Every year in this country, a story emerges that some stupid organisation or other has just ‘banned Easter’. The general clockwork media template goes like this:
- Institution X is reported to have ‘banned’ Easter by removing all reference to the word and its associated Christian meanings from its products, buildings or services.
- Outraged Christians and conservatives register public complaints and protests against Institution X, threatening boycotts, often saying the measure has only been applied to appease Muslims.
- Institution X denies it has attempted to ‘ban Easter’ at all, saying its intentions and activities have been ‘misreported’.
- Closer examination reveals the meaning of Easter has indeed been obscured or tampered with, but not in quite the precise way the media first described, thereby allowing Institution X leeway to deny what has substantially just occurred on a mere technicality. As today’s mainstream media are largely biased against Christianity, most outlets then report this sanitised line as being the ‘truth’.
This year’s lucky Institution X chosen to act as an exemplary illustration was an obscure primary school near Southampton.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
One Wind Farm £1 Billion Subsidy – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, your new MP, your local vicar, online media and friends online. Start a local campaign. We have over 200 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
Reform just six points off becoming biggest party, says election predictor
The state of British politics:
Reform:
Kemi Badenoch is horrid
Putin is admirable
Send in the Royal Navy
Labour Party:
Mission driven government: ‘Missions are designed to set bold visions for change, inspiring collaboration across the system and society to break down silos and work towards a common goal. They represent the ultimate purpose of the government, and the story it aims to tell by the end of the parliament.’ Eh?
Conservative Party:
Reform are cheating. Systemic reform is required. ‘Watch this space.’
Liberal Democrats: Whatever they didn’t say.
Green Party: Don’t light fires, ever
We are comprehensively fecked.
Starmer’s Britain is like North Korea if it was run by David Brent
Today’s ‘Let’s test the water’ popular poll. Which style of management is better?
Upvote:
Downvote:
1. Clarify vision and direction • Define the ambition and priority outcomes of each mission before the spending review: either by clarifying, building on or restating the specific goals in the manifesto. • Deliver some immediate, short-term confidence building measures – including Labour’s ‘First Steps’: the missions are a political project, and must start to make a tangible difference to peoples’ lives quickly. Unless they maintain the confidence of the public they will fail.
2. Establish strong political leadership • Appoint a lead cabinet minister for missions at the centre of government: providing the direction and challenge across government. • Appoint a lead secretary of state for each mission: with clear accountability for who is responsible for overseeing delivery. • Establish a mission leadership group for each mission: responsible for developing and enacting a shared strategy. • Create a Mission Strategy Board to oversee and broker between missions: and to act as the ultimate decision making forum for trade-offs within and between missions.
3. Develop a strategy – underpinned by the money needed to deliver • Undertake a series of ‘where are we now?’ reviews: to build the evidence base and set the baseline for where key priorities are starting from. • Develop five Mission Strategies: honing and iterating the approach. • Reform the spending review to budget for missions: putting cash behind the missions by funding a coherent strategy, not a series of disconnected initiatives.
4. Break down barriers to cross-government work • Build cross-cutting Mission Strategy Teams: to support each mission leadership group and owning the shared strategy. • Identify and dismantle barriers to working between departments: making it easier to work together on shared problems or priorities. • Reflect the missions in devolution deals, single settlements and intergovernmental relations: incentivising a shared approach between layers of government.
5. Open up more to partnership with the private sector, civil society and wider public sector • Create opportunities for the private sector and civil society to contribute to mission development: ensuring relevant leaders bring in delivery expertise and challenge for the government • Use a range of deliberative engagement methods to involve citizens early: supporting departments to try different approaches • Use red teams to test plans: facilitating learning and iterating on mission plans • Establish expert adviser networks: amplifying outside expertise • Introduce large-scale secondment programmes in each mission: building multidisciplinary teams across departments.
“Net Zero fines ‘set to drive up price of petrol cars’”
…All hail to the the Kommissars’ 5-year plan to outlaw private motoring and dismantle the auto industry. Just think how the Politburo Teslas will have the M25 all for themselves, while working parties of proles slave away emptying gullies and filling in potholes with their bare hands to the tune of the Internationale booming out from the PA system sponsored by Alphabet under license from Microsoft. Drones funded by Lords Alli, Gates and Schwab to provide air supremacy.
Meanwhile God-speed to Politburo private jets flying on aviation gasoline adulterated with cooking oil cast-offs.
The People’s flag is deepest rainbow.
Unfortunately, in the short term at least, it’s a win-win for the government. They put up the price of petrol cars, they slap extra taxes on flying, but people still pay. Because cars are so useful, because foreign holidays are so nice. The crunch will come when/if they actually follow through and make these things illegal. I wonder if they have actually made any plans for what happens then? (beyond their permanently relocating to the holiday home in Tuscany, that doesn’t count as a ‘plan’).
“Asylum seekers ‘drain money from Dutch state for generations’”
Pity the poor Dutch… they should take a leaf out of our book, where every immigrant adds immeasurably to the richness and culture of our nation, in so many ways, not least financially.
Or, so we’re told…
Well “diversity is our strength.” Apparently.
Whoever coined the phrase was being quite cute, the “our” being the establishment. “Our” was never intended to represent the masses but they attempted to con us this was so and quite successfully I believe.
The latest statement by the Dutch government is to cap the population at 20 million by 2030…. Current population 18.3. With current housing shortage, health care crisis, etc. etc….What could possibly go wrong?
“Why Britain could face ‘Babygeddon’: Experts’ warning over birth rates” – Britain is running out of babies, and this is predicted to lead to catastrophes, including the collapse of the NHS and pension system, and the atrophy of education, writes Christopher Stevens in the Mail.
The ‘problem’ is not so much a lack of babies, even though 2020 was a fairly slow year for the UK (most babies born in 2020 would have been conceived in 2019), 2002 and 1977 were ‘worse’. It’s also not that many more are dying.
It’s also not that we’ve got too few births per female of child-bearing age. The birth rate was lower in 2002 and nearly as low in 1977.
The ‘problem’ is that we’re living longer and spending longer in economically unproductive retirement. Society won’t accept that death is naturally inevitable. For example, if elderly people suffer heart attacks why in God’s name do we try to resuscitate? If I go through the pain and fear of dying why revive me and make me do it again later?
Of course this is easy to say when I’m not in the heat of the moment. I believe it was Bob Hope who overheard someone ask ‘Who wants to live to be 100?’. He replied ‘Someone who’s 99’.
The problem is partly that most of those that are born are called mohammed and will be brought up to hate Britain, britishness and the British.
If the working-age population is not generating wealth then it can’t be taken in taxes and used to look after the elderly. People on benefits who could be working and generating wealth are most of the problem. Also elderly folk who did not prepare for their retirement by building up capital – but it’s too late to fix that one – we were told the lie ‘don’t worry, the state will provide’, but it can’t unless there’s new wealth to tax.
Apparently, over 50% of the population are net receivers of money from the exchequer, in immigrant communities it’s even worse? Take out receipts from ‘London’ and we quickly slide down the wealth table, from fifth richest in the world to third world status. Unless they’re all bright-eyed, bushy-tailed entrepreneurs coming to build companies that will add significantly to the economy (which seems unlikely on current evidence) why would you want more? And, even if they were all medics, come to save the NHS, their contribution to the balance of payments is negligible, at best, since their pay comes from the public purse anyway…
My father worked until over 80 and I did until 70 or 73 depending how you judge it. He started at about 6 and I was working all the time not at school from 10.
after age 50 I found it difficult to get job interviews. My wife was thwarted by a Riyal Society that demanded a degree for an admin job she was ideal for – clearly their way of legalised age discrimination, perhaps also to filter out non lefties.
We need a better arrangement for employers and workers so work changes can be made later in life without the difficulties presented by employment law.
My dad worked until he was 89 and basically no longer able to work for health reasons. I think it kept him in good shape physically, mentally and emotionally. He “retired” at the “normal” retirement age and did part time jobs for the next 25 years. It worked for him. I don’t know what I will do – I have no firm plans other than to keep working for as long as I find it helpful. I am lucky in that I can work part time if I want to, which I have started doing. We have quite a few staff working part time – some seniors and others who have made a lifestyle choice for other reasons. It works for us – and we want to keep good people.
This always mystifies me…
First of all, why is it apparently such a shock that people born in the baby boom 60-80 years ago are just now reaching their 60s and 80s? If only there had been some way to know, so that we might have planned for it. A census every decade, or something, perhaps?
And then again, those in their 60s and 89s will be dead soon, mostly in the next 20 years, or sooner with a decent cold snap… releasing all that money they’re hoarding.
So, why do we need to relentlessly add to the population? Even yeast knows perpetual growth is not sustainable.
We seemed to do perfectly well with the population we had 50 years ago. Indeed going even further back, in Victorian era, with a population of just 18 million we conquered and held territory across the globe…
Why should such a piffling amount of snow make the news headlines? Its winter ffs!
I couldn’t agree more Dinger. Manchester Airport is shut apparently and I doubt there is more than a dust covering at Ringway. I suppose the fear factor has to be invoked at any and every opportunity.
Absolute Bollox.
Ah, well, you see, we weren’t expecting it because global boiling.