Quod praedatores autem Britannia.

One of the reasons why I chose to live in the area I moved to at the start of 2014 was the beautiful coastal path. In August the path hosts many holidaymakers. Recently I was standing looking across the bay to Cape Cornwall and The Longships beyond when I heard a little boy start crying. His father walked towards him and picked him up in his arms. The reason for the little lad’s tears were twofold. 1. Gorse – the sharp needles were the cause of the tears and 2. The short trousers the boy was wearing. This little drama took me back to the early 1960s when on the same Cornish coast path I was the tearful little boy and my Dad picked me up for exactly the same reason.
Walking coast paths was something my late parents enjoyed and that enjoyment has been inherited by me. As a result I am to found on that particular stretch of path most days. Another creature to be found, not on the path but flying and often hovering above or in close vicinity to it is the little bird defending the lady’s modesty in the image above.
Of course, defending is something kestrels are not known for. Attacking yes. This is because the kestrel is a “bird of prey” – a predator.
The term predator is actually quite recent. It came into the English language in the 1920s. It derives from the Latin “praedator” meaning plunderer, from “praedat” meaning “seized as plunder” from the verb “praedari”. The plural of “praedator” is of course, “praedatores”.
Thus the title of today’s article translates into English as, “The plunderers of Britain.”
We have put together the above image to make a point.
Both creatures – the young lady and the kestrel – are predators in the conventionally accepted sense of that term; meaning they are meat eaters. Whereas the kestrel detects and seizes it’s prey above the Cornish coast, the young lady will doubtless sally forth to a supermarket or a butcher and purchase meat that has already been killed and cut up prior to her cooking and consuming same.
Now whilst we could continue to make comparisons, the British Gazette seeks to make one in particular: the degree of thought that goes into the predatory actions of both creatures. In the young lady’s case, she will first chose which meant purveyor she will visit. She will then choose the type of meat, the type of joint and then make a decision between joints. She then takes the said joint back to her home and cooks same before eating.
The kestrel does not do any of this. It sees a suitably sized victim, swoops down, kills it and eats it!
In other words; a lot of thought goes into the young lady’s meat acquisition, little if any goes into the kestrel’s. It is DNA encoded instinct in it’s case.
And that is the point: Being human involves using what Hercule Poirot called “the little grey cells”.
Now of course, the British Gazette’s many feminist critics will be enraged that it’s Editor has the brazen gall to place an image that they will condemn as sexually explicit and degrading to women.
These women will be ignored.
The point we are seeking to make gentlemen, is that the image of this attractive unclad young lady, in the position she is in may well cause certain thoughts to occur in your brains. And that remakes the point: Humans do a lot of thinking about sex. Animals don’t!
As it is with “inter-gender activities” (to use a PC phrase) so it is with predation!
We humans put a lot of thought into predation. Of which the size and complexity of the meat supply chain from the EU’s phrase, “from farm to fork” illustrates.
This brings us to describe another difference between human beings and kestrels. Kestrels are not known for cannibalism. Humans are.
Now of course, happily, human cannibalism is a minority activity. However humans commonly and widely prey upon each other. This predatory activity however generally does not end in death or physical injury. It often does however end in financial injury to many victims!
Another major difference between kestrels and human beings is that kestrels hunt singly. Humans generally hunt in groups.
When humans hunt, they often use traps. These can be physical to catch creatures such as squirrels. They are often psychological – to entrap their victim. Examples of course are “con-men” who exploit their victim’s gullibility and often greed.
In his blogposts today (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86576) and yesterday (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86575), Dr. North continues to point out with forensic details the folly of the statements made by so many on the topic of Brexit and the Brexit process.
In the past, the web-pages of the British Gazette have commented and speculated upon the possible reasons for the extraordinary paucity of common sense involved in the statements from the government and it’s supporters.
We have suggested that these folk may either be fools or frauds. But not both, as one by definition excludes the other.
Thus the British Gazette asks this question: Who would gain from a crash Brexit?
This is a much more difficult question than it’s corollary: Who would loose from a crash Brexit?
Clearly, so far as the corollary question is concerned, the big political losers of a crash Brexit would be the Tories and UKIP!
Of course, the political cost will be as nothing when compared with the economic costs borne by so many businesses, workers and consumers!
So, we come back to the question: Who would gain from a crash Brexit?
Clearly, the big political winner would be the Liberal Democratic Party!
The Lib-Dems would clearly gain in terms of electoral success. But this begs the question: Who would gain from the economic turmoil thus created?
Well we can detect clues by examining some events in history.
British Gazette readers will recall their history lessons in school and/or college where they learned of the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic. Following Germany’s inability to pay the gigantic reparations demanded by the allies following WWI, between June 1921 and January 1924, the German mark suffered hyperinflation. This was caused by the Germans effectively printing the money to pay the allies. During this period French and Belgian troops occupied the Rhineland and the Ruhr.
One of the lesser reported events – outside Germany that is – was what in English was known as “the Sack of Germany.”
The Sack of Germany in the 1920’s was most unlike the Sack of Rome which occurred on 24th August, 410AD when the city was attacked by the Visigoths led by King Alaric. Instead, encouraged by the worthless German currency, many Americans travelled to Germany and with their strong US $, purchased all manner of art treasures. They also purchased other types of assets including businesses.
It has been predicted by some that should there be a train crash Brexit, foreign individuals, foreign businesses and other foreign corporate investors will take a “once in a generation” opportunity to acquire British assets and companies “on the cheap”.
These are the persons and entities who would gain from a crash Brexit!