Is this #Birkini ban article about a "social experiment" or just an annoying bit of clickbaiting

This article in the Mail Online about a fake policeman arguing with a birkini clad "muslim" woman on a Southend beach was, in fact, a stunt filmed by a YouTuber whose exploits are increasingly featured by the Daily Mail and labelled "hilarious" or as "social experiments" They are actually neither. They are simply videos to draw views of the Youtube site and reported in the Mail Online as clickbait or to gain comments from the readers.

It amused me to see the amount of comments saying that the fake policeman should have been arrested for impersonating a police officer. Arrested! By whom? As a result of the cutbacks one would be extremely unlikely to see a real police officer on a beach anywhere in this country. And if one happened to be there, I would think that the arrest would be made as behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. For instance, what would have occurred had an Islamic extremist been present and accepted the scenario at face value? Might he not have attacked the fake copper? Or if a right wing hoodlum had been there (quite likely in Sarfend)? Might he not have attacked the woman? Or the extremist? Or both?

Of course the real issue about whether birkinis should be banned on British beaches wasn't addressed (just a pretence at finding out the possible public reaction to such a ban) And in that regard it has amused me to see the number of so-called feminists arguing that is a woman's right to wear what she wants without any form of oppression. But they miss the point that it is the oppressive ruling of men that makes the wearing of birkinis and hijabs compulsory (in some countries) in the first place.

Secondly if an item of clothing makes other members of the populating genuinly nervous or ill at ease, then that form of clothing should be banned without question.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if an immigrant expects to be accepted in a foreign country then surely he or she should do their best to blend in with the rest of society - at least superficially. I do not mean that they should accept the religion of the host country - just the laws and social customs etc. After all it is the ghettoisation of people that has brought about more wars and civil unrest that any other factor.

Not exactly unmitigated grief over the death of Nelson Mandela

While the world mourns the loss of a man who undoubtedly did so much to obtain freedom and equality for his people, it ought to be remembered that his actions were not always as saintly as is now portrayed. The photo above shows him smiling and laughing with Martin McGuinness, a former commander of the IRA and Gerry Adams, former leader of Sinn Féin (the political wing of the IRA). Indeed there is considerable evidence that Adams was at one time a commander of the IRA himself though he denies it now (well he would wouldn't he?)
Mandela was once a commander of MK which was the armed faction of the ANC whose methods of political persuasion involved placing a petrol soaked tyre around the neck of a dissenter, man woman or child, and setting it ablaze. A method of torture even more barbaric than the IRA's favoured kneecapping.
Okay you may say that this photo was just the result of a photo op but it's still a very public display of the close alliance between the revolutionary movements in Ireland and South Africa.

Indeed Martin McGuinness is quoted in the Derry Journal, as recently as yesterday, as saying that 'Nelson Mandela was a true friend to Ireland'. It is a well known fact that the IRA helped carry out one of the biggest bomb attacks against the South African apartheid government - the bombing of the Sasol oil refinery in Sasolburg, near Johannesburg, on June 1st 1980. Nor is there any dout that Gerry Adams arranged for two of the IRA's military experts to meet some MK members in Dublin and take them for a period of military training at a safe location in the republic.

It would be naive to believe that there was no payback for the IRA as a reward for the assistance and it is a matter of record that the MK helped obtain AK47 weapons from the Palestinians which were then sold on to the IRA.

Also when the peace negotiations between the Government and the IRA led to the laughable IRA offer to put it's arms beyond use and allow independent observers to monitor its weapons dumps. Cyril Ramaphosa (a senior ANC member) was appointed, after being nominated by Gerry Adams, as one of the two observers to verify that the IRA arms dumps were sealed. It will be recalled that the IRA weapons turned out to have been so old that they were virtually useless in any case.

Now, while I'm not suggesting that Nelson Mandela himself took part in any 'ring of fire' activities nor that he personally gave aid to the IRA, it is a matter of record that he was a member of an organisation which did exactly both those things.

#Syria - For all our sakes, Cameron should lock his wife in a dark cellar........

......and keep her away from politics and out of the media. It's an understandable kneejerk reaction, of course, if one sees children suffering to want something done to end it. But SamCam, as Samantha Cameron is known in the press, really needs to have the facts explained to her.

Arming those particular rebels will do nothing whatever to end the long term malaise in Syria and would even make it worse. Whatever Assad's faults (and he has many) at least his country had religious freedom. If the factions behind virtually any of the rebel groups ever came to power, Syria would be thrust back instantly into the dark ages of Islamic fundamentalism with all the evils of persecution, inequality and terrorism that it implies.

The simple truth is that it would be better for Syria if the UN helped President Assad put down the various rebel groups and bring an end to the violence in that way.

What is the plan exactly when fighter jets escort a passenger aircraft to a landing?

Obviously I mean when a terrorist threat has been suggested. These situations are occurring quite often now in the wake of 9/11 and I'm curious to know what exactly can be achieved by scrambling a couple of fighters to intercept. Of course it's better than doing nothing but how much better?
There seems to be only two possible courses of action:
1) Force the aircraft to land. I don't think a terrorist intent on killing is going to obey whether he is control or merely compelling one of the crew to fly.
2) Shoot the hijacked aircraft rather than permit it to crash into a highly populated area. Who in this country have we got that would have the balls to order that? Hundreds of innocent civilian passengers on the plane would certainly die plus an untold number on the ground. It would be an enormous catastrophe and I just cannot imagine the scale of the repercussions. The country would be bogged down for decades with endless public and government inquiries, legal wranglings and so on ad nauseum until the very crack of doom.
I really don't see the point in doing something merely for it's own sake when nothing at all can be gained from it. But I'd just like to see inside the head of the person who thought of it in the first place. TELL ME THE PLAN MAN.

Today we have lost a part of our national identity with the death of Baroness Thatcher

I often think that you can judge a person by the people who dislike them just as well, if not better than, by judging them by their friends.

Consider, for example, what was said by Sinn Féin politician Danny Morrison in 1982:
"Margaret Thatcher is the biggest bastard we have ever known"
To be hated and feared by scum like the IRA is praise enough by any standard.

Nor was she a friend of the E.U. She believed that the role of the European Union (then the European Community) should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition and not as a means of centralising government. I cannot imagine that we would have anything like the problems we currently have with the European court of human rights were she still in power. Abu Qatada and his ilk would be long gone. She was certainly no friend of terrorists whatever their nationality or religion.

I cannot imagine the kind of mess that David Cameron and his bunch of milk sop, u-turning and half witted cronies would have made of the Falklands invasion in 1982. Margaret Thatcher was no friend of aggressive, bully boy tactics.

I have always considered that the increasing power and consequent demands of the trades union has played no small part in this country's economic decline. And Maggie was certainly no friend of unions. When she came to power 1979 29 million working days had been lost due to stoppages and strikes. By the time she left office in 1990 the number of days lost were fewer than 2 million. It is also significant that union membership fell by 25% in the same period.

Of course her support of the highly unpopular community tax was a mistake but, what the hell, nobody's perfect!

All said and done, I would say that Margaret Thatcher had a lot in common with Winston Churchill as Prime Minister. She was certainly someone you would want on your side in a crisis.

RIP Baroness Thatcher - much admired and already greatly missed.

There is one man responsible for the riots in Belfast

One man is keeping very silent about the current rioting in Belfast in spite of his expressed wish to return to mainstream politics (god forbid). That man is Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, whose cowardly policy of appeasement with the terrorists and murderers of the IRA has inevitably resulted in the loyalist population feeling marginalised. Rioting is the only form of protest left to them since there are so many previously active IRA members in parliament and other political offices.

Even with Tony Blair out of office they cannot pin any hopes on David Cameron since he seems determined to follow the same naive policies.

Another grass comes out of the woodwork to aid the treacherous Historical Enquiries Team

An unnamed (so far) former member of the Military Reaction Force has decided, presumably for his own cowardly reasons, to publicise accounts of the activities of his unit in Northern Ireland during the 'troubles'

The Military Reaction Force was a forerunner to the slightly better known DET and was a clandestine unit charged with identifying and neutralising active IRA members.
They operated a shoot to kill policy which saved an unaccountable number of civilian and military lives. The numbers can never be truly assessed because of the pre-emptive nature of their operations.

It appals me that their activities are being investigated and I think it's a crass betrayal of our armed forces and the relatives of those innocent civilians murdered by the IRA.

I'd like to know why Tony Blair's "surrender to Irish terrorism" policy is being pursued by David Cameron's government.
And is there any chance of those IRA killers alive and walking the corridors of Westminster being brought to justice?
No, I rather thought not.

There seems to be only one way we'll ever be rid of Abu Qatada

When the Muslim Brotherhood have taken over Syria, I've no doubt the next target for their stealthy revolution will be Jordan.

Then, since Abu Qatada will be a hero rather than a wanted criminal, he will be able to return there without troubling our legal system any further.

We will be able to save not only the £5 million a year in surveillance costs but also we can halt our contribution to the EU fund which is currently subsidising Jordan's "yuman rights" rehabilitation which has so far cost us a reported £10 million.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here with frozen hands because I cannot afford to heat my home during the day. To be honest I don't give a fuck about Qatada's human rights as he has forfeited any claim to them long ago, I'd rather be able to feel my fingers.

I've lost track of the object of our troops being in Afghanistan

Apparently these brave female soldiers try to befriend the local women because tribal customs forbid socialising between unmarried men and women. Their only thanks is to be shot at by the Taliban who, strangely, have no inhibitions about killing women. It's only a matter of time before one or more of them is lured into a trap and murdered in cold blood.

I don't believe that the life of even one of our female troops is worth whatever muddle headed and overly optimistic object that our politicians have set themselves.

If the object was to hinder Islamic extremism and terrorism, then why are we helping the Syrian rebels and why did we aid in the toppling of Gaddafi in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt? The hard line Islamists have already got a foothold in Egypt and it's only a matter of time before they take over in Libya as well.

We should either deal with the Taliban in a proper military manner or get out.
And I'm in favour of the former.