Saturday, 31 October 2009
For a corrupt Government in Kabul and another one in Whitehall.
The officer, who was commander of the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, said in a memo to the Ministry of Defence, classified "Nato secret", that the system for managing helicopter movements in Afghanistan was "very clearly not fit for purpose" and there were not enough of the aircraft.
One of his dispatches headed Battle Group Weekly Update, which was leaked to the Daily Mail, said: "I have tried to avoid griping about helicopters – we all know we don't have enough.
"We cannot move people, so this month we have conducted a great deal of administrative movement by road. This increases the IED [improvised explosive device] threat and our exposure to it."
The 39-year-old father of two died on 1 July when his convoy was hit by an IED in Helmand Province, north of the town of Lashkar Gah. Trooper Joshua Hammond, 18, did in the same explosion.
There is no point fighting and dying for no purpose, there is no point the Government continuing to dissemble and lie, for brave men to die.
Dear Nick Clegg,Thank you for your letter of 14 October concerning the ACA review, which was forwarded to me as Chairman of the Members Estimate Committee by Sir Thomas Legg.
At its meeting on Monday, the MEC considered your proposal and whether Sir Thomas Legg should be asked to extend the review of past ACA payments. It was able to discuss the practicality of it with Sir Thomas himself. Any claims for non-existing mortgages are of course already covered by the review or by police investigations. Extending the review to cover changes of home designation for personal gain and the payment of Capital Gains Tax would unquestionably involve significant retrospective changes to the rules on allowances, although some cases of extensive property renovation may be identified by the review as being in breach of the rules and standards in force at the time.
What concerned the MEC most was that your proposal would require a major new exercise in gathering evidence, since the evidence needed is not within the records of the Department of Resources. Indeed, investigating the payment of CGT would go well beyond the responsibilitie sof the Department of Resources, which does not have authority over Members’ tax affairs. Agreeing to your proposal would, therefore, considerably lengthen the timescale of the review, and the MEC did not feel it could support this.
The MEC does of course recognise the seriousness of the issues you raise, and hopes they will be fully dealt with by the Kelly Committee.
Join me on November 5th and let's see how close we, the people paying for it all can get.
Friday, 30 October 2009
This is WAR
UPDATE: An example of how the money will be spent
Sahena Begum lives in the village of Kanderpara in northern Bangladesh. Located in the Ganges basin, the village is no stranger to serious flooding and, with the reality of climate change bearing down on it, the future is likely to bring even more extreme weather.
However, despite the threat of yet worse floods, Sahena and her fellow villagers have never been better prepared. The reason? Special training sessions, paid for by DFID, that have put Sahena's women's group at the centre of the community's flood survival strategy.
Now, if the area is deluged, a plan of action is in place, as are the resources needed to see the storm out. After being notified of any flood warnings through a radio supplied by the training providers, the women will first of all call a meeting to alert the other villagers to the situation. Children, the elderly and anyone who is unwell will then be escorted to the village shelter, which the group has built on a raised plinth a ten-minute walk away.
Across the village, encouraged by the women's group, people have begun to raise the foundations of their homes above flood-levels. This ensures that life can continue – that livestock and possessions are saved – when waters sweep through.Oxfam's overall PPA with DFID runs from 2008 to 2011 and is worth £27.8 million.
I notice Action Aid are DEMANDING that the EU pay it's "climate debt". Whatever that means.
ActionAid estimates that the EU should be providing at least €42 billion a year to developing countries by 2020. Around half of this figure should go to helping people to adapt to climate change in the most vulnerable countries.
Yup: Government and EU funding:
£2 million from the UK Govt
£7 million from the EU
£833K from the Lottery
£10M from a total of £13M comes from the public purse.
162 employees managing to eat up £5.5 Million a year in salaries. Funded by you and me.
STOP SHITTING IN OUR FUCKING FACES. YOU WON'T LIKE US WHEN WE ARE ANGRY
UPDATE: The EU has agreed to pay €90 BILLION A BASTARD YEAR for our "ECO CRIMES"
Anita Esslinger Bryan Cave March 2007
SIMON FRASER is BERR's new Permanent Secretary. (Press Release April 2009)
Simon said: "It's a great privilege to be joining BERR. British business and the British economy are facing huge challenges. BERR has a vital role in helping the country come through the recession and in building a strong competitive economy for the future; restoring confidence and creating growth and jobs.
"I look forward to playing my part in this effort."
Simon has been director general for Europe and Globalisation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since early 2008, and is an executive member of the FCO Board. He has led on European and economic work in the Foreign Office, including the G20, and manages the network of British Embassies in Europe, Africa and the Asia-Pacific region.
Playing his part ?
This included being on Mandelson's Staff, in fact Chief of Staff to the dark Lord in Brussels, following his master to London when he took over BERR.Though he appears to have glossed over working for Mandelson when EU Trade Commissioner in his bio relating to 2007.
Whilst enjoying the European lifestyle, he apparently accepted two free VIP tickets to a Rugby International in 2007 in Paris from Nike and travelled to the match in a car provided by Nike.
Friends of the Earth complained to the Commission, as Fraser and his colleague had been working on anti-dumping cases involving sports shoes made in China and Vietnam. Was there a slight conflict of interest in accepting such hospitality ?
The European Ombudsman charged with safeguarding ethics, Nikiforos Diamondouros, has found that they were wrong in accepting the hospitality-
The ombudsman found - 'a apparent conflict of interest because it could not be ruled out that the two officials would deal with trade decisions relating to sportswear'. The commission has insisted throughout ' that there is no reason to doubt that the officials' behaviour and independence remained unaffected' by the gifts.
What sort of doublethink is this ? Two Officials accepted 'gifts' from a company that could possibly be under threat from the officials investigations and they would not be affected ??
If you give somebody a 'gift' in a business environment, you are expected a pay back. It is inconcievable that anything that these two wrote on the subject of sportswear should not be regarded as utterly tainted !
Where was the integrity expected of a senior public servant like Fraser and his buddy, oh right we will just made him permanent Secretary at BERR/BIS also charged with maintaining the probity of the business environment. This is yet another example of the lowest pondlife as described by 'Lord' Digby Jones.
The Legal Definition of a Bribe
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.
The principal statutory corruption offences applicable in the UK are contained in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916. These statutes, aimed at bribery of public officials and of agents (whether in the public or private sector), broadly prohibit “corruptly” giving an advantage as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do something relating to a public body, or to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to the affairs or business of an agent’s principal. Although the corruption statutes prohibit such acts that are done corruptly, they do not define that term.
The Law Commission in its 1998 report noted that judicial interpretations of the meaning of the word “are in ‘impressive disarray’”. It is widely acknowledged that existing corruption legislation in the UK is deficient and needs to be updated, simplified and clarified.
Despite this, the Home Secretary has announced that the Government has decided to drop its 2003 draft Corruption Bill and will ask the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of corruption legislation – a process that is expected to last up to 18 months.
Anita Esslinger- Bryan Cave 2007
Two years on this Government has failed to upgrade the Corruption Laws in this Country- what a surprise !
If we had an effective anti corruption Law. Fraser would not be sitting in Victoria Street, Mandelson would not be running the Government and a host of MP's would not be 'apologising' to Parliament like Smith and McNulty, they would be consulting Lawyers whilst on bail.
This Government and its acolytes in the Civil Service have destroyed credible Government in this Country. It is just stomach churning that we have to stand for this a day longer.
If the French can charge Chirac after twelve years with corruption, why not Britain hold its criminal political classes to account in Court ?
The RSA have very kindly made Old Holborn aware of an opportunity for ordinary people (proles) to listen to a member of the Inner Party tell them all about:
The role of the state in protecting the public is often wrongly condensed into a series of false choices – between liberty and security, between local needs and global priorities. In a wide-ranging speech, the Home Secretary, Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP will talk about the issues that affect people’s safety and security in 21st century – from antisocial behaviour to foreign policy.
With Alan Johnson MP, Home Secretary.
Order your free tickets here:
Monday November 2nd at 9.30am.
Address: 8 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6EZ.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
As OH readers will know, Nightjack won this coverted award last year and was promptly outed by a complete arsegrape, Patrick Foster of the Times and had to delete his blog and go into hiding.
Well, this year, he is the judge.
Vote early, vote often.
I have nominated the following ten blogs:
Devils Kitchen - for his superb fisking of everyone and eveything
Anna Raccoon - for her intelligent critique and subtle anger
Leg Iron - for his relentless tirade against the Righteous
Tax Payers Alliance - for reminding the 646 at every opportunity that it is MY money
Guido Fawkes - For showing the way to thousands of would be bloggers
Letters from a Tory - For a truly unique style on holding them to account
Subrosa - For a truly Scottish perspective
I will add more later.
Well here is hoping the curse of Brown is going to pour forth on Blair's head following his endorsement of Blair for El Presidente of the EU.
How can this man be considered for this post when we have not yet had the inquiry into the Iraq War, where the bereaved are still lining up to collect there sons and daughters bodies from RAF Lineham ? How ?
The disconnect between the ruling elite and the rule has never in my lifetime been so wide. They simply don't care what the great unwashed think anymore, so convinced are they that they have trampled four hundred years of History and Liberty underfoot.
And do you know what I am most ashamed of ? Us , we just take it day after day after day. Anaesthetised by acres of celebrities and soap operas
"Let me say very clearly that we, the British government, believe that Tony Blair would be an excellent candidate and an excellent person to hold the job as president of the council."
"I believe that his credentials are well proven, his international experience is well known, his expertise on environmental, economic and security issues is known to everybody throughout Europe as well as known throughout the world."
The stench of Mandelson pervades this, would you give this sort of endorsement to somebody you patently hate ?
(Picture elected from here).
Tony McNumpty (Is there an English name to be found in parliament now or has Labour wiped them all out?) was a good boy to his mum and dad. He looked after them with money he stole from the taxpayer, and he has now apologised for getting caught. As practically everyone has realised, he has made no apology for his blatant thievery to the people he stole from because he and his ilk don't regard the people of this country as anything more than cattle to be milked. Tug that forelock, prole. If you don't have a forelock, the NHS will graft one on for you.
Mr McNulty acknowledged that he "should have had much more concern about how my arrangements appeared to the public",
He really should have had more concern about how his weasel words now appear to the public. Concern about how his arrangements appeared? He has apologised to the rest of the brigands sitting on the green benches for getting caught and embarrassing them - as if they have not done quite enough to embarrass themselves anyway. No apology for blatant thievery, even though it must have been obvious even to the limited cognitive capacity of the average Labour minister that using public funds to pay his parents' bills could not possibly be in any way a legitimate business expense. This is not a 'mistake'. This is theft. So a burglar, caught with a DVD player, can just say 'Oh, that. I didn't mean to pick that up on the way out. It's a mistake. I didn't steal it, it's just a technical breach of the rules.'
How can anyone consider trying to reason with these people now? There is really nothing left to say. They have been caught with their hands in the till and still they do not see that they have done anything wrong. They put themselves above the law and cannot understand why anyone might object to that. That's the key issue - they will not, and cannot, understand why people are angry with them. They cannot be rehabilitated. They cannot be re-educated. They are beyond any form of salvation or redemption. They will never, ever realise that they are not Olympian gods and goddesses, but are more akin to the trolls and goblins of popular lore. Just - uglier, greedier and less sought-after as house guests than a plague of cockroaches.
Even Tiny Blur, the very epitome of self-importance and arrogance, still cannot see. He has graciously offered to be the EU president as long as 'the job is big enough'. How bloody big can it get, you grinning ghoul? It's halfway to King of the World and comes with a palace, as many cars as you can pollute the atmosphere with and as many taxpayer pounds of flesh as you can eat. Not enough for Tony the Ego. He wants 'a motorcade that will stop the traffic in any city'. The wretched proles will just have to get out of the way because there is no room in the average metropolis for Tony Blair's head and anyone else. King Ego and Queen Slotgob will only deign to rule us if there's more kudos in the job than Genghis Khan's. I hope the rest of the EU leaders look at that story and think 'What a twat'. Again. They won't though. They know the best man for the job of slapping down the far-too-independent people of the UK is Tiny Blur. In fact, he's taking so long to decide that they've started without him.
There is one spark of good news today. Sir Christopher Kelly plans to scrap the £60,000 handout an MP gets when they stand down at an election. Not at this one, but at the one after. So to get their sweaty, pallid fingers on that money they'll have to stand down at the next election. I hope they all take the money and go. Every last one of them. Give it to them in cash and have police waiting outside to confiscate it, because anyone carrying more than £1000 in cash is obviously a drug dealer in Labour's Britain.
Then let's vote someone in who will get us out of the EU before it bleeds us dry, and before Blair continues his 'trash Britain' agenda from his mountain-top fortress somewhere in the mountains of Europe. The EU want him, the EU can keep him.
They can have the rest of them too.
You've been identified as one of 13 Idiot MPs who are the worst of the worst roadblocks to the electoral reform we so badly need and demand.
It's not a distinction you should be proud of. Following this spring's expense scandal, our democracy is in crisis. We urgently need to reform our voting system so that citizens can hold their representatives to account again and have a fair say in the process.
Yet you and your fellow MPs remain opposed to giving voters that say. How very "democratic"
I'm writing now to urge you to support our right to determine how we choose our elected officials.
I'm not asking you to support one electoral system or another.
I'm just asking you to give we, the voters, your bosses, the chance to contribute to decisions that affect our lives by supporting a referendum on the electoral system at the next general election.
We are your masters, never forget it.
Otherwise we'll simply do it all on the Internet and you'll be out of a well paid job.
Vote for Change
The National Blood Donor Service.
I am a blood donor. Everytime I give blood, I am reminded of the following rules
There is a lifetime ban on giving blood to:
- any man who has had sex with another man, even safe sex using a condom
- anyone who has ever worked as a prostitute
- anyone who has injected themselves with drugs - even once
- anyone who has ever had syphilis, human T-lymphotropic virus, hepatitis B or C
Potential donors are also banned for 12 months after having had sex with:
- a man who has had sex with another man (if you're a female)
- a prostitute
- anyone who has ever injected themselves with drugs
- anyone with haemophilia or a related blood clotting disorder, who has received clotting factor concentrates
- anyone of any race who has been sexually active in parts of the world where Aids/HIV is very common(Black Africans basically)
Oh no, here we go.
But gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell says a government that opposes homophobic discrimination cannot possibly uphold the ban.
"It is based on the stererotyped, irrational, bigoted and unscientific assumption that any man who has had oral or anal sex with another man - even just once 40 years ago with a condom - is high risk for HIV. This is nonsense.
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
If in doubt of how the Police are out of control read about 'Operation Rize' because you are going to have to pay out the compensation to the eighty per cent of people involved who were innocent.
The Judge who granted the warrant,in effect granted the equivalent of authorising the kicking in of every door an a largish housing estate. Somebody needs to have a chat with him as well.
With all that loot kicking around, some of it did not survive the attentions of the Police, and allegations are being made of a little light fingerness by the Met.
This was a 'fishing exercise'to end all 'fishing exercises' and you are going to pay for this through your taxes.
With a Written Constitution, some very senior Policemen would be facing jail, but hey this is England, nothing you own is safe anymore.
In my part of the world Halloween is now an ishoo that needs Police intervention and to protect us from all those ghoulies out there and so we don't get frightened in the dark now the clocks have gone back.
For Beezlebubs sake - sod off, go and catch some burglars.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Surprise, surprise - except of course it is not at all surprising given the disgraceful track record of thissleaze-ridden corrupt and disgustingly dishonest government - they are now demanding of the High Court that any evidence about the security services being involved in torture (or presumably anything else they wish to hide) has to be given in secret.
Bit like dodgy inquests, they want those to be secret too.
Bit embarrassing having details of how plod murdered some unfortunate electrician all over the front pages, even messier than his brains all over the underground. Or how some poor bugger was blown to pieces in Afghanistan because of inadequate equipment supplied by the MOD who had been saving a few quid.
Not to mention removing references to links between immigration and crime from briefing documents and parliamentary reports.
The utter arsewipes.
Dear President Klaus,
As a staunch defender of democracy, we urge you to stand firm by delaying ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until we have had the referendum we in Britain were promised!
Not a great believer in petitions to our misbegotten rulers, but the above is a petition of support to President Klaus of the Czech Republic
Please sign here. Its at nearly 1000 already
Monday, 26 October 2009
Because of transport difficulties that prevented many people in this room from arriving on time, I am beginning my speech an hour later than expected. I am honoured by the Chairman’s apology for the delay. However, the series of conversations and arguments with which those of us who were here entertained ourselves while waiting have given me the idea for a speech that is still on my stated theme, but that I think will be more interesting than the one I had in mind. Now, this theme – “The Conservative Challenge” – has been routinely given to speakers at Conservative gatherings since at least the 1880s. The question that must always be answered is how we can remain the free citizens of an independent country in ages that have been progressively hostile both to individual freedom and to national independence. I did have a plan loosely worked out in my head. What I will do instead, though, is take some of our bar room discussions and summarise or expand on them as seems appropriate. I will do this by giving short statements of what was said to me, and then by giving my responses.
1. This has been a bad Government
I disagree. Oh, if you want a government that defends the country and provides common services while keeping so far as possible out of your way, the Labour Government elected in 1997 has been a disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the Blair and Brown Governments have been a failure in their own terms. They have, on the contrary, been very successful.
The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country – a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before. The English Constitution has never been set down in a written document, and there has never been any statement of fundamental rights and liberties that was protected from change by ordinary legislation. Instead, these rights and liberties were protected by a set of customs and institutions that, being legitimised by antiquity, served the same purpose as formal entrenchment. It can be hard, in every specific case, to justify trial by jury, or the rule against double jeopardy, or the idea that imprisonment should be for a specified time and no longer, or the right to speak freely on matters in the public domain. There are principled arguments that satisfy in the absence of strong passions. But, strong passions being granted, the best argument has always so far been that these things have always been in England, and that to change them would be to break the threads that tie us to the past.
It would be childish to argue that the Ancient Constitution was in good health until 1997, when it was suddenly overturned. Unless there is an catastrophic foreign invasion, constitutions are not destroyed in this way. Ours had been sapped long before 1997. To say when the tipping point was reached, and by what means, would take me far beyond my stated theme. However, what remained of the Constitution has, since 1997, been dismissed as a set of “outmoded” relics, and large parts of it have been swept away. Those that remain have been transformed beyond recognition.
Let me give myself as an example. My first degree was in History. Much of this was taken up with a study of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But some of it was given to English history between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, the Constitution changed within these periods, and had changed much since then. But I could take up the debates of the Cavalier Parliament, or a pamphlet written during the American War, or a case published in the State Trials, and find myself within a conversation of the English people. I was not in the same position as a French undergraduate, who, for anything published before 1791, would find himself in a world of institutions, and territorial names, and weights and measures, and monetary units, and general assumptions, as alien as those of a foreign country.
This has now changed. Anyone who, this month, has started a degree in History or Law or Politics will find himself in the same position as that French undergraduate. We have new legislative bodies all over the country, and new principles of administration, and new courts with new procedures and languages, and new lines of authority terminating in bodies outside the country. The work is not yet complete. But already, the conversation of the English people has been made largely incomprehensible to those born since I was an undergraduate.
Whether the changes can be justified as improvements – or whether they could have been made with more regard for economy and consistency – is beside the point. The main purpose of change has been to seal off the past. That past has been delegitimized in order to strip rights and liberties of the associations that used to protect them. Not surprisingly, we find ourselves in a country with a Potemkin democracy, where speech and publication are censored, where the police are feared, where we are continuously spied on as we go about our business, where we can be imprisoned without trial or charge for a month, and generally where we find ourselves having to deal every day with administrative bodies given powers that others who have not yet had felt them still cannot believe possible.
On any normal assumptions, the country has been governed very badly since 1997. On the assumptions of the Government, things have gone very well indeed.
2. This country is ruled by people who have been corrupted by bad ideas.
Again, I disagree. For centuries now, England has been governed by people rather like ourselves. Sometimes, they have governed well, sometimes badly. But we have never had to doubt their fundamental good faith. This has changed. The people who now rule this country have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.
There are ideologies of the left – mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism – that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people. These are not ideologies, however, of which those who rule us have ever taken the smallest notice. These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to politically correct multiculturalism. Now this too is becoming an embarrassment, they are moving towards totalitarian environmentalism. Whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.
It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power.
They tell us they want to end “child poverty” and “build a more equal society”. In fact, they have employed an army of social workers to terrorise every working class family in the country – an army of social workers backed by closed and secretive courts, and that may even be selecting children for legal kidnap and sale to barren middle class couples. They have pauperised millions with policies that keep them from achieving any reasonable independence and subject them to the bullying of credentialed bureaucracies.
They tell us they want a more “inclusive” and “diverse” society. They have certainly welcomed the mass immigration that they enabled the moment they came into office. It has been useful for impoverishing the working classes – in their attitudes and behaviour once perhaps the most conservative people in the country. It has also provided much evidence for their claim that the old England into which we were born has passed away, and that we need a new constitutional settlement – a settlement much in need of censorship and endless meddling in private choices. Even so, they make sure to live in white enclaves and to send their children to private schools where class photographs look much as they did in 1960.
They tell us they want to save the planet from “climate change”. If they have made Phillips and Siemens rich from their light bulb ban, they still fly everywhere and drive everywhere, and light up their own houses and offices like Christmas trees.
These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such.
3. The country is misgoverned.
Let me go back to my first point. There is no doubt that everything done by these people has involved huge cost for little of the promised benefit. We have computer systems that do not work. We have new bureaucracies that do not achieve their stated purpose. The National Health Service, for example, has had its budget doubled or trebled in the past twelve years. Yet the waiting lists are as long as ever, and the hospitals are dirtier than ever. Medical incompetence and even corruption and oppression are now everyday stories in the newspapers.
Again, however, these are failures only on the assumption that money has been laid out for the purpose of improving services. It has not. The real purpose of washing a tidal wave of our money over the public services has been partly to raise up an army of clients more likely to vote Labour than anything else, and partly to give these clients powers that tell everyone else who are the masters now. On this assumption, the money has not been wasted at all. It has indeed been an “investment in the future”.
What is to be done?
I often speak about an electoral coup in which a genuinely conservative government came to power and set about undoing the revolution. This involves shutting down most of the public sector. I am not saying that poor people would no longer receive their benefits or medical attention free at the point of use. These are not in themselves expensive. They may have undesirable consequences in terms of smothering personal responsibility and voluntary initiative. But these are problems to be addressed over a long period during which no settled expectation need be denied. What I do say is that the bureaucratic machine that bleeds us white in taxes and grinds us into obedient uniformity should be smashed to pieces that cannot easily be put back together. It should be smashed because we cannot afford it. It should be smashed because it oppresses us. It should be smashed because it is an agent of national destruction.
I once wrote a book about why this should be done and how to do it. Sadly, it will not be done in the foreseeable future. We shall probably have a Conservative Government within the next nine months. But this will not be a government of conservatives. If we want a preview of the Cameron Government, we need only look at what Boris Johnson has achieved during the past year as Mayor of London. He has not closed down one of the bureaucracies set up by Ken Livingstone and his Trotskyite friends. The race equality enforcers are still collecting their salaries. The war on the private motorist continues. Rather than cut the number of New and Old Labour apparatchiks, he is currently putting up taxes. David Cameron will be no better. He may be forced to make some changes and to slow the speed of the transformation. The transformation will continue nevertheless.
We need to speculate on the purpose and nature of counter-revolution. It is useful to know what ought to be our long term purpose. It inspires us to action in an otherwise bleak present. But we need also to know what present actions are to be inspired. My advice is that we need, in all our thoughts and in whatever of our behaviour is prudent, to withhold our sanction.
Any system of oppression that does not rely on immediate and overwhelming – and usually foreign – violence requires the sanction of its victims. We cannot all have guns put to our heads all day and every day. We therefore need to believe, in some degree, that what is done to us is legitimate. We must believe this if we are to obey. We must believe it if those who oppress us are to keep their good opinion of themselves. I suggest that we should withhold that sanction. I do not say that, without our sanction, the illegitimate power that now constrains our lives will fall immediately to the ground. I do suggest, however, that it will be insensibly undermined, and that it may therefore collapse suddenly in the event of some unexpected shock. This is how Communism died in Eastern Europe. It may be how the New Labour Revolution will die here.
One of the myths, endlessly repeated through what is called “Middle England”, is that the Police are among the victims of Labour rule – that they have been forced to act in ways that they find abhorrent or absurd. But this is only a myth. The Police are no friends to respectable people in any class or race. When I was a small boy, I was reduced to tears by what seemed a gigantic policeman in a tall helmet. One glare of his bearded face, and I was straight off the municipal flower bed where I had thrown my ball. He spoke to my grandmother before moving to other business, and that was the end of my transgression.
His sort retired decades ago. They have been replaced by undersized, shaven headed thugs – frequently with criminal records – who take delight in harassing the respectable. If you are robbed or beaten in the street, they will be nowhere in sight. If you approach them to complain, they will record the crime and send you on your way. If, on the other hand, you try defending yourself or your loved ones, they will prosecute you. They will do nothing about drugged, aggressive beggars, but they will jump on you if they see you smoking under a bus shelter. These people have been given powers that move them closer to the East German Stasi than to the uniformed civilians many of us can still remember. They can arrest you for dropping a toffee wrapper in the street. Once arrested, you may be charged, but you will more likely be released after being fingerprinted and having DNA samples taken and stored. We do not know what other body or government will be given your DNA. We do not know what future oppressions it may enable. Regardless of any littering charge, you will have been punished already.
We should not regard the Police in any sense as our friends. They are not. This does not mean that we should have no dealings with them. There are times – insurance claims, for example, where things must be reported. There are times when the Police are needed, and when they may give some limited assistance. Even so, we should on no account behave to them as if they were uniformed civilians. They are an armed, increasingly out of control pro-Labour militia.
We were all of us born in a country where the phrase “The Law is the Law: it must always be obeyed” did not seem absurd. Yes, it may not have been quite as we were told. By and large, however, it was a law made by our representatives and with our loose consent – or it was made by Judges rationalising honestly from assumptions grounded in common sense notions of justice. It is that no longer. For all its blemishes, the old laws of England were there to stop us from knocking into each other too hard as we went about our business. Its function was reactive. The function of law nowadays is transformational. It is there to change the ways in which we think and live. So far as this is the case, the law has been delegitimised.
And this is how we are to regard uses of the law. At the moment, The UK Independence Party is being edged towards bankruptcy over some matter of a political donation. It seems not to have complied with the requirements of a law made in the year 2000 that effectively nationalises all political parties – and that may one day be used to control what policies they advocate and how they oppose measures with which they disagree. Again, there are complaints about how the BBC has invited the Leader of the British National Party to appear on Question Time. It is said that the BNP is currently an illegal organisation because of its internal rules. The alleged illegality is based on a novel interpretation of a 1976 law, as amended in 2000, that is itself illegitimate.
There was a time when it was enough for us to be told that someone had broken the law for us to think ill of that person. But times are altered. When the laws themselves are corrupt, they lose moral force. It is no longer enough for us to be told that someone is a law breaker. Whatever we may think of these parties for what they advocate, they are to be seen not as law breakers but victims of political oppression. To think ill of them purely for their disregard of the law is rather like calling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a jailbird on account of his time in the Gulag.
The Law is no longer the Law. It is a set of politicised commands made for our destruction as a free people. It no longer deserves our automatic respect. Yes, the laws that protect life and property are still to be respected. But it is now rational to inspect every law thrown at us to see which do bind in conscience and which do not. I know that this is a dangerous principle to announce. There are many people for whom the law is a unified thing: say that one part has no binding force, and all parts are weakened. But this is not our fault. We have not made the law disreputable. We are simply facing a state of affairs that has been called into being by others.
I have already mentioned the remodelling of the Constitution. As a people, we have long amused foreigners with our respect for titles and old forms of government. I once chaired a meeting addressed by a Member of the House of Lords. This was before the Internet, and I spent nearly an hour in a library clarifying that he should be introduced as – let me change the name – John, Lord Smith of Wilmington, rather than Lord John Smith or Lord Wilmington. This was all good fun. It also had a serious point. I was helping maintain one of those innumerable and seemingly absurd customs that among were the outer defences of our rights and liberties. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of Colonel Rainsborough’s claim that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”.
But, again, times are altered. The more gorgeous events of the fancy dress ball have been retained. But the underlying substance – the protection of rights and liberties – has been stripped out. This being so, all obligation of deference has lapsed. I will not defer to the man whose name has been changed by a sheet of parchment sealed with wax to Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty. Nor will I call Peter Mandelson other than “Mr Mandelson. Nor, unless I am in his court, and he is likely to take more against me than he naturally would, will I address the former Communist Stephen Sedley as “My Lord”. Nor will I acknowledge his Knighthood out of court. I am not yet sure if it is appropriate to stop recognising hereditary honours, or those granted before 1997. But I certainly regard all honours granted since 1997 as void. They have the same legitimacy as those conferred by Cromwell during the Interregnum. No – Cromwell was a great man who did honour to this country and who deserves his statue outside Parliament. Recent honours have the same status as those conferred by James II after he ran away to France. They are to be seen as a badge of ridicule and disgrace on those who have accepted them.
Now, this may seem a pedantic and self-indulgent point. But it is not. These people should not be allowed to wrap themselves in any remnant of the associations that once bound us to the past. And they evidently enjoy playing at nobility. I once did a radio debate with a police chief who had been recommended for a Peerage by Tony Blair. He was annoyed by my substantive arguments. He was reduced to spluttering rage when I addressed him as plain “Mister” and sneered that his title was a sham. Bearing in mind that it is not illegal to drop their titles, and how it upsets them, I think it worth doing on every convenient occasion.
And it is part of what I would see as a more general approach. Conservatives often denounce what is being done to us as a “breach of the Constitution”. It is really no such thing, because the Ancient Constitution has been abolished. As said, the fancy dress ball continues in something like full swing. But “the poorest he that is in England” has been stuffed. We do have a constitution in the sense that every organised community has one. Ours says that whoever can frogmarch a majority of placemen through the lobbies of the House of Commons can do whatever he pleases. I did hope, earlier in the present decade, that the Judges would intervene to limit parliamentary sovereignty. The Labour response, however, was to pack the bench with their own people. Therefore, since it has been destroyed, or has been suspended, we are in no position to claim that the Constitution has been breached. The obvious result is that we should not regard ourselves as morally bound to recognise any of the authority that is claimed and exercised over us.
And if our people ever get into power through the electoral coup that I mentioned earlier, I see no reason for recognising any purely “constitutional” limits to the nature and speed of our counter-revolution. For example, regardless of the withdrawal mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, I would be for just repealing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended. That would be complete and immediate withdrawal. If any Judges tried to block this, I would have them removed. I might also be for passing an Act voiding every previous law made since the first session of the 1997 Parliament. Otherwise, I would prefer to declare a state of Emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and then repeal hundreds of laws by decree. A slow revolution can take place when those at the top have the numbers and staying power to take it slowly. When there has been a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary seizure of power, change must be swift and determined if it is to be a success.
There must be a return to constitutional norms – and the extraordinary measures that may enable this return must not be allowed to set any precedents of their own. Nor – let me emphasise – do I hope that our reaction will involve violence. But if conservatives are to bring about a reaction, so that we can again be a free people in an independent nation, we have little positive to learn from Burke’s Reflections. There comes a point beyond which a constitution cannot be rescued. I think we have reached that point. There can be no patching up this time, as happened at the Restoration in 1660, or after the Revolution of 1688. By all means, we should not innovate just for the sake of neatness. But we shall need to innovate. We shall need to create new safeguards for our rights and liberties that take into account the country in which we live.
This means, I increasingly believe, a republican constitution. There is nothing wrong with the principle of hereditary monarchy. I suspect that the division of authority and power that took place between 1660 and 1714 contributed much to the freedom and stability of England during our classical period. The problem is not the institution of monarchy, but the person of the Monarch.
When she came to the throne, Elizabeth had what seems to have been almost the universal regard of the people. She has spent the past 57 years betraying the people. Whatever the constitutional lawyers may claim, there is a contract between Monarch and people. We pretend to treat whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians. That is the truth behind the phrases of the coronation oath. The Queen could, without bringing on a crisis, have blocked the law in the early 1960s that removed juries from most civil trials. She could have blocked the subsequent changes that abolished the unanimity rule and the right of peremptory challenge. She should have risked a crisis, and refused her assent to the European Communities Bill, or demanded a fair referendum first. She could have harried the politicians of the past two generations, reminding them of the forms and substance of the Ancient Constitution. She had the moral and legal authority to do this. Had she spoken to us like adults, she would have had popular support. She did nothing. I believe she bullied Margaret Thatcher into handing Rhodesia over to a communist mass-murderer, and made repeated noises about South African sanctions. And that was it.
Whatever her failings in the past, she had every legal right to demand a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. This had been promised by every party at the 2005 general election. When the promise was withdrawn, she would have had public opinion and much of the media behind her in refusing to give assent to the Treaty’s Enabling Act. Again, she did nothing.
We are continually told about the Queen’s sense of duty. All I see is much scurrying about the country to open leisure centres – and otherwise a total disregard of her essential duties. If the Constitution was in decay before she was even born, she has spent her reign watching all that was left of it slip between her fingers.
It may be argued that she is now very old and will not remain much longer on the throne. The problem is that her son will be worse. She has been lazier than she has been stupid. He is simply stupid. So far as he insists on using his powers, it will be to drive forward the destruction of England. His own eldest son might easily be an improvement – but he could be decades away from the Crown. We are in no position to wait on what is in any event uncertain. The Queen has broken the contract between her and us. Her son will do nothing to repair the breach. We live in an age where hereditary monarchy must be strictly hereditary or nothing at all, and so we cannot waste our time with new Exclusion Bills or Acts of Settlement. If, therefore, we are ever in a position to bring about a counter-revolution, we shall need to find a head of state who can be trusted to do the job of looking after our new constitution.
I could go further on this theme. I know that many conservatives – and a few Conservatives – have lost faith in democracy. Undoubtedly, representative democracy has thrown up a political class that is separate from the people, and that is increasingly hostile to the rights and liberties of the people. But I cannot think of a lasting new settlement based on Caesaristic dictatorship or a limitation of the franchise. My own suggestion would be to select most positions in the executive by sortition – to choose rulers, that is, by a lottery – as in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum. Most judicial business that had any bearing on the Constitution could be put before juries of several hundred people, chosen by the same random process as criminal juries now are.
But, you will agree that this takes me far, far beyond my stated theme. It would make what has been a long speech longer still. I will close by observing that if you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.
NB—Sean Gabb's book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3
I see Mark Thomas is now a known "domestic extremist".
He hasn't done anything illegal and has no criminal record. Yet he finds himself on the database of "domestic extremists" and is monitored by special Police units dedicated to "watching" and photographing people who may become a threat because they choose to protest in this country.
No police, secret or otherwise, should operate without proper accountability. So how are these three units accountable? Who has access to the databases? How long does information remain in the system? What effect could it have on travel and future employment of those targeted? How closely do these units work with corporate private investigators, and does the flow of information go both ways? Do the police target strikers?
A police spokesman has said that anyone who finds themselves on a database "should not worry at all". When a spokesman for the three secret units will not disclose a breakdown of their budgets, and two of the three will not even name who heads their operations (even MI6 gave us an initial, for God's sake), then the words "should not worry at all" are meaningless. Indeed, when the police admit that someone could end up on a secret police database merely for attending a demonstration, it is exactly the time to worry.
This has to stop.
More details of secet Police "Forward Intelligence Units" at Fitwatch
“The bankster’s that caused the Economic Pearl Harbour have been completely and utterly let off the hook by inept, incompetent mainstream politicians that are still more interested in seeking to maximise the amount they can defraud tax payers of in expenses, the price for which is being paid in Britain by the rise of the far-right which has risen in support from 3% of the electorate to about 8% today. During the week the far-right were given airtime on the BBC flagship political debate programme Question Time. Britains Great Double Dip Depression ensures the next few years are going to be tough both economically and socially as governments fight to prevent the OTC Derivatives Pyramid from Imploding into Financial Armageddon”
Sums it up, don’t you think.
Brown 'promises' that we will be back in growth by the end of the year. You can only make promises like this if you are running a command economy. He commands nothing !
We are heading for a double dip recession ( a 'W' recession ) as sure as eggs are eggs, the insolvent banks should be broken up as soon as possible into regional banks to inject some competition into the system.
Stop spending on pointless Quangos and end our foreign entanglements
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Leading members of a group that wants to bring down the British state and replace it with a dictatorship under Islamic law have secured more than £100,000 of taxpayers’ money for a chain of schools.
Accounts filed at the Charity Commission show that the Government paid a total of £113,411 last year to a foundation run by senior members and activists of Hizb ut-Tahrir — a notorious Islamic extremist group that ministers promised to ban.
Read and weep
I am going to lie down again.
Only Nu Labour could set up a body call the 'The Court of Protection' then fleece the sick and their dependents blind.
The Court of Protection was set up by Justice Secretary Jack Straw to hear cases involving people who become unable to look after their own affairs through mental illness, accidents or dementia, but have not drawn up a "living will" nominating a relative or friend to take control of their assets.
In two years this parody of a title worthy of the 'Ministry of Truth' has seized control of £3.2 Billions of assets and charge the sick and ill £23 million in fees. What a fantastic scam. They are hardly going to complain are they ?
However the relatives are, 3000 complaints in two years
Posters on an internet forum have complained of "bullying" letters and "being treated like a criminal" after being deemed unsuitable to look after their relatives' affairs.
Children's author Heather Bateman told how she had to apply to the court for any spending over £500 - including her daughter's university fees - after an accident left her husband Michael, whose bank account was used to pay most of the family's bills, in a coma.
"The Court of Protection brought almost as much anger, grief and frustration into my life as the accident itself," Mrs Bateman told Saga magazine.
This is another of Jack Straw's Criminal Acts, the money is not the Government's you utter bastards.
Children do not belong to the State, the dying should not be helped on their way by the State's Pathway scheme, the assets of the sick do not belong to the State. It is bad enough that the assets of the intestate dead are seized by the Crown.
Is there nothing that is sacrosanct from the grasping hand of the State ?
Saturday, 24 October 2009
This little book has had some good reviews in the press and on the radio.
The people of East Germany went from a Nazi repression 1933-45 straight through to the Communist repression of 1945-89. Yet Millar gives us a close up of how the ordinary citizen lived and coped, whilst living in East Berlin then capital of the GDR. Proving that the State and all who serve it are little shits out for themselves.
Plus ca change !
As a member of Reuters he was under constant surveillance, and he has read his Stasi report. The Stasi Colonel reviewing the file noted disapprovingly, that Millar allow his wife to carry all the heavy shopping to the car. Something his wife has never allowed him to forget.
Yet despite 66 years of state repression, the spirit of the average Helmut in the street was never broken. Despite all the files and surveillance the Stasi missed the revolutionary tide, and so did the Western Intelligence Agencies !
One day they all just said "no more", and the nightmare was over.
A great read, done with lightness and humour covering one of the best periods in my life.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Let Me see if I get this straight.
Bunch of illegal immigrants are locked up at our expense at Yarlswood.
They are 'looked after' by Group 4
Group 4 lose control of the detention centre
Illegal immigrants burn the place down
Riot Police restore order
Group 4 sue Bedfordshire Police for Compensation under an obscure Victorian Law
Bunch of Judges say Police are liable
Police insurers have to pay compensation.
Police sent the Taxpayers the bill.
Spot the mug in this story, his name begins with the word T
He is paying Group4 £42 million
He is paying for the Police, the Judges, the illegal immigrants and Group 4.
Does he not get a say in this ?
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
Often, I've heard calls for moderate Muslims to face up to people like this.
Now they are. British Muslims for Secular Democracy are organising a counter demonstration, along with various other Muslim groups.
This is going to be interesting.
It was not Mr Straw 's only contact with the fees office over the years. At one stage he wrote asking for permission to install a £7,500 kitchen, saying it was necessary because his daughter had complained that the old one was worse that her student digs.
Between 2005 and 2009, he also claimed for two beds, redecorations costing £1,300, a £3,635 bathroom refit, garage doors at nearly £2,000, and an LCD television.
I watched the freak show that was 'Questiontime' and saw nothing edifying there for British Politics.
The 'selected' baying audience does not mean that the discussion over on mass immigration is over, and the political classes need to address this subject and integration of those that are already settled in this country. Shouting 'racist' is not a political debate.
The 'no platformers for fascism' whose brain dead policy has allowed the rise of the racist far left for the last thirty years should now shut up. Engage and argue your case. Not stick you fingers in your ears, saying I can't hear you. THAT IS NOT POLITICS, THAT IS JUST CHILDISH.
Huhne, just gets worse everytime I see him perform.
Who was the American import ? Could not the BBC find an articulate Black British person to pad out the panel ?
Finally to Griffin, Le Pen he ain't. I have heard Jean-Marie speak. He is a former paratrooper,(rather than my dad was in the RAF during the war), he thunders, he has conviction, he has passion and he is a leader of men- he is still talking bollocks of course. However he had charisma.
Griffin, well, just looked like a shifty estate agent trying to pass off a burnt out bungalow as a bijou residence.
He was uncertain, hesitant, smirking in all the wrong places, which is no substitute for humour. The canons of belief that go down well in the bierkellers of the BNP, just seemed trite. Churchill would be a member of the BNP now, what utter crap is that. In the 1940's ninety per cent of the nation were 'soft' racists, it did not make them overt card carrying Nazis . Churchill was a chancer at times, but was a consumate politician first and foremost. Nick , he would still be in the Tories, in some way he still is in spirit in the form of Soames. Slightly outdated but still bulking out the High Tories.
I have always argued that the BNP that is fixated on race as the scapecoat for all our ills is barking up the wrong tree.
The FN has faded away in France despite having the thunderous Le Pen as its leader, as economic conditions improve the BNP will go the same way here. BUT that does not let the political classes of the hook in addressing mass immigration and failed multi cultural policies, that are of direct concern to the white working classes competing for resources with newcomers.
The lazy days of shouting racist to close the argument down are over. That is Griffins small victory from last night. The Hain's and Huhne's of this world trying to inhibit free speech were the big losers, and rightly so.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
From an orginal idea by Vimes
(Nice shot of Mandelson at the end)
Fascists in spontaneous march (I love the way totalitarians always have spontaneous demonstrations) and launch themselves at other Fascists waiting to appear on the BBC.
All we need is Trotsky to appear and we will have the complete set.
UPDATE: Live QT chat at Tory Bears tonight, 10:30. Should be a laugh
Audience list for tonights Question Time
Some Holocaust survivors
Members of the British Legion who can be trusted not to use the word "Darkies"
The cute kids from "Slum Dog Millionaire"
Zulus - Thousands of 'em
White Liberals from rural Surrey who support multiculturalism for the wide range of cheese.
The Nation of Islam
Polish builders looking for a quote.
The Zimbabwe War Veterans
Wood Green Mosque
Lefties who don't need till sign on till next week
Martin Smith of the UAF and Doctor Who Appreciation Society
The man who finds him funny
Asians who vote for Keith Vas
Asians who are actually on the electoral role who vote for Keith Vas
People who hire Keith Vas
Shahid Maliks accountant
The Jewish Board of Deputies
The Muslim Council of Great Briton
The Prophet Mohammed
The Black Police Officers Association
The Black Lawyers Association
The Jedi High Council
The blokes who sell Socialist Worker
The one bloke who's actually bought one.
The Mad Marhdi
The Rebel Alliance
The Polish Infantry Historical Recreationist Society
Anyone who saw "Roots" the Nineteen Seventies
The Tower Hamlets District Council (via Satellite from Bangladesh)
A restless lynch mob
Martin Luther King Jr
The Head of Diversity at the BBC
The laywer that got him off the bank robbery charge -H. Houdini
Labour MPs scared that people will vote BNP
Members of the UAF who sneaked in
The Communist Party of Great Britain.
Weyman Bennet of the UAF (or failing than any inarticulate black man with a chip on his shoulder)
Lots of inarticulate black men with chips on their shoulder
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance
Ugly Feminists who hate everyone who isn't an ugly feminist
The Jamaican bobsleigh team form the film "Cool Runnings"
And for the BNP two skinheads played by Tim Roth and Steven Berkoff
Ref No CCC09
Salary Up to £28,424 pa inc.38.5 hours per week including unsocial hours and some overtime
Department Central Criminal Court
Your principal role will be to drive the Sheriffs of the City of London who are based at the Central Criminal Court.
The primary vehicles are Rolls Royce Phantom VI and a taxi.
You will be responsible for ensuring the safe and timely arrival of the Sheriffs whenever they travel by road and for ensuring the appearance of the cars is of the highest standard at all times. You will have the appropriate skills and experience of driving a Rolls Royce Phantom VI.
Professionalism is required to deliver the Sheriffs and party to multiple engagements each day in the City, West End and outside London.
Extremely reliable, you will take great pride in the car and passengers, have a good knowledge of the City and West End, and possess the necessary planning skills to deliver the Sheriffs to every appointment on time. With a clean driving licence, you will also be smart, presentable, articulate and discreet.
You are invited to submit evidence of training courses attended and experience to support your application. Closing date: 12pm on Monday 2 November 2009. Previous applicants need not apply. This post is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and as part of the selection process the successful applicant will be required to obtain a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure. The City of London Corporation is committed to Equal Opportunities and welcomes applications from all sections of the community.
To apply online, please visit www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/jobs Alternatively, please contact the Corporate Recruitment Unit on 020 7332 3978 (24hr answerphone) quoting reference CCC09. A minicom service for the hearing impaired is available on 020 7332 3732.
email@example.com - Please include your name and address.
Does anybody actually KNOW what a sheriff of London does? Or why?
I am currently smiling at the mounting hysteria of the left that another far left political party is going to appear on BBC's question time.
The BNP is a legally registered party with a particularly loathesome message, but then again so is Nu-Labour. I listen to what they say, but it does not mean that I will accept the message. Only Stalinists think that the media is so pervasive that I will automatically go and vote for this message or that message. I am perfectly able to think for myself.
As to the BNP's message, this is the inevitable response to Labour closing down the debate on mass immigration with the lazy and simple expedient of yelling 'racist' at people. They will still carry on thinking that they are not happy with multi culturism, and spending vast sums on translation services because incomers will not learn English. They can see the housing policy failures, the added burden on the State as most of the incomers are dirt poor who are coming here in the full expectation that they will have a better life. That is not unreasonable.
Just because Labour don't want to talk about it, does not mean that it is not an 'ishoo', with the vast bulk of their core support.
The Labour Party's favourite mouth piece 'The One Show' lead the charge last night with a very overt political broadcast, the hourly news on the BBC has become even more strident. Also the disgraced Peter Hain has dared make pronouncements on the subject of the BNP appearance on Primetime TV. The UAF is threatening violence and picketing so that we can all live in peace together ???
When the Rotten Parliament has proved so willing to feather its own nest, they should not act so surprised when people look for alternative messages, and the BNP has the most simple message and solution of all. Its all about race.
Nothing to do with a bloated State, nothing to do with thousands of unemployable people 'wif rites innit' watching Jeremy Kyle all day, nothing to do with we are upto our armpits in debt, for crap that nobody has worked for. Nothing to do with a debilitating pointless celeb culture, nothing about that we make anything that people want to buy. Nothing about avoiding responsibility for our actions, wanting the State to look after us, make decisions for us, protect us,INFANTALISE us.
Its all about race innit.
Its about moral leadership. The British still have a belief in Free Speech and do not believe that banning everything achieves very much. The three major parties have failed the moral leadership test, with their outdated seventies progressive claptrap and their lying and corruption.
'And the first shall be last'
The Post Office, founded by Cromwell in 1657 is finally coming to an end as a State Monopoly after 352 years. For the History of the failure of both Labour and Tory to privatise the Post Office see here. Hear Ken Clarke say it was inexplicable that Thatcher would not privatise the Post Office, hear the young Alan Johnson, a former postie say that it was inevitable that the last Dinosaur would have to change.
Mandelson has had a dabble this summer, but political considerations of the old guard Labour as the Brown Government became more impotent was far more important.So Peter Poppet has washed his hands of the Royal Mail, and the black hole of the unfunded Post Office pension.
Yesterday I had written communications with Bristol, London, South Africa,Angola and the United States. I also paid my phone bill in France on line. Not one stamp was purchased. Why therefore should I pay one penny in subsidy to this organisation ? Every day I receive more junk mail than post.
I feel genuinely sorry for our local postie whose job is at risk, but even he thinks that the Unions and Management are like children squabbling over a broken toy.
The last dinosaur is about to blow its brains out with this strike, which will not bother me a jot. Communications have changed in the last twenty years, delivering my business post at 4.30pm has happened last week is of no use to me, therefore I rarely use the post.
Degrading the service even further, and asking for more public money is not going to wash this time. I did like the Leader of the CWU calling Mandelson the Minister for no resposibility. It looks like the Labour Party and friends still do not love Peter Poppet.
Sarkozy calls for a special summit to crown King Tony FFS