Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Am I merely your servant whilst you pretend to be mine?

Hi Brooks,

You’re my Member of Parliament apparently. Not that I vote, or am even registered to vote, you understand, I can’t be doing with it. Let’s be honest, you’re not there to represent me or my wishes, that’s why you joined a political party. So that you can represent the interests of the party in Government, whatever they may be.

I digress. You won the election, even though most people in Braintree didn’t vote to be represented by you in Parliament so now I’d like to ask you a very simple question.

How do I withdraw my consent to be governed by you?

I’ll assume you believe that the population are governed by consent and not force, so how do I withdraw mine? You see, I don’t want anyone to represent me in Parliament. I want to be free of other people assuming responsibility on my behalf, making laws on my behalf and raising taxes on my behalf. I want to be free of all the Statutes and Acts you guys spend your days creating “on my behalf”, “with my consent”.

I’m not an anarchist or a troublemaker, I’m just asking you a simple question.

How do I withdraw my consent to be governed?

Or MUST I be governed and taxed? I know if I refuse to pay whatever taxes you decide are in my best interests, you will put me in prison, I know if I refuse to abide by whatever laws you decide are in my best interests, you will put me in prison and I’ve decided, actually, that’s not a very good deal. Not in “my best interests” you might say.

Before you decide that MY paying taxes is in the best interests of everyone else, remember that I was born a free man, not a labouring serf to whom you can dictate that half my labour must be used for the betterment of others, or else I will go to jail. That is akin to slavery or bonded labour, something made illegal in 1956 by the UN. I demand nothing of Government and in return, ask that it demands nothing of me.

Well, Brooks? Am I free or am I only free to attempt to choose my master who will inflict his laws and his taxes upon me in an election? In which case I am not free and my labour belongs to the State, regardless of which political party holds office. A bonded labourer if you prefer.

I await your response. Please don’t use the “you are free to find somewhere else to live” argument, I was born here, here I will stay, and am perfectly capable of governing myself thanks. So, how do I withdraw my consent to be governed by you or Parliament and NOT be thrown in prison by you? Am I free or am I trapped in what Conservatives used to call a "closed shop"? Am I merely your servant whilst you pretend to be mine?

Write to YOUR MP and see what response you get. Hat Tip to TPUC

Monday, 30 May 2011

Remove your chains, it's TAX FREEDOM DAY

It's finally here. Think back to the long winter nights and New Years Eve. Think of the dark cold mornings when you hauled yourself out of a warm bed and braved the elements to go to work, the crowded trains, the overtime, the bills, the demands from debtors.

Seems a long time ago, eh? Well, the good news is that whilst you are not free from your debts, today marks the day when you actually start to keep the money you earned instead of the government taking every penny to spend how it sees fit. Of course, in the background, the government is still borrowing money like crazy in your name (and that of your children) so it can bribe you with your own money at the next election and unlike a true slave, you will still have to house and feed yourself from what little the government allows you to keep. Just to clear the national debt, every single person would have to work for a year and a half and hand every penny over to the State, but don't worry, that won't happen. You only have to work half a year to tread water and the national debt will simply be handed on to the next generation to deal with whilst you demand a decent pension from the benevolent state.

There is only one way to increase your freedom and reduce the half annual slavery you are forced into. You have to stop paying taxes. Taxes are the life blood of big government, taxes are the treasure that the Political Elite feed upon, taxes are the chains that keep you in your place.

Stop consuming shite you don't need and you'll have more money, so you won't have to put those 60 hour weeks in to replace what the state steals from you. Learn to buy what you need, not what you think will impress your peers, who are just as in debt as you are, learn to understand wealth is not how much you have but how little you need. Whatever you acquire will be owned, eventually, by the State anyhow, so acquire less. Make do. Not feeding the State is the ultimate act of civil disobedience. Peaceful yet revolutionary, it is killing the EU and the corrupt politicians as they finally run out of other peoples money.

Try it. Simply buy less, and watch their world fall apart. Stop enslaving yourself and your children with the fake promises and debts of politicians who will only send you the bill (plus interest) anyway.

More on tax freedom day here. T-Shirts available here

Saturday, 28 May 2011

The Price of Fabian Failure

Somewhere, amongst all the various gnashing of teeth and outraged indignation, lies a small grave containing the battered and bruised body of a young child, failed by firstly his parents, secondly by those who were instructed to care for him and thirdly by a system designed to remove all responsibility from anyone.

A catastrophic failure of Fabianism. From the foreign doctor in the NHS who "missed" a broken back yet filled all the correct PC quotas, to the council housing department that missed a known violent criminal moving in with the failed mother with no education but a hand full of certificates for "paying attention" at school, to the benefits system which allowed her to perpetuate the squalor of single motherhood, to the Common Purpose trained "state nannies" paid to ensure that the State could raise her child if she couldn't to the head of Department, promoted by strictly faithfully to the Fabian agenda of "destroy the family, the State is the best Parent" to the father of the whole thing. Ed Balls, who had the responsibility to make sure his idealogical vision of being the Shepherd to a weak and pathetic flock was enforced.

And when it failed, Sharon Shoesmith felt the full wrath of Stalin shooting his Generals. In the panic to blame someone, anyone but the system, she was out. Vilified by the media and her fellow Fabians, she was a FAILURE, a traitor to her masters in Westminster. She killed Baby P with her own bare hands.

Except she didn't. Tracey Connelly and Peter Barker, themselves proud products of the brave new Fabian world did. Brutal, uncaring, sadistic scum, supported right to the very top of Government in their actions.

Look in the mirror Ed. This is the world you and your fellow Fabians constructed. Your arrogance in inflicting the collective responsibility over personal responsibility means many more children will die at the hands of parents who are expressly told NOT to take responsibility because the all caring, all powerful State is the true master can do it better.

I know what you did Ed.

Thursday, 26 May 2011

A tangled web

I notice that Serb killer Ratko Mladic has finally been arrested. Quite how he has been able to hide for so long is a mystery. The EU demanded he be arrested before any further talks about Serbias membership could continue.

In other news, EU "Foreign Secretary" Ashton just happens to be in Belgrade today sorting out the final stages of...er...Serbias membership of the EU.

Drinks all round

Monday, 23 May 2011


Now Giggs is out the way.....

Starve the Parasite (Prt 2)

This is my response to Andy's essay below this post.

One of the reasons I rapidly departed the Libertarian Party was the realisation that Party Politics does not represent the individual and the authoritarian State was ONLY interested in attacking and bleeding the individual. Labours relentless attacks were not aimed at business or the collective, but me, personally. I was the one being stopped and searched. My personal emails were being collected.

My version of Libertarianism involves chickens, two pigs and an acre of land and I'm certainly no hippy or middle class Good Life fanatic. I've rejected a bank account and credit cards and bought gold and silver. If the State want to deflate that to pay their bills, they'll have to dig some more up. My car runs quite happily on vegetable oil salvaged from local pubs, I service it myself and scour ebay for the spare parts I need as and when.

I have realised that simply earning money is pointless if you are only allowed to keep a bit of it. I have most of the material goods I ever dreamed of owning and therefore my outgoings are paltry. The acquisition of further monetary wealth simply for the sake of it seems pointless to me. An iPad2 is not going to enrich my life any more than gold plated guttering on my house will and I'm damned if I'll work 60 hours a week for it.

I have also met a vast amount of "rich" people who cannot sleep in case the goose that lays the golden eggs is not reaching it's quarterly targets, their holiday villas remain empty, their yachts rot in marinas and their designer clothes go quietly and expensively out of fashion, hung unworn in a wardrobe of a fitted bedroom that will need to be "modernised" again within 10 years. And they are joyless miserable bastards, mobiles clamped to their ears all day trying desperately to "leverage" more profit out of whatever venture they have sold their soul to.

Put simply, I no longer seek "wealth", I already have it. A TV blaring at me instructing me to consume more shite so that we can all swap money again holds no power over me. What I own does not own me. In this respect I am free from the parasite that feeds on any monetary transaction I choose to make. I simply do without it as much as I can. My parents did. Their parents REALLY did and I'm teaching my children how to cook and grow food, not how to recognise a Prada hand bag at 30 paces.

This peasant will not be tugging his forelock at any Lord of the Manor. I am the highest authority over me and I'm happy to take the responsibility that goes with that statement. As like the author of the post below recognises, most people do not wish for what I wish for, so I'm happy to peacefully tread my own path in the direction I choose, in peace. On the condition that they, and their masters, leave me the hell alone to live my life and spend my money how I choose.

Real austerity is not about receiving less, it's about wanting less. I have all I want already, so "austerity" will not affect me one bit. What it may do is show the public that Politicians spend others money with no regard for the future, borrow against the unearned income of our children and assume responsibilities and rights that we once owned for ourselves and our families because "they know best". Yeah, right.

Starving the Parasitical State

The State as Parasite, a UK centric proposal. by Andy Dwelly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Note: recent changes in my own circumstances have left me with more time for thinking, and I've also been wondering where the future of Libertarianism now lies with the breakup of the LPUK, after so little progress over the last few years. The problem I've outlined here is an old one, but the solution is one that has only recently become viable as a sort of secondary effect of the internet. This is a draft piece that is mostly addressed to myself – thinking out loud if you will.

The problem.

In the feudal period of Europe, generally judged to lie between the ninth and fifteenth centuries, a villein owed his lord labour to the tune of two or three days a week. Given a six day week, we might judge this as between thirty to fifty percent of his free time was given to his lord. Although the villein did have some rights in return, it was not regarded as a great deal by the serfs, and landlords had a major problem of people fleeing to the towns and cities where they became free men owing labour to none.

In the modern world the landlord has been replaced by the State, which in return for various rights and support takes a significant proportion of the production of the country. In the UK in 2011 this amounts to an estimated 53% of GDP, or to put it another way, the average man is working from January the 1st to 30th May for the State. Other western democracies have similar burdens with Canada showing a tax freedom day of June 5th in 2010 and the US April the 11th.

Apologists for the current situation point out that the State offers much in return for the money it takes. In the UK, education to university is provided, along with a National Health Service, Courts, Police, Army/Navy/Air force, and an seemingly endless array of services and welfare.

The counter argument is that much of this spending is unnecessary, and of the spending that is necessary, much is wasted through incompetence and capture of resources by self interested parties. There is in fact a school of economics that studies this situation, Google for 'Public Choice Theory' for more information.

I am not particularly interested in arguing where the correct level of UK taxation should lie. For my purposes I'm simply going to suggest that the current level is far too high; the consequences on the majority for adults in the UK who are not directly involved in the State are almost uniformly bad. Productive adults are heavily penalized, unproductive adults become captured in a welfare dependency trap - not least by the fact they are given barely enough to live on and certainly have no way of accumulating the resources they need to improve their situation.

Standard solutions.

Having outlined the problem in brief, I would like to equally briefly outline the two standard solutions that many Libertarians trot out. I should add that I find neither idea persuasive. The first solution can be broadly characterized as democratic politics, the second is what we may as well call revolutionary politics.

The democratic political approach suggests that in order to reduce the size and impact of the State, political parties should be formed that have this policy as the main plank to their manifesto. If they can argue that this is the best approach for the country, a majority of voters will elect them and they will then be able to pass the appropriate laws and budgets to reach their goal.

Unfortunately this idea appears to be a complete fantasy. The primary issue is that there are now sections of the UK that have become almost entirely dependent on jobs provided by the State or the welfare alternative. Even the faintest possibility that State spending might be reduced is regarded as something akin to heresy. The recent TUC sponsored 400,000 demonstration against cuts whilst the coalition government was actually increasing State spending is an excellent demonstration of this mindset. No country with a significant proportion of people with this view will elect a Libertarian government.

In addition, the 'first pass the post' election process has locked us into what appears on the face of it to be a two party system. The reality is that there is actually only one party consisting of individuals from a political elite that take on a slightly redder or bluer hue according to personal taste. These people, educated at either Oxford or Cambridge have been taking turns to rule Britain since before the second world war. It has become clear that many of them have grown comfortable with the idea that the productive labour of the country is their personal piggy bank to be used or traded with other countries at will. This situation is mirrored in most if not all of the western democracies.

It is not in the interest of the ruling elite that the size of the State should be reduced since it reduces their power, wealth, and privilege. Only very minor variations of policy make it into either of the two important manifestos (yes – I am ignoring the Liberal Democrats) and anything in an election manifesto deemed inconvenient once a government is in power is simply ignored. For an example of this kind of behaviour one need look no further than the recent history of promises regarding a referendum on the subject of EU membership.

In short, I believe the current political system has a very severe institutional bias against anything that might change the balance of power between the people and the State.

The alternative standard proposal is that of revolution. The idea here is that a small group of people will violently overthrow the current system, seize the levers of power and essentially fire the majority of politicians and civil servants. The word 'fire' here is a euphemism, 'set on fire' is probably more a more accurate description of what some commentators have in mind, and fantasies regarding lampposts and piano wire have figured largely in much recent Libertarian writing.

Now as it happens, the western democracies have faced, and faced down, a series of violent terrorist threats in the last several decades. In the UK, there was the IRA and in the US, some home grown stuff as well as Al-Qaeda. There have been a series of less successful but equally brutal movements in other parts of Europe, including Baader-Meinhof in Germany, ETA in Spain and the N17 group in Greece. You may have noticed that despite these several attempts to violently overthrow the State, the various states remain resolutely un-overthrown. It can be argued that in Europe,the last even partly successful revolution ended with the partition of Ireland in 1921, ninety years ago. It's never happened in North America.

There are various reasons for this including the fact that the police and military responses to terrorism are both well financed and largely effective, but there is also the fundamental fact that revolutionary and terrorist groups that attack the innocent are easily portrayed as villains - because they are. Under the circumstances it's hard for a terrorist movement to gain any popular support.

There is another point to be wary of here which is to ask what the consequences would be of a successful Libertarian revolution under current circumstances. Imagine a world where in the space of weeks, all welfare and a considerable proportion of government services was removed from an unprepared population.

The result would inevitably be widespread chaos and death. There are areas

of this country where far more than half the adult population either work or depend on the State for their livelihood. They've been given no reason to imagine the future will be much different from the past, and certainly most of them lack the inner resources, attitudes, and education to cope in any way apart from desperation. The rioting would exceed anything seen during the frequent

protests in London and would certainly outclass anything recently seen in Greece. Keep in mind that parts of Greece are currently almost out of control and they are only contemplating cuts of around 10% in social spending.

In short, a democratic solution is unlikely and a revolutionary solution is untenable.

What to do.

The proper solution must have several characteristics. First of all, we should dismiss the notion of completely eradicating the State as an entity. This is not feasible and in any case it's not particularly desirable. There in fact many things that are sensibly provided by collective effort - albeit rather less than most of us imagine. Let us therefore set a goal of reducing the governments take to (for example) 20% of GDP. That's not a number picked out of thin air, there are a few examples of working counties where this is about the amount taken. Hong Kong is one such.

We also want the solution to be applicable over a relatively short period of time, but not so quickly as to put our population in danger from some kind of social breakdown. In effect we are all travelling along in a bus that's going far too fast down a hill. If the brakes are simply slammed on, the bus will simply leave the road with unpredictable consequences. However, we do have to slow down before we reach the T junction at the bottom of the hill. My view of timescales is that a proper solution should take no less than ten years, but ten to thirty years for the full impact would be perfectly acceptable.

Another characteristic is that a solution must be applicable by an ordinary individual without putting that individual too much harms way. Thus refusing to pay existing tax, which will inevitably lead to fines and other punishment is not going to work. I watch various flavours of Freemen on the Land with considerable interest, but the big battalions are all on the other side.

This constraint also suggests that attending protests and rallies should be also avoided. Recent examples of police behaviour suggest that public protests can lead to far more trouble than an individual protester can handle. They are also totally ineffective. Anyone believing that a protest will change anything might wish to contemplate the impact of the march against the Iraq war that took place in London in February 2003.

The reason that this characteristic is important, is that if we are going to make a significant difference to our situation, we are going to have to do it as part of a mass movement. It can't be a mass movement if it is too difficult, risky, or scary, for the masses.

The 'parasite state' is a phrase that's frequently used by Libertarians. Recently it was used again by Duncan Carswell, an MP with possible Libertarian leanings. He said:

"The modern British state has many of the characteristics of a parasite; it grows and feeds off each of us. Far from nurturing, it infantilises us and stifles society.
Ever more tax is collected from us to pay for the livelihoods of remote officials whose sole purpose is to tell us how to live our lives. Tax is not simply too high, but at times seems designed to punish those who try to do the right thing.

Savers, taxed once on their income, must pay tax on their prudence. Older folk,forced to pay for their long term care, find virtue penalised and a lifetime’s thrift ignored. And after all that income tax, national insurance, road tax, VAT, license fee, petrol tax, what’s left over? For many families, little more than pocket money."

Parasites are of course the subject of considerable study in the world of biology, and one interesting insight is that trying to avoid the effects of parasites is one of the drivers of evolution. There is some evidence that the invention of sex (as opposed to single celled reproduction) was one of the more successful strategies, so we have that much to be grateful to parasites for.

The point is of course, that species have changed when attempting to deal with parasites. Rather than the random questing of evolution, we can apply a little intelligence to the problem.

Consider the standard definition of a free market exchange. Here we have a producer of goods. I've made it boxes as they are easy to draw. On the left the producer of boxes has brought some boxes to market. On the right there's someone who wants some boxes for some reason. The consumer of boxes offers money. If the box meets the consumers expectation for quality, workmanship etc. and the price offered meets the producers demand then an exchange is made and the consumer happily departs with some boxes while the producer now has some cash.
A similar situation holds when we consider employment.

On the left we have an employee who works for an employer (here he is, handing over some boxes he's made),

and on the right an employer who is prepared to pay wages. If the quality of work is good enough for the employer and the employee thinks that the wages are high enough then an exchange is made and both depart happily.

It's not very difficult to see that both diagrams are the same, and that in fact at some fundamental level both activities are the same. Of course this is to ignore the various regulations that control both markets and employment.

We might talk about various kinds trading standards, the impact of minimum wages and so on. For the moment we will ignore all of this. What we will do is take a look at the impact of the State.

In both set ups there is now a third party involved. As the money moves from the consumer and the employer to the producer and the labourer, some of the cash is diverted away to the State - the third guy with the crown.

There's no particular difficulty in seeing how this works. In the market case the tax is exerted via VAT now at 20%, and by a myriad of additional costs laid on the producer. Duty on fuel on taking goods to market, hidden taxes on insurance and energy, business rates, corporation tax, and so on. Such costs are usually passed on to the consumer because that's where the money is coming from. Hence, if the producer suffers a hidden tax such as a tax on energy, it is the consumer who ultimately pays.

In the case of employment the tax is applied largely in the form of income tax and national insurance.

There is in fact another tax that's been cunningly concealed in the diagram above. The guy with the crown not only takes currency from workers and businesses. He also creates the cash in the form of notes and instruments, and he controls the amount that is in circulation. He can increase the circulation by making more notes, and decrease circulation by removing notes as they flow around.

Decreasing the amount of money in the system hardly ever happens, and in fact it suits the guy with the crown to actually increase the amounts available because he's quietly been borrowing additional cash, promising to give it back with interest from the amounts he'll be able to sequester from us in the future.

Those debts are now large enough to have become slightly inconvenient. By introducing more notes, we start to see inflation. The crown's debts are reduced because the value of the notes the State is paying back the debt with, is reduced. This may be one of the motivations behind 'quantitative easing'. The money of course is merely numbers in a computer, but the impact of inflation is very real, reducing the value of any cash held by people both in person and in a savings accounts. Effectively inflation is a tax on anyone who uses the inflating currency in transactions. Inflation in the UK is running at around 4.5% at the moment using the CPI measure. The slightly more broad RPI measure is running at around 5.2%

At one point in the '70s inflation was running at more than 20% so it's down considerably from that point. It is however currently at a rate that makes life increasingly difficult for anyone who is basing their lifestyle on money transactions, and that's most of us.

The parasite attacks through taxes and inflation. So the obvious question is, 'what intelligent change can we make to our lives to minimise the impact of the parasite ?'

Looking at the diagrams again, it should be clear that the impact is all on the money side of the exchange. It should therefore be equally clear that by minimising the money side we minimise the ability of the parasite to drain off the fruits of our labour. We can, in effect – starve the parasite.

What does this mean in practice ? First of all, I'm not proposing that Libertarians should all stop working, I'm also not going to suggest that we should stop engaging in the free market. What I am suggesting that we should start taking steps towards minimising our money based interactions.

Does this mean that we shall be poor ? The answer to this is a definitive 'No', and furthermore I'm not going to wiggle off the hook by redefining the word 'poor' to mean 'no actual goods, but great in spirit' or any similar religious cant. I actually mean it is possible to not have much money and still not be poor.

To see how this is possible, consider the situation of a man who has been conventionally wealthy in the past but has spend most of that wealth on durable goods. A home held outright, a high quality car with low fuel consumption that tends not to break down. Perhaps the kind of furniture you can leave as an heirloom to your children. There are however, no savings as such.

Let us also suppose that his current income is actually now just a few thousand pounds a year. Enough to meet his food and council tax, and any trivial entertainment he might require. For any common sense definition, would we regard this individual as poor ? I don't think so. In fact, the government definition of poverty is so badly formulated that he might be able to claim all sorts of benefits even though he effectively leads the life of a tremendously wealthy man.

Could he be taxed ? Obviously he has to pay council tax although in fact he might be able to avoid this on the basis of his low actual income. He'd pay tax on fuel and the hidden taxes in his energy bills. Because his income is low he will pay little or no taxes of any other kind.

Does he suffer from inflation ? Although he's on a relatively fixed income, and the cost of food is increasing, the majority of his assets are unchanged. The house remains a pleasant place to live. His car continues to take him out on trips when he wants to go. His enormous leather sofa, remains unchanged and I suspect it will be in much the same shape in a hundred years time.

It's interesting to note that the nominal value of his assets has changed over the years. The value of the house went up – then down. The car steadily depreciates although one day it may well start to increase again as a 'classic' model. The sofa is currently worth less than when he bought it. For all practical purposes however, none of this matters.

What I've described here is a very special case although I am aware of one person in exactly this situation. But the real point is that the reason for his immunity from the parasite is not because he is a special case but because he does not do a lot of money transactions. How can this be applied to the average individual to minimize their vulnerability ?

...and here my own personal experiment starts. My daily expenses can be divided up into housing, energy, transport, food, beer/wine, entertainment/news. At the moment there is nothing to be done about housing and energy with moving seriously into 'back to the land' territory.

Transport can probably be largely taken out of the exchange cycle (I can't avoid annual road tax) since there are a number of 2nd hand diesel engine cars available out there and in the UK we are allowed to make around 2500Lt per annum of biodiesel for our own use without tax. I suspect the motivation here is partly as a sop to the green end of the political elite, and partly as it doesn't make economic sense to try and collect tiny amounts of tax from thousands of individuals. A level of judicious telecommuting will also help. One day a week reduces the transport bill by 15%

There are various ways you can make your own biodiesel but the process involves heat and inflammable chemicals – not a great combination in my opinion. Oddly enough though, Rudolf Diesel originally designed his engine to work with vegetable oil and a number of modern diesel engined cars can be converted to run on vegetable oil directly. Currently the cash and carry price of such oil is £1 per litre as opposed to £1.46 per litre at the pump. It's also possible to collect used oil from various fast food places although that is becoming harder as the value of used oil is realized.

Given that my primary motivation is to starve the parasite, and noting that there is no tax on vegetable oil (it's a food), it still serves my purpose, even at a 46% discount.

Next up is actual food. I've spent an adult lifetime avoiding gardening, largely based on the grim childhood experiences of labouring on my father's patch. Gardening, it appeared to me, consists of large amounts of drudgery where ground is dug over, planted, weeded, pests dealt with, more digging, weeding etc. etc. At the end of this you get potatoes that are no better than Tescos' potatoes.

With traditional methods, this is largely still true. However, recent advances in horticulture suggest that a considerable proportion – possibly all - of a family's daily requirements can be met on a quarter acre of urban land, that is, about the size of an average back garden. Surprisingly, this can now be done without the relentless effort this used to require. It would seem that a family of four can be fed all the vegetables they can eat with just a few hours gentle and rather pleasant labour a week, nine months a year.

Bread is another interesting one. Traditionally making our own bread takes several hours of elapsed time while dough is kneaded, rises, punched down, rises again, formed into loaves and baked. This is certainly possible for home based individuals but simply not practical for most of us. Once again the reality of the situation has changed and it is now possible to create a perfectly adequate loaf of bread with around 1 minute's effort and around 20 minutes elapsed time. I've been doing this regularly for about 6 months. I suppose at a pinch you could also use a bread machine, but I've personally found that the product is not that good and there is a truly gruesome amount of washing up that needs to be done afterwards.

Jams, pickles, sauerkrauts, yoghurts and so on are all simple country crafts.

As a devout non-vegetarian, meat is high on my list of desirable foods and I admit that as someone who lives in a rural district, I have a definite advantage over those who live in the city. I therefore propose to find out how chickens and ducks work. I note that many medieval households had fishponds that provided for the table. I've rejected aquaponics as a way forward because it looks extremely energy intensive to me – but a simple fishpond appears feasible in my case. We also have a large rabbit warren locally and I'd like some payback for the cabbages they've taken from me.

As it happens, I've probably covered rather more than two thirds of the meat bill right there. If shopping for meat is reduced to purchasing an occasional joint of lamb and some mince, I shall not be unhappy. On the other hand, I will not be doing anything about dairy and coffee. A pet cow or goat is too much at this stage and even if coffee could be grown here in the UK, it would have to be properly processed afterwards.

In the past three years the duty on beer has quietly gone up by about 47% and there have been smaller but equally unpleasant increases in duty on wine and spirits. I note in passing that we can easily make our own beer direct from grain, passable wine from kits, and even grow perfectly good tobacco as far north as Scotland. Homebrewed beer typically costs about 30p per pint in ingredients and energy. This compares well to the £1.50 to buy a similar bottle in a supermarket, or £3.00 for the same pint in a pub. A considerable amount of the difference accrues to the government. A typical brew day can produce enough beer to last me the best part of a couple of months. It's also rather fun.

Finally we move onto entertainment and news. I'm unlikely to be able to convince my family to give up the TV but virtually all other wants are met for free via the internet. Our internet connection costs £20.00 a month but it's a good one. Money well spent.

As for the rest of it, clothes, shoes, school trips and so on. They will simply be handled as before. The whole experiment will not be taken to extremes, it starts to become a useful tool against the parasite when others do the same as me for similar reasons, rather than me cutting out all personal tax paying activities.

To sum up, I've decided to voluntarily reduce my money based economic activity and as a consequence the amount of tax the State is legally able to extract from me has dropped, and will drop considerably more over the next few years. I've belatedly reached the conclusion that planting a carrot is one of the most subversive things a citizen can do. Has this made me poorer ? Not in any practical sense that I have been able to detect so far, although I am spending rather more time with my family and the food quality has greatly improved.

I'm rather hoping that at some point over the next few years some alarmed State apparatchik will have the stupidity to ask me 'what if everyone did this ?'. What indeed ? Refusal to engage economically can hardly be made illegal without arresting large parts of the North of England. It's possible that new taxes might be invented to try and extract value from those following this path, but they are going to have to be collected in cabbage stalks and eggs. Good luck paying ministerial wages with that.

This approach does free up quite a lot of my time and one of the things I will be doing is writing on the practical aspects of this approach. The diesel, the food, the beer, and so on. But you know what – I will not be charging for any of it, apart from anything else I don't want to bump up my cash income. If you want to show your appreciation you can send me a gift. There's going to be a lot of gifting in the future.

While I was researching this essay I discovered that doing this sort of thing is called 'Going Galt' after the protagonist of Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. Galt – an industrialist, goes on strike along with a lot of other industrialists and America crumbles. I think the phrase is a bit of a misnomer since it suggests you have to have achieved huge personal success in order to make any withdrawal of this nature meaningful. In fact, what I've started to do, and will continue to do, is an approach open to anyone, and I hope to encourage many others to follow the path I've tentatively started to tread.

Andy Dwelly

West Sussex 2011

Friday, 20 May 2011

The Alternate "Big Society" & Unelection Day

I am not Old Holborn.

When David Cameron started spouting off about the Big Society, he was belittled and laughed at, it was after all, a really cheesy idea; “Let's all muck in together for the betterment of this country”. I was one of those people who thought he was being a deluded fool. There was no possible way people from differing sides of the political spectrum could put their tribalism aside and try to work together to make things better, especially the way he wanted us to do.

Those of us who have no political affiliation thought he was trying to create one of those “happily ever after” Hollywood films where we all get the girl/man of our dreams, are rich beyond our wildest expectations and own a house with a white picket fence in a crime free idyllic neighbourhood. He was in fact trying to sell us something which was never his to sell in the first place. Like all governments tend to do.

He was trying to sell us our freedom, when in fact we already have it, it's just been MIA for a very long time. We CAN have anything we ever wanted and we certainly do not have to rely on government to help us achieve it. We just need to find our voices and more importantly find the courage within ourselves to find that freedom. It's not easy, and I have by no means found my freedom 100% but I'm getting there. Slowly.

Over the last few months I've been taking on the London Borough of Bexley and I've written about my exploits here once or twice. In that time my opinions on the “Big Society” or at least a version thereof have changed somewhat. When I first started making a nuisance of myself I was doing it on my own, and while not failing miserably I wasn't exactly having any sort of sterling success. Over the first few weeks I discovered and met up with Malcolm Knight, an elderly gent who had been blogging about Bexley Council for a long while. I've plugged his site here before, the name of which is Bexley is Bonkers.

Now Malcolm doesn't work alone, there's actually a group of people who work together, they have meetings, they go to the pub, talk strategy, and make any arrangements they need to. They're affectionately known as the Bonkers Crew. They're a very unique bunch, and it's thanks to them that I started thinking about an alternate “Big Society”. You see the the members of the Bonkers Crew come from all sides of the political spectrum, the group consists of Conservatives, Labourites, Lib Dems and there's even a bloke from the BNP who all contribute towards a common cause.

That shocked me, a lot. No way in a million years would I have thought that members of very tribal political parties could come together and fight government, albeit local government, and I certainly didn't expect them to be as mischievous as they are. Although not a member of the Bonkers Crew, I always try and help them out when I can with information, so you could throw an "Anarcho-Libertarian" into the mix too. All working together to fight the “other” Big Society – government.

I've included a Youtube video at the top of this post, while it is Bexley related, I put it up there for a reason. Firstly, the NoToMob crew do a stirling job, and secondly they embrace their anonymity by wearing the same type of masks as our host. More importantly, I wanted to demonstrate how people from differing backgrounds and people with different political beliefs (Yes I'm sure even Lib Dems ride motorbikes) working together can achieve something. Something good, something that screams to the government “Fuck you in the eye, we're doing it our way!”

A well known blogger once said to me:” It's not who's going to let you, it's who's going to stop you” and that's exactly right. If you stop worrying about getting permission to do things then doing things becomes a hell of a lot easier to do. Within, or outside of the law. If it's right, just and well intentioned you can never be wrong.

With that in mind, this summer I'm trying to arrange an “Unelection Day” in Bexley, where each and every single one of you is cordially invited to attend and collectively stick two fingers up at government and help the residents of Bexley take control back from the local council. The plan is to get people to withdraw their consent for the local council to govern them locally and to facilitate the non-payment of council tax. It really is time to start building that “Alternate Big Society” the first two steps of which are to withdraw consent and then to:


It's time to start doing things our way. Who knows it might catch on!


Sir Olly

The Gazan Spring

Israel is not amused.

Since May 14,1948, a small group of European American and Russian Zionists have succeeded in securing billions in aid and weapons for their “homeland” Israel based on the pretext of “victimhood” and the noble but empty gesture of being “the only democracy in the Middle East”.

So it is with trepidation that Israel has awoken to find that the nasty Arabs who would push them into the sea are pushing their own tyrant leaders out of power instead. This wasn’t in the plan at all. Israel cannot exist as a Zionist State if the countries around it don’t hate it any more, it can’t threaten the US and demand weapons and funding, it can’t declare itself a victim of its neighbours hostility and as Obama pointed out yesterday, it can no longer justify the “greater Israel” concept that the 1967 war so conveniently handed it.

Hundreds of thousands of Israelis, safe in the knowledge that no one would ever trace their argument that “Jews are Gods Chosen People, we live where we please” past the first hurdle of “well, everyone wants to kill us” are suddenly waking up to the concept that their neighbours actually don’t. All they want is what was theirs. Peace and their property. On the West Bank.

This is going to strip the arguments back to the very basic tenants of Zionism itself. How we they be able to justify the brutal repression of the Palestinians if the Palestinians no longer throw fireworks over the fence at them? How will they justify lobbing phosphorous bombs into crowded markets if all the Palestinian Arabs are asking for is peace and doing it peacefully? How will they demand to be excluded from International Law and UN resolutions if those around them are not violent, tyrannical regimes any more?

Israel is not a rogue State. Those who choose to run it as one in defence of a supremacist, racist doctrine are going to find their old arguments of victimhood are no longer going to cover their own abuse of non Jews.

All the Palestinians have to do to win the full backing of the West for an independent Palestine is peacefully protest in their thousands. Just like the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Yemenis, Syrians and Bahrainis.

Expect trouble. The LAST thing Israel ever wants is peace.

Thursday, 19 May 2011

OldHolborn.net deleted

I must apologise for the random change of domain. Here's why:

This is to inform you that to date I have not received any notification that any changes have been made to the Whois for this domain nor have you confirmed the accuracy of the whois.

As the agreement that you have with us states that "Your willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, your willful failure promptly to update information "
"the accuracy of contact details associated with the your registration shall constitute a material breach Of this Agreement and be a basis for cancellation of the domain name"
And that we (Tucows) as per our obligation with ICANN are left with no other recourse than to suspend the above mentioned domain.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Paul Karkas
Compliance Officer OpenSRS
Tucows Inc.
416-535-0123 ext 1625
Fax 1-416-535-7699

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Karkas [mailto:pkarkas@tucows.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:34 PM
To: 'oldhoborn@gmail.com'
Cc: 'domains@fasthosts.co.uk'
Subject: oldholborn.net



I'm writing to you from Tucows (Registrar for your domain). It has come to
Our attention that the WHOIS for this domain (see subject line) may not be

According to Section 18 of the Registrant Agreement you accepted when you
Registered the domain name, all information is to be current, complete and


18. INFORMATION. As part of the registration process, you are required to
provide us certain information and to update us promptly as such information
changes such that our records are current, complete and accurate. You are
obliged to provide us the following information: (a) your name and postal
address (or, if different, that of the domain name holder); (b) the domain
name being registered;

As the Registrar, it is our responsibility to maintain the WHOIS and ensure
That the information provided is up to date and accurate. We have received
Notification that information listed in the WHOIS for the domain name may be
Inaccurate. We are required, as per our ICANN obligations, to ensure that
The claim of inaccuracy is investigated. This is outlined in Sections 18,
20 and 21 of the Registration Agreement.

20.OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN WHOIS. Your willful provision of inaccurate or
unreliable information, your willful failure promptly to update information
provided to us, or any failure to respond to inquiries by us addressed to
the email address of the registrant, the administrative, billing or
technical contact appearing in the Whois directory with respect to a domain
name concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the
registration shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and be a
basis for cancellation of the domain name registration. Any information
collected by us concerning an identified or

21. REVOCATION. We, in our sole discretion, reserve the right to deny,
cancel, suspend, transfer or modify any domain name registration to correct
a mistake, protect the integrity and stability of the company and any
applicable registry, to comply with any applicable laws, government rules,
or requirements, requests of law enforcement, in compliance with any dispute
resolution process, or to avoid any liability, civil or criminal. You agree
that we shall not be liable to you for loss or damages that may result from
our refusal to register or cancel, suspend, transfer or modify your domain
name registration.

Please ensure that the WHOIS information is updated no later than close of
business on date May 18 / 2011.

Paul Karkas
Compliance Officer OpenSRS
Tucows Inc.
1-800-371-6992 x1625

First Name: Old
Last Name: Holborn
Organization Name: N/A
Street Address: Houses of Parliament

City: London
State: London
2 Letter ISO Country Code: GB
Postal Code: SW1A 0AA
Phone: 0123456789
Email: oldhoborn@gmail.com

Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Think of the future...

A guest post by Annabelle Fuller of Rally against Debt

When did wanting private enterprise and individual responsibility become a radical view point in this country? Remember that advert which stated that 'no one in Italy grows up wanting to be a train driver'? Surely no one really grows up wanting to be a civil servant or a council administrator?

Yet from the constant wave of noise ever since these so called 'cuts' were announced you would have thought that reining back the public sector was akin to the slaughter of kittens rather than the first step in regaining sensible economic policies.

We are in a situation in the UK where the public sector is bigger than the private sector. Where the growth and jobs part of the economy has been overtaken by the bit which spends our money on, for the most part, things we don't really want and don't do particularly well.

Maybe it's the result of 13 years of a Labour government or maybe it started before that but in this day and age the general public seem to believe that we need the government to do everything for us.

Oh; we moan that they don't listen, that we don't trust politicians, that our taxes are wasted on things we don't care about but when the dreaded 'c' word is mentioned do we support it?

A poll in the Guardian showed that indeed, most people in this country did support the cuts and 29 per cent of people wanted them to go further. But are these wishes a long term aim or are they a reaction to the realisation that our economy has been mismanaged to the extent that we are up the proverbial creek without the required apparatus? Do we want these cuts to continue when, or if, we get back on a solid footing?

For me, that's the basis of these economic arguments and as such we've yet to see a debate on it. For me, it's simple. I don't want these cuts to end here and I don't want to see the public sector grow fat again in a few years time.

That's why, when I saw a tweet from my friend Harry Aldridge proposing a response to the economically retarded and quite incorrectly named 'March for the Alternative' I decided to see if I could do something about it. It may have only been a Facebook event and a reasonably catchy name but the response online and amongst the right wing and libertarian groups was considerable considering that a glance at the national newspapers would make one think that there was no other side to the argument.

As it turned out, I was pleased with the Rally Against Debt. An embryonic movement with little money and no full time staff, no union slush fund, event planners and significantly, no one fighting for 'visible' effects of government spending such as their own job or benefit and still we managed to make our voice heard.

It was a great story for the media, of course. Us 'radicals' gathering in Westminster to clamour for the days when we can have a Chancellor who realise that Keynesian economic theories are not only useless but pretty dangerous. A request for the state to step out of running our lives for us and to free the private sector to do what it needs to do: grow.

There were no placards bearing Laffer Curves I'll grant you, but this was still a rally based on economics rather than politics. A rally based on being selfless and thinking of the future rather than our immediate self interest. A rally based on the understanding that we need a strong private sector.

It's a message that we cannot afford to ignore, though I say it myself, and as such we cannot just congratulate ourselves on a few hundred people gathering and getting some good press coverage. We must build on it and keep going. And keep growing. Because all evidence points to our views still being marginalised and the general population still feeling the need for government stabilisers on their life cycles.

So keep supporting Rally Against Debt. We need to grow and we need more activites to send the message that we are not going away and we are not prepared to let this country become some mimic of soviet times with huge percentages of GDP being spent by the state.

I don't know about you, but I'm rather good at spending my monthly salary. Too good, my parents would suggest. And I'd rather be able to afford my own house, have decent health care and lovely shoes than see my money go on endless layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary attempts by government to interfere in the marginal propensity to consume. I can consume very well on my own, thank you. And so, I think, can you. If you let yourself.

The bottomless pit

Today sees yet another example of big government deciding that in order to remain big government, it needs to centralize everything that big government relies on to remain big.

Namely, the NHS. That behemoth that employs 1.5 MILLION people and swallows a staggering £100 Billion of taxpayers money every year.

Fabians decided to allocate a further £11.5 Billion to their favourite crony lobbyists corporations to ensure that each and every precious bit of data on each and every one us could be viewed anywhere, anytime. And of course, like all central government diktats, no regard was paid to the best way to do it, just get it done, so we, the masters can bask in the glory.

Despite the likes of Amazon, Ebay and Google managing to build flexible, solid systems that know what I had for breakfast, our masters have decided that because it isn’t their money, they can pay old friends and future “consultancy contacts” to employ armies of middle aged program managers called Keith from Daventry in badly fitting suits with scruffy rucksacs on £450 a day contract rates for ever.

Political vanity is the reason. It has NOTHING to do with offering a better service, if it did, they would have chosen the simplest cheapest method to get the job done. Give it to Amazon or Ebay who live or die by getting it right, first time. No, it has to go to cronies who will greedily drink at the bottomless pit, safe in the knowledge that a minister will at some point be appointed to the board as his reward for throwing billions at inept and inefficient state sponsored consultancies.

Peerages will be awarded, knighthoods will be issued, lucrative “adviser” roles awarded. Pensions secured, champagne for all. And the taxpayer will be left wondering just where the hell all the money went. And in the background, quietly smiling, will be BUPA, with their fully centralised, privately funded central records system, designed to improve the service they offer to their customers, not the aspirations of a Political Elite, drunk on the excesses of the public purse.

If you really want to save the NHS, refuse to let one more politician anywhere near it.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

When the world runs out of money...

It's time to look at what money actually is. Not the useless paper stuff or the printed numbers on a bank statement but what it actually is.

The method to reward the actual physical labour involved in creating something that others desire. Certainly, it has always been based on gold, that rare stuff that is difficult to get out of the ground simply because the effort to get it out of the ground means it has "value".

Since our masters decided that gold was just too difficult to find, they've just started inventing "money" from thin air. It doesn't exist and its value is now based on "future income". Bonds. A country that has an educated workforce can auction the future the tax income of that workforce to get its hands on more of the stuff and if not, will quietly print more of it off. If it runs out, they will raise the amount they steal in taxes and sell more bonds.

Credit. The great con trick where a bank lends you money they don't have, that doesn't even exist in any form on the promise that you will use your labour to repay it by creating something someone else will borrow their fictional money to purchase.

Having exploited us, the banks and governments are now addicting the third world to "credit". Lending even the poorest of the poor the "money" to enslave their labour in the hope of becoming richer. Meanwhile, the corporations are smiling, knowing that one day soon, even the peasant in the field will own a shiny new iPad, bought on a promise to work harder.

I am not an economist. I know I am rich because I can buy the things I like, not just the things I need. I know I have also paid an absolute fortune in "interest" on money that never existed. I know my government is quite literally banking on me to live a long productive life so that it can borrow even more. And it turn, it will spend it on 3rd world nations to ensure that they too can borrow more money in the rush to become rich.

Don't smoke, don't drink, don't drive too fast. We have invested in you. You belong to us. We've already sold your future labour to buy more votes. Don't eat that, it will make you fat and unproductive.

Eventually, when the whole world has a mortgage, a credit card full of debt, student loans and shiny things, we might wake up to the fact that our 60 hour weeks and 50%+ taxation has not made us free in any way. It has just given every single thing we hold dear to those who would enslave us. In return for 20 days paid holiday a year.

If you want to be free, start with being free of debt. You remove the power of banks and Politicians over your life. You may have less baubles to impress, but you will also have the freedom of knowing that what you own does not own you. And when nothing owns you, you can start to own yourself. Because one day, the world will realise that money no longer exists and all your labour was in vain.

I'm no survivalist, but I do know you can't eat an iPad. Something the 3rd world is being coerced to forget.

BIG Government

click to enlarge

A shocking picture of where we are. A bloated state, coordinating diversity whilst grabbing every penny it can find to bribe the electorate with their own money, manipulating every aspect of our daily lives to ensure that the 650 Political Elite remain Plantation Owners and we remain slaves.

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

A Greek Tragedy

There is trouble ahead. Despite being handed billions by the EU bank and European taxpayers, Greece has still run out of other peoples money.

Those with a vested interest (currently 16%) in seeing Greece repay its enormous debts are pressing for yet more austerity from the State (whilst Greeks still retire at 55) and tax hikes to fleece the population even more.

How did this happen?

Well, the EU told Greece they could have everything the Germans have if they just joined the fat sweaty gym on a never ending contract (direct debt) and ceded all power to the unelected in Brussels. Socialist politicians seduced by the prospect of unlimited, unearned wealth pouring into the coffers of communists, rewarding their supporters signed on the dotted line and the Greeks were enslaved.

And now the banks and the EU want their payback. Except the Greeks are not playing ball. An article in this mornings Grauniad highlights that Greeks are sick of being squeezed. They KNOW who is at fault. They KNOW their "leaders" were sold the emporers new clothes and instead of knuckling down, tugging their forelocks to their new masters and working on the plantation are simply ignoring the State

more and more people experience the lack of meaning, rationality, justice and freedom in their everyday lives. Some refuse to pay transport and hospital fees, tolls and debts, and others create tiny local networks of solidarity, alternative commerce or self-education in their districts. Some read blogs and narrate different stories reconfirming their dignity with humble, daily acts of resistance because they feel the difference between "us" and "them" that no media or state narrative can obscure.
Eventually, Portugal and Ireland will do the same. The Politicians will demand more from the slaves to pay back the debts they created to enslave them and the citizens will just decide to ignore them. You can trade in other currencies. Turks have never trusted the Turkish Lire and trade mostly in dollars and Euros. Silver and gold bars are now available in vending machines should you decide not to trust a bankrupt bank that is owned by a bankrupt state to keep your life savings safe (even now, the EU has told the Irish State to raid the private pensions and savings for cash).

Even if the Greek state doesn't default on it's debt, its people sure enough will. And who can blame them? Why SHOULD their children carry the debt of greedy Politicians?

Granted, Greek neighbourhoods won't have 5 brand new taxpayer funded astro turf pitches to keep unemployed yoof amused, or outreach workers or diversity coordinators, but then again, perhaps they never should have?

Learn a lesson. Do NOT accept the debt the State has piled on us. It isn't ours, or our childrens. It belongs to the Politicians who signed the contracts and raided our pockets by force. Hold them responsible. From a lamp post if necessary. Don't withdraw your labour. Withdraw the States access to your labour.

Tuesday, 10 May 2011

Rally against debt

As the profligate spending of politicians in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and others sees both the EU banks and the Germans dictate to free citizens how they must now live their lives, I shall be attending "Rally Against Debt" on Saturday 14th May in London.

I do not expect a massive turnout, I do not expect the world the change but I do intend to use my voice to insist that before any politician commits my children and their children to yet more public debt, we are given an option to say no.

Debt IS slavery. The very reason Governments and banks are so keen on it. It is time for them to stop spending our money enslaving us with their debt.

Join me, 11am at Old Palace Yard, opposite Parliament to remind them where the finance for their grand schemes comes from. Our labour. Our risk. Our sacrifice.

Friday, 6 May 2011

Beware - Starving Beast lashes out

Irelands public debt now stands at €120,000 per worker, a staggering figure. Instead of growing the economy organically, they rushed into Europe and the Eurozone, binged on "new found wealth" that never existed in the first place and declared themselves "Celtic Tigers".

In a VERY sinister move, the Irish government has decided that rather than simply default and upset the private bondholders (banks, hedge funds) that it owes, it will raid the private pensions and savings of Irish citizens instead.

Iceland understood that the money owed by Icelandic banks was not the responsibility of Icelands citizens and refused to cover the debts of speculators. Iceland is free of the European Central Bank and diktats from the EU to behave. Ireland is not. The Irish States greed to control the banking sector has enslaved the Irish the very banks it sought to control. Banks that are STILL leaking money like a sieve. And the ever more impoverished citizens of Eire are being dragged through bankruptcy to ensure that the European Central Bank and following list of creditors get their money if necessary by outright theft of private savings and pensions.

The drunken landlord of the Shamrock Inn is raiding the pockets of his customers at gunpoint to pay back the loansharks he paid to renovate the beer garden. Europe demanding that Irish taxpayers pump yet more into the banks owing them money is like the Bank of England demanding that the debts of Northern rock be covered by Newcastle Council taxpayers.

I wish them well with that. Greece IS about to default, causing a Portuguese and Spanish crisis that will cripple the Germans and very possibly end the Eurozone as we know it. Ireland needs to tell it's State to stop throwing good money after bad and simply hold up it's hands and go back to digging potatoes.

I urge you to read an excellent evaluation of the situation by Morgan Kelly in the Irish Times.

There are only two types of people in Ireland. Geniuses and EEjets. Time to get rid of the EEjets that signed up for slavery to a banking cartel

Thursday, 5 May 2011

From Acorns

12 months ago, I stood for the Parliamentary seat of Cambridge, thanks to the readers of this blog who donated enough money for my deposit, 50,000 leaflets, posters, stickers, banners, a campaign office and eggs to throw at corrupt politicians.

It was a fantastic event, forcing the Labour candidate in a "two party" race into third position, upsetting PLENTY of those who simply assume they may rule us because they study at the university of the Political Class, upsetting the establishment by using their own rules against them (and becoming the first person in history to stand for Parliament completely anonymously, whilst not even registered to vote myself, a criminal act).

I had originally coupled with the Jury Party to use their knowledge and "an army of independents" policy to upset the Status Quo, but alas, the hurdle was too big for the party to conquer and I ended up as Old Holborn - Independent on the ballot paper.

I went to the hustings (invited or not), I shouted from the roof tops and harassed my opposition whenever possible. Even today, none of them has any idea who I am, what I do, where I live or what I look like - attack my ideals, not me was my motto.

Now I want YOU to do the same. Anna Raccoon, Devils Kitchen, Nameless Libertarian and myself will host ANY blogpost you care to post on the condition that it is used to raise funds for your very own Libertarian campaign to be elected. My readers will either back you with funds or destroy you with comment. My readers will decide if you receive the funds to stand or not.

Please head over to Annas for the full lowdown, and then get yourself up and do it. If you have HALF the fun I had last year, you will still die with a smile on your face knowing that just for a few fleeting moments, YOU rippled the fetid swamp that IS politics.

Wednesday, 4 May 2011

Dinner for One

Allow me to explain the voting system

FPTP : 12 people sit down for dinner. 2 vegetarians vote for boiled sprouts whilst the others would each like what they want. Everybody eats sprouts. It's "fair, simple, decisive"

AV: 12 people end up eating egg and chips because it offends no one and nobody hates egg and chips, although they would all prefer to eat what they really like instead.

PR: 12 people have a choice of Steak, egg and chips or boiled sprouts. No fish.

Direct Democracy: Old Holborn asks the chef, who he is paying, for Lobster Thermidore, just how he likes it. Others order what they really want and pay their own bills.


The Butler Did It

At present, our armed forces are risking life and limb to protect innocent citizens from being attacked by their own Governments in the Middle East. Politicians are flying around the world, forming alliances, settling differences and bribing all and sundry to put a halt to the old tradition of murdering those who oppose your Government.

Iain Tomlinson was not a seditionary, a revolutionary, a protester. He was walking home when he was attacked by a servant of the State who had already been fired once for attacking the public he served.

I remember the day well. I was at the G20 protests being kettled by the Police for having the temerity to oppose the Government of the day in a peaceful way. I remember how the mood changed with a change of shift at 2pm and the smiling bobbies were replaced with Robocop thugs, intent of testing the techniques they had been taught in "crowd control".

Iain Tomlinson, in his own country, in his own neighbourhood, was in the wrong place at the wrong time and through no gfault of his own was on the receiving end of a Police Force out of control. This was NOT one officer, one bad apple. Simon Harwood was using techniques he had been taught. Intimidate. Threaten. Use violence. Do not assume innocence, presume guilt. Shoot first.

What troubles me more than a serving public servant turning on the very people he was sworn to protect is what happened next.

No CCTV was found to be working. No fellow Police Officers saw anything. No competent doctor was allowed near the deceased. Verdict= heart attack. A "stumbling drunk", "unemployable", "on deaths door anyway" was the line fed to the media.

Until of course, a banker from New York handed the Grauniad footage from his mobile phone showing casual violence and brutal indifference from a thug paid by us to protect us. The cat was out of the bag. The CPS had already decided no one would face charges for the attack and the Met had decided no officer would be disciplined for hiring a known thug who thrived on assaulting the public.

Without the bankers footage and the Grauniad, PC Simon Harwood would be wandering your neighbourhood, looking for an opportunity to use the power invested in him by us to assault us. As trained by the Met.

I want the head of Keir Starmer of the CPS, Bob Broadhurst of the Met and whoever wrote the training manual of the feral thugs in uniform who now patrol OUR streets. Our servants are abusing their masters and I want it stopped. Now. It was pure luck that this wasn't just swept under the carpet by those who serve us but would rule us.

As for PC Simon Harwood, once retired on "medical grounds" for violence against the public only to return and kill a member of the public, I want him charged with manslaughter. Today. Not next month or next year. Today.

Monday, 2 May 2011

Photoshop Training Req'd

Someboday at the CIA needs some serious "introduction to Photoshop" training

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails