Sunday, 28 October 2012
I am now be posting on Hayeksplosives.
Thanks to everyone who has read and/or commented here in the past. Given the dismal nature of the present administration, the dumbing down and the fact that Democracy tends to help remove bad governments, not select good ones, I expect to return here in a year or so, when the title will again be pertinent.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
WARNING: In this post I will use the d-word – deprivation.
Two kinds of true deprivation stand out in the dimension of recent disturbances, IMHO, one is to deprive people of their livelihoods, property and safety and the other is to deprive a child of the upbringing they need to become a well-adjusted human being.
What jumped out for me was the behaviour of Turkish, Bengali and other groups of shopkeepers and residents in defending their businesses, property and homes - a very British thing to do - and some very interesting articles which repeat long said truths, but which should now be a mighty slap in the face to some people.
The immediate issue is defence, of lives, livelihoods and property. A strong, visible defence is the best deterrent. I am not talking about locks and shutters, but a pro-active defence whereby those who try it on will be met with a real, immediate, physical response and a real and highly probable legal consequence. If certain groups look around the street and see ordinary people all around them, but know that those ordinary people can suddenly mutate and coalesce into an organized defence force, then even the less controlled individuals will exercise self-restraint.
The problem is we have had decades of emasculation and disempowerment of ordinary citizens, brainwashed and brow-beaten to abdicate their own personal safety and defence to the Police. This drive for abdication is nearly all-pervasive, infesting education, health, welfare as well as personal defence. It becomes a meme, a Pavlovian, passive, sheep-like response. Add wolves and the result we have seen for ourselves.
The spell of Police “protection” was broken, creating chaos. However, that broken spell is part of the wider necromancy mentioned above, which is now in the process of breaking, too, for ordinary people. It is no coincidence, in my view, that some of the communities that have the least exposure to the Fabian witchcraft  reacted first and foremost. We saw the Turks of Dalson, for example, take to the streets to defend their community.
Children do not chose to be born into dysfunction. They rely on their parents and family to instill proper codes of conduct, to distinguish right from wrong, to engender a sense of restraint, deferred gratification, of consequence. Should a child be denied that – deprived of it – that child is not to blame for the lack. However, essential in the rehabilitation of such people is the need to learn right from wrong and too soft an approach risks entrenching the problem, not curing the malaise. Throwing someone in jail with no rehabilitation is equally short sighted.
I have read posts such as that by Camila Batmanghelidjh and Katherine Birbalsingh  . Although they approach the situation from different angles, I agree with both of them. Neither set out to excuse, but to understand and try to explain why such things have been a tinderbox and offer their solution or advice. The problem we have, some say, is that there is only one Camila and only one Katherine.
What we should NOT do is try and Xerox Camila or Katherine, systematizing their approach to be implemented by rote-learned practitioners following a protocol. There are others who, though they might use a different methodology, use ways that are effective, that can reach out and heal. If you try to impose wisdom, it ceases to be wisdom. We must try not to get hung up on one way, not to create a monoculture as that will ossify any system and reduce the speed in which innovation and, yes, experimentation can occur in tackling damaged individuals . I am sure Camila and Katherine are not so arrogant as to think they have nothing to learn from others.
The State is pretty hopeless at doing anything other than form monopolies or monocultures. I am not convinced that the State is the right way to implement or drive the spread of good practice in a pluralistic and consensual way.
I do think, however, that we still need to go deeper. Healing those damaged and quickly is one thing, but the rate in which such people are being damaged or left to get damaged is way too high, diluting efforts and resources, however superb and heroic, to near homeopathic levels.
I am not talking about the State performing some kind of “pre natal intervention”, which is a stock-in-trade for the Socialist mind of perfecting the clay that we call people. No, we need, first and foremost, for the State to STOP funding and doing things that creates the problems or creates the environment for such problems to occur or multiply.
An example is benefits and housing that should not be focused on those who bear others into poverty. Funding those who cannot afford to have children to have children is madness. Women who know that there is no source of support and accommodation "by right" will be far more discerning as to whom she interacts with, when and how. Of course such things are never perfect, but we are not talking about perfection – I leave that delusion to the Fabians – but about the basic truth that if you subsidize something you tend to get more of it. Such an approach will not eradicate, nor is it the business of the State or politicians to eradicate, the existence of single motherhood. However, it is not the business of the State to make certain choices viable “by right” when they otherwise would not be. The issue here is not support for single mums or those unable to support their children per se, but the automatic right in law for taxpayer support regardless of circumstances.
The failure of education is linked to this in part, for while you have the ability to exist regardless, then the basic, visceral incentive to survive is defused, rendering the absolute necessity to get an education redundant.
We have seen that gangs of ordinary citizens can assemble with weapons and no robbing occurs, no looting and no unprovoked violence. Law abiding people with weapons are not the problem here, but law abiding people WITHOUT a means of self-defence is. We need to repeal laws that limit law-abiding people while exposing them to the lawless who care not for such laws.
The spell restraining the thuggery has been broken somewhat, but that this has also broken the wider spell over the population as to the all-pervasive power of the State.
We need to deal with those who do wrong, heal those who are on a path to or involved in wrongdoing and to repeal the entitlements that contribute in part but certainly not exclusively to the creation of those who grow up without essential foundations for civilized living.
 Some of you may know I reject the use of the word “deprived” when it is used to mean “poverty” or “bad housing” or “lack of jobs”, which is to trivialize it and demean the real issues that exist for those who are truly deprived. It is an all too familiar behaviour of the Left to hijack such words for their own agenda.
 I now hear that, sadly, three men, and I repeat the word, Men, have been killed, run down by a car, in what appears to be a defence of their community from looters. My condolences to their family and friends.
 I have also read some utter tripe from the usual peddlers of such guff, for example Yasmin Alibia Brown, who might on the surface sound reasonable but is in fact a denial of the environment they have pushed for.
 I say, damaged, for I feel so very few, an infinitesimally small number of babies are born bad. Almost all are made bad. Many could be maladjusted, but with the right upbringing, guidance and boundaries they could be imperfect – and who is not? - but still decent and productive human beings.
 This is not to say that a single person cannot deliver both aspects, but that task is
 Those who have engineered it in the law-abiding majority while not managing to deal with the minority are, I am certain, still in denial.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
"Census information is important and is used to help plan and fund the services that you, your family and your community will need in the years ahead"
"Services like schools, public transport and hospitals".
"Your personal information is protected by law and is kept confidential for 100 years"
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Monday, 26 July 2010
"What we have said very clearly is that we accept the principle of the licence fee which is the idea, if you like, of a household tax to fund public service broadcasting that is ring-fenced."
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Nicholas Green QC, the chairman of the Bar Council for England and Wales, said it was “rational” to consider “decriminalising personal drug use”.
Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the Commons' Home Affairs Committee, said: “I am shocked by the suggestion that drugs should be decriminalised for personal use.
"The legalisation of drugs would simply create the mistaken impression that these substances are not harmful, when in fact this is far from the truth.”
“The answer to the issue of drug abuse is not to merely decriminalise it. This is not the best solution for the wider public or the police.”Shocked, I tell you! Vaz decides the public are (as) stupid (as him?) and decides to support the criminalisation of people on that basis. But never passing up the chance to keep one buttock on each side of the fence, he ends it with an arse-covering soundbite so he can later jump back on the bandwagon.
James Clappison MP, a former member of the Commons’ Home Affairs Committee, said the remarks were “not entirely a helpful contribution to the debate”.I suspect James Clappison, MP, thinks only words in agreement with the consensus are "helpful to the debate". Clappison forgets the far higher street cost of drugs while they are illegal, which often requires criminal activity to fund. Clappison should have seen that for himself.
He said: “There seems to be a very strong link between recreational drug use, leading to drug addiction leading to crime fuelled by drug addiction. I would have thought the chairman of the Bar Council would have seen that for himself.”
Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, added: “It is a ludicrous argument to say let’s legalise drugs to take pressure off the police and the courts. That is an argument to legalise everything.”FAIL. Philip Davies, MP is expected to legislate and revise laws on our behalf and yet he displays the critical reasoning of a wasp.
Debra Bell, a mother whose son developed severe personality changes after smoking cannabis from the age of 14 with his friends, said: “What is talking about? This will send out the wrong message to youngsters.
“There are children as young as 10 getting involved in drug use. Recreational drugs are addictive – that is why there are controlled"
Ms Bell, who now runs the “Talking About Cannabis” advice website, added: “For some adults it might not be a problem, but that is not the case for children and adolescents. It divides families.”So alcohol being legal is "the wrong message to youngsters"? Decriminalising does not mean "please take it". In fact, while it is illegal and highly lucrative, there is a vast army of scumbags out there doing just that - pushing it onto kids. Making it legal DOES mean making it controlled. Right now, drugs are out of control the very reason being they are outlawed.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
"By taking powers away from bureaucrats and quangos and from me. And restoring powers to communities and elected officials." - Eric Pickles
"And new local housing trusts, with backing from the community, will be able to develop new homes, shops, and businesses themselves.
"Putting jobs on the web - in a format anyone can re-use or re-publish - not only shows local people where their money is going.
"The HIPs which tied up the housing market.
Friday, 18 June 2010
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Sperm whales fight global warming with carbon-neutral faecesSouthern Ocean sperm whales have emerged as an unexpected ally in the fight against global warming, removing the equivalent carbon emissions from 40,000 cars each year thanks to their faeces, a study has found.
The cetaceans have been previously fingered as climate culprits because they breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common greenhouse gas.But this is only a part of the picture, according to the paper, published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Australian biologists estimated that the estimated 12,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean each defecate around 50 tonnes of iron into the sea every year after digesting the fish and squid they hunt.
The iron is then eaten by phytoplankton - marine plants that live near the ocean surface and suck up CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
As a result of the fertilisation, the whales remove 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice as much as the 200,000 tonnes of CO2 that they contribute through respiration.
The whales' faeces are so effective because they are emitted in liquid form and close to the surface, before the mammals dive, said the paper.
Industrialised whaling not only gravely threatened Southern Ocean sperm whales, it also damaged a major carbon "sink," the scientific term for something that removes more greenhouse gases than it produces, it added.Before industrial whaling, the population of this species was about 10 times larger, which meant around two million tonnes of CO2 were removed annually, said the paper.
The scientists suspect that because sperm whales cluster in specific areas of the Southern Ocean there is a clear link between food availability and cetacean faeces.
This could explain the "krill paradox," they believe. Researchers have previously found that when balleen whales are killed, the amount of krill in that sea area declines, which thus affects the entire food chain.
The study is lead-authored by Trish Lavery of the School of Biological Sciences at Flinders University in Adelaide.