Daily Archives: May 14, 2015




This is the title of a film that was released in 1987. The star of the film is Arnold Schwarzneggar. Schwarzneggar was born in Austria. He won the title of Mr Universe. He was a bodybuilder and moved to the United States. He became an American.

In this film Schwarzneggar plays a former American soldier. He goes on a secret mission deep into the jungle. He goes their by helicopter. American soldiers have disappeared. Eventually he finds their corpses.

He has to fight the predator. His character is Major Dutch Schaeffer. Predator is a mysterious creature that is invisible. It kills men. Major Schaeffer has to find this beast and kill it. Its blood can be seen. The blood is green. Major Schaeffer manages to shoot the predator. He sees the blood and is then able to locate the predator and kill it. He defeats it in hand to hand combat.

It is a very exciting and frightening film. Arnie Schwarzneggar was at his athletic prime in this film.

A predator is an animal that kills other animals to eat them. A fox kills chickens so a fox is a predator. A cat predates mice. Humans predate chickens and lambs.


1. When did this film coome out?

2. Who is the star?

3. WHich country was Schwarzneggar born in?

4. What does predator literally mean?

5. What is the predator in this film?

6. Who wins?

7. How does Major Schaeffer manage to see the predator?

UKIP or not?


Five years ago I wrote on this blog that I was a UKIP sympathiser. For half a decade I have toyed with the idea of joining the party. James Delingpole has written how he is undergoing a battle between heart and head. He concurs with everything UKIP says but he knows they have not a snowball in hell’s chance of forming a government. Should one vote for them or not? He did not answer. I too have been going through this inner torment. I read the UKIP manifesto and I find myself in agreement with the great bulk of it. I agree with quite a lot of the Conservative platform but not as much as of the UKIP one. Much UKIP rhetoric is music to my ears. I am put off when Nigel Farage uses inflammatory phrases such as ”Romanian crime wave”. Even if the information he cites is accurate the way he uses it is irresponsible. It is bound to heighten anti-Romanian prejudice. The problem is the crime and not the nationality. Most Romanians are innocent. Moreover, would a crime not be so bad if not committed by a Romanian?



I come from Africa. The Rift Valley, to be more precise. That is where all human being originated 3 000 000 years ago. Immigration is not an absolutist issue. There is the absolutist fallacy that either you oppose all immigration or you oppose all limit on it. I want a reasonable limit on it.

Most immigrants are good people. The UKIP website states that immigrants have made a tremendous contribution to the United Kingdom. They are honest and they work. Most of them do not have contagious diseases. Not that having a contagious disease makes one a bad person but it does make someone a health risk.

UKIP has a point that immigration should not be for those with grave criminal records. Someone who committed a misdemeanour many years ago should be allowed in. I agree with selecting people on an individual basis not a national one. This is fair and surely anti-racist. Compare it to the current system. Nationality usually coincides with ethnicity so the current system is semi racialist.

I want out of the EU because of uncontrolled immigration. I am not against immigration I am opposed to excessive immigration. I cannot put a figure on the right amount. A new figure of 30 000 a year as in the mid 90s is fine. A net statistic of 300 000 a year is too much. Not all of this comes from the European Union.

The problem with uncontrolled immigration is both quality and quantity. Most immigrants are law abiding people. Most of them have jobs. Immigration, up to a point, boosts the economy. It can create jobs. There comes a point when something which is beneficial becomes harmful. Only so many jobs can be created by immigrants. Legal immigrants take jobs as they are legally entitled to. I do not resent them from doing this. They often put the shame British citizens who are lackadaisakal or lacking in skills. There is no doubt that too much immigration is a cause of unemployment. I said it is a cause not the cause. There are several reasons behind unemployment. Eurosceptics and europhiles sometimes pretend there is only one reason behind these things – that unemployment is either caused by immigration or by bad government policies. This is a multi factorial issue.

A man from Lithuania who murdered his wife was allowed to live in the United Kingdom and he murdered a girl in London. This is not about Lithuanians. Britishers commit murder too. Someone with a conviction for the worst crime of all should not be allowed in. EU extremists like Lord Mandelson and Nick Clegg would say it is racist to save the life of a child. They think that any restriction on EU  immigration is an outrage. They are quite weak on immigration from outside the EU too. Immigration ought to be on the basis of what an individual can bring in terms of his or her skill set. This person should have no serious criminal record. Moreover, this person should not have a communicable disease. In Azerbaijan I was tested for HIV and several other diseases before being allowed a work permit. Countries such as the USA and Russia do the same. It is mere common sense. I feel sorry for anyone with HIV or any other contagious disease. No one deserves this illness no matter how they contract it. It is simply about disease control is seeking to prevent the transmission of these diseases. This is why those with incurable contagious diseases should not be allowed residency in the United Kingdom. I wish these diseases did not exist. As they do exists I wish drugs such as anti retrovirals were available to all. It is a moral outrage that excessive profiteering bu drugs companies has put anti retrovirals beyond the reach of many AIDS sufferers in Africa. The National Health Service cannot afford to provide anti retrovirals for anyone who comes in.. I know it is heart breaking. The reality iis the NHS has to make life and death decisions every day. Life extending drugs for cancer patients are sometimes not funded. The NHS hAS finite resources. Letting more people in with very expensive needs puts too much of a strain on the NHS. Nigel Farage was the only one with the courage to tell the plain truth about this vexatious issue.

The two issues touching communicable diseases are the cost of treating the patient and the fact that the disease can be passed on. Take a very wealthy banker who has such an illness. The tax she pays will more than cover the cost of treating her. So that deals with the financial aspect of the question. But are we only to let in people with communicable diseases if they are very rich? Maybe. I would like to hear a europhile argue for this. Then there is the health aspect of the issue. Most people who suffer from such illnesses are responsible and strive to avoid passing the disease to another person. In the case of HIV they would practise safe sex. However, not all those people who are HIV positive are responsible and safe sex is not a total guarantee that the disease will not be transmitted.

The great majority of immigrants do not carry any life threatening and contagious illness. Ideally none of them would. This is not about insulting people or claiming that most immigrants carry a communicable disease.

UKIP is not opposed to immigration only opposed to too much of it. This is on the website. UKIP has a very sensible policy wanting desirable individuals allowed in. The Europhile bigots called UKIP Nazis for having a rationale immigration policy.

There is a lot of left wing myth making about immigration. They say that the United Kingdom has always been built on immigration. There always has been immigration but mostly it was a tiny amount. Tens of thousand of Hugenots came in the 1680s into a Great Britain with about 8 000 000 people. This is not comparable to the situation today.

Legal immigrants are not bad people. I count many as my friends. I am a friend of Romanian who snuck in on the back of a lorry in 2003. He was arrested in 2006. The authorities attempted to deport him. He resisted. As Romania was about to join the EU there was little purpose to booting him out so he was permitted to remain. If I were him maybe I would have come illegally too. That would not make it a right thing to do. I am fairly law abiding and cautious so it is unlikely that I would have done what he did. He ought to have been caught sooner and kicked out. He has regularised his situation and I do not object to him staying.

People have been excessively worried about immigration before. From 1945 to 1985 there was net emigration. Yet many people were anxious about those coming in. SOme said there was much too much immigration. Those concerns were misplaced. To some extent this was sheer racism. That does not mean that being worried about immigration now is racist.

Take a year when there was net immigration of MINUS 50 000 and contrast that with the situation where the net immigration figure is PLUS 300 000. These are radically different situations. Much rhetoric about excessive immigration in the past was specious. I do not agree with J Enoch Powell at all. That does not mean that it is wrong to be concerned about excessive immigration these days. My concerns about this issue relate to numbers and economics not race or religion.

Let us have the Australian style points based system. Take people who can do jobs in sectors where we have a skills shortage. Reduce the number of immigrants. In relatives terms we would have more people from lands with whom we have a cultural affinity like Barbados, Ghana, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. They would all be English speaking. Many EU immigrants speak English but not all do. This is different with regard to most Commonwealth countries.

At the moment EU law does not allow one to impose a language test on EU migrants. Bizarrely an American has to prove she can speak English but not a Bulgarian. A French doctor and a German doctor have both accidentally killed patients in the UK because of linguistic misunderstandings. It would be totally appropriate for other EU countries to have language tests for British immigrants.

I am a civic nationalist and definitely not an ethno-nationalist. Ethnicity is unimportant. People should be allowed in without regard to ethnicity or faith. I would be perfectly happy for a person of any race or religion to marry into the royal family or to be Prime Minister. This should be an axiom however I have to stress this because UKIP’s enemies are very dishonest in seeking to portray all UKIPers are racialists.,



I long entertained fantasies of a political career. I have long ago talked my way out of it. I tried to resists the temptation to crack tendentious jokes. It was too much to prevent myself from telling these jokes. One cannot have retailed an off colour quip and go into politics.

Many of those who joined Labour or the Tories will have done so for careerist reasons. There was precious little chance of getting anywhere in politics unless one was in one of the two big parties.



I like UKIP for wanting to get the United Kingdom out of the European Union. I want the UK to leave the EU for many reasons. The EU is overly bureaucratic. It has too many pettifogging rules.It wastes huge amounts of money shunting between Strasbourg and Brussels. The European Court of Human Rights comes up with many unfair rulings. I know that the ECHR is not a branch of the European Union but in order to be party of the EU one must abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. These are often in favour of terrorists. EU members states were required to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into their domestic law in 1998. The European Convention on Human Rights has been around since the late 1940s. The situation in the United Kingdom was just fine prior to 1998. A huge amount of EU money is plundered. I am not saying wasted now but stolen. The EU’s own auditors have refused to sign off on an audit for years because of this.

Not every ruling by the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice has been wrong. Not all rulings by British courts prior to 1998 were right. However, the overall situation was better prior to 1998. The ECHR has led to more gay equality. This could have happened anyway the way things were going.



There are disreputable elements on the eurosceptic side. Unfortunately some racist people have been attracted to UKIP. Some of them are opposed to immigration for xenophobic reasons.  Some people are against the EU for irrational reasons.  Some of them have racially abused Chuka Umunna. Mr Umunna has as much right to call himself a Britisher as any white British. He is as entitled to live in the United Kingdom as the Queen. I wish too triply underline that I am anti-racist. I embrace multiracial Briton. The United Kingdom needs its British Indians, British Jamaicans, British Kenyans, British Chinese people and so forth as much as it does those whose ancestors have lived in these islands for centuries.

The EU is not totally anti democratic. It allowed different political parties. It has elections. It always disregards elections that do not go its way.

If the EU were a looser organisation like the European Free Trade Area then it would be benign. If the EU only included a few countries then it would make more sense. The north-western European countries have a lot in common and are prosperous. By these I mean the Republic of Ireland, UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. I cannot include France because of its stagnant economy. Some sort of confederation there might make sense. However, it is not geographical contiguity that really counts. The map image is over rated. It is cultural similarity and economic compatibility.

The EU stands for excessive immigration, criminal immigration, the immigration of those with contagious diseases; massive EU fraud; provoking a war against Russia and degrading democracy.

According to Europhile extremists none of this matters. All these problems will go on and on. There is no end in sight. All this talk of reform is bunkum. I have been hearing about reform for over 20 years. There has been reform of course – more EU integration, fewer limitations on immigration, more legislation and more financial waste.

I was disturbed by Teutonophobic rhetoric from some europhiles in the 1990s. Germany today is not the Third Reich it is the Federal Republic. Anti German prejudice is revolting.

I dislike anti-Muslim rhetoric too. I have been worried by some UKIP members who have indulged in Islamophobic hate speech. There are aspects of Islams as well as aspects of Christianity I dislike. I am talking about where sacred texts say slavery is permissible and that converting to another faith is punishable with death. However, no Muslim in the United Kingdom has ever killed someone for doing this so far as I know. One can be a practising Muslim and a totally reasonable person. There are good teachings in Islam too. British Muslims have an inalienable right to live in the United Kingdom.

I do not believe in all UKIP polices. For instance, I recognise that global warming is real and wind turbines are laudable. My belief in UKIP policies is not absolute. This is not a religious faith – it is a political outlook. Therefore my opinions are under constant review. One side it not totally right and the other side it not totally wrong.

I favour lower taxes. Flat tax is attractive in some ways but I wonder if it will bring in enough revenue. It might also be inequitable.

A Tory parliamentary candidate said to me that he concurs with most UKIP policies. ”The problem there is not the policies it is the people.” There is something in that.



I am writing this from Central Asia. I have no right to be here. I am here because the people of this land allow me here as a favour. They can send me packing any time. I never interfere in their politics. I cannot claim benefits here.

There is no contradiction at all between me living abroad and me being a UKIP supporter. UKIP is not against foreigners moving into the United Kingdom. Indeed it has members and indeed some elected representatives who are originally citizens of other countries. UKIP has set its face against excessive immigration and undesirables moving in. UKIP also does not object to Britishers moving abroad. There is nothing amiss with being an immigrant. Call me an immigrant if you like. I am arguably an immigrant twice over. I immigrated into the United Kingdom and I am an immigrant in the country where I currently live. Perhaps expatriate would be more accurate but I do not take exception to being called an immigrant.

I have been to 94 countries. I have lived in several different countries. I have worked in 10 countries including Romania. I lived with a Romanian. Despite this sanctimonious EU bigots will treat me to bile. These self-righteous smart alecs tell me I am intolerant.

I work in a Muslim country and for a Muslim family. I have taught in schools that are 90% Muslim. Some self congratulating bien pensant euro  extremists call me an Islamophobe. Their conceit and ignorance is staggering.



The European Union is not evil. Some well-meaning people founded the European Coal and STeel Community in 1949 which grew into the European Economic Community in 1957 which morphed into the European Union in 1993.

Not all laws emanating from Brussels or Strasbourg are unfair or stupid. Not all judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are unjust and not all rulings of the European Court of Justice are unsound. I do not reject things solely because they emanate from the European Union.

The United Kingdom has no need of these institutions. The UK has strong institutions of its own. Countries with weak and dysfunctional institutions like Italy see the EU as providing some stability.

The good laws that have been made by EU institutions could easily have been made within the United Kingdom. However, as the UK has pooled so much sovereignty with the EU the UK no longer has competence to frame laws in many areas.

EU enthusiasts often say this is not about surrendering sovereignty but about sharing it. That is true. The United Kingdom has some say in the affairs of the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. I do not want any such control. It is the europhiles who are the empire builders.

Farage said that the people who set up the EU wished to do good but ”the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The trouble is that europhile extremists are so convinced of their own beneficence is that they will do anything to implement their policies. They can waste any amount of public money, they can tell any lie, they can ignore any referendum so long as it furthers their agenda.



The EU is designed to some extent to be an anti-American block. Many europhiles dislike America. They want a European Army as an alternative to NATO. Despite this most EU member states spend a pitifully small amount on their military.

I recognise the need for international co-operation. This can be on an ad hoc basis such as the climate change conference. It can be via the United Nations. It could also come through the Commonwealth. None of these institutions interfere in domestic affairs so much.

I am for remaining part of NATO. I am not doctrinaire on this point. It could be that withdrawal from NATO is better. The fact remains that it is specious to say that the United Kingdom Independence Party is isolationist. It is in favour of being part of international organisations.

More people worship a rising sun than a setting sun. The EU member states have economies that are mostly stagnant. There is a demographic time bomb in terms of pensions. The EU includes such basket cases as Greece. Spain and Portugal are almost as bad. Prosperous countries with sensible economic policies are dragged down by the profligacy or irresponsible governments in southern Europe.

The United Kingdom should seek to trade more with China. The UK is not part of the Schengen Agreement. This means Chinese people cannot come to the UK on a Schengen visa. They need a separate one to come to the UK. The UK should make it quite easy for CHinese tourists, students and business people to come to the UK. The United Kingdom should perhaps even make it visa free for Chinese tourists and business people to come for up to 30 days.

There is always a danger with visas. Make the regime too stringent and you put off students, business executive and tourists. Make it too lax and you allow in people who stay illegally. There is no perfect system. In either case there are disadvantages. You have to try to strike the balance right.

The reasons the United Kingdom is so reluctant to let people from low and middle incomes in even as tourists is that it is sometimes impossible to get them out. The great majority of tourists, students and those on business trips are what they say. They return after their trip. But some stay illegally. THE United Kingdom find it very difficult to remove those who stay illegally. This is partly due to left wing judges being too sympathetic to illegals who makes specious asylum claims. It is also due to EU laws on so-called human rights which is about facilitating illegal immigration.

The United Kingdom should have joined the European Free Trade Area instead of the European Economic Community. These would have provided the commercial advantages of being in the EEC. The EEC has since turned itself into the EU. Being in the EFTA would have avoided the United Kingdom having to bear the burdens of EU membership.

Farage, he of the vinous glassfuls, points out that the economic future is not in the EU. The BRICS are the countries the United Kingdom really needs to build good trade relationships with. The EU has a trade war against Russia. The attendant costs of these sanctions are severe. These sanctions are due to the Ukraine conflict which is partly the EU’s fault. The European Union jeopardises the United Kingdom’s commercial future.



Europhiles says – what about all the Britishers in Spain. If the UK pulls out of the European Union what will happen to them? That is for the Spanish to decide. They will not kick them out. It would be unfair and impractical. They are usually pensioners. It was possible for Britishers to move to Spain, France and many other countries long before the European Union was ever thought of. There was some paperwork involved.

Romanians and other Eastern Europeans could some to the United Kingdom before these countries were EU member states. They required visas to do so. This meant that they came in small and manageable numbers. I want Romanians to move to the United Kingdom but I want them to some in sensible numbers. Excessive immigration has led to anti-Romanian prejudice.



I have seen the effect of the EU on Romania. It is good for some individuals who can move West without a visa and get well paid jobs. It is bad for Romania as a whole. Over 10% of the population has departed in the last 10 years. The country is greying. The pensions time bomb is horrific. There is a brain drain. Romania is short of highly skilled people.

The EU bans people from selling home produced food and drink on the street. Romanians cheerfully break this law with impunity.  Other EU countries break EU laws all the time. The British suffer by obeying these laws..



The European Commission is mostly made up of those who have lost office in their own countries. They are not popularly elected to the European Commission. The European Parliament can accept or reject the entire list. Becoming an EU commissioner is a well -trodden and lucrative path for superannuated politicians. They usually get these sinecures when they have been booted out of office in their own countries.

Many EU institutions meet in secret. The European Commission proposes laws. Eurocrats have the power to sign acts into law.There is a lot of scaremongering by EU fanatics. The foreign Minister of Sweden said that if Sweden did not adopt the Euro there would be a war. Jose Manuel Barroso said that we must guard against populism by which he meant democracy. Martin Schulz has accused the scrupulously democratic UKIP of opening the door to fascism.

The European Parliament is run on an unfair basis. Extremely partisan figures such as Martin Schulz chairs debates. The chairman is very partial to pro EU voices. Schulz was not censured for accusing UKIP of fascism. Danny Cohn Bendit called UKIP mentally ill and was not required to apologise.

Godfrey Bloom was a UKIP Member of the European Parliament. Bloom was not a man to my liking and said some childishly insulting things about EU enthusiasts such as saying they were Nazis. Bloom was told to leave the chamber. This was blatantly unfair. It was glaringly inconsistent with past practise where europhile politicians were allowed to vituperate eurosceptics in similar terms without being reproached.

There have been many referenda on EU integration. When these vote for EU integration the EU readily accepts the result and crows about is democratic legitimacy. However, when people vote against further integration this will not do. People are forced to vote again. With dire warnings of the grave consequences of not endorsing further integration the EU usually gets the result it wants.. This outrageous and dishonest trick has been used in Ireland over the Nice Treaty. It was also used in Denmark over the Treaty of Maastricht. Taxayers’s money was used in Ireland to fund the Yes campaign over Maastricht. This was a shocking and unlawful misuse of public funds.

France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution. The EU got around this by making tiny changes to the EU Constitution and labelling it the Treaty of Lisbon. Angela Merkel and other EU enthusiasts admitted that it was virtually identical to the EU Constitution.

This is how grossly unjust the EU is. There is the one way ratchet. Once sovereignty is pooled it can never be restored to a member state. But if people reject doing so they are made to vote again and again. The No campaign is soon demoralised. The Yes campaign has far more funding. A compliant media will do the rest. Big business benefit from EU contracts and career politicians blackguard eurosceptic politicians.

The Republic of Ireland is committed to neutrality in international conflicts. The EU Rapid Reaction Force has compromised this. The EU External Action Service – i.e. foreign office – has also undermined this Irish policy.

EU politicians try to frighten people into agreeing to more pooling of sovereignty. They hint darkly at the terrible repercussions of maintaining some sovereignty.



The EU cleverly disguises how extensive it is. EU enthusiasts like to cite how few Eurocrats there are. That is because officially many of these Eurocrats work for the member states and not for the EU as such. Moreover, many civil servants in the United Kingdom are working on EU projects. Much Westminster legislation is implementing directives from the EU. London is a branch office of Brussels.



The United Kingdom before she joined the European Economic Commission was far from perfect. I do not pretend that leaving the UK is a magic bullet. There will still be problems. The British Government wastes taxpayers’ money. The UK Government itself comes up with unfair and inane laws/. The point is that the EU does these things too and to an even greater extent. Because the decisions are taken so far away from the people very few people notice. The EU is able to blame this on the member states

The EU issues a directive a few pages long. Each country has a margin of appreciation. This means they can implement it in their own way. Civil servants then often add several more pages to make it more detailed and complex. This is then passed into law. Part of the problem is with UK civil servants gold plating it. Yes, the EU is not entirely responsible for excessive interfering laws the the problem does originate there. There is the infamous banana directive. Keith Vaz, one time European Minister, told a bare faced lie and claimed it never existed. This was directive 2257/94. He suggested that anyone who believed this was an idiot.

The EU legislated that 65% of cigarette packages must be covered by health warnings. I disagree with it. You can a Ukiper and agree with the law but not with the fact that an EU directive ordered all member state to do it. The British Government has gone further and decided to introduce plain packaging. The problem started in the EU but was exacerbated by the British Government. Admittedly the problem could have originated in the UK even if the UK was not in the European Union. Some people see plain packaging as desirable. Fair enough but it should be for the member states.

I am against the EU for not especially nationalistic reasons. Nations are not eternal. Their boundaries can change. Nations can join together and split apart. The EU is too large and unwieldy to be a nation. They talk about unity in diversity but that is a contradiction in terms. Despite this talk of diversity the EU wants to impose uniformity.



Europhiles often deliberately confuse Europe the place with the European project. The United Kingdom always has been part of Europe and will continue to be part of it even if the EU is dissolved. Europe is a continent. The European Union is a political entity. Some EU territory is in the Caribbean and some of it is in the Pacific Ocean. It is not geographically contiguous. It was deeply frustrating to explain to children what the Continent of Europe was and then the European Union was because then Tony Blair would always elide them. He undid all my good work. He was staggeringly ignorant and talked about Kosovo being ”almost on the very borders of Europe”. Kosovo is hundreds of kilometres inside Europe.

Europe consists of up to 45 countries. Azerbaijan is part of Europe. It is hosting the European Games! Only 27 of those 45 lands are in the European Union.

Part of the problem is the map image. Just because countries are adjacent to each other does not mean they are all that similar or should unite. Australia is very close to Indonesia but is much more similar to New Zealand. The United Kingdom has more in common with Canada than SLovakia but is closer to Slovakia.

Europhiles try to suggest that eurorealists hate all things foreign. They imply that anyone who has ever eaten pizza should be a europhile. You do not need to like the EU to like aspects of the cultures of other EU member states. Some people may happen not to like anything of the cultures of other EU countries. That is their choice. African or Latin American things make be more palatable to them.

As it happens I like Italian opera, French wine and German sausages. I admire countries like Germany for having a superb education that produces people able to speak good ENglish. There are cycle paths everywhere, the environment is clean, there economy grows steadily and crime is low. I do not like everything about Germany as it is overly regulated and taxes are too high. The Federal Republic of Germany is a very admirable country.

My favourite foreign country is Italy despite is poor record on governance. I spent more of last year than I did in the British Isles. I like their relaxed attitude. The British are often uptight and judgmental. I have flitted around the globe. That is vivid testament to my global outlook.  Yet self-righteous and ignorant EU bigots have the gall to call me a Little Englander. I am not even English.

I approve of the metric system. I have no kneejerk reaction against things that emanate from mainland European. The metric system is far more logical than the imperial system. The metric system long predates the EU. Almost every country in the world uses it. Europhiles try to represent the adoption of the metric system as being a triumph for the EU.



Edward Heath led the United Kingdom into the Common Market – as it was known – in 1973. The European Economic Community (Common Market) was a good thing. The EEC was very good until 1993 when it turned into the European Union. I opposed the Maastricht Treaty as a child. The EEC was not so much the EU redux as a fundamentally different type of organisation. Something good mutated into something undesirable.

Heath issued a written statement in 1973 saying that joining the EEC involved ”no loss of essential national sovereignty. ” Much of this hangs on the word essential. Years later he said he always envisaged the single currency. In 1973 he vigorously denied that any such plan existed. At first there was little change and the few changes there were were all positive.

It became patent with the Factortame case in 1986 that EEC law trumped British law. He was told by judges that European laws would be like an incoming tide. I am not a fanatic. A certain level of integration is acceptable. But it went too far. What happened between 1973 and 1993 was not inevitable. At some point one could have reached a reasonable level of integration and then stopped. But no the eurofanatics were determined to press on.

Eu extremists like Charles Kennedy, Lord Heseltine and Lord Mandelson are openly contemptuous of democracy. They believe most people should not be allowed any choice. They warned us of the horrendous consequences of not joining the Euro. It would wreck the economy. Compare the British economy to that of Euro zone countries like Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Portugal and even France. They all have parlous economies and massive unemployment. The Euro has done them no favours. There are Eurozone countries that are doing well but that could be despite and not because of the Euro. The onus is on those who propose abolishing sterling to demonstrate that this is needful and sage. Because they have tried to intimidate us before and because they have been so mendacious we should not trust these arrogant grandees. The fact that they are grandees does not, in itself, make their opinion wrong. I call them this because they are haughty and feel contempt for the majority that disagrees with them.



Much europhilia is based on fear. I remember a speaker for the European Foundation, Mr Walter, saying that the EU guaranteed peace and implying that without it there would be war. The opposite is the case. Pushing integration too far or indeed resisting independence movements usually leads to conflict. Nick Clegg other mendacious EU publicists say that it would be economically ruinous to leave the EU. Greenland with a tiny population and no natural resources left the EU and has done well. There will be a derisory snort from the chauvinists in the EU. They sneer at countries with small populations like Greenland. There is an ugly streak of contempt for such countries among EU enthusiasts. Much europhilia is megalomania. The EU must get bigger and bigger. They boast of 500 000 000 people! They want eternal expansion. This drang nach osten (urge to the east) is one of the things that caused this internecine conflict in the Ukraine. EU fanatics wants more countries and poorer countries to join the EU. They want lands without an independent judiciary and with endemic corruption to join the European Union. There is much I like about Turkey but I do not want to be united with Turkey for many reasons such as those adumbrated hereinbefore.

Look at prosperous countries outside the EU like Norway and Switzerland. Norway has oil which is partly why she is so affluent. She also has fishing right till 200 miles off her coast. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have to share their fish stocks with all EU states. Switzerland has no natural resources to speak of and has thrived outside the EU.

When EU extremists are devoid of rationale arguments they resort to contumely. They call UKIP Nazis. They overlook the fact the EU was a brainchild of the Nazi Party. That is not to say that most EU enthusiasts are Nazis. However, there is no question that some europhiles have been Nazis. Sir Oswald Moseley was the leader of the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists. He was an outspoken advocate of European integration. His autobiography is peppered with the refrain Europe a nation.

Much drivel is talked about influence in the EU. The United Kingdom has about 8% of the votes in the European Union. Laws most people in the United Kingdom are continually imposed on the UK. Europhiles say if the UK left the EU  then the United Kingdom would still have to obey EU regulations to sell into the EU. It is true that goods and services sold to the EU would have to abide by EU rules but that is true of any market. The United Kingdom has to obey Chinese laws when selling to China and American laws when selling to the USA. That is across border trade. But the UK has to obey EU rules even for things that are sold and done within the United Kingdom. The EU deliberately conflates trade with political union. The United Kingdom has always trades with mainland Europe long before political union was thought of. The UK Trades with Brazil but does not unite with Brazil. The UK trades with Japan but we do not need a political union with Japan. EU propagandists always try to conflate the mercantile with the political. The briskly assume that to trade you need the same laws and courts when this is specious.

They want ever closer union as the preamble to the Treaty of Rome states. This is the monomania of EU extremists. They want more and more integration. They want to make all countries the same. EU directives from Brussels go out and member states must put them into their domestic law. They want most of the laws to be the same in the end.  There is always mission creep. The EU wants to grab more and more power. The EU is always looking for excuses to control more facets of life in EU member states. If it is foot and mouth disease; terrorism or the economic crash the EU sees these events and opportunities to demand more control over member states.

It is richly ironic that some EU extremists say that pulling out of the EU would cause a war. Many of these bigots are those who were desperate for war in the past. Barroso supported the war in Iraq. We all know about Blair and Iraq but he also wanted to the UK to get involved in the Syrian Civil War!  Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all supported the bombing of Libya as did eurofanatics like Francois Hollande. UKIP has opposed involvement in all these foreign wars. The europhiles are the war mongers.

EU extremists use contumely against eurosceptics. They calumniate reasonable eurosceptics by calling them fascists. Some eurosceptics are fascists but that does not make wanting to leave the EU fascistic. After all Nazis wanted to unite Europe which does not mean that uniting Europe is necessarily a Nazi thing do to. This guilt by association argument is asinine and disingenuous. They also try to rule by fear. Their scare tactics include the notion that there would be an economic meltdown if any state left the EU. Greenland with a tiny population left the EU and did fine. I know it is internally self governing and relies on Denmark. It could still go totally independent. There are many independent micro states like Andorra and San Marino. There is an ugly and bullying tendency in the EU towards little countries.



UKIP is neither left nor right. It has members who were formerly in all three main parties. The founder Dr Alan Sked was parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Party. Let me be honest enough to acknowledge something that undermines this cause. He has sinc e left UKIP for the Tories.  Farage admitted to me ”a preponderance of our members are former Conservatives.” UKIP does not have a one line pitch. It has policies on all issues.

Eurosceptics can be left or right. They can be Labour people. Dr Austin Mitchell was one. He was about the last honourable man in Labour. Lord Tonypandy, formerly Labour Secretary of State for Wales, was a firm eurosceptic. In fact he backed the Referendum Party.

UKIP has many openly gay members. SOme of tHe UKIP people elected to public office have been gay. The anti UKIP bigots are impervious to evidence. They just indulge their own illogical prejudices and called UKIP homophobic. I am totally at home with homosexuality. I have no problem with same sex marriage, with a gay Prime Minister or gay monarch.

UKIP wants to raise the threshold for paying income tax. Farage said to me -” is that left or right? You tell me!”

UKIP has policies on all areas. It wants to build up the army to 150 000 troops and stay out of wars if at all possible.

UKIP is about independence at more than a national level. It wants us to have independence in our personal lives. From smoking rooms to legalised prostitution this classical liberal approach chimes with me. This is all aspirational for me – the dream of a truly free society.

It is not a single issue party. The EU controls every aspect of life so that is why the UKIP has to try to regain independence. Sadly this election just gone may be UKIP’s last big hurrah.



I have gone through years of soul searching. The suspenseful time must come to an end.

Perhaps now is the time to find the courage of my convictions and join UKIP.

Conservative Party makes progress with ethnic minority groups.


The Conservative Party has several new MPs who come from visible minorities. Time was that people from these ethnic groups did not feel especially welcome in the Conservative Party. Enoch Powell was a Conservative Shadow Cabinet Minister when he delivered his infamous rivers of blood speech in 1968. He left the party in 1974 but his ghost has been difficult to exorcise. The Monday Club was a Conservative faction that openly advocated unstinting support for the illegal white minority government in Rhodesia and then for apartheid.

Ethnic minority people in the United Kingdom used to be much more likely to support Labour than the Conservatives. This was partly due to income and living in big cities. It is also to do with age since older people are more likely to be Conservatives.

As the Conservative parliamentary party reflects the ethnic mixture of the United Kingdom so more ethnic minority people will feel that this party cares about them. There are also some Conservative candidates from minor ethnic groups waiting in the wings. These include Indra Neil Mahapatra and Bim Afolani. In time there shall be more Conservative politicians from these ethnicities. Labour will no longer be able to count on certain ethnic groups as a vote bank.

Legal estates. Komilla Chadha.


an estate is an interest in land that can be owned. people own the estate in land rather than the land itself.

a legal owner has his rights enforced.

equity can override legal rights. legal interests are a right against the world.

equtable right rely upon remedies. they depend on discretion

2 legal interests in land. free hold. fee simpe absolutel in possession

fee means can be inherited

simple means can by inherited by anyone

absolute – no restrictions on grant of fee.

possession – they actually have it, as in physically have it and are entitled to the benefits.

– legal interests cannot be ownede by a minor.

freehold interests can be subject to statutory restirctions, coventants,  easements, nuisance. licences.

restrictive covenants runs with land.

right of way is an easement. they can be specifically granted. easement may be acquired by prescription. if someone did not stop someone from doing something for 20 years then a right can be acquired

hard to know if easements exist.

licence is a right to do something that would otherwise be trespass. allows almost any activity.

J A Pye v Graham – licence to graze

no formality needed for licences

nuuisance. law of tort restrains one from doing somethign that causes nuisance

holywood silver fox farm 1936 – use of gun sacred neighbour using gun. use of gun was restricted

statutory restraints. act can ban certain activities.

safety at work. legislation governs number of people who can be employed in a building. fore escapes. building regulations. plans for new buildings must be approved. materials need to be approved. floor loads need to be adequate.

alterations to building are affected by these laws.

town and country planning act 1990 – permission oos needed to build, extend or to change use of existing bulding. gven by local authorities. right to appeal to government minister

leasehold interest. term of years absolute. can only be many leaseholds in the same piece of land.

tenant has exclsuive possession. must have fixed end. it can be renrewable. one party gives notice to temrinate.. periodic agreements can be renewable. leases of shops etc… usually part term

landlord and tenant act 1954. commerical premises cannot be terminated without informally. they must serve specifi notice. landlords can only get possession on certain grounds like owner occupation or to demlosh properyt. one can opt out of the land to create a legal interest in land one needs a deed

a lease for under 3 years it is  tenancy agreement d a deed is not neede.d

ground lease

head lease.

under lease

sub lease.

ooccupaiton lease

these identify the relationship f the lease in relation to oither interests in land.

building lease – is a lease in retun for building something

occupation lease – iif you are using it yourself and not subletting it

much overlap in use of the above terms.

someone who had a tenancy agreement is a tenant

freeholder has an absolute and perpertual right to land. he can part with it for a specified period.

agreement between freeholder ad tenant will set out terms.

parties to agreement are named, commencement is stated, length of lease, amount of rent, how freuqnetyyl, how often the rent will be reviewed, what will happen if they do not agree on new rents, terms of repair.

commonold and leasehold reform act 2002.multi occupied land. join responsibilty for repair etc…

this is legal ownership. freehold interest is registered as commonhold land. commonhold association operates. rights and duties are contained in commonhold communities statement. separate units.

rules about this makes prvosion for management of building.

right in equity is protected by remedies

licence. is requitba;e. similar to leases but does not give exclsuive possession. agreement to let advertising be on bullding is a lease.

trust is equitable. these arise when one person owns the legal estate for the benefit of another. parent can create a trust for their child. .child is beneficial owner

agreements can be equitable. building agreement. legal owner agree to sell the land – te purchaser has an ewuitable

selling land is two stage . verabl agremeent. non binding’ formal contratc. sgined

the exchnage of contracts finalises the thing

tranaction is enforcevale. deposit of 10% is paid after this.

documents givn to pruchser who then pays 90%




Это компьютерная игра была изобретена шведским программистом, по имени Маркус Петерсон.

Он  разработал ее в  2009 году.

Эта игра о строительстве сооружений из кубиков. Это трехмерная игра. В этой игре вы должны   находить материалы, а затем строить  то, что вы хотите. В этой игре вы можете летать. В эту игру вы можете играть на   X Box или  Play Station.

Игра не ставит перед игроком каких-либо однозначных целей, но предлагает ему множество возможностей: так, игрок может обследовать мир, создавать разнообразные сооружения, сражаться с разнообразными противниками и т.д. В игре вы можете видеть воду, землю,  а также деревья.

Эта игра была удостоена множества наград. Она популярна в США, России и Казахстане.


  1. Кто придумал игру?
  2. Что значит mine?
  3. Какое  гражданство у изобретателя этой игры?
  4. Когда она была изобретена?
  5. Какова цель игры?
  6. Какие объекты вы можете увидеть в игре?

Adverse possession – komilla



possessor must show factual possession. intention and that possession was adverse

section 15. 1. limitation act. 12 years

for a further 3 years there are procedural issues. then the paper owner is holding he land on trust for the adverse possessor.

adverse possessor has a beneficial interest

land registration act 1925. section 75

after that the paper owners rights are extinguished. this can be found in section 70  of the  limitation   act

adverse possession can be passed from one person to another

registered land – statute made it harder to adversely possess land.

10 years adverse possessors must be there on the land. sec 6 lra. After 10 years adverse possessors apply to lands tribunal. the lands tribunal sends notification to registered proprietor. He can object. if he does not the adverse possessor wins.

Paper owner has 2 years to object adverse possessors. Paper owner can eject squatters. Squatter can apply again after 2 years.

squatter will fail if the paper owner objects.

applic will always fail if paper owner says not except if there is some special reasons such as the squatter cntribeud to purchase rpice or adverse possessor was ill. There might be a boundayr dispute. Adverse possessor believed the land belong to hi.  there can be proprietary estoppel in favour o the squatter.

schedule 6 para 5

exception – you cannot make an application if the paper owenr cannot respond because he is ill . being away is not a good enough reason.

schedule 6 LRA

subsequent dealings. if you have not applied then the squatter will not biind a purchaser from the paper owner if the purcahser paid for it or had no notice

adverse possession can be an overriding interesr. LRA schedule 3 para 2. can bind purchaser if they hhad no notice.




Зорге родился в Баку в 1895 году.  Азербайджан был тогда частью Российской империи. Зорге был этническим немцем. Он свободно говорил  на немецком и  русском языках. Его имя по-немецки означает “осторожность”. Мемориал в его честь находится в Азербайджане. Зорге вступил в большевистскую партию. Рихард Зорге был участником русской революции. Он был умным, хитрым  и к тому же, талантливым лингвистом.

Он выдавал себя за журналиста. Он побывал во всех странах Европы, когда работал, как шпион на  Советский Союз.

В 1930-е годы он работа, как разведчик в  Германии. Советское правительство были обеспокоено, что правительство Германии, во главе с А. Гитлером,   может  вторгнуться в Советский Союз. Зорге удалось проинформировать Москву  о немецких планах.

Зорге был послан  в Японию под чужим именем. Он собирал информацию, чтобы предупредить Советы о японских планах. Зорге узнал, что японцы не собираются нападать на Советский Дальний Восток, если Москва выстоит, поэтому Сталин начал переброску войск из советского Дальнего Востока в Европу. Это помогло спасти Москву.

Ему было присвоено звание героя Советского Союза.

Японцы, в  конце концов, поймали и обвинили Зорге в шпионаже. Он был в тюрьме в ужасных условиях. В 1943 году он был казнен через повешение.


  1. Когда родился Зорге?
  2. В каком городе он родился?
  3. Какова была его этническая принадлежность?
  4. Каковы были его политические убеждения?
  5. Кем он работал в 1920-х годах, когда собирал секретную информацию?
  6. В какой Дальневосточной стране он работал разведчиком?
  7. Как он умер?

8.Какое почетное звание было ему присвоено?

  1. Как он помог спасти Москву?
  2. Что вы думаете о нем?