably deserving of the death sentence to be honest.
5) He was bipolar? Really? This is open to debate - and a bit of a slight against all the (99% I should imagine) of law abiding bipolar people out there.
So, the Labour government are in my opinion on this issue patronisingly imperialistic, are PRO death penalty (as long as no courts are involved - just the summarily execution of people by the military or the police) and therefore hypocrites AND should recognise that while China are one end of the extreme regarding drug sentencing we are the other having just given a similar drug mule in Britain a pathetic two and a half years.
To Foreign Office minister Ivan Lewis etc I say: stop whining and take a good look at yourselves!
Pretty good stuff from Melanie Phillips here today regarding Britain being a hub of Islamic extremism.
We're sooooooooooo PC that we just cannot even start to get to grips with this huge potentially catastrophic problem.
I'm sure that our liberal masters would be quite happy for us to become an Islamic republic but -shhhh - they must do it quietly, don't want to wake up the plebs who may then turn nasty.
Unfettered immigration (plenty of white, right wing, working class, Christian, Polish amongst these though - a bit of a fly in the ointment for the liberals), the marginalisation and subtle ridiculing of the Christian faith, political correctness and the God of multiculturalism rammed down our throats at EVERY turn (particularly on children's TV it seems) are the weapons of choice of the liberal elite.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, but if Britain is - as Iraq and Afghanistan are/were - hotbeds of radical Islamist terrorist training camps should the USA now perhaps be looking at invading us?
Widely reported over the last few days is the story of the police in London who removed the word 'Christmas' from a poster about 'Christmas' policing levels in case it offended those who 'do not buy into Christmas'!
Whether people 'buy into' it or not it is Christmas that we are celebrating. It isChristmas day.
If people don't believe in Jesus or God or Christianity or Santa Claus or Father Christmas or even the Pagan side of things they still (in Britain at least) generally speaking take the day off work. Also people of other faiths do actually (again in Britain at least) celebrate Christmas day as do atheists.
What are the police playing at?
Is it all a part of the slow creeping destruction by stealth from within of particularly Christianity and of traditional Britain?
I went to a concert in my local Church yesterday in aid of Save the Children (a worthy cause of course) and noticed in the event programme that there are (so it said) 192,000 children in Wales living in poverty.This seemed a bit high to me - for a country of only 3 million people.It seemed even higher when I found out that there are only 600,000 children in Wales! So 1 in 3 children in Wales live in poverty? I don't think so - not real poverty anyhow. So I looked into how poverty is measured in Britain (and elsewhere?) and it is thus: any person who has an income less than 60% of the average income is classed as living in poverty. This is obviously an insane way to judge 'poverty' for if, for instance, every household in Wales had an income of a million pounds a year then all those on less than £600,000 a year would be classed as poor! With this system there can be no end to poverty unless we all earn the same (communism?) which means that even if we all have an annual income of just £2.50 then as long as we all have the same income then there is no poverty. Utter rubbish. They are seeking equality in income and not an eradication of poverty. Real poverty to me is not truly experienced nowadays in the West. Compare us to Africa or the slums of Calcutta. Does anyone actually believe that there are 192,000 children in Wales hungry and barefoot? Who is behind all of this manipulation and what are they up to?
David Cameron was on TalkSport radio today and was asked about immigration and of course he was oh so concerned about it. But when pressed by the presenters he said that he thought people's concerns about immigration were only a matter of numbers and had absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity, culture, religion or the social make up of whole towns/cities changing.
When one of the presenters (Mike Parry I think) said that maybe Mr Cameron was a little out of touch with the public on this issue he said that he most certainly was not, and that he speaks to members of the public every week about immigration and their only concerns about it were the numbers coming in and not cultural in any way shape or form (he also said that as long as the number of people coming in and the number leaving more or less matched then that was okay).
He also thought that the French burkha banning thing was going too far as was the Swiss vote on banning minarets.
So, in Mr Cameron's eyes if, say, a million white British Christians leave Britain every year and are replaced by a million Asian Pakistani Muslims then that's okay, and as long as the numbers balance then the good old British public won't mind being effectively 'replaced' in their homeland one bit.
'Out of touch' doesn't come close.
So for all those going to vote Tory because they think that they'll be strong on immigration and support a Christian Britain over an Islamic one - wake up!
The row about the election of a (second) openly gay Bishop in the Anglican Church in the USA was most notable to me for a comment on the BBC News website that came out during the row: 'conservatives say that the Bible unequivocally outlaws homosexuality, while liberals believe that the Bible should be reinterpreted in the light of contemporary wisdom'.
If the Bible is the word of God are we to 'reinterpret' it? Reinterpret the word of God? Contemporary wisdom? Or modern trendy PC thinking?
If anyone who believes that the Bible is the word of God really wants to reinterpret His word then they're foolish.
I think that people who wish to reinterpret the Bible don't actually believe that it is the word of God.
They just see the Church as some club that they're a member of.
Quite big in the news this week was the 'egging' (by fellow Muslims) of Baroness Warsi, the Tory peer.
She was accused by the 'eggers' of not being a proper Muslim. One of them (Sayful Islam, a well known hardliner) said that just by looking at her you could tell that she was not a proper Muslim and that she was not a practising Muslim. He also said that he was against everything that she stands for and criticised her for supporting the war in Afghanistan.
The Baroness said afterwards that the 'eggers' were extremists who did not represent their community or faith - just like Nick Griffin. Quite how she can bring Nick Griffin into this I really don't know!!! (Still hurting after Question Time?)
But anyhow, who out of Sayful Islam - who is a man of conviction whatever you may think of his views - or Baroness Warsi - a career politician - best represents the word of Mohammed?