Day 18: Hardwick to Fulbourn

We stay with old friends bang smack in the middle of Cambridge, delightful conversation and great company. Today we walked through Cambridge, the second time we have done this, the last time three years ago while we were walking from York to Canterbury.

In the morning we tottered over freshly ploughed fields as the farmer had thoughtfully reduced the path to the consistency of Weetabix. May his tractor rust away and his fields all turn to set-aside.

We buzzed around Cambridge trying to find somewhere that accepts dogs; at last we found one that sneers at Health and Safety, and Moses was allowed in .

This afternoon we were joined by four supporters who galvanised our walk, particularly Joanna who allowed me to bang on about the five subjects that form the basis of my walk commentaries: sex, politics, money, death and religion. I was fearful of being boring as I wheezed along but bless you Joanna for allowing me to talk. Thank you Christopher and Anthea for loyally walking with us five times. Always a joy to have you with us.

Hamlet and a Lot of Questions

Benedict Cumberbatch was a fine Hamlet but for me he spoiled his performance by announcing that leading UK politicians were “f… useless” because of their inadequate response to the Syrian refugee saga. In terms of virtue signalling and grandstanding on a topic, which he clearly knew nothing about, he is a high scorer. Why does an actor think his views on a subject outside his field of competence are worth hearing? The arrogance of such an intelligent man is breathtaking. As Stanley Baldwin once said (in another context), “Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”

Readers of an earlier blog will know that we were once royally entertained as guests of Angela Honeyford, widow of the great late headmaster Ray Honeyford. He lost his career when the attack dogs of political correctness bit his reputation to death after he pointed out that you cannot decant scores of Pakistani hill farmers to Bradford without there being deep social repercussions. What Ray wrote in the mid-eighties is today regarded as simple common sense.

Now we can turn to Sir Andrew Green (now Lord), once UK Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia. After Green retired from the diplomatic service, he founded Migration Watch, because he just knew that the government was out of control on immigration and grossly misleading the public with more or less invented statistics. Of course the default position of the media and politicians was to brand him “racist”.

If you doubt that, just remember the 2010 election campaign when Gordon Brown, questioned by constituent Gillian Duffy on immigration, instantly branded her a “bigot.”  So that was the default position of the liberal virtue-signalling establishment.

Andrew Green was obliged to endure endless media attacks that Migration Watch was a cover to the likes of the National Front, or that he was a bigot. He was obliged to sue the Guardian and the Independent for defamation, and of course he won. As a mark of his integrity, he gave his personal winnings to Migration Watch.

It is now clear that the Migration Watch has always been consistently right and that the number of people coming to the UK has long been spiralling out of control. Green forecast that the numbers of arrivals will prove to be an increasing burden on our schools, the NHS and our housing stock, and may well lead to social unrest.

The German chancellor Angela Merkel invited nearly a million “refugees” to live in Germany. Well of course these “refugees” have no passports, but how long do you think it will take for political pressure to build so they are granted full German citizenship? Then they will be able to invite their aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters to come and live with them.

Does it matter? What are the social consequences?  Recently thousands of women in major cities in Germany gathered in central squares to watch fireworks. Many claim they were grossly sexually assaulted apparently by Arab / African-looking young males. The German authorities were slow to point fingers as to who were the perpetrators of these crimes on the grounds of political correctness. It was the same when the UK authorities covered up over the Rotherham and Oxford rapes of young vulnerable girls.

These assaults are not the first and they won’t be the last. In October 2014, a group of Libyan cadets stationed near Cambridge ran amok. Four young women were assaulted and a young man was raped. The rapists were jailed for 12 years and the men who groped the women were deported. What was amazing was that a Libyan spokesman appeared on television to say that he was sorry but Libyan men didn’t realise that you weren’t allowed to do such things in the UK. This was an unfortunate case of cultural misunderstanding.

Doubtless it was also “cultural misunderstandings” behind the assaults in Germany. It is said that the men looked angry. Why are they angry?

If you come from a society that is doctrinally commanded to cover up women, the sight of attractive and socially liberated women brings temptation to young men and this makes them angry. This anger is not directed where it should go – at their crazy belief system that says that women should be forbidden for behaving as they wish – but at the temptress. In order that male pride can be rescued, the temptress must be humiliated and terrorised, thereby restoring power and dominance to where it properly belongs: to the men.

This is the root of the problem – but it’s hard to raise any of this without being accused of “Islamophobia”.

It seems to me that our new migrants had better wise up and learn that when they are in Rome etc.

In the meantime, we had better brace ourselves for the next tranche of people where the men think that women are inferior, that our society and our values are degenerate, and that it would be better run under Sharia law.

I wonder what that oracle, Benedict Cumberbatch, thinks about that?