What Really Grinds My Gears

Just a general whinge...

One thing that really grinds my gears is the warped diseased beaurocratic attitude of "I'm sorry that's the rules" regarding ludicrous methods.

I've always been pro-active and always endeavour to find a logical way round hindering rules. If I come up against a hurdle, I try and find a way round it. It's the logical approach to find a solution to a problem.

Yet many beurocrats are content to just stonewall those who are trying to get things done. I cannot fathom this mentality of "those are the rules, sorry" and being ok to continue with a flawed system / method of approach.

Whatever happened to an employee identifying flaws in a system and trying to improve it, by way of positive influence? Surely that would be the logical approach. Why continue to roll with a flawed system? It makes no sense to me. I've always fought to improve areas where there are inneficiencies. Lobby those who have an element of influence at the top. That's how positive changes are made. That's how things improve.

It frustrates me immensely when others do not think the way I do about this, yet I consider my logic to be a common sense approach.

-Ian French

The Independent really needs to drop the name 'Independent' in exchange for 'Daily Bias'

What has happened to the Independent in recent years? We've seen the newspaper lose its published format due to lack of interest and then it was sold on to a Russian investor. Now it only exists in online format, that is promoted by its social media team.

But the problems don't end there. I remember when the Indy was a groundbreaking newspaper with award winning journalists and what seemed to be a unique edge in retaining a largely neutral political stance in it's reporting. The name 'Independent' referred to the fact the media group was not backed by wealthy political donors, and nor were the media group aligned to any political party.

Remnants of evidence of this can be seen on the Indy's Facebook page such as here;

'The world's most free-thinking newspaper'.A bold claim which still sits proud for the public to see. But is it free-thinking?

Freethought (or "free thought") is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and rationalism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or other dogma.

Now that may stand relevant if the newspaper was made up of one person's opinion in the form of a blog such as this one for example, but we are talking about a newspaper that publishes many journalistic opinions. A collection of lateral thought from various viewpoints to form a balanced view of the world. Something the Independent was rather good at presenting itself as.

A lot has changed since then and not for the better. It seems to have been hijacked by the self-proclaimed 'Progressive left / liberals', of which I cannot determine much difference between the two ideologies. The newspaper used to appeal the centrist viewpoints, and many classical liberals were drawn to it such as myself back in the day.

Classical liberalism and 'Progressive' liberalism sound similar but are worlds apart. Classical liberalism is not far removed from libertarianism, an ideology based upon the founding principles of liberty, respecting people's freedoms and opinions. Tolerant of other's opinions and their way of life, or each to their own. Everyone's voice should be heard and respected even if some may disagree with their views.

'Progressive liberalism' seems to be very similar aligned to Social Democrats, which is more of a left wing Socialist ideology, and this is where massive differences are found when compared to Classical liberals. Progressives, in my opinion, have a tendency to be authoritarian and intolerant of other people's opinions that differs from their own. They also seem to have an arrogant air of self-importance and overly-moralistic views that they tend steamroller across with an element of loathing.

The Independent seems to no longer have a balanced journalistic portfolio, but rather it seems to have taken the left wing route to appeal to the Social Democrats / Socialists and as such panders to their moral standings. It has little to no evidence of centre-right political opinion published anymore, and as such it has lost me as a reader that likes to read opinions from all over the political compass.

BREXIT BASKETCASE

During the Brexit campaign, it became obvious that the Indy had chosen to be the voice of the Remainers, and criticised the Brexiteers at any given opportunity, often neglecting to listen to, or even comprehend the arguments for leave. It was a time of ignorance and arrogance.

I listened to both the pro-EU and the anti-EU opinions, weighed up the pros and cons, and heavily researched the opinions put forward before I made up my own decision on the matter.

The Indy and many of the Remainers however, tended to arrogantly misinterpret their opinions as 'facts', and heavily spun many of the Brexit opinions in a way that pandered to the remainers, helping to reinforce their loathing. It was an obvious agenda of confirmation bias for the reader's loyalty.

After the Referendum proved successful for the Leave campaign, the Indy as well as many of it's readers, seemed hell bent on trying to thwart the will of the majority, disregarding the 52%, and arrogantly declaring the 48% as more important. They turned against democracy when it didn't suit their narrative, and has reported many times with articles on how to derail Brexit.

ARTICLE 50 

After Article 50 was activated, the Indy were behaving like spoilt brats, crying because they didn't get their way. Brexit is happening and there is no turning back now, yet the Indy still is obsessed and niavely on a mission to try and stop the process. Here are just a few screenshots of their Facebook page, and how their admin clearly forces their personal opinion across when they post the article links. You can almost imagine the page admin clapping with joy when they agree with the article, or frothing at the mouth in a student activist type manner when they have to post links to something they dislike. It's sad and unprofessional.

The Republican agenda

The Indy's page admin also likes to make it clear that they hate the monarchy, and usually every few weeks they go on an obsessive tirade posting old Indy articles that hate the Royals, and preaches for a Republican led country. A common post of this nature is when they post an article that mentions about a republican protest, and spins it as 'PEOPLE ARE ANGRY' or 'COULD THIS BE THE END OF OUR MONARCHY?' with a 'BREAKING NEWS' sense of importance about it. Many people comment that the Republican movement is tiny and futile, and has been around for centuries. But the page admin chooses to ignore these points and continues to obsessively post any Anti-Royal articles with obvious remarks.

I implore the Independent to drop it's name and change it to the Daily Bias. It's more apt given their obsessive agenda and clear political spin. It is a pro-EU Socialist's wank rag, that has descended rapidly into student political activist acts of desperation. What is even worse is that the page admin must surely read the comments section where much criticism can be found. Not only does the admin shy away from debating these concerns, but they clearly never think to themselves that there must be reasons for the newspaper's demise, and as such they have no idea that they a big part of the problem. It's either a case of ignorance, or that they just don't care that they are destroying the reputation of a once great source of balanced journalism.

I wonder if the new owner of the Indy is aware of the catalyst reason for the downfall of their media investment?

Ian French

Why the UK Labour Party is finished as an electoral force.

There are many reasons for the Labour party's demise, of which many I will discuss here. It's sad to witness the death of a behemoth political party and movement that was once a positive force, although at the same time it is well deserved as the members, activists and significant political figures are largely to blame as to why the voting public are shunning the LP at the ballot boxes.

History has shown that Labour are only ever elected out of frustration when the public rebel against extreme Conservative party measures, or the lack of support for the average worker. In theory it could be argued that they could be re-elected again in years to come, however the reality is it won't and cannot happen when the party remains unelectable and a complete omni-shambles of epic proportions ( *omni-shambles. Credit goes to Malcolm Tucker for the discovery and apt use of the term ).

Many reasons include the unfathomable and highly immoral Iraq war that was enacted by warmongering politicians both on the front benches as well as the majority of back benches during Tony Blair's New Labour.
This was actioned after a dubious and dodgy 'Weapons of mass destruction' dossier was released which had been heavily doctored to fulfill an agenda to go to war. In recent times we reflect on the controversy that is linked to shady middle east deals over the control of oil, at the expense of thousands of deaths of soldiers as well as innocent people in the name of collateral damage.
Thanks to the then war mongering Labour party, they helped to significantly affect the political instability in the middle east, while collaborating with Neoconservative war hawks in the US, to help manufacture democracy in countries whose culture is just not suitable for such radical reform.

The term 'blowback' as to the best of my knowledge was first mentioned by the then US republican anti-interventionist politician Ron Paul. He referred to how the USA's foreign policy resembles the formula of action = consequences. And the UK's Labour party were just as guilty in helping to destabilizing the middle east, creating a catalyst that is a breeding ground for religious extremism and home grown terrorism fueled by hatred and revenge against the west. This problem continues on to this day and beyond. Thanks Mr.Bliar for your 'things can only get better' bullshit.

Since the days of Blair and Brown, we have seen other leaders take charge of the LP such as Ed Miliband taking a soft left socialist position, and Jeremy Corbyn taking a far left socialist position bordering on the realms of militant and semi communistic sentiment.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that the further left ( or right ) you go to on the political spectrum, you will end up in wading into political extremist waters that only appeals to the fringe element, who are driven by hatred who are immersed in their own ignorant bubble. This is a massive turn off for the swing voter who make up the majority of the British voting public.
Elections are fought and won all the time in democratic countries and it is usually the centre ground swing voter that helps to determine the winning outcome. Most of the voting public know this but for the loyal supporters, activists and many of the politicians in the LP, they just cannot see that their alignment to the far left will ensure they are unelectable.

The problem largely is Socialist ideology. In my opinion it appeals those who are driven by emotion rather than by common sense. Their emotions often convey compassion and empathy which are positive traits, but are also driven by negative emotions such as anger, hatred and envy. Sadly these emotions are responsible for some of the most ludicrously engineered policies as well as actions and attitudes that the LP is well known for.

I'm not against the use of emotions in political decision making, but utilizing common sense should always be 1st on the list when thinking up policies. And that is where Socialists so often fail as they often think for the moment charged by emotion, but neglect to think about the long term consequences for their actions.

In a socialist's mind everything they dream up is 'for the greater good' which in theory might sound great. However whilst their ideas may help some people, it also harms others, and for that reason they will never achieve this target of equality. It will always result in inequality of some sort and is ultimately doomed to fail and will always be seen by the swing voter as poorly thought out unelectable policies created by a deluded ideology utopia.

Jeremy Corbyn supporters as well as other socialists cannot see this. They seem to think that the world needs to be driven by emotional outlook that mirrors their own ideology, but they also fail to realise that common sense needs to prevail.

Socialists go against the grain of human nature, because we as the collective human race will always be individuals capable of independent thought processes, different ideas, beliefs and attitudes. It is for this reason that Socialism will always fail in their goal of an equality utopia that benefits all mankind.

The harsh reality that they fail to see is that they will never please everybody, and whilst ever human being is different in ideology, they will always be different in intellect, ability and skills. As such there will always be different levels of natural hierarchy and inequality. That's natural cause and effect, yet socialists are so arrogant and ignorant in thinking that their way will solve the problems of natural division, and they get frustrated when they cannot achieve it. This is because they are deluded in their own little cult where they cannot think outside of their bubble.

The idea of equality for all maybe the Labour party's driving force but in reality it is an ideology that is not as popular as they think. The LP will never overcome this problem of unpopularity when they behave like a cult, deliberately ignoring and disregarding the views of others that disagree with the Socialist's way of thinking. And as such the LP will always fail to connect with the majority of voters.

Whilst far from perfect, at least other parties such as the conservatives, UKIP and to some smaller extent even the Lib Dems aren't as arrogant enough to think that their ideology benefits all, and as such don't try to lord their beliefs onto others with the aim of trying to convert everyone. With this in mind maybe a good metaphor would be Socialists are similar to vegans perhaps?

Maybe that sounds far fetched to some, but think back to what I mentioned about going against the grain of human nature. People will always be made up of different opinions, cultures, attitudes, abilities and skills.
There will always be a significant majority that will not agree with other people, and vegans will always try and convert others into adopting their way of life. The same could be said for how socialists try and convert everyone into adopting their vision. It's arrogance and ignorant to assume everyone can be converted to think the same way.

Ironically the Labour party has descended into civil war with plenty of division, hatred, wealth envy, sneer and ideological purism that is tearing the party apart. They only have themselves to blame and the public will not vote for a party that resembles a sinking ship.

Nor will the public elect a party which is no longer an effective opposition to the Conservatives. A good party should always find a workable and well thought out solution for every problem, and for that pragmatism and constructive criticism is key to highlighting issues and offering alternate measures to solve it.
This is where Labour has truly lost the plot. It heckles and criticises yet no solutions are offered. Labour is no more than a protest group that thinks it can run the country better based upon vague sentiment and platitudes. That to me is not a political party but more of a campaign group.

I haven't even begun to discuss the anti-Semitism, anti-christianity and the hatred of the British that is so prevalent in the party. Nor the obsession with increasing the population despite having a damaging effect on the supply VS demand of our infrastructure. It's no wonder the British voting public no longer feel represented by this party that masquerades as the party of the working man.

Whenever there is a forthcoming election and the LP are out in force campaigning and on the doorstep of concerned voters, they convey the illusion of listening to their concern whilst completely disregarding it at the same time, choosing to instead follow their sentiment utopia.

The LP will never learn whilst they behave and act like a cult. And when they shout, scream and verbally at those they disagree with it just charges up more political division and the disconnect between the party and the person. Nobody is going to vote for somebody that insults them, yet the LP seem to think that is acceptable behaviour. Their cult like intolerance of other opinions are driven by a mixture of ignorance, arrogance, ideological purity as well as s on and hatred.
And while their activists riot, verbally abuse and protest against the will of the electorate they will never achieve full support. The toxic LP has took voters for granted for too long, declaring themselves to be unsinkable. Well as far as I'm concerned they are the politics of hate and division, and deserve to sink like the Titanic.