Dunblane, Bse and Pharmers.
This work has not been published before. Some of these arguments appeared in terra firm 10: 'Bse; the Offal truth'.
Tory Mps Dismiss the Dunblane Massacre.
There are some interesting overlaps between the politics of the dunblane massacre and the politics of the bse epidemic. The dunblane massacre happened on march 13th 1996, a week before the government disclosed there were 10 victims of mad cow disease (bse-cjd). After the massacre mps were scrambling for interviews in the media to offer their sincerest condolences to the relatives of the dunblane victims. Doubtlessly after dishing out their sympathies some tory mps then popped down into parliament's new purpose built gun range to blast off a few rounds of live ammunition. Even whilst publicly mourning the dead, tory mps didn't have the slightest intention of heeding public demands for a ban on handguns. Here was yet another tragedy which had the temerity to intrude upon tory interests. Tory mps sympathetically handled the public's emotional demands for a ban handguns whilst carefully ushering such demands into parliamentary oblivion. No matter what disasters are caused by tory interests the government ewas always willing to protect these interests from 'state interference'. The one factor in their favour was that tory mps had some experience of managing such a crisis. Some of the tory mps who managed the political aftermath of the dunblane massacre had also been responsible for preventing any action being taken against firearms after the hungerford massacre, "The close relationship between the conservative party and the shooting lobby is embodied by patrick lawrence, chairman of the british shooting sports council, the umbrella organization co-ordinating the lobby's evidence to the dunblane inquiry and lobbying mps. A birmingham solicitor, patrick can count mps such as jerry wiggin, the mp for weston-super-mare and michael colvin, the mp for romney, among his council members. Both played a key role in ensuring that shooters' interests were heard by ministers when they rebelled over the 1988 firearms act, after the hungerford massacre." [1] If these tory mps hadn't sabotaged a ban on handguns there wouldn't have been a dunblane massacre - unless, of course, the dunblane mass murderer had gone out and bought himself of set of semi-automatic, rapid reload, cricket bats.
Despite national revulsion over the dunblane massacre, the tory government began defusing public demands for a curb on handguns. It set up the cullen inquiry to avoid taking any decisions and hope that the report would be published when public opinion lost interest in the issue. Over the summer of 1996 a small number of tory mps began to test the state of public opinion by dismissing the need for a ban on guns. The number of tory mps opposed to a ban on handguns was greater than the tory party's majority in the house of commons. The guardian newspaper carried a report listing the tory mps opposing a ban on handguns, "John Major faces a potential rebellion against the introduction of a ban on the private ownership of handguns by at least 32 conservative mps who shoot for recreation or have strong links with shooting organizations. There are 22 conservative mps who number shooting among their recreations:
Rupert Allason (Torbay);
Peter Atkinson (Hexham);
Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster);
Timothy Boswell (Daventry);
John Carlisle (Luton N);
Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton);
Edward Garnier (Harborough);
Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon);
Warren Hawksley (Halesowen and Stourbridge);
David Heathcote-Amory (Wells);
Sir Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire);
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries);
Michael Norris (Northampton South);
Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking);
Richard Page (SW Hertfordshire);
James Paice (SE Cambridgeshire);
Graham Riddick (Colne valley);
Andrew Robathan (Blaby);
Ian Taylor (Esher);
Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster)
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) and
Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne).
Five more likely to join them:
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester);
Nicholas Soames (Crawley) and
Henry Bellingham (NW Norfolk).
Mr Colvin, who is chairman of the british field sports society and jerry wiggin are also expected to be active again." [2]
Fortunately, these offal eatin', gun tottin', cowboys found themselves up against the campaigning zeal of the dunblane victims' parents who generated so much publicity they managed to resuscitate public opinion in favour of a ban on handguns by the time that the aristocratic lord cullen had finished faffing around with his report. By the time his report was published the tory government had been put under so much pressure from the dunblane snowdrop campaign that it let it be known that it would adopt even more drastic policies than those cullen had been pontificating on for so many months. [3] The government, however, refused to support a total ban on handguns. "The government will today bow to public anger over the private ownership of guns in the wake of the dunblane massacre by announcing a ban on almost all handguns. The exception will be .22 single-shot pistols, which account for less than 10% of legally held handguns in brutland .. But they will have to be kept in secure gun clubs. The government's U-turn is a victory for mr forsyth, whose stirling constituency includes dunblane, and who was pressing for a ban, while mr howard favoured a less stringent approach." [4]
The government, however, didn't have enough support from its own mps for such a policy so it decided to leave legislation to a private members' bill in the knowledge that the labour party would vote it through. However, it refused to give tory mps a free vote on this private members' bill in order to prevent the country from discovering how many tories were against the ban. Parliament voted on handguns ban nov 18th 1996
The Dunblane Massacre and Bse.
From the perspective of the bse saga, what is so interesting about the dunblane issue is that many of the tory mps who were willing to defy public opinion and allow a wide range of blood perverts, sadists, whackos, militaristic groupies, and deranged psychopaths, to legally own guns, were also pharmers and had been responsible for preventing drastic measures from being taken to combat the spread of bse.
The following is a list of the tory members of parliament who are pharmers [5] and thus have a direct interest in preventing measures to combat bse. The tory mps who are both pharmers and members of the shooting lobby, as mentioned in the list above, are highlighted in bold:-
Michael Ancram
Robert Banks
Henry Bellingham,
Sir Richard Body,
Sir Nicholas Bonsor,
Tim Boswell,
Nicholas Budgen,
Sir Kenneth Carlisle,
Paul Channon,
James Clappison
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown,
Michael Colvin,
Derek Conway,
Hugh Dykes,
Christopher Gill,
Sir Archie Hamilton,
David Harris,
David Heathcoat-Amory
James Hill,
Sir Ralph Howell,
Michael Jopling,
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman,
Tom King,
Paul Marland,
Tony Marlow
David Martin,
Sir Patrick Mayhew
Sir Hector Monro,
Philip Oppenheim
James Paice,
Richard Ryder,
Sir Tim Sainsbury
John Sykes,
William Waldegrave.
Eight out of the 34 mps who are pharmers are also supporters of the shooting lobby. This underestimates the actual overlap between the two groups. Many tory mp pharmers would rather spend their leisure time on their estates shooting Animals rather than going to gun clubs. There is a general stroppy, trigger happy, gun loving culture among tory mps, "The son of tory mp roger gale has been suspended for firing a ball bearing gun on a crowded bus. The scandal comes after gale told a local paper he did not believe the proposed Firearms Bill banning handguns would "save a single life". The 53 year old mp for thanet north, who does not shoot .. " [6]
It can be concluded that most pharmers are shooters and that the strength of the shooting lobby in parliament derived mainly from the large numbers of pharmers in the house of commons. Basically the tory mps who prevented action being taken to combat bse, and thus helped to spread the disease amongst the Cattle and ooman populations, and who opposed the ban on handguns, were primarily pharmers. Tory mps are so devoted to their pharming and shooting interests they are not unprepared to do anything to prevent bse-cjd and hungerford/dunblane type disasters.
The Aristocracy and Dunblane.
It wasn't just in the house of commons that the overlap appeared between pharmers and shooters. The house of lords had plenty of aristocratic gun tottin' pharmers intent on scuppering the government's proposals for a ban on handguns, "Hard-hearted lords are plotting against the gun ban brought in after the dunblane massacre. They plan a series of amendments to increase the number of firearms that can be used legally." [7] ; "The house of lords last night defeated a key part of the government's handuns bill .. in the most significant of three defeats for the government last night, by 153 votes to 139 peers overturned a ban on holding pistols at home, and said owners should be allowed to do so provided key parts to enable the gun to fire were held at secure gun clubs. .. a liberal democrat move to compensate gun dealers hit by the ban on high-calibre handguns was carried by 121 votes to 110." [8]
The Windsors and Dunblane.
The windsors did their bit to undermine the bill to ban handguns but what else could be expected from these gun-loving, Animal murdering, meat-eating, fur wearing, pharmers? They have cultivated over the last few decades an almost instinctive knack for pushing their collective finger up the nose of public opinion, "Phil windsor has sparked outrage by saying shooting club members are no more dangerous than a cricketer with a bat. He said, "If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily, I mean are you going to ban cricket bats?" He called for mps to think again before the outlawing of all handguns except .22 calibre becomes law. The prince, who himself shoots game (sic), said: "There's no evidence that people who use weapons for sport are any more dangerous than people who use golf clubs or tennis racquets or cricket bats." Ann pearston, a spokesperson for the snowdrop campaign, said: "To think of the queen coming up here and laying a wreath at our school and then hearing her husband say something like this sickens me." [9] That sickeningly over-privileged nonentity on the throne failed to mention the dunblane massacre in her xmas speech as if it were far more important to protect the right to use handguns than commiserate with those caught up in a tragedy. The royals couldn't curb their bloodlust during this period when people's memories of the dunblane massacre were still fresh, "Prince william has developed a craving for shooting Animals which has shocked his uncle prince andrew. The duke of york was walking his Dog in windsor great park when he noticed there was little sign of Wildlife. When he raised the subject with a park warden he was told, "That's because your nephew has been down here, sir. He's killed everything in sight. The warden told him william had shot dozens of Squirrels, Rabbits and Birds on several visits. One servant said, "Hunting is his passion." Wills has been using the private grounds of the park near the royal lodge, the queen mother's home. William recently killed his first Stag during a visit to balmoral." [10] With not the slightest sense that they might have alienated anyone with their remarks, omissions and antics, a few months later the royals were making it known they would appreciate it if the country's taxpayers forked out £80 million on a new royal yacht - even more surprising was that in the run up to the general election the tory's began to play the patriotic card and promised to pay for this new aristocratic luxury. Phil windsor's view that Animal murderers are normal decent people is wide of the mark. It is well known that there is a close link between shooting, meat eating, fur wearing, wife beating and child abuse - for example in early 1997 it was revealed that one of the windsor's servants who'd recently died had made a 14 year old girl pregnant but no action had been taken against him.
If the dunblane mass murderer had taken a shotgun with him then the public would have demanded a ban on these weapons as well which would probably have made life so intolerable for the so-called royals they might have vacated the throne and gone to live in america. It has to be asked if philip windsor is so convinced that the dunblane massacre could have been carried out using a cricket bat then why doesn't the slimey overprivileged turd use one himself when he goes out hunting wildlife? It would be interesting to see him take on a charging rhino with a cricket bat.
Had the Dunblane Murderer been Infected with Bse?
There is one other overlap between dunblane and bse which ought to be considered and that is whether the dunblane murderer was suffering from bse. He was a long standing beef eater. What is so worrying about bse is that it is not a normal disease which produces physical ailments indicating the presence of an illness. The first effect of bse on oomans is psychological problems. Could it be that the dunblane murderer, who had built up powerful resentments against his local community, had been driven over the edge by bse? An autopsy should have been performed to determine whether he was suffering from bse-cjd.
Women and Furs.
For many years the wearing of fur in this country was on the decline because of alf's direct action campaigns and because of social distaste for fur generated by david bailey's poster. Although there was a collapse in the fur industry it never disappeared and, during the 1990s, the rump of the industry has made repeated attempts to revitalize sales. The slow increase in the number of women wearing furs started with the collapse of the russian empire and the huge publicity given to events in russia and the eastern bloc countries. Almost daily for years on end, television screens in this country showed pictures of ordinary people in eastern europe. Many of them were wearing fur coats. These scenes must have caused considerable resentment amongst rich women in this country who could watch the poor wearing a luxury item they could not.
The fur industry has been publicizing fur as much as possible not merely through fashion publications but in everyday publications in order to try and make it appear as if the wearing of fur was now politically acceptable once again. Perhaps the most surprising fur supporter was the daily mirror - primarily it has to be suspected because of its jewish ownership. [11] Thatcher wore furs whilst in downing street. The fur industry's biggest triumph was madonna in the film 'evita'. Naoimi campbell once supported an anti fur demonstration alongside other models but the coon seems to have recently changed her principles.
The fur issue is interesting in that it raises feminist, environmental, and social, issues. As regards the social issue, it could hardly be more ironically that the increase in the number of women wearing furs in this country has happened at the same time as an increase in the number of beggars on the streets - the gap between the rich and the poor has become more evident on the streets. It is a sickening sight watching a woman in a fur coat passing a beggar in the street. Politically, it was interesting that a couple of years ago john major, and later tony blair, suddenly started castigating beggars saying how disgusting it was that beggars made city centres look so untidy - both seem to be victims of bse (blame somebody else). One of the fears he was playing on was that of the rich tarts parading their pussies in the high streets who didn't want their £3,000 furs ruined by these dirty people scrounging money for a cup of tea.
In this country fur is used overwhelmingly by women - hardly ever by men. So why are women attracted to fur? In the seventies i had a conversation about feminism with a leftish leaning, feminist. She was against women wearing lipstick (this was a long time before even women got sick of such dowdiness) and cited the usual feminist cliche that lipstick was emblematic of the vagina. Snore, snore. What was so unusual however was that she saw nothing wrong with wearing a fur coat. Not being an Animal rightist at the time, i began to wonder that if lipstick is emblematic of the vagina then what is a fur coat? If lipstick is an invitation to men to chat up a woman, then a woman in a fur coat could only be inviting men to come-hither and fondle her pussy.
The fact that there are women, even feminists, who wear fur coats and like parading their pussies around city centres, is another example of the nonsense of feminist ideology - the romantic belief that women are supposed to be more caring and compassionate than men and that the Earth will be saved only by women. Unlike so many other issues to do with feminism, however, like the right to work, the right to equal pay, the right to join the army/police force, the right to see male strippers, etc., in which women are becoming more and more like men, the fur issue distinguishes women from men. There are very few times when the mundi club will ever say this but thank god for men.
