The Bitch, Boys Called Mohammed, Bad Logos, and Booze!

Well Darlings,

We've heard a lot over recent years about a slowly growing trend in our nation's men towards impotence. We've been told our men's sperm hasn't got the get up and go it once used to have, and that has been blamed on a variety of things ranging from the convenience foods we eat, the chemicals we use (especially in washing powders and household cleaners), good old-fashioned smoking - that had to get a mention, the extra alcohol we now consume, right down to the general speed of life today and all the stress it involves. The reasons are so wide-reaching, and some seemingly so far-fetched, I think it is fair comment to suggest our "experts" may not really have much of an idea of the true cause, but coming up with an answer, any answer, they feel justifies their salaries - at least to them.

Flying in the face of the impotency theorists are the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics (for 2006) which show the nation's fertility rate has, after rising year on year for the past five years, hit a twenty-six year high. They tell us the average number of children per woman in England and Wales has risen to 1.87, and that is the highest rate since 1980. They also say that overall there were 669,531 live births in England and Wales in 2006 - and that is the highest level since 1993 when there were 673,476 live births.

Now, was it just me, or did you have difficulty with those statistics too? Mixing up births per year with the average number of children per woman seems to make hard work of it, but never mind - there's more: with 1.96 children per woman, the West Midlands had the most children in England, whilst the least number were to be found in the North East where there were only 1.78 children per woman. And then going from regions to local authority areas we learn that Newham had the highest rate of children per woman (at 2.56), whilst Westminster (with only 1.12) had the lowest rate. When you see all the figures you don't have to be a genius to see the population is growing in the mostly non-white areas and shrinking in the mostly white areas.

So, is any of this good news? I've not seen a viewpoint published by anyone on the figures yet, and that might just be because of the racial hot potato they contain within them, but I would say yes and no. Yes, we need more people to be born, grow up, become employed, earn money, expand the economy, and pay their taxes to keep everything going, but if we are mostly only producing more people who commonly have difficulty in finding employment we will very soon be in trouble. The statistics show the white population isn't doing anything like well enough in the reproduction stakes to hold its own - a fact perhaps brought home to us by some research carried out by the Times newspaper: Mohammed is likely to become the most popular name for baby boys in Britain by the end of this year.

Newham, with more than double the birth rate of Westminster, has the highest proportion of non-white population in the country (61% at the 2001 Census), the second highest percentage of Muslims, an above average crime rate, and the second highest rate of unemployment in London, beaten only by Hackney. When you look at the figures in the light of the non-white population's birth rate being far more than that of the white population, I think only a fool could not see the problems that will arise in the future.

Already we have a pension black hole. People are going to have to work longer, and perhaps still receive a lesser pension. The prospect of an additional unemployment burden and strain on our Social Services on the horizon is not good news. It may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back unless steps are taken now to address the problem. It is ridiculous having so many of our non-white people unemployed - it must be costing the country a fortune! And why are they unemployed? Forget all the politically correct crap talked and all the pathetic excuses given, everyone knows that when you take it right down to the nitty-gritty it is simply because of prejudices - and prejudices on both sides.

The "British whites only" stalwarts will see the solution as slamming the door on immigration and "sending all the bloody foreigners home" - but they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. If that were possible, and it is not, the indigenous population could never alone support the country's needs nor satisfy its commitments. The only hope for a continuing and prosperous future is for all the cultures we have to bury their prejudices and to make positive moves towards full integration, so bringing about a united Britain to be proud of - a new Great Britain. If we don't do this soon we shall learn the lesson the hard way: united we stand; divided we fall.

Britain is changing whether we like it or not. One day, and if current trends continue that day is not too far off, our indigenous population will be in a minority. There is nothing that can be done now to prevent it. It will happen. But if before that time arrives this nation has re-invented itself and come together united and proud under a true multicultural identity like some enormous happy family with everybody being equal, living, working, and socialising across all cultures, whilst accepting and respecting any little quirks we may have held on to, then that won't matter to anybody. What we once were will be a part of our proud history; what we will have become, an equally proud part us.

All the various cultures that make up these islands today will have their history, and mostly they will all be proud of it, and rightly so. That history will always be there for each and every one of us. It won't change. But history is of yesterday; of other people and other times. Time moves on, and many of the historical ways do not work for today. Today and every day we create our own history - it cannot be avoided, it happens, for it will be there for all to see and to judge us by tomorrow. We may all need to make some sacrifices today, if tomorrow we want our children to think well of us.

The future is an adventure, only a fool would waste it dwelling on the past.

Moving on to Olympic Logo designs - have you ever before seen anything so trashy as our London 2012 Olympics logo - and costing so much money? Primary school kids are producing more pleasing designs than these "professionals" - and for zilch! There is nothing to like about it at all. We shall become the laughingstock of the world if we continue to use it. It doesn't reflect sportsmanship, national identity, London, or anything else that I can see. My first impression was I'd seen it somewhere before - but where? And then it came to me, so I rushed to the notice board in the kitchen to check it out. I was wrong, but not by much - something very similar appears on the Chinese Curry House menu I keep pinned to the board.

The Tory MP for Shipley, Philip Davies, is asking fellow MPs to sign up to an early day motion to drop the design. More power to his elbow! The latest news I have is that three MPs have signed the motion so far. Perhaps we should all email our MPs to demand they sign up too. There can't be many people happy with having such a disgrace plastered everywhere to advertise the London games. Given a box of paints and a spare half-hour, I suspect anybody could come up with a better logo!

Finally, despite our present government imposing a staggering 2,685 new laws on us - that's equivalent to nearly seven-and-a-half every day! - it looks as if yet another one will be required soon following some Dutch students inventing powdered alcohol which they say can be sold legally to minors. Called Booz2Go, it is available in 20-gramme packets that cost less than a UK pound. All you have to do is put it in a glass and add water to have a bubbly, lime-flavoured drink with a 3% alcohol content. The students claim a number of companies are interested in producing the product and marketing it as alcohol in powder form is not taxed like normal alcoholic drinks.

Sherbet dab, anyone?

See you next week...

"The Bitch!" 8/06/07.