Friday, May 05, 2006

Britain should be Great

ChickenYogurt has engaged his usual elegance when discussing the World Cup and its relation to the British national psyche. Whilst I absolutely love Justin's writing, his metaphorical turn of phrase is truly wonderful, I find myself disagreeing with his politics on a frequent basis. This is not entirely surprising, since he would, I think, consider himself to be of the Left and I would rather be called a "total cunt" than a "Lefty".

I think that one of the things that I dislike about Lefties is their absolute fucking debilitating misery; for Lefties everything is awful and unfair, and the world is a horrible place because we filthy, wasteful, greedy humans inhabit it. They are doomed always to be disappointed because the equality that they crave simply is not possible to achieve—if only because it goes totally against the grain of the animal that is still inherent in our genes, no matter how much we try to deny it or suppress it with our "civilised" principles.

What better example of this argument than the Soviet Union, or any of the other "workers' paradises" that have been set up over the last century? Corrupt, totalitarian regimes exist because humans do not want to be equal: the genetic desire to be the most viable breeding partner craves high status however that might be achieved, whether through money, power, class or some other indicatior. A few decades of egalitarian dictatorship will not overturn 64 million years of genetic heritage, no matter what the Lefties think. And life under the Communist regimes was so fucking miserable.

It is the constant life-sapping negativity of Lefties that really pisses me off. Let's take this little passage shall we?
The thing is, this ‘thirty years of hurt’/cheating-foreigners-robbed-us/we-didn’t-actually-lose psychosis is merely a minor symptom of a deeper malaise: the failure to accept that we, as a country, no longer stride the world stage like the mighty planet-fucking colossus we were in our days of empire.

Ah, yes. Remember, boys and girls, the Empire did not bring prosperity, education, better working conditions and a much-enhanced standard of life to millions of people: no, it was a "planet-fucking colossus".

Perhaps it is the Left's antithesis to religion that leads them to forget that man was allegedly given "dominion over all the beasts of the field". "Dominion" you note, not "a moral responsibility for the welfare of". This planet and its inhabitants are a tool for humankind to advance itself: no other creature even comes close to our capabilities, so we are, by default, the masters of all that we survey. After all, not even gorillas can draw up a written contract detailing their property rights and, that talentless arsehole Steve Bell notwithstanding, even George Bush has a far higher mental capacity—and the concomitant ability to use it—than a fucking chimp. We are merely animals but we are the current peak of evolution and, like any other animal, we attempt to maximise our ability to survive. Note that this means not merely surviving, but making life as easy as possible to ensure the maximum likelihood of survival. Sure, it is in our interests to protect some wildlife and not totally to screw up the whole planet, but not at the expense of human lives. We do these things because it is in our interests, not those of fucking pandas (an evolutionary dead-end if ever I've seen one, and an example of how selective pressure requires species to adapt or die).

Yes, we are merely animals: and tribal ones at that. These days our tribal associations tend to be looser than they were a few thousand years ago, and our tribes tend to be somewhat larger: they consist of countries of people, except in primitive societies such as Africa, with their own tribal identity and with a ferocious rivalry with the other tribes. This is one reason why the EU integration project is doomed to failure (a fact which anyone with his head not rammed up his arse, and any reasonable observation of the French at the EU bargaining table, could see).

And what of this tribe's—that is to say Britain's (for even if you are a aggressively parochial Scot or pusillanimous Welshman, you still share more with your neighbouring tribe of Englishmen, even the most appalling ones (balance there: do you see?), than you do with any other)—role in the world? How should we view that?
It’s this insecurity that leads people like Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to use phrases like ‘punch above our weight’ when talking of our role in world affairs.

The trouble is, and it is something that is a source of eternal shame to Lefties, that we already do punch well above our weight. Britain is one of the tiniest countries in the world and one of the more isolated, in relative terms; sure, that has been a boon in many ways, both in repelling unwanted invasions and in leading to the necessary construction of what was once the largest and most powerful Navy in the world.

And yet we have one of the largest, most stable and most profitable economies in the world—notwithstanding our Cyclopean Lefty Chancellor's attempts to fuck it up. We do influence world affairs to a far greater extent than is warranted for a pissy little island at the tip of north west Europe; much of this is because we tend to side with the world's only remaining superpower (it certainly isn't because of our role as the EU's whipping-boy) but also because it really wasn't so long ago that we ruled a significant proportion of the globe.

And, despite what the Left will try to tell you, we are not hated around the world for it: remember those ecstatic parades, the signs saying "the British are here to save us" in Sierra Leone when we finally got off our arses to help the poor fuckers? Remember when 90% of Gibraltar voted to tell the government to fuck off when they were trying to offload the rock? And I remember talking to one of the staff at school who was born on the Falklands: she recounted the euphoria when the Falklanders realised that the British were not, as expected, going to leave them to the tender mercies of the Argentinian junta.

And yet, what does the Left concentrate on? Sierra Leone: well the whole thing was our fault wasn't it (even though they had been independent for nearly 40 years before the civil war). Well, we should give Gibraltar back to the Spanish. Oh, well, the Falklands is a geographical and historical anomaly and Thatcher only invaded to boost her electoral ratings. Oh and don't forget that we sank the ARA General Belgrano, which was a very naughty thing to do (leave aside the fact that the most powerful Argentine warship was steaming round in an obvious attempt to attack the British fleet from behind (a tactical supposition which has since been confirmed by the Belgrano's captain)). Actually, please excuse me while I make a short diversion to sink this particular "controversy" once and for all, right fucking now, because I am really fed to the back teeth of hearing about it. [All emphasis mine—DK]
There was some controversy surrounding the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano:
  • At the time of the attacks the ship was sailing away from the Falkland Islands.

  • Though the ship was heading away from the Falkland islands, it had been moving towards the [British] task force all the previous day. It had only turned around because an airstrike on the task force was cancelled, because there was not enough wind to launch planes from the aircraft carrier operating to the north of the Falklands. The ship had in fact been ordered back towards the coast to wait for more favourable conditions for an attack. Hector Bonzo, captain of the Belgrano commented on this move "We were heading towards the mainland but not going to the mainland; we were going to a position to await further orders".

    Also the Belgrano could have been brought about in minutes and entered a region of shallow water called Burdwood Bank in a few hours, where it would have been impossible for the trailing British submarine to follow.
  • The ship was outside the 200 mile (370 km) exclusion zone.

  • Though the ship was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action — on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
    In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.

    Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be targeted. Argentine Rear-Admiral Allara who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of said, "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". Also the rules of engagement were changed specifically to permit the engagement of the Belgrano outside the exclusion zone before the sinking.
  • The sinking of the ship hardened the stance of the Argentine government and effectively ended any chances of a peaceful settlement.

  • The sinking of the Belgrano certainly was the single largest loss of life in the conflict, however it took place after a day of fighting which had seen the deaths of several Argentine pilots. As far as both sides were concerned the shooting war had already begun. The British were likely never to accept anything less than the return of the Islands, which the Argentinians were not likely to do.
  • Key decision makers were not aware that the ship was sailing away from the Falklands at the time the order was given.

  • According to the British historian, Sir Lawrence Freedman, in a new book written in 2005, neither Margaret Thatcher nor the Cabinet were aware of the Belgrano's change of course before the cruiser was attacked, as information from HMS Conqueror was not passed on to the MoD or Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward (commander of the RN task force). However, in his book One Hundred Days Admiral Woodward makes it clear that he regarded (correctly as it turned out) that the Belgrano was part of a southern part of a pincer movement aimed at the task force, and had to be sunk quickly. He wrote:
    The speed and direction of an enemy ship can be irrelevant, because both can change quickly. What counts is his position, his capability and what I believe to be his intention.

    OK, so can we just drop that particular fallacy? Because if you still maintain that the sinking was illegal, or in any other way reprehensible, you are just wrong. Good, back to the main item.

    The point is that Lefties are inherently ashamed of our history, and the society and culture which enabled us to do the things that we do. This guilt has led to the attempted destruction of this country and its high place in the world, and to the attempted masking of the good and glorious parts of our history.

    The single most damaging incident was the despicable grovelling to the EEC indulged in by that fat cunt traitor, Edward Heath; an arrogant shit of the worst sort, a lame excuse for a man who, if there were any justice in the world, would have been strangled at birth. Believe me, if I had a time machine, I'd have no hesitation in bashing the young Heath's head in with a brick. His desperate shame (for Heath attitude was that of a fucking Lefty; whichever cunt let him into the Tory party should also die) and his pathetic willingness to please the French and Germans—admittedly bolstered by the total fucking u of the economy by the Labour party which had led to the devaluation of the pound in 1967—led to Britain being accepted into the EEC under the most appallingly unfavourable terms (particularly in the matter of fishing rights); his actions, along with the appalling mismanagement of the economy which followed under the Socialists, condemned Britain to a decade of economic failure which saw us, in 1976, having to borrow £3.9 billion from the IMF to keep the government solvent. To add insult to injury, the porcine, dribbling twat admitted in his diaries, published in the mid-90s, that he had known all along that a federal superstate was the end intention of the EEC: strangely, he was never censured for lying to both the electorate and the House about this; presumably because, by the time that this information was released, the EU already controlled so much of our legislature that it would be totally against any government's interests to broadcast Heath's revelation (and, of course, the Major government was desperately trying to pretend that a federal superstate was not, in fact, the end product).

    Because, and let me make this absolutely clear, Britain has continued to "punch above our weight" despite the best efforts of the EU. We will only become irrelevent if we allow our foreign policy to become completely subsumed into that of the EU's; that organisation is, essentially, an isolationist, protectionist federation of countries who have long since turned their backs in the events of the rest of the world (mainly because they kept on losing).

    We must leave, not only because it is utterly immoral to remain part of this murderous organisation, but because it sets our sights so low. Whatever Toni's prevarications about Iraq, we are at least attempting to do some good out there: the EU doesn't even pretend to do so. It simply protects its industries, impoverishing both its own inhabitants and those, in the developing world, for whom the levels of EU tariffs mean the difference between life and death. It's non-interventionalist policies—something that the US was heavily criticised for in the early and mid part of the twentieth century (especially during WWII)—have ensured the continued rule of insane fuckers like Mugabe and Amin and, not least by a policy of neglect, ensured the deaths of millions and the misery of many more. They fuck over those who can least afford it, whilst patronisingly handing millions to the corrupt fuckers who murder and starve their own people. The EU, a broadly socialist organisation (although organisation does make it sound too... well... organised for a body whose accounts haven't been signed off for 11 years), i.e. an organisation of the Left, causing misery: well, who would have thunk it?

    We have a duty to leave. If you believe in any kind of brotherhood of mankind, we have a duty to the poor of the world to buy their products, to trade freely with them—both in terms of products and in information—and thus help to build stable economies and encourage stable societies. In this way, we will help them and continue to punch above our weight through the strength of our trading links rather than our weaponry. Further, we will punch above our weight and do some good in the world, whilst still enriching ourselves. The British Empire became rich through world-wide trade, not by becoming some little protectionist entity, allied with useless arseholes like the French.

    We should once more invest in our technical research and development, and become innovators again. We should aim to become one of the trading hubs of the world, opening our markets to all comers, to all countries. The government should shrink and give people their fucking money back, so that we can return to the system of privately-funded research and innovation which characterised the great technical, scientific and engineering advancements of the Victorian age.

    Most of all, we should not say, "come on, guys, let's face it: we just aren't what we used to be": we should stand up and say, "we aren't what we used to be, but we are going to fix that. We are not only going to punch above our weight, but we are going to take on the whole boxing fraternity!"

    It is significant that everyone seems to drop the "Great" before the "Britain" these days; it is because they are defeatist fucks. We need a leader who will stand before us and say "Britain shall be great again!" Were they to do this, it would win the Tories hundreds of elections to come, it would cure our national malaise—which is essentially predicated on a lack of hope and a lack of perceived purpose in, and control over, our lives—and unite us in an endeavour which extends beyond the petty problems of our little lives.

    So, suspend your disbelief: imagine that we are already on our way to this end, and stand up and say it with me: "Britain shall be great again! We will make it happen! We shall once again bestride the world as a colossus, a benfactor to the poor and an example to those that would be rich! See the grand project and envy the people of Great Britain; for they have both riches and purpose and are thus both free and happy!"

    There, don't you feel better?

    UPDATE: I'm still playing about with software so, shoud any of you been interested in such a thing, you can hear me reading an edited version of this article (10.8MB MP3).


    The Gorse Fox said...

    We will be great again, but not as long as the "New Labour Government of National Sleaze, Corruption & Depravity" are sucking the life force out of our country and trying to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator.

    (Oooops, did that sound a little biased?)

    Blognor Regis said...

    From your excerpts Mr Chicken sounds exactly like John Osborne, Colin Wilson and all those other Angry Young Men on the 1950s droning about decline and using words like 'malaise'. All very dreary.

    Incidently, the Belgrano was also a rusty tub that wouldn't have been let out of the dockyard if it was a British ship. There's also the fact that it had nothing like enough life rafts for its crew. Those poor young conscripts freezing to death in the ocean, the blame lies at the feet of the Argentine Junta.

    Martin said...



    By the way, the culture of the giant panda is one of junk food, lone parenthood and dark circles under the eyes.

    Why should some panda bastard be loved more by the public than a single mother from Easterhouse?

    MatGB said...


    Enough with this crap about the "Left". They're not all hand wringing apologist y'know. Wait. We're not all hand wringing apologists.

    My problem with the Falklands wasn't that it happened, it was the way it was set up. Could've been avoided. I don't buy into the conspiracy that she deliberately provoked it, but the resignation of her Foriegn Office types at the time indicate there was a big fuck up somewhere.

    Beyond that? Disagree on Europe, but not on the "should we have joined" thing, really, it happened before either of us were born, it's the now that matters.

    And it's not like I don't care for the history of this great nation of ours.

    I'd call myself a "muscular liberal" or "decent left", but those terms have been stolen by a bunch of wankers :-(

    Devil's Kitchen said...



    I'm sorry but, if you looked at what you believe in, you would know that the EU that you believe in is merely an ideal: the EU that you want will never, ever happen. I will bet you £1,000 right now. And you can hold me to that.

    The resignation of "the foreign office types" was because they thought that the monetary and military expenditure was not worth the effort. Me? I see the rescue of British citizens from a regime no less repulsive than the Nazis as a god thing: but then, I am a filthy right-winger. You may have your doubts, but that is because you subscribe to the Lefty cause that I am excoriating.

    Mat, there is no such thing as the "decent left"; it does not exist. No matter how much you try to persuade yourself, the left stands for socialism, which stands for institutionalised theft: it is merely legal, not decent. As I have said, many, many times before: the Left stands for the theft of property from those who have earned it in order to gift it to those who have not. There is no fairness or morality in that, and nor is it compatible with human nature.

    The Left will not accept -- for reasons that I, as a biologist, have never understood -- that humans are animals, no more and no less.

    We should, for the reasons that I explained, have never have joined the EEC and we certainly should not be part of it now. Or do you condone the preventable deaths of thousands of innocent people?


    Gavin said...

    What a fantastic post, DK. Indeed, your whole prolific output over the past few days has been greatly inspiring.
    A few thoughts re the mp3: Your passion does not come over nearly as much as in your writing, ptimarily because it's evident that you're reading from a pre-written script. I've delved into podcasting this week and my attitude has been, just mic yourself up and go. Nothing pre-rehearsed. Just do it a few sentences at a time, then hit the pause button while you mentally script the next bit in your head. That way, as it's totally new as you say it, your emotions will be captured in your voice. I'm an amateur actor like you (I think...or am I mistaking you for someone else?) so I wanted my mp3's to be ...y'know, evocative in sound as well as in content.
    Anyway, we seem to be of the same mind politically; our only difference in outlook would seem to be that I am one of those loony believers in Christianity whereas you are not of the religious persuasion. Fair do's. (It would be interesting to debate religion with you some time, if you're up for it). Interesting that you drew upon the Biblical ideology that mankind is inherently above the rest of the animal kingdom and that we are the masters of all we survey, an idea which I would concur with, though our ultimate reasons for this would diverge. I'm facsinated by the idea of a debate on this, wonder where it would lead.
    In the meantime, keep attacking socialism, I'm with you there!

    Martin said...


    In respect of Mat's comment, I wouldn't be so hard on all of the left. Prior to the 1970's the Labour Party had a very strong tradition of patriotism, Ernest Bevin being the most influential example. The only current Labour poltician whom one can think of as harking back to that tradition is Frank Field.

    Whilst socialism is a philosophical dud, so too is libertarianism - and just as the Tories will only really rveive when they ditch the libertarianism, the Labour Party will only start to recover when the corpse of the old patriotic starts twitching agin.

    Jim said...

    Have to agree with Tom Tyler (I'm also a one-time amateur actor, does that count?) - the passion in your writing doesn't really come across in the MP3 file. A shame, as you have the voice for some real patriotic declaiming, the kind of thing that we haven't heard from any politician for ages.

    Britain *can* be great again. You and I would probably disagree with the methods, but we probably have the same ends in mind...

    Anonymous said...

    Nah, what a load of pish.

    There's no such thing as Britain or United Kingdom (a near-defunct political arrangement of 4 countries). There is

    Wales and
    Northern Ireland

    It's better staying that way.

    Larry Teabag said...

    The Left will not accept -- for reasons that I, as a biologist, have never understood -- that humans are animals

    What utter, utter twaddle. And can I further suggest that you as a biologist should shrivel up with embarrassment from spouting unscientific nonsense like this: "we are the current peak of evolution".

    Why us? Why not rats, or pigeons, or plankton, or HIV? Anyhow we, along with all multicellular organisms, are just baroque anomalies at the tip of one branch of the tree of life. The kings of evolution are now and ever shall be unicellular organisms.

    "the masters of all that we survey" - my arse. We are totally dependant on the environment in which we find ourselves. It provides us with our food, our drink, our shelter, our oxygen, and our warmth. Our current attitude towards it, is irresponsible to the point of wrecklessness.

    "Sure, it is in our interests to protect some wildlife and not totally to screw up the whole planet" - so we agree on one thing at least. And what is the best way to achieve this, do you think? With a flat-tax free market which rewards only short-term profit? Hah!

    Devil's Kitchen said...

    "the masters of all that we survey" - my arse. We are totally dependant on the environment in which we find ourselves. It provides us with our food, our drink, our shelter, our oxygen, and our warmth.

    In that we live on this planet and its resources are what we use, yes, you are right. However, we have considerably enhanced our environment's ability, for instance, to feed us.

    One can still control one's environment, whilst still being dependent on it, and that is what we do. No other animal can do this.

    Would you really consider pigeons the peak of evolution? They are not even the peak of avian evolution. Unicellular organisations are very low down on the evolutionary tree: we developed from them, not the other way around ("superviruses" not withstanding).

    Larry, you are simply exhibiting the symptoms that I have described: a guilt about the human race and its role in the world. You are throwing up seriously spurious arguments to do so.


    Anonymous said...

    To be honest I'm not sure what Left and Right even stands for exactly anymore. I find myself in agreement with quite a bit of this and also thinking w.t.f to the rest. I guess I'm routed Left. My desire for stuff like compassion, empathy and equality tagged as "constant life-sapping negativity". In my mind that's what makes me "human". Sets me apart from the animals you so love to consider yourself one of.

    Synonymous with being Great - The desire and ability to rise above basic self serving need for food, shelter and a shag . To share with other Tribes. To reject the desire for *most* food, *best* shelter and *highest quality* shag, as a poverty of ambition shared with Apes.

    Paint a picture of leftist EU as source for world ills. No mention of the IMF, World Bank, US protectionist racket ? Their policies far more damaging to your utopian free trade paradise. Argentina as text book case. What I find life-sapping is the unremitting greed, selfishness and blind short sightedness of the "Right".

    As for the tribal thing. Are you advocating that we stop evolving ? If we have evolved from small tribes, to tribal federations, to countries of tribes - why not continents of tribes and finally one big tribe ?

    Lastly, the dropping of Great - maybe it's sign of maturity and confidence. Any country that needs to add Great to it's name is the equivalent of the red sports car driving male. Making up for what you ain't got by bravado and show.

    Devil's Kitchen said...

    To be honest I'm not sure what Left and Right even stands for exactly anymore.

    I wrote quite a long post about that some time ago; I was always taught that a map of political affiliations was essentially a torus. We know broadly what we mean by Left; Right is a little more difficult to define. I would style myself as a free-market (with regulation) libertarian (within limits), I think... ;-)

    No mention of the IMF, World Bank, US protectionist racket ? Their policies far more damaging to your utopian free trade paradise. Argentina as text book case.

    Up to a point, Lord Copper; the US did offer to drop all farming subsidies at the G8 if the EU would do the same. Needless to say, the EU wouldn't. Also, much of their strategy is aimed at opening up developing markets (yes, to US money and companies possibly, but then you have at least some currency flowing into the country). I shall discuss them at a later date (I need to do more research yet).

    As for the tribal thing. Are you advocating that we stop evolving ?

    Biologically, we will not evolve whilst in our current state. There is no selective pressure to do so: without selective pressures, you cannot have survival of the fittest, and thus any mutations (which would lead to genetic evolution) gain no foothold. Thus we are, effectively, outwith evolution. The only thing that would cause an evolutionary spurt would be, for instance, a deadly world-wide plague that only those naturally resistant could survive. This would not bring on an evolutionary leap in the subjects which concern us here.

    Besides, we would still have the base genetic drive to ensure the best conditions for reproduction. Without the reproductive drive we would simply wither and die. It is almost a Catch-22 situation.

    If we have evolved from small tribes, to tribal federations, to countries of tribes - why not continents of tribes and finally one big tribe ?

    Tribes work on identities; those identities have been firmly entrenched, by language as much as anything, and, especially in Britain, fairly immutable borders. As we have spent less time conquering -- and assimilating -- other tribes, so we have become more entrenched in our identities. Besides, as I said, giving the NHS as an example, there is only so large an organisation that we can cope with.

    Also, there are separate tribes even on Britain, even in Scotland and Wales. We are still split into sub-tribes, right down to families.

    Lastly, the dropping of Great - maybe it's sign of maturity and confidence. Any country that needs to add Great to it's name is the equivalent of the red sports car driving male. Making up for what you ain't got by bravado and show.

    It wasn't required in the Empire of Great Britain. Besides, why do people buy sports cars to compensate? Because it makes them feel better to do so. If the emphasis of the word "Great" was coupled with the impression that we are heading towards the justifying that epithet, then it will make people feel better about themselves. What I'm advocating is an exercise in manipulation as much as anything else.


    Larry Teabag said...

    No, sorry, I don't believe that you're a biologist, not when you can spout such total rubbish.

    Unicellular organisations are very low down on the evolutionary tree: we developed from them, not the other way around ("superviruses" not withstanding).

    We developed from them, therefore we are better than them. Evolution is progress, and it is goal-oriented. We are at what is known scientifically as the "peak" of evolution because (although other organisms may have settled on a simpler winning formula ages before we appeared, and though they outnumber us billions-to-1, and though we need them, but they do not need us) we are bigger, cleverer, more complicated, nicer to look at, and therefore better. That's science, and anyone who doesn't agree is a snivelling lefty.

    nsfl said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    nsfl said...

    Excellent and inspiring piece. However, it would have been worth mentioning that "Great", as in "Great Britain", is a geographical usage (cf "Greater London") dating from 1603 and should not be understood to mean imperial might, technological genius etc etc.

    Devil's Kitchen said...

    For sure, but why not use it in the other sense too? People need their gods...


    Devil's Kitchen said...

    Oh, and Larry: no other being on this planet manipulates its environment to ensure its survival to the extent that we do. Therefore we are the peak of evolution at this time: fitness to survive does not equate with sheer numbers, sorry.


    NHS Fail Wail

    I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...