There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

What an idealistic load of anarchist crap that post was. You can talk all you bullshit about British history that you want, but it still won’t change a simple fact of life. While making amends can be a nice thing to do, doing it in such a way that you or someone else is harmed is not.

How classy of you.
I wasn’t talking of making amends.[/quote]

I don’t know if you noticed but PWI has been a bit of a boys club. I am used to only arguing with other guys in here and boy talk can be blunt, rude and in your face without us getting offended by it.

The impression I got from your posts is your point of view is that in the past the British have done bad things that have resulted in other people getting screwed over, so now it is some kind of just come uppance that their descendants should allow suffer a similar fate.

You also came across as one of those people who likes to use guilt trips and I didn’t realize you’re a woman so I attacked.

Borders are boundaries. They are the boundaries of an entire group of people that if properly used can allow that group to have safe and healthy interactions with other groups of people. Sometimes the best way to have a good relationship with others is to keep them at a distance.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The same thing is happening today in Britain. The British are helping to feed and clothe people who are out to displace them from their homeland without thinking about what they are setting themselves up for.

This is true. Except that I question the part ‘without thinking what they are setting themselves up for’.

That may seem like an exagerrattion however think about what happens over there when someone does think and asks questions about what is happening, such as “why did we need to take in millions of immigrants when we have millions of people on the dole”? There are people who will immediately attack them and call them a racist a xenophobe instead of thinking about an intelligent answer to the question.

How could they not know the countless of people who are not genuine in their applications? They must know. So what is their hidden agenda in allowing this to happen? Why is ‘our’ Government devaluing it’s own people, it’s own currency ? ( I am a citizen also, and no, I did not abuse the system by getting married to obtain my passport though I had countless of opportunities and offers by British men to do so ).

There must be something in it for a government to betray its own people.

First you need to consider that individual politicians are owned by big money interests who want their agenda pursued. It is real easy to forget about the best interests of the people when people get bought off.

Next you need to consider that the large ethnic communities that have been created by mass immigration open up electoral opportunities. ie It allows for techniques like race baiting to now be used. This is why Labour hasn’t cared about verifying asylum claims, all they want to do is get as many racially different people in as they can now while they have the chance, so that in the future it will be a very effective card for them to play.

What it comes down to is the old Roman strategy of divide and conquer.

I agree completely.

Then why hate the immigrants? Even the destructive, disrespectful ones ( of course, that is not on ). From what are you saying they are just mere tools. They are being used. [/quote]

I haven’t said I hate immigrants. I was raised by immigrants. The issue as I see it is Labour was entrusted by the people to govern the country in belief that they would act in the country’s best interests. Instead Labour has betrayed the people’s trust in order to pursue a policy of holding on to power at any cost.

Labour has created a mess that already has resulted in bloodshed. What it will take to rectify the mess may not be nice or pleasent but it needs to be done.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
I stopped going to Hyde Park.
Last time I went there to enjoy the sun I was surrounded by women dressed from head to toe in black cloth - only the eyes showing.

I did not feel I was in England.

I do find it disrespectful of people who immigrate and impose their extreme ways and refuse to at least blend in with the locals.

I am not racist but even I resented those women.

However, I don’t have a solution.

When I was in Brazil, British Petroleum had an overwhelming presence in my country.

So did many other American and British companies.

“My country” never felt mine. It was owned by America and Britain. We all knew that.

There was talk of an official take over of Brazilian autonomy by the USA.

I never felt Brazil was ‘mine’ so I left.

Now I am going back.

What goes around comes around…lol!

: D

I think we should all immigrate more.

Si mi casa es su casa. Su casa es mi casa, non?

Tit for tat.

Instead of approaching it through war let’s just irritate the hell out of each other by insidious penetration.

Let’s party in each others house.[/quote]

See I still love Hyde Park, I used to live about 5 mins walk from it and spent lots of time there running, rollerblading, having picnics or having a kick about.

My group of friends in London comes from literally all over the world, they also enjoyed hyde park.

Anyone forcing their views on other people is wrong. The hijab is something that I personally feel is wrong and if the woman is being forced to wear it then that is also wrong.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

You are totally hypocritical on this a few posts back you are saying that you can’t live your life in fear due to the risk of a lightening strike, now you are saying all people that are not White Christians shouldn’t be allowed into the UK. Which is it?

Wow.

Either you can’t, or you refuse to, read.

That’s what I said, huh?

OK.

You, Cockadoodle Do, are a waste of time.

Cushin, you wrote that domestic terrorism is something that you can’t worry about because you can’t control it and you likened the chances as being like lightening striking on a rainy day.

However you see foreign terrorism as something that can totally be controlled by not letting them in. Well short of sealing the borders and not letting anyone in (which would destroy the economy), how do you go about controlling it? Someone doesn’t have to be an immigrant to set off a bomb, they can be a tourist or even born in the country like several of the London Tube bombers.

So please explain how you stop the terrorists getting in without wiping out the economy?

There you go again with your silly rationalisations. Just because something may not be 100 percent effective that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used as a part of a comprehensive plan. Your rationalisation about controlling the border is one of your dumbest rationalisations so far. We should be controlling who and what comes across our border it is oe of te more useful tasks a government can perform.

It does not naturally follow that if we step up immgrations and customs enforcement that we won’t allow international trade or travel. Your suggesting that we would have to seal ourselves off completely is just another example of your hysterical hyperbole.

Just because someone doesn’t have to be an immigrant to set off a bomb it doesn’t follow that it is okay then to keep adding to the problem of home grown terrorists by letting more immigrants in. You have a real twisted sense of logic Cock.

What the London bombers do demonstrate is muslims can seem to be well assimilated then the next thing anyone knows is they are blowing up a bus or a train or a plane. Expanding the home grown population so the government has even more potential terrorists to monitor is not the way to get a handle on the problem.

Again you come out with the hyperbole. Muslims are not the only people that we trade with. So not letting them in is not going to wipe out the economy. In fact it probably would not have much effect at all.

OK so you are stating that if the UK and the US stopped all trade with anyone that was Islamic then there would be minimal impact on the economies of those countries.

No I am not stating that. Again you are twisting words around and exagerrating. What is your problem? What I meant is it would not have much of an affect on our economy. Besides you are the one who diverted the arguement into one of trade. Immigration and trade are not the same thing. If we have to go through a little pain and discomfort to be safe so be it. The muslim world needs us more than we need them.

Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?[/quote]

Erm, Oil.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.[/quote]

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.

Here is a great example of the hypocracy of British politicians. Tony Blair was the one who insisted that no one needs firearms to defend themselves or their family and made it law. But he has a two million pound a year armed security detail. This is typical British do as I say not as I do hypocracy.

Tony Blair is running up a bill of at least £2million a year for a police protection team bigger than the Prime Minister’s, it emerged last night.

The former Premier - who is estimated to have earned £15million on leaving office and hopes to be appointed first president of Europe - has a 16-strong Scotland Yard ‘close protection team’ which follows him around the world.

Up to 12 more Met officers are responsible for providing 24-hour armed protection at his £3.5million home in Central London - even though he is often overseas in his role as Middle East envoy and pursuing his business interests.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.[/quote]

You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is a great example of the hypocracy of British politicians. Tony Blair was the one who insisted that no one needs firearms to defend themselves or their family and made it law. But he has a two million pound a year armed security detail. This is typical British do as I say not as I do hypocracy.

Tony Blair is running up a bill of at least Ã?£2million a year for a police protection team bigger than the Prime Minister’s, it emerged last night.

The former Premier - who is estimated to have earned Ã?£15million on leaving office and hopes to be appointed first president of Europe - has a 16-strong Scotland Yard ‘close protection team’ which follows him around the world.

Up to 12 more Met officers are responsible for providing 24-hour armed protection at his �£3.5million home in Central London - even though he is often overseas in his role as Middle East envoy and pursuing his business interests.

[/quote]

Lets face it there are plenty of people who would love a pop at him

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
S
Cockney Blue does have a point with your cut and paste.
M

[/quote]

No, he doesn’t.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.[/quote]

It depends who you (and Sifu) mean by ‘we’. If by ‘we’ you meant all non-Muslims then you would be correct. It would hurt everyone.

If by ‘we’ you meant Britain then nothing would change. Oil is a commodity. It has a set market price. Britain could get it from the EU who could get it from the middle east.

Same thing if by ‘we’ you meant the United States. In fact even if it wasn’t a commodity it wouldn’t hurt too much as most of the oil used by the US comes from non-Muslim countries that could quickly increase production to cover the shortfall.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.

You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.[/quote]

Again I say YOU are the one who is trying to digress this into some stupid arguement about a trade war with a people who don’t make anything except pump oil out of the ground. Other than oil they don’t make anything that we need or that we can’t make ourselves.

You are so unrealistic and have a fantasy view of the rest of the world. The muslim world is a backwards, over populated, economic basket case. Other than a few oil sheikdoms muslim countries are the most impoverished places on the planet.

You are the one who is talking complete rubbish. If we stop taking in immigrants from muslim countries they have no way to punish us other than setting bombs off on buses and trains, which they do anyways, so we have nothing lose and much to gain.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is a great example of the hypocracy of British politicians. Tony Blair was the one who insisted that no one needs firearms to defend themselves or their family and made it law. But he has a two million pound a year armed security detail. This is typical British do as I say not as I do hypocracy.

Tony Blair is running up a bill of at least Ã??Ã?£2million a year for a police protection team bigger than the Prime Minister’s, it emerged last night.

The former Premier - who is estimated to have earned Ã??Ã?£15million on leaving office and hopes to be appointed first president of Europe - has a 16-strong Scotland Yard ‘close protection team’ which follows him around the world.

Up to 12 more Met officers are responsible for providing 24-hour armed protection at his �?�£3.5million home in Central London - even though he is often overseas in his role as Middle East envoy and pursuing his business interests.

Lets face it there are plenty of people who would love a pop at him[/quote]

Quite true. However he is not the only person who is in that position, but very few people can afford two million pounds a year for armed body guards. The issue is Blairs attitude, which is, I’m important, my life has value, sod the peasents they can bloody well wait for 999 to send someone around to pick up their body because their lives are not important.

It is blatant hypocracy. The fact that he has armed body guards who travel with him is an admission that he knows and understands that some situations require an immediate armed response.

It is outright admission that the standard model for peasents of ring round to 999, wait for an operator, take the time to explain the nature of your emergency, give directions to where you are, then wait for your salvation to arrive in a nick of time, is completely inadequate.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.

You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.

Again I say YOU are the one who is trying to digress this into some stupid arguement about a trade war with a people who don’t make anything except pump oil out of the ground. Other than oil they don’t make anything that we need or that we can’t make ourselves.

You are so unrealistic and have a fantasy view of the rest of the world. The muslim world is a backwards, over populated, economic basket case. Other than a few oil sheikdoms muslim countries are the most impoverished places on the planet.

You are the one who is talking complete rubbish. If we stop taking in immigrants from muslim countries they have no way to punish us other than setting bombs off on buses and trains, which they do anyways, so we have nothing lose and much to gain. [/quote]

I am not trying to digress I am just pointing out the fallacies in what you write, again and again.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.

You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.

Again I say YOU are the one who is trying to digress this into some stupid arguement about a trade war with a people who don’t make anything except pump oil out of the ground. Other than oil they don’t make anything that we need or that we can’t make ourselves.

You are so unrealistic and have a fantasy view of the rest of the world. The muslim world is a backwards, over populated, economic basket case. Other than a few oil sheikdoms muslim countries are the most impoverished places on the planet.

You are the one who is talking complete rubbish. If we stop taking in immigrants from muslim countries they have no way to punish us other than setting bombs off on buses and trains, which they do anyways, so we have nothing lose and much to gain.

I am not trying to digress I am just pointing out the fallacies in what you write, again and again.[/quote]

No you aren’t. You are just coming up with silly objections. The muslim world is too poor to buy much of anything from the first world and they have little ability to produce anything for themselves.

Besides your priorities are all screwed up. Islam is a threat to the entire planet. A little trade is nothing compared to us losing our only inhabitable planet.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.

You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.

Again I say YOU are the one who is trying to digress this into some stupid arguement about a trade war with a people who don’t make anything except pump oil out of the ground. Other than oil they don’t make anything that we need or that we can’t make ourselves.

You are so unrealistic and have a fantasy view of the rest of the world. The muslim world is a backwards, over populated, economic basket case. Other than a few oil sheikdoms muslim countries are the most impoverished places on the planet.

You are the one who is talking complete rubbish. If we stop taking in immigrants from muslim countries they have no way to punish us other than setting bombs off on buses and trains, which they do anyways, so we have nothing lose and much to gain.

I am not trying to digress I am just pointing out the fallacies in what you write, again and again.

No you aren’t. You are just coming up with silly objections. The muslim world is too poor to buy much of anything from the first world and they have little ability to produce anything for themselves.

Besides your priorities are all screwed up. Islam is a threat to the entire planet. A little trade is nothing compared to us losing our only inhabitable planet.
[/quote]

There is a huge amount of trade between the UK and the Arab world, if you can’t see that then it just goes to show how dumb you truly are.

Who do you think designed and built most of Dubai and Abu Dhabi?

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
S
Cockney Blue does have a point with your cut and paste.
M

No, he doesn’t.

[/quote]
To you he doesn’t to me he did and the point was I can’t keep up with Sifu’s long posts and that is in no way a bad reflection on him or the contents of the cut and paste - it says more about me and the fact I can’t follow his interest in politics to read everything - my loss.
I do admire his ability to reply at length and my point was I get bored easily and skip reading.
I thought that was what Cockney was somewhat saying. It doesn’t mean Sifu is either right or wrong in his expression.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

I don’t know if you noticed but PWI has been a bit of a boys club.[/quote] Yes, I try not to post and just follow silently. Every one seems very jumpy here and it could be called Politics War and Issues, : D [quote]

I am used to only arguing with other guys in here and boy talk can be blunt, rude and in your face without us getting offended by it.

The impression I got from your posts is your point of view is that in the past the British have done bad things that have resulted in other people getting screwed over, so now it is some kind of just come uppance that their descendants should allow suffer a similar fate. [/quote] I admit I wrote in that style on purpose, to test the English who are posting here. I noticed the British get very defensive and arrogant when it is pointed out to them that they too, have crossed boundaries and been places and taken spoil. I did not mean to imply they now deserve what they are getting. The reason the British have allowed these people in is somewhat motivated by guilt and intrinsic laws of nature show that what we reap what we sow.
I was speaking of a natural cycle. Though some of you may not believe it.
If I personally went to meet your family and behaved in a certain way, if one day your children came to my home and behaved in a similar way I would remember I procured this interaction and set the ball in motion.[quote]

You also came across as one of those people who likes to use guilt trips and I didn’t realize you’re a woman so I attacked. [/quote] It’s ok. And that further illustrates my experiment with posting that bluntly and my point about guilt ( I am not speaking about you personally, just in general ). I have observed that the British are secretly ( and sometimes not so secretly ) guilt ridden when no blame was implied just fact. It is evident in many of their actions and even figure of speech. The British pride and arrogance when they are no longer the Superpower ( in my personal view, the only people who have the right to brag are the current nation who holds this position, like the Romans once did ) and subsequent resentment over losing it to the Americans, is another indication of suppressed guilt. And shame for a perceived failure.
I am not stating a fact. This is just a personal observation. I am more interested in the psychology of politics rather than the politics themselves. That also may explain why I came across to you as ‘using guilt’ whereas that never crossed my mind and I was merely ‘testing’ and pushing for a strong response, which I did get.
I can however be utterly blunt in my expressions and have been beaten up for having a big mouth, : D![quote]

Borders are boundaries. They are the boundaries of an entire group of people that if properly used can allow that group to have safe and healthy interactions with other groups of people. Sometimes the best way to have a good relationship with others is to keep them at a distance.[/quote]

Healthy boundaries are important and different from a ‘siege mentality’. The mind set or attitude of “Them x Us” is just as dangerous as the people who have no respect for another’s boundaries.

When I read 300andabove link about the BNP I could see clearly how that siege mentality can be bred and developed even if their motivation is self-preservation.

Also, on borders being boundaries, the only reason why I jumped into this thread was because I thought Cockney’s reply to 300’s post about the English being ruled by a Scott who reports to a family of Germans was absolutely brilliant. As much as we would like to believe that this is ‘my’ country and this is ‘your’ country, if someone else powerful enough decides to take over, a thousand years from now what was known as mine can and will be known as yours.

Neither you nor I used our free will to chose to be born in Britain or in Brazil. It was by sheer luck of the draw I was born to a certain woman on a Brazilian soil.
If I should decide today, to go somewhere else and breed like rabbits and become powerful enough to stick a flag on that soil of the earth, my inheritance will give rise to a new nation.

What is the nucleus of society?
Why, within my own family there were relatives I could not stand and found destructive.
You can look at this situation also from a microscopic view.
What were the effects of the two world wars on the generations of British families?
How united and warm is the nucleus of the British family?

There is no need to reply to this post. I am going back to just appreciating you, guys discussing Labour and BNP. I had a sleepless night last night and this is where the action was so I made an appearance when I had no intention to.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Does anyone else want to point out to Sifu the minor problem with that argument?

Why don’t you point out the problem so I can make you look silly?

Erm, Petrol.

Selling oil is all they have. Without it they will not be able to buy anything no food, not toys, no weapons…

The threat to cut off our oil supply is a hollow one. Without their oil we have no use for them and no reason to fight to protect them. Someone will profit off of that oil it just won’t be them.

You stated that if we stopped trading with all Muslims it would have minimal impact on our economy. Yet again, you made a sweeping statement that is clearly rubbish.

Again I say YOU are the one who is trying to digress this into some stupid arguement about a trade war with a people who don’t make anything except pump oil out of the ground. Other than oil they don’t make anything that we need or that we can’t make ourselves.

You are so unrealistic and have a fantasy view of the rest of the world. The muslim world is a backwards, over populated, economic basket case. Other than a few oil sheikdoms muslim countries are the most impoverished places on the planet.

You are the one who is talking complete rubbish. If we stop taking in immigrants from muslim countries they have no way to punish us other than setting bombs off on buses and trains, which they do anyways, so we have nothing lose and much to gain.

I am not trying to digress I am just pointing out the fallacies in what you write, again and again.

No you aren’t. You are just coming up with silly objections. The muslim world is too poor to buy much of anything from the first world and they have little ability to produce anything for themselves.

Besides your priorities are all screwed up. Islam is a threat to the entire planet. A little trade is nothing compared to us losing our only inhabitable planet.

There is a huge amount of trade between the UK and the Arab world, if you can’t see that then it just goes to show how dumb you truly are.

Who do you think designed and built most of Dubai and Abu Dhabi?[/quote]

Well on the shows I have seen on TV about Dubai it looks like the construction workers who were brought in to build all the new buildings were from Pakistan and other third world countrys. Which makes sense if one considers the difference in labor costs between British workers and third world workers. And I would imagine that the building materials would either be locally produced or brought in from somewhere nearby that would be cheaper than Britain like India.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Up to 12 more Met officers are responsible for providing 24-hour armed protection at his �£3.5million home in Central London
[/quote]

OMG. I know I said I would just read but I drive by that house every week sometimes twice a day and I just have to slow down to look at those officers machine guns.
They are the biggest and most amazing I have ever seen on a police officer in Britain! Not even the American Embassy security has guns like that. Every single time I drive by that house and look at those officers I have asked myself: WHO LIVES HERE?! Who on earth needs so much security?
He must think himself extremely important.

I had no idea it was him who owned Connaught Square.

I thought it was a Saudi King!

And that picture is wrong. There are always and without fail two guards on the main door and two more on the other side of the street guarding the the mews. Plus police cars. I have been doing this journey for 1 year and a half. Always 2x2 guards with amazing guns.