Gary Monro’s blog

Spam problems here are giving me a bit of a headache so I’m trying out a new location.

Read more of my usual rubbish here:

http://englishconservative.blogspot.com/

Lynette Burrows, a family campaigner, has had a visit from our (are they really ours anymore?) boys in blue regarding a comment she made on a live radio show.

From the Daily Telegraph:

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. “It is a risk,” she said. “You would not give a small girl to two men.”

A member of the public complained and a homophobic incident was recorded against her. A social worker police officer was sent round to lean on Ms Burrows. The officer apparently explained that

…it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.

Our increasingly spineless police authorities explained this piece of totalitarian intimidation thus:

A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were “priority crimes”.

It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. “It is all about reassuring the community,” said the spokesman. “We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.

“All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed.”

So: no crime, no laws broken, no charges. But you still get a police visit for expressing an opinion. Evidently this ‘assuring the community’ garbage is - as one might expect these days - only about assuring some sections of the community. The others can go to hell.

And some of you want these people to be able to lock us up for 90 days without charge?

Push for more Tory women MPs will be based on merit

Where, if that Telegraph headline is going to make logical sense, then being ‘female’ is going to have to be considered a ‘merit’.

I’ve hardly started campaigning for the local elections yet and now I find my future ambition kicked in the crutch already. See what happens when you’re exposed as a Davis supporter?

Thanks Dave.

Well, those of us who supported David Davis and who hoped ardently for his victory will be feeling a bit hung-over after the Conservative Party’s leadership contest result.

We believe our man had the gravitas, the punch, the experience and the maturity of his years to be New Labour’s Grim Reaper whilst also believing that Mr Cameron lacked all these qualities - and that he may continue to lack them for the foreseeable future.

Criticism of Mr Cameron wasn’t necessarily personal. If the Conservative Party was looking for an image make-over - that ‘change’ we have been endlessly told we need - then David Cameron was a good choice. He’s young, he’s got a nice family, he won’t frighten the horses and has banged on so much about how we’ve got to change and be compassionate that, maybe, he’s convinced the electorate that that’s what we’ve actually done. Further, Mr Cameron isn’t a dope, isn’t an incompetent and he isn’t a fool.

Trouble is, in some areas we’re not sure what he actually is. More dangerously, for those of us who believe, for example, that a firm line must be taken on drug use and an uncompromising line be taken with our Lords and masters in the EU, Mr Cameron seems, so far, decidedly unsatisfactory.

So how should conservatives view Mr Cameron’s ascension to the Party’s leadership?

First of all - and most of all - we’ve got to accept the result of the leadership election and support the Party’s leader. Regardless of preference before the election, we’re now after the election and Mr Cameron isn’t the enemy, he’s an ally against the enemy. Labour is the enemy and it is that Party on whom we should train our guns. We must direct our fire ferociously against a government that represents nothing that is decent or good in England but which is, in fact, conducting a huge social trick on us, one designed to keep them in power and us in their power. We should consider anybody who opposes Labour to be a friend.

Second, there is room for optimism. I’m not talking about his maiden performance in the Commons the other day which, I understand (I haven’t actually seen it), was well-delivered and scored points on the government. The optimism I’m especially referring to is with regards to the cabinet appointments - Hague, David Davis and Liam Fox, particularly. The latter two will help keep the Party - and, hopefully, a future Conservative government - in line in case Mr Cameron has a Blair flush now and again. And they’ll give the Party necessary experience and gravity without appearing old and grouchy.

Another reason for optimism is that Mr Cameron takes over when the government’s tax-and-spend habits and all the rest of its lunatic mentality are coming home to roost. Further, Blair’s in trouble because Mr Cameron may well support parts of his education Bill while parts of his own party will vote against it. A Labour leader pushing through legislation only because the Opposition supports it is asking for trouble from his own party - and he’ll get it.

But, of course, just because things aren’t looking good for the government doesn’t mean they will look much better for the Conservative Party if the Conservative Party doesn’t (a) properly capitalise on the government’s numerous failings and (b) offer a concrete, precise and compelling vision for this country’s future.

Mr Cameron must now prove to those of us who currently feel he is too whimsical and vague in his pronouncements that he has solid ideas and a clear-cut philosophy on all areas of government. It is, after all, from these ideas that we would expect meaningful and effective policies to spring. The difficulty for members of the Conservative Party for too long has been that we just don’t know where we stand on anything that matters. At the moment we still don’t and, even if it’s too early for detailed policies, we must at least have a clear policy direction. The canvas is pretty blank and we must start filling it.

The friendly, internal fight is over. The real fight now begins. Our enemy is leftist Labour and our principles are the tried and tested, rooted-in-reality traditions and values of England and the English. Whatever else we might feel there seems to be a mood - and mood matters - of optimism, renewal and possibility in both the Party and in much of the press. If that’s what it takes to have our ideas listened to with anything approaching an open mind then it’s all for the good. Let’s use the opportunity to remove this government and install something a little more sane. Before it’s too late.

Seems I suddenly have a primative spam buster on this blog. When you write a comment you have to type in a number before your comment is posted.

Whoopee. I receive several hundred spam comments per day which, although they go into my moderation queue, are still a pain because, before zapping them into the abyss, I have to look out for genuine comments that should actually be posted.

So, two questions: first, why do spam comments still appear on my blog? They’re coming in fewer numbers but somebody has obviously found a way in regardless.

Second: if I’m going to use a paid-for service does anyone have a recommendations? I don’t want to host it - I have enough trouble finding time to write something on the blog without having to learn about what’s going on inside it as well. I want to be able to easily add pictures and customisations - without having to be a web-master - host my own ads (I’m thinking of getting rich quick) and give the site a touch of my own personality (yes, I do actually have one) - but all at the flick of a switch.

Of course, I am interested in a service that deals effectively with people trying to sell me Viagra (or vi.agg.ra as it seems to be often called), porn, pharmaceuticals from Canada, Texas Hold’em secrets (already know ‘em) and so on.

Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Apparently if you possess up to 500 cannabis joints you won’t be counted as a dealer, according to the Home Office. It seems a normal user might be expected to possess up to that many spliffs at one time. If so, then that’s a rather large stash of weed, isn’t it? What might they be doing with that many joints - getting ready for hibernation? Do nicotine smokers have that many fags (American readers - both of you - note that a ‘fag’ is a cigarette in English English) at any one time?

Anyway.

Has the government heard of ‘demand and supply’? Demand is what people do when they want something. Supply is how the more enterprising get rich - they sell to the demanders whatever it is that they are demanding.

If you want to stop drug abuse then slapping the dealers all over town and going soft on the users is a mistake. The arrangement with users should be simple: possession gets you a big fine the first time and a prison sentence thereafter. You get extra time inside if you refuse to identify your dealer. All David Cameron’s tosh about education is laughable. Kids who take drugs often won’t be at school to hear the lesson and, besides, people taking drugs already know the stuff’s not exactly a health supplement. They consume them for reasons - street credibility, excitement, cool, peer pressure, depression, gross stupidity etc - that are entirely beyond the reach of educators or common sense.

The lure of drugs - and the grip such a lifestyle can have on individuals - is that strong that it can only be combated by an equally strong - but opposing - force. Asking people to apply intellect for uncertain, intangible benefits that are largely abstract or, at best, long-term when instant gratification - along with its accompanying elevation of status amongst peers - beckons enticingly is a mostly wasted effort.

Ask anybody who smokes, eats too much, drinks too much, doesn’t exercise, spends more than they earn, doesn’t save for a pension, puts off important jobs or engages in any one of a large number of minor sins if they recognise that they would be better off if they didn’t. Almost all do recognise it - and some try hard to change but, in the end, we mostly continue to enjoy the moment and ignore the damage. We get some benefit now from the habit and that’s what counts. The same applies to drug use.

The motivation to resist the pressure to try drugs - or to resist continuing using them once one has got over the initial taboo - must be applied from outside. The application must come from the forces of law and order and what must be applied is pain. Only financial pain or custodial pain will remove from drug-taking the sense of bohemian living, harmless rebellion, ‘everybody’s doing it’ attitude, that many otherwise ordinary people associate with the habit. It’s not enough to say that the occasional spliff or tab is no big deal. On its own it may not be. And maybe the user is a well employed professional, with a family and his habit is infrequent so where’s the harm?

But the accumulative effect of all this use is an expanded drugs economy which means that dealing in drugs remains a viable profession for many otherwise useless people and who in turn encourage the importation of all sorts of narcotics into this country. Users supply profits to dealers. That’s why we have dealers and dealers will always find ways of getting their product into the country. It is users who should be targeted. When they are no longer users the stuff is no longer required.