Thursday, 20 December 2007
Yes, there are women trafficked. Awful. Modern slavery. Yes, some men abuse women. Awful acts by cowards. Does this mean each transaction means a trafficked woman being abused? No, it most certainly does not. The Government has criminalised brothels but not prostitution or purchasing sex then wonders why women ply their trade on the streets. Surely the issue is to outlaw crime, not outlaw behaviour that is not in itself criminal.
BTW Dennis McShane was so patronising on Newsnight to Sian Williams. I am no fan of her, but she did put forward the Libertarian line well, considering the priggishness she was confronted with.
Mobile phones are a distraction at the best of times, let alone when driving. Some say that the distraction from holding the phone is higher than an hands free, though by how much is not so clear. It does appear on the surface to be a fairly sensible step in that ONLY if the driving is dangerous will further punishment be sought. As far as I can tell the law need not be changed as existing driving law should cover phone use in any form, even if the recent phone laws were repealed. I fyou are not driving with due care, then you need to be nicked. However, unlike the changes to prostitution it does seem that potentially only when an actual crime is being committed will the law come in. I say potentially, as I have no faith that common sense will prevail. I suspect that first we have the fine captured by some jobsworth PCSO, Parking Attendant or such, then the other punishments bootstrapped in later.
Coming back to hand vs hands free, research suggested that it has the same effect as drink driving. I suspect having kids in the car could on occasions have at least the same effect as talking on a mobile phone, if not far worse if they kick off. This might explain the chaos during school runs, which, if you follow the logic, could well be worse than the worst chucking out times where everyone drives home drunk. However, this is far too sensitive so other drivers will be persecuted. Even daring to explore the logic on road safety grounds of banning single adults in a car with multiple children will not be contemplated, yet the same effects on other actions will be targeted. An excuse for one behaviour and not another is not good for Rule of Law.
Thanks to those at Rational Response much of this has been captured.
Wonderful to see these guys at one place and in full flight.
Chris, inventor of "Falwell's Enema" and possessor of the world's first Titanium Liver. A hero.
Dan, so concise on biogenetic issues with a dry wit. ID is crushed.
Dawkins, out-scholars the "scholars".
Sam Harris is not known at all well to me, but that is all my fault, not his.
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. — Cicero, 42 B.C.
The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without, they come from within. They come from a peculiar type in our country who if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism and the promise of impossible Utopias? — Winston Churchill, St George’s Day 1933These two quotes touch on one of my constant themes - that of the Fifth Column, the traitor within who wears down people as surely as water wears down stone or fungus eats at the most hearty oak given time. Combined, as anyone should know, the effect is magnified.
His conclusion - to become a Conservative MP - is not what I would have suggested, but he may well have reasons which I am not fully aware of yet.
Monday, 17 December 2007
I am utterly fuming why this was not shown on the BBC. Who are they working for? Well, certainly not US that is for sure. We are forced to pay for them yet, as is a trend these days, we have no say and they operate against our interests.
Did this appear on C4 or any MSM in the UK? I see Reuters covered it.
If Channel 4 did not show it, maybe it should call itself "Column 5" instead.
This year for Christmas we are having one of these wonderful multi-birds and I am very much looking forward to it. However after reading some of the comments here, next year we are going to eat a PETA activist stuffed inside a Greenpeace activist stuffed inside a Animal 'Rights' activist stuffed inside Gordon Brown's voluminous carcass (with a non-'Fair Trade' apple stuffed into his mouth).
Merry Christmas and God Deliver Us All... from priggish activists of all stripes.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
The scumbags have done it.
Gordon Brown can sign his own sovereignty away if he so wishes. He can become an indentured servant or a lickspittle to a tyrannical regime, even, but the creep has no god-damn right to sign away MY rights and freedoms.
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
Alot of fuming. However, Grasper Jasper could well of gained this des res when he was
The fact that I consider him a worse than useless leech is another thing.
A number of points.
1. The Housing Association, and in fact all subsidised housing providers, should be sensible enough to perform regular means testing to ensure they are providing housing to those who actually could do with it. It seems this HA is not. I wonder if they are State funded? If I were working there or a trustee, I'd be very embarrassed by now.
2. The above is compounded by right to buy. That is a policy for the Housing Association, but I would not want to donate to an HA that gave discounted right to buy without any real checks. If they are State funded, I am being forced to donate, so I do not want them to do it. One wonders how many of these properties are bought then immediately sold on for a cash profit for the Tenants, a profit that one would THINK the HA would like to use to continue its work...but oh no.
3. The tasteless scumbag has put a satellite dish on the FRONT of the property, about 8ft from the ground. Lazy dolt - what about snicking it against the chimney, just over the roof hip and so out of sight? In my book that desecration of the property would get him evicted!
Monday, 10 December 2007
This development is a classic Fencepost. One day people who are no physical threat to anybody will be Tasered just because it is convenient to get them out of the way or silence them such as at a demonstration or political rally. I expect that people will have the Tasering event placed on their records. "Nice". This will place further barriers between the Police and the public. It will entrench the strategy of making the Police 'owned' by the Government and not a force that operates for and with the consent of the public. This is just what the Sociofascists want. They hate any form of allegiance that is not under their direct control and directed one way - towards them.
Next year's Labour
Friday, 7 December 2007
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
There you have it. Both Peers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for such pandering.
Monday, 3 December 2007
This is a good thing, but two issues need to be borne in mind.
First, we must not allow the precedent to be set that Muslims only deal with Muslim issues. This is a step towards first a parallel system and then one that subordinates the non-Muslims. The delegation was not officially endorsed by the F&CO, at least.
Secondly, we need to remember that the MCB did complain bitterly and showed intense embarassment, but let us not remember that in the middle of this, and even as part of their pleading their case to the Sudanese, the MCB reserved their right to be outraged should the circumstances (e.g. not a bear, for example) were different. This fetishisation of Mohammed needs to be resisted. If they want to do it, fine, that is their PERSONAL view, but such a view should not be permitted to impinge upon the lives of others.
Both the points above warn against subtle wedges being inserted into our lives. Should they be permitted or allowed to go by default, then that would be something no amount of visits from their Lordships would pardon.
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Considering examples of the Nat West Three, this can include crimes committed abroad, by foreigners upon foreigners or foreign registered legal entities.
This is a further entrenchment of US Extraterritoriality.
US Extraterritoriality is arrogant and Imperial. They are their own worst enemies. What would, what CAN their defence be if Iran, China or any other country adopted similar laws? America cannot in any reasonable fashion declare that only they can have such powers of Extraterritoriality. Their concept of Extraterritoriality appears to be an expedient response with untold and unintended consequences.
Should other countries adopt the mechanism, the checks and balances of Extradition, such as they are, would become sidelined. If extreme force is used to apprehend, such actions can tip over into assassination. America appears to be pro-actively letting the genie out of the bottle. If we slide towards anarchy and Imperialism, America will be responsible for greasing that slope.
Ron Paul is campaigning for a return to the American Constitution. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights contains many aspects of our own BoR that was laid down in 1689. Both appear to suggest this law unconstitutional.
In permitting this, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has shown itself to be a bunch of blithering IMBECILES.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Some, including Inayat Bunglawala have protested that this is an overreaction etc. However, IB puts forward a dangerous concept in that he says that if it were a pig, then that would cause offence. He is trying to mark out territory here in the UK.
No. People should be free to call their pig Mohammed, a dog Adolf or canary David Abrahams. If the Sudan does not allow it, then the Sudan is a backward, ignorant, insecure, medaeval society. Inayat's protest is double edged, mark my words. In court because someone called their pet rat "Santa"? It is just as absurd.
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
1. Vince Cable is becoming the Leader the Lib Dems cannot (immediately) have. Classic lines from an intelligent man who does not always come across as a complete git. For weeks he has been coming in with well crafted, hard to brush off questions for Gordon on Northern Rock, soldiers, ID. As others have said, ridicule is a great weapon against both Islamists and Sociofascists.
2. Huhne, one half of the upcoming disappointment - one half of the Lib Dem's leadership "false dichotomy" - had a delicious spat with Health Minister Bradshaw, who was jabbing Huhne about their own donations fiasco. Raw nerve? Well Huhne set about Bradshaw like a Jack Russell playing with its favourate busted tennis ball, accusing the Labour Party of selling honours and when Brashaw retorted, Huhne, all wild eyed and ruddy cheeked, said "sue me". Now, many would say that most Labour ministers deserve being convered in puncture wounds and canine saliva, but this was a bit uncool for a prospective leader. Calamity Clegg and Havago Huhne are no match for Vince "steel" Cable.
3. If that Daily Politics cameraman tries that again, I am seriously tempted to go round there and punch him up the "frote"§. He knows what he was up to. BEHAVE.
The way New Labour is going, spurred on by their policy decisions and implementation gaffes, we shall see an attempt to outlaw cash. I am certain Gordon would love it, so he could see what any person was buying at any moment across the entire country.
Is there noone brave enough in the party to stand up and speak out or are you all completely spineless?Quite.
I do think some will crack and crack enough to split the party between the Political Classes and more solid sorts, unless they have given up the will to live and have been frog-boiled into an amphibian porridge.
Someone who is not yet boiled to a porridge because he leapt from the pan even before the water got warm is Alan Milburn. He is from the NE, so may be tarnished. Lets see.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Are we now seeing a series of dramatic failures being used to entrench the problems? This is a manifestation of both the "I screwed up so I am best placed to fix it" meme that has been wormed into popular consciousness during this government and the "intentionally break to 'fix' it" idea so beloved of Socialists. Bastards.
UPDATE: How come the Labour Party wants to return the £400,000, yet UKIP's admin blunder, innocent in comparison, was set to have the donation snaffled by the State. One Rule for the Corrupt Leaders, in their Halls of Shame...
Not the work of entrepreneurs? Not the work of the Founders? Not the risk taken by shareholders and investors? Not the work of the employees? No, it is all due to this abstract rise in the economy. We all know who Statist lickspittles think is totally responsible for Britain's long economic success...it is of course
It would be funny if it were not for the fact that I do think that many people actually believe such drivel.
Is there no end to their utter contempt for the law, common decency, the electorate or our society?
As I have said before, New Labour have had their "moral compass" demagnetised long before they entered govenment in 1997.
I really do think that this increases the chances of a Labour split between the more honourable kind and the Political Classes that infest most parties these days. Gordon Brown will be caught between two stools, but as he is half-arsed he will end up on the floor. When the split happens, watch for musical chairs in the entire centre groud.
p.s. Iain also reveals (hat tipping Guido) that
Monday, 26 November 2007
Reasons are lower costs and lower emmissions.
Lower direct costs for the hauliers, I suppose - less labour.
Considering a 38-tonnne truck does 10,000 times more damage than a 1-tonne car, I do not see HGVs now paying their way.
If the aim of the scheme is to lower emissions by linking two containers together, that gives me an idea...
How about linking a whole string together so one driver could pull a multitude? How about making them run on special roads thatcan take such weights? Make the road and the wheels low friction but still able to take the weight and provide sufficient traction? How about making the roads dedicated and direct, so no risk of collisions from private vehicles or delays due to traffic etc.? If we use special computer management, we could even do without the driver when on the dedicated route, as computer control could keep each string of containers separate from each other. In case of failure, the part-time driver could know if the way ahead is clear by using a form of traffic lights as a fall-back system. That would be even more energy efficient.
I know what, lets call it a "railway"?
Friday, 23 November 2007
First it was Terminal 5, now it is Terminal 6 and a third runway.
BAA has a monopoly on London airports, so this is a worry for me. Personally, I think Heathrow is totally in the wrong place. Flights have to cross London due to prevailing winds and the same winds mean fumes are blown across the Capital increasing pollution.
The current figures are 450,000 flights a year, rising to 700,000 with T6 and the new runway, but they say even that is only 70% of demand. This to me suggests an entirely new airport. The ideal location is out to the East of London in the middle of the Thames estuary. This will solve the overfly and capacity issues. The new airport could be linked to the Channel Tunnel and national rail networks AND an in-town check-in facility.
This is quite practical now, seeing as we have electronic MoTs, almost, if not all, insurance policies cross-referenced and police use ANPR to check the status, not some badge in a window. I would not be surprised that the VED's main benefit today is to remind people they need to get an MoT - that is certainly what I end up using it for! Bloody expensive service, though, at £140 for next year's reminder...
If we do scrap, what needs to be resolved, however, is to have a form of physical receipt so that "compoo'er sez naaaao" failures do not end up with someone being hauled off and their car impounded, which does happen on occasion. This could be kept in the vehicle so that at least it will give the fuzz a moment of pause and other reference numbers to look up before they take knee-jerk action based upon the skills of a script-kiddie in Swansea (who probably took a sickie half way through writing that piece of code - and anyone in the trade will know that bugs and sick leave go hand in hand...).
However, this does not really solve much and certainly the sickie issue, for the scrapping of the VED will not result in the shutting down of the DVLA, for the MoT and Insurance cross referencing is, IIRC, run out of Swansea by the DVLA!
Thursday, 22 November 2007
It has since emerged that the National Audit Office, which had asked for the CDs, had specifically requested that bank details and other sensitive data be removed from them when it asked for other copies of the Child Benefit database in March, but a senior manager refused to do so on cost grounds.On cost grounds? Removal of certain items of data from each record (or a query only selecting the required ones)? Erm. Anyone with even the remotest knowledge of computer databases would suspect that to select a subset of fields is easy.
Any script kiddie could probably get the documentation, read up the record formats and knock up a bit of code in under an hour to sift it, and I would expect the person who got the data out could have just submitted the right query.
I wonder if this was seen as too expensive because the Manager in question asked one of their "Consultants" for a quote. Knowing them this would entail doing a needs analysis, talking to the customer, writing a functional spec, test plan, documentation, project plan etc etc etc. Probably about 2 weeks work all told at £1,200/day. Lets say £20grand between mates (sandbagging upon sandbags).
That, or they were just angling to get some "income" to their cost centre.
Here's the First Law expressed well in its three main variations:Put this in with the discussion at Liberal Conspiracy here. Many people, including Sunny Hundal, seem to not see pitfalls in creating "hate" crime, in that it will be used to erode Rule of Law by giving privilege to certain groups, for their "community leader"'s own ends.
"1. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more they are praised and their sins covered up.
2. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more racist it becomes to speak the truth about their behavior.
3. The worse a designated minority or non-Western group behave, the more their behavior must be blamed on white racism." (source)
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
BBC4 just interviewd HMRC and HMRC will re-imburse any taxpayer who suffers a loss.
Who do HMRC get their money from again?
p.s. I include Hazel Blears as a link as this event is so hat-stand non-sequitur moonbatteration presented with bare-faced cheek that Hazel has to be involved somewhere.
Basically, translated, it means, instead of "I resign", with loss of post, salary, pension etc due to the terrible screw up, as a way off accepting the responsibility and out of honour, we have "I pretend to resign until a deal is done abdicating me from all hassle and guaranteeing my cosy life", i.e. with no loss of pay, retention of pension - i.e. he ducks out of ANY responsibility and floats away at our expense into a life of comfort. I expect to see this parasite on the board of a few QANGOs in the near future.
Utterly bare-faced shameless. Such actions are indicative at the corruption and behaviour at the top in Government. The Blair and Brown establishment have created an environment where such actions are seen as worthwhile chancing, asking for and have the likelihood of success, or at least little chance of any consequences if the audacity is not successful.
In any heirarchy, the source of corruption and modus operandi comes from the top down. The culture of an organisation is set from the top. The source, cause and blame for this outrageous behaviour lies with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Monday, 19 November 2007
We will be asked 53 questions, it seems, when we wish to travel.
It does include the need for an email address. Odd, isn't how how similar this sounds to something I blogged about earlier - the EU wanting such info.
Here we go again, the UK gold-plating ideas from the Sociofascists in the EU. They only want 19 pieces of information.
When I travel, I will try and obtain 2 exit visas, signed by Giscard d’Estaing himself...cannot be rescinded, not even questioned!
A Surfer Dude has put forward a new theory based on using the geometry of E8, a symmetrical shape in 248 dimensions (is that all?) . I am all for simplicity, so I must find out more.
"Y'cannae change the laws of Physics, Jim" but you can certainly repeal all the duff legislation!
Friday, 16 November 2007
Frank did try and suggest that employers would select people locally, but he surely knows that is actually against the law now, due to traitorous scumbags like him and his self-loathing Sociofascist lickspittles who have capitulated to the EU and allowed it, not the UK Parliament, to decide what happens here.
So, we are to be forced to fund the training of people from outside the UK. Dobson says hardly any will come, but then they said only around 15,000 people would come from the new EU member states.
They really are traitorous scumbags. If it were Frank Dobson's own personal money on the line, he'd think twice, but it is not AND he is just an also-ran lackey who will do anything to retain is position on the greasy pole.
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Kevin Carson replied with this interesting comment:
My reply was as follows:
Re the mutuals of the nineteenth century, it might be more accurate to say workers were generous *within their means*.
Under a genuine (i.e. non-capitalist) free market, in which the state did not intervene on behalf of capitalists and landlords to enforce artificial scarcity of land, and consequently labor received its full product as a wage, polarities of wealth would likely be far less. In such an environment, the working class would have the resources to fully fund mutual aid arrangements, cooperative insurance, and the like.
To paraphrase some Georgist-leaning libertarian on this side of the pond, the policy should not be welfare or charity, but justice. When workers receive their full product as a wage, they won’t need charity. And you won’t see society pages clogged with Rotary club yahoos wearing color-coded ribbons, breaking ground, handing over giant checks, kissing pigs for diabetes, etc., who in any just world would have their heads in a guillotine.
My attitude toward upper class philanthropy was expressed by a 19th century mill-worker, quoted by E.P. Thompson, whose attention was drawn to a chapel built by the “generous” mill-owner for his workers. The worker pointed out that the chapel was paid for by his own sweat, and added “I wish it might drop into Hell, and Mr ____ with it."
Though I saw some dancing around the edge after that, no replies have yet been able to challenge the above. Stunned into silence or singing "lalala" with their fingers in their ears? I have no idea, but I do think those at LC should really look at this, their attitudes to the past and then look at the State. Really look hard, I mean.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Some do question if Alex Salmond is being honest in his sabre-rattling over independence, i.e. it is just a haggling position for more money and power but remain safe within the Union. Much as I do not want to see an end to the Union, that would be a shame, for it would mean yet another insincere, disingenuous politician.
We can have the Union with an English Parliament, but even if we do not, the key here is to utterly reject the traitorous moves by some to try and create Regions. They already exist in the form of QUANGOs (doing what of value, pray tell, except give cosy sinecures for jumped up councillors and failed nobodies?) and as such, they should be disbanded and the employees fired, with no golden parachutes, mind.
It is not Scotland I want to be rid of, but bad politicians, Statism and undemocratic processes. If people arrange it so that England must disconnect from or disband the Union, then so be it. It may end up being a lantern for the oppressed in Europe once again, after the benighted people wake up and realise they have been Collectivised by Stealth via the Autocratic and undemocratic EU political elite.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
A CiF article in praise of Public Sector Fat Cat salaries.
We hear incessantly from Polly Toynbee regarding fat cat salaries in the private sector. Only this Sunday she poked her fizzog onto the gogglebox to both praise the Queen's Speech, Gordon AND moan yet again about private sector pay. Now? deathly silence when it is the public sector sorts getting massive pay rises. Hypocracy, both by the author of the CiF piece and "our Pol".
However, why would the (sensible) policy to "sack bad teachers" somehow not work, Chris? What do you suggest - keep them on board? So it seems. That is dogmatic, anti "boss" union/"werkuz" pandering, m'fraid. It also ignores all the structural problems that are at the root of why Chris thinks it will not work. Chris' objections are just symptoms of other systemic problems in the State Education paene-monopoly. Fix the problems, not mitigate the symptoms.
You suggest they would get rid of curmudgeons, expensive older teachers and those not towing the line on test results. Your answer is to stay their hand when the proper solution is to sort out the obsession with tests, have vouchers, allow Heads to hire and set pay and make sure the Heads goals are rational and in the best interests of the school and pupils. If you do that, the Heads would not jeopardize their jobs by firing the valuable teachers, those educating their children and so attracting large numbers of parents wanting to slap down vouchers on their desks. Why would they fire experienced and skilled teachers if they set their pay levels THEMSELVES instead of having daft payscales imposed on time-serving union members? They would not.
Amazing how many problems can be solved by dealing with the fundamental dysfunctions that come with central control, aspects of union interference and State provision!
While this would normally result in some bile, the consistency and energy expressed in the comments has been heartening.
The utter contempt that the author - a self-loather if ever there was one - has now been shown is delicious, especially the expose of his recent past.
As you may know, I posted on the Regionalisation By Stealth some time ago. They never give up, these vile parasites. All they want are comfy, unchallenged, taxpayer funded featherbeds.
Monday, 12 November 2007
Well, I have not been kicked off yet, if anything, I have become somewhat noted. Most people seem to be able to argue in good temper, even if we disagree. The mods did appear to get a "raid" from various juveniles, but, although I saw nothing of it, the mods seem on top of it. I think it is good to have a place where "Left Liberals" can hear that their desires to ban public schools, far from being "Liberal" and "progressive", are actually authoritarian. People need to have their ideas challenged, although some want to avoid that. I must say I find the term "Left Liberal" an oxymoron, a tautology even. Lets see.
I believe I am fairly pragmatic in my Libertarianism - e.g. I recognize we cannot dismantle everything overnight and some things are the least worst option - e.g. a Swiss style healthcare system - until people and the economy is developed enough to cope with more self-reliance and philanthropy. The difference between my view and some on LC is that I know sometimes when I am bending or suspending the ideological rules - I do not pretend that some things I support are actually "pure" Libertarian at all.
I know this is repetitive, but I do think it is important that each time disingenuous clap-trap is put out by these so-called "leaders", we do need to expose it for what it is. The MCB is, IMHO, one of the bigger enemies to harmony.
Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), thinks the Government is stoking the tension.
"There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us," he says. "The air is thick with suspicion and unease. It is not good for the Muslim community, it is not good for society."
Unfortunately, the MCB is significantly to blame for the level of discussion, creating a "muslim" angle to things that are just not there and constantly seeing the world via the prism of belief.
The 53-year-old special needs teacher has a gentle manner and a quiet voice - he describes himself as a "community spokesman" rather than a "religious leader" - but he does not mince his words.An unelected one, too. If he is not a "religious leader", then why was he at the Cenotaph yesterday?
"Every society has to be really careful so the situation doesn't lead us to a time when people's minds can be poisoned as they were in the 1930s. If your community is perceived in a very negative manner, and poll after poll says that we are alienated, then Muslims begin to feel very vulnerable. We are seen as creating problems, not as bringing anything and that is not good for any society."
Surely Dr Bari should also consider those within the Muslim community who are poisoning minds to make people consider the general British and wider Western society in a negative manner? Most of the alienation is by so-called religious leaders having an attitude of separatism, of talking up difference. Unfortunately, almost all the good things that could be said to be about Islam are already in British society and culture, so it is not surprising all the differences appear negative.
There is, in his view, no such thing as Islamic terrorism.
"Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn't say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists." Dr Bari thinks Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, made the extremists' job easier by giving a bleak picture of the threat on the eve of the Queen's Speech.
The DT is being a bit confusing here. I agree that it is not good to use the term "Muslim terrorists", for, although almost all terrorists are Muslim, you cannot reverse the logic. However, the term "Islamic Terrorism" is not invalid. Dr Bari is blame-shifting (again). The point about the IRA is a dud, however, and has been fisked and will be fisked elsewhere.
"I think it is creating a scare in the community and wider society. It probably helps some people who try to recruit the young to terrorism. Muslim young people are as vulnerable as any others. Under this climate of fear they will begin to feel victimised."
Islam in itself does not help - the more someone learns about Islam, the worse it gets. It teaches blind faith, obedience. It makes matters worse. It is extraordinary that Dr Bari can complain about the effects while pushing all the requests for action and most of the blame outside his "community". Another example where Dr Bari might be advised to silence his own dogs, yet systematically fails to do so.
The Prime Minister's plan to increase the length of time terrorist suspects can be detained without trial is also, he believes, misguided.
"Even the police haven't asked for more than 28 days. As far as we know there is no clear evidence of the need for more time."
In this I agree.
Control orders and stop and search powers are further increasing the sense of alienation among Muslims, Dr Bari says, and the Metropolitan Police are not helping matters either.
"There was institutional racism and institutions as massive as the Met find it hard to change. They need more Muslim police officers. I'm not going to use the term trigger happy - sometimes the police can make mistakes - but they need to do their job in a better way."
Dr Bari should look to people in his own community who do alot to create alienation. Another blame shift is in operation here. The Islamic "scholar" world might do well to see how they can change to root out institutional prejudice, but again Dr Bari wants everyone else to change. The Police needs good policemen, not a quota system. It is for Muslims to come forward, not for the Police to proactively pull in more tokenistic Muslims. If you talk to the MCB "leaders", you might also realise that many would consider a good policeman "unislamic" and some may also say they were not really Muslim at all, given the oath they swear and the values they pursue - equality before the law being one!
Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted, he says. "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped."
Apart from this being an outrageous statement of intolerance in itself, it is also hypocracy, was we shall see in a moment. The only "distress and discordance appears to have been caused by the Muslim community whipped up by various "leaders" and factions wanting to exploit the situation for their own ends. Shame on them.
Dr Bari insists he is simply trying to unite disparate communities. "On the one hand we are accused of not engaging, being insular, and on the other hand of being too political. We can't win."
False dichotomy, Dr Bari. You are right about one thing, though, if you keep up your stance you will not win.
The MCB was criticised for boycotting Holocaust Day but he says he did not mean to offend Jewish people: "It should be inclusive, commemorating all massacres."
AFAICT, it does, but that is not what Dr Bari and the MCB want, I suspect.
According to a recent report by the Policy Exchange think-tank, the bookshop at the east London Mosque, which Dr Bari chairs, stocks extremist literature.
"The bookshops are independent businesses," he says. "We can't just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?"
Here is the hypocracy. On one hand he wants Rushdie's book "pulped", but here he wants books actually inciting hatred left on the shelf. Dr Bari: Hypocrite.
He is more careful about who is allowed to preach in the mosque. "If I hear of a specific preacher who is inciting hatred I will ban him from preaching but I cannot disallow him from praying."
Ban him where? I understood the MCB had no powers over who can preach or speak. Maybe I am wrong. Banning is not just the issue, naming and shaming should help to promote a more sincere stance. I will not hold my breath.
In Dr Bari's view, suicide bombers are victims as well as aggressors. "I deal with emotionally damaged children," he explains. "Children come to hate when they don't get enough care and love. They are probably bullied, it makes a young person angry and vulnerable.
"The extreme case could be suicide bombers, it is all they have … The people who become suicide bombers are really vulnerable."
Islam is a bullying doctrine - submission, "forbidden", "must", but yes, Islamists and such are indeed victims - victims of Islam, and in that Dr Bari is right.
Although he stresses there is no justification for suicide bombing - "killing innocent people is completely forbidden, Islam is very emphatic on that" - he says British foreign policy has driven Muslims into the arms of the extremists.
DING! Here we have it again "killing innocents". The Daily Telegraph should be ashamed to let that one pass. Shame on them and shame on Dr Bari for repeating that meme YET AGAIN. As far as Islamists are concerned, all Westerners are not innocent.
"Criminal people have used that as a weapon to encourage young people, those who don't have any anchor in themselves, [to become suicide bombers]. Iraq has been a disaster, the country has been destroyed for no reason, that had an impact on the Muslim psyche."
Iraq is no excuse, and the damage was already done - the issue of Iraq is just a recent situation. More light could be shed if the topic of US forces on Saudi soil was raised. It will allow more understanding of the issues, if you ask me. Pandering to the meme of Iraq causing terrorism is just lame, Dr Bari.
His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures - he says integration must go both ways.
"Everybody can learn from everyone. Some of the Muslim principles can help social cohesion - family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor, not being too greedy."
What is uniquely "Muslim" about "family, marriage, raising children with boundaries, giving to the poor and not being greedy" for heavens sake? I'll tell you: nothing. It is absurd to talk of such things via the prism of Islam. I mean what on EARTH does this guy think he is saying? The ARROGANCE that Islam has ANYTHING to add in terms of such things to British culture is astonishing, laughable. Dr Bari is not stupid, but as we know intelligence + ignorance = arrogance. Just because people forget or lose their culture and history (no thanks to the Sociofascists, who love the idea of a feckless, rootless, ignorant rabble to control like clay) does not mean that such values are not part of the culture or generally held. It certainly does not mean that Islam can "teach" the British anything of value.
British people could, in his view, benefit from arranged marriages. "I prefer to call them assisted marriages," he says.
Dr Bari seems a bit demented. Maybe it is a cry for an "assisted suicide"? Stop your disingenuous words, Dr Bari - many people have "assisted marriages" via friends, relatives, social groups and all manner of ways, but this is not what is being discussed when many people talk pejoratively about "arranged marriage", now is it?
"Marriage should not be forced on people but parents can be a catalyst … Young people are emotional, they want idealism. Older people have gone through all sorts of things and become a bit more experienced. A child will always want to eat chocolate but if he does then he will become fat. He needs to be given things that are good for him too."
If it should not be forced, maybe you could speak out about the hothousing, whisking away in isolation, deadlines etc. etc. and especially of the practice of marrying cousins. No, all you want to do is selectively talk of the benefits and quietly ignore the brutal and unforgivable aspects. Shame on you Dr Bari - some "leader" you are!
"Alcohol is the worst drug long-term," he says, and adds that the Government should consider banning drinking in public places, as it has done with smoking.
Dr Bari wonders why many people consider "muslim community leaders" irritating and damaging to our culture, wanting to impose their hatstand views on us all. Here it is. I have news for you Dr Bari, two pieces, actually. 1- the worst drug is religion, with Islam being at the Crack end of the market. 2- even the Koran does not say alcohol is "haram"/forbidden, but lets not let a good chance to control the population slip by, eh? He'll be calling for a banning of dogs around Mosques, next.
Dr Bari believes Britain would benefit from a little more morality: "Religion has principles that can help society … Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam … On adultery and living together we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life that helps society"
Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. All it did, if anything, was codify existing morals. Further, any "morality" of benefit that Islam contains already exists in British culture. Islam and Islamists are past masters and trying to "brand" things as being "Islamic", as if it only exists because of Islamic teaching. The meme needs to be fought constantly and exposed for the poisonous, self-serving lie that it is.
Abortion should also be made more difficult. "By the time a foetus is 12 weeks old our religion says that the child has got a spirit." Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view".
Dr Bari is being vague - just how "more difficult"? Having seen my own son at 13 weeks, it is difficult to consider the little mite as being without spirit - he sure gave the Sonographer the runaround, the little monkey. However, I will not stand for a medaeval made-up religion to rule or influence the law on such things. On Homosexuality, Dr Bari slithers away. It must be understood that in Islam, little, if at all, about ones entire existence can be considered as not "religious" - it is totalitarian. Such a view put forward by Dr Bari might seem "ok" to many with a secular/pluralist and CoE outlook, but Dr Bari is just fobbing off those people here, taking them for fools and he knows it. I know it too. Disingenuous, Dr Bari.
Is stoning ever justified? "It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances," he replies. "When our prophet talked about stoning for adultery he said there should be four [witnesses] - in realistic terms that's impossible. It's a metaphor for disapproval."
Dr Bari tries to hop around the truth table hoping nobody sees the glaring holes in his attempt at logic. Dr Bari fails miserably, and we now have the leader of the MCB clearly accepting, if not condoning, the concept of stoning as a valid form of punishment. He wonders why the community is regarded with negativity when he comes out with medaeval, barbaric viewpoints such as this. From your own mouth, Dr Bari.
There should be more modesty too. "You shouldn't be revealing your body so much that it can be tempting to other people. I hope my daughter wouldn't wear a bikini but I also hope she wouldn't wear a burka."
If Dr Bari is not attempting to excuse molestation, assault and rape then I am unlikely to get a cigarette paper between his position and that stance. What is this "shouldn't"? Who is he to dictate to women and simultaneously imply excuse. A woman in revealing clothing is no excuse for the disgraceful behaviour of men. Dr Bari clearly accepts and justifies that all men are adolescents in mens bodies - beyond self control. Dr Bari does not mention hijab - I suspect he will want, no, demand his daughter cover her head...like he does...only with a scarf and not a hunk of coconut matting.
Dr Bari runs guidance courses for parents of all faiths. "Children are like plants, if you don't look after them they will grow wild and weeds can come in." The same is true of Britain, he says. "There is plenty of freedom in Western society but boundaries are sometimes hard to see."If you treat people like vegetables, then of course problems occur. The solution is for people to be responsible for their actions and not be infantilised or treated like plants - with regular doses of manure from above.
Dr Bari, as ever, disappointing and his own community's enemy.
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Should Sir Ian go, either resign or be sacked? I say yes. Why? Not for the shooting, but for the 24 hours afterwards.
Either Sir Ian was in the dark or he knew an innocent man was shot. If the latter, then he should go immediately not really for the fact that he lied at the time, but that he has lied since then. If he was in the dark, then he should also go, as he clearly has created an environment whereby he is not told the honest, if ugly, truth. This can be for many reasons - e.g. his subordinates also did not know, they were too scared or were busy butt-covering themselves first etc etc. I do not want to guess what unpleasantness was the reason writhing beneath Sir Ian in his chain of command, only that corporate culture has one prime source - the chief. If the culture was one of butt-covering, incompetence, cowardace or whatever, then Sir Ian is to blame for allowing such people to remain or to allow a view to form that such behaviour is acceptable. I do not recall him sacking anyone himself, so, if he was indeed unaware, he has not fixed it (if I am wrong and people have been kicked out, then I stand corrected). Two reasons for him to go if he was actually unaware.
The rumour has long existed that Cressida Dick was at fault yet she would be "untouchable". She was responsible on the ground in the room. The mark, IIRC, was made with insufficient evidence or intelligence. Once the mark was made and taken as unequivocal truth, the path was set. I see Cressida Dick as the one responsible for permitting the mark to be accepted.
There has been alot of criticism at the "resignation culture" - i.e. the baying for heads. This is a spectacular inversion - no surprise these days considering it is a classic tool of Sociofacsists. The clamour is that resignations and in extremis, sackings do NOT happen when they should and we have the squalid spectacle of people clinging on to their positions long after they should have resigned. In a way it is not unsurprising - all those perks, fat salary, cars and future pensions and sinecures in some sleepy QANGO somewhere.
Unfortunately for us, many people in office these days, and certainly in most Party apparatus, have long had their "Moral Compass" demagnetised.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Maybe it is time for some interesting email addresses:
To me, kicking/beating a person who is down means attempted murder at the least, for to do so is risking death and to continue to perform an act that risks death is surely murder.
"did not mean to kill"? I thought ignorance was no defence.
Friday, 2 November 2007
£20 bln on its way to Northern Crock and another £10bln likely to be used to buy up sub-prime garbage until some "investor" gets the entire portfolio for thre'pence ha'penny. This will be because the "simple shopper" that is the State loses its bottle, broons its troos and caves in to a fire sale at OUR EXPENSE. Witness, I predict, the buyer turn around the deal and make billions in profit as the assets are either disposed of or otherwise handled properly.
Gordon Brown and his "mini-mean" Darling have just created a Nationalised version of Farepak, and we are the losers compelled, on pain of imprisonment, to pay.
It was a good vehicle to outline the draconian laws that now exist. It had a good ending except for the very final part.
Two issues I had were this:
1. It repeats the meme about "innocents" - i.e. none of us are, so we all justifiable targets. It is also hypocritical in that it condemns accidental - but possibly not proactively minimised - collateral damage when visited upon Muslims (conveniently ignoring the fact that most Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims squabbling for power and money), yet seems to think a legitimate response is intentional, premeditated death and maiming. It goes on about people voting for the government so they are "to blame" as if people can unbundle all policies or, if they did not vote for Blair, somehow not get killed. It was and is a daft, irrational, self-serving, disingenuous cop-out.
2. At the end there was a summary of the new legislation, but, in a highly misleading and disingenuous way, it was presented "since 1997". No, dears, since 11th Sept, 2001. This is a dangerous meme as it attempts to disconnect the laws from 9/11 and make out that actions of Islamists are entirely reactions to such things. It is not.
Regrettably, the show sullied its message with the above failures, requiring me to suspect the overall balance and good faith of the creators. It is a shame, as it was otherwise a very good concept.
Arguments against the Police State should not be undermined in this way.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
We have Junior Doctors at risk by the NHS being forced to take EU Doctors due to EU Laws
We have criminals not deported due to EU laws.
We have fading control over immigration and asylum due to EU laws.
We have daft Foot & Mouth logistics due to EU directives.
We have th Food Standards Agency not ruling on food additives because "it is an EU matter" - reply is "so shut down then".
And to add insult to injury, The Town Clerk of Britain, Gordon Brown - for that is all he really is these days - is aiding and abetting this by forming Commons Committees for each Region.
I see one reason for not moving forward to an English Parliament - that would scupper the plans for the breakup of England.
Britain stood up to enforced collectivisation in the past. Will it do so again? Japan learnt it could dominate economically without warfare. The EU is trying to dominate politically in a similar fashion.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Johnathan Freeland has had a go, (hat tip, Tim Worstall) but I do disagree with his conclusions, so this is still something I will attend to at some stage.
I think £50m is outrageous even. It is no good having the brass neck to ask for more and then bleat about your sensitivity and working "for your daughter" and - this really irritate me - mentioning "charidee werg" later, as if a single penny more than £50m is going to make the SLIGHTEST difference to her or that volunteer work excuses a grab at unearnt cash. Fighting over money, on the other hand, is likely to cause her harm.
This "something for nothing" mindset coupled with "I do no wrong and all you are to blame" attitude is reflected in the government and how it treats people.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Inaction on pay profligacy
of inane scribblers only embeds child poverty
Labour's failure to face down the forces driving
Tuesday October 30, 2007
When the history of New Labour comes to be written, a great mystery
to idiots like me will be why they did nothing about the unprecedented explosion of top pay that happened on their watch. The findings of yesterday's Income Data Services' annual report on chief executive pay are simply bewildering to idiots like me . Labour's silence on the subject mystifies idiots like me its supporters, most of its venal, self serving and equally idiotic backbenchers and not a few of its similarly "special" ministers.
In the nervous early days, shedding "tax them till the pips squeak" memories, Peter Mandelson was deliberately counter-intuitive
for idiots like me with his louche remark about being "intensely relaxed about my people getting filthy rich". But why has the breathtaking acceleration of top pay been met with the same studied indifference ever since? It took the Tories saying it first for Labour to dare to take utterly token action on non-domiciles, taxing them a nominal £30,000 flat rate.
Here are the latest figures: chief executives in the FTSE 100 have doubled their earnings in the last five years, to average £3.17m - up 16.1% in the last year. In the next rank of companies, FTSE 350 directors' salaries rose by an average of 9.3% last year. Add in bonuses and average pay rose by 20%. Chief executives' pay in the mid-250 FTSE companies rose by 27.2% to average £1.43m. The TUC's
communist leveller Brendan Barber says of these figures: "Top directors have no shame. It beggars belief that they are somehow working twice as hard as five years ago."
Guardian readers, familiar with our financial pages'
excrement excellent annual survey of boardroom pay, are not the only ones to be regularly envious shocked. A Financial Times Harris poll found 60% of the public think the government should cap the earnings of senior executives. A poll of parasitical scumbags human resources managers conducted by Incomes Data Services last month found more than half of them thought executive directors were paid more than they were overpaid and that differentials are too wide between execs and HR Managers . These are the parasitical interfering do-nothings professionals who always fail to see the knock-on effects at first hand.
When pressed, ministers pretend what happens up there in the tiny rarefied group of mega-earners doesn't impact on anyone else
and they are right, but I don't want to admit that cos otherwise I cannot re-visit this tired, self-serving bankrupt stance YET again . It's the politics of envy to even think about it: I it may be distasteful but I'm it's not important. Yet as parasiticl interfereing do-nothings human resources managers know very well, envy pay is about much more than money. The psychology of envy pay is about a sense of covetousness fairness, about accepting a self-determined and aggrandized fair place in the cockroach midden pecking order above all in relation to others. It becomes a problem if we are not at the top raking in the cash year after year top echelons reward themselves many multiples of the essential and unappreciated Guardian collumnists rest.
The IDS report
which I am now conveniently going to use shows FTSE 350 directors' salaries increased by three times their own shop-floor wages. How many years can that continue before my knicker the elastic snaps? Once, all joined the same disasterous, collectivized pension schemes: now it's gold-plated pensions for managers with "unaffordable" closed schemes for staff who have been brainwashed into thinking a pension was "free" .
When boardroom pay leaves planet Earth, the next rank of
Guardian scribblers senior managers feel they deserve to overtake catch up. It's not surprising that with CEO bonuses now worth 100% of salary, Guardian scribblers senior managers reckon they did most of the heavy lifting to achieve national prosperity, social justice and equality it, so IDS finds they are demanding "incentive" schemes. And then politicians middle managers ask if they didn't contribute too. The truth is that none of us them may contribute to a company's "success", which I am going to ignorantly assert with my typical lack of financial awareness is measured in share prices that float myseriously to imbeciles like me up and down. Bonuses that hit an epic £14m last year may drop this year, but not because managers or CEOs are doing their job less well. Sub-prime mortgage lending in the US is hardly their fault. This will show that the "performance-related" bonus culture is nonsense. So why doesn't the government interfere where we closet GOSPLAN communists and levellers say so?
reality we are trying to ignore myth is that executives would flee, but you can count the number of foreigners running UK companies on my IQ your fingers - and the number of Brits running large companies abroad (assert another nonsense ehre) is even fewer: the low productivity of UK Stater sector organs business makes them not in great demand but via taxation we can force pepole to pay for them regardless. But a few mobile high-fliers act as convenient cover for my twisted hatred and envy all. Alas These salaries rise by mutual agreement: every company wants the best people it can afford boardroom pay in the top quartile. This is a pay inflator that will accelerate faster and faster because I, in my naivety think it has no brakes. It accelerates all percieved inequality according to idiots like me , as (insert post hoc fallacy here) the IDS study finds that in 2000 chief executives earned 62 times the pay of their average employees, but now they pay themselves 104 times more.
In that climate, how does the government imagine it's going to nail public pay down to 2% every year until 2010
when I will do all I can to make people agitate for more? That is expected to be half the average pay delete increase as it is less emotive in the private sector while conveniently forgetting the pay inflation and 900,000 extra public sector parasites since 1997 . There will be trouble - and the government should be seen to deserves it if they continue to take such a non-interventionist cavalier attitude towards overall pay structures comrades .
Out of control
Guardian scribblers top pay in the private sector should matter to the Treasury because it infects the public sector and we can't have that. Why is the cabinet secretary now paid considerably more (£220,000) than the Town Clerk of Britain prime minister (£187,000) why why o please? It's a plum prestige job that needs no bribery, and leads to rich jobs for the boys afterwards. Does the Town Clerk chief executive of Bradford need more than the PM? Bringing failed private sector people in now infects failed public pay scales, as lower ranking arrivals on an outrageous £300,000 report to permanent secretaries on a no less outrageous £170,000. (However there is plainly a rare genuine market for head of the nuclear decommissioning authority: oh damn, my caps lock is broken... no one applied for this toxic chalice at £80,000 so it's now been advertised at £200,000). But being director general of the BBC is not toxic: just that the BBC IS toxic everyone wants the power and control over minds it, so why pay a total package of more than me £788,000 - let alone cabinet minister rates for scores of middling BBC managers? (And couldn't they take a pay cut in sympathy with those about to lose their jobs? hahah even I don't believe this twaddle, as I would not ) Sir John Bourn's downfall is a classic example of us socialist hypocrites how private excess makes lefty public people lose their financial bearings.
For Labour to refuse to give any leadership on this is an incomprehensible lacuna
to envy-driven harridans like me : the national psychology of pay affects me everyone. Yesterday the government set up a new child poverty unit: Ed Balls and ...oh dear god... Peter Hain, the two bumbling ministers involved, know their 2010 half-way mark to abolishing child poverty will be missed by miles on its present trajectory so no change there then, otherwise I would not have reams to write and armies of interfering social workers would be out of casework . Barnardo's are joining in - but their director, Martin Narey, wonders what they can do with no extra money like a good socialist. Only 48p a week extra was taken from taxpayers was pissed down the drain that is went to child tax credits this year, distorting the market for subsidising low-paid jobs. The bigger question is this: how can I delude everyone into thinking that Labour could ever abolish child poverty if they dare not (insert my disingenuous, fraudulent, irrational and self serving meme here) face down the underlying forces fracturing pay scales all the way through and accelerating the country into ever greater inequality?
His Grace (hat tip, DK) has put up a very good post on the topic of the Conservative Muslim Forum§ document outlining policy recommendations.
I will not repeat or attempt to duplicate what is a fine post and followup by DK.
Regardless of if the suggestions/demands are rejected or not, the fact is the think tank actually had the brass neck to put them forward. Conservatives be warned, this document should be a wake-up call to you that you have a fifth column inside your walls. An entire section is liable to collapse and crumble, nay, openly support enemies of freedom and democracy. Maybe it is a good trick - handing rope to them - but I do not have such faith in the wisdom of the Conservative Leadership. No sir.
However, I just want to highlight one paragraph which is interesting, even more so that other more open statements. Here it is:
24. The report states "It should be the aim of a Conservative Administration to help bring about the right conditions for a move from a collective approach ledLook at that again. They concur that it is a working definition. They do not say it is something to achieve, aim for, promote or support. They are "content to adopt" the meaning, eh? Why thankyou! Just the meaning. Not the spirit. Not the act. This speaks volumes as to who is behind pulling the strings.
through community organisations to one in which individuals take responsibility
for their role in society and participate fully in it. This is a key aspect of full
integration." We concur and are content to adopt this as a working definition of
§ Why is it they just love/crave/covet terms like this? At least they did not try and pretend to have any legal authority, like the MCB.
Monday, 29 October 2007
"The abusive attitude I endured last November I forgot about and I forgave, but I really do believe that British ministers and parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity at USA airports that we would bestow upon our colleagues in the Senate and Congress.No, Shahid, the British Ministers and Parliamentarians should be afforded the same respect and dignity that ALL British citizens get. Improve our lot and your lot will improve. That is how it works. As long as you and your kind get special privs and are cushioned, the longer and harsher our lot will be. Your attitude speaks volumes for the ladder-kickers and disingenuous upstarts like you that infest our government at this time.
"Obviously, there was no malice involved but it has to be said that the USA system does not inspire confidence."
Friday, 26 October 2007
I was going to fisk this, and I might later, but I saw an exellent post here which I will share with you below. It sums up my feelings and positon.
The aim of our British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities will be to clarify and explain the obligations which come with rights,"
Dear God Jack, you don't understand what a Right is, do you? Go and read the American Constitution and Bill Of Rights. The rights they enshrine are *protection FROM government* not *responsibilities TO government*. Can you not see the difference? Can you not see how different these modern tranzi rights are, which are obligations on the citizenry and promises of bigger government? Is that beyond you?
All we need in this country is a robust protection from the totalitarian-inclined elitists in power. We do not need, nor require, a list of obligations we should owe the government. You are not our rulers, you are our servants, and we demand limitations on you forgetting which you are- as you have already done.
People, do not be fooled. These control freaks have no instinct for liberty, no concept of what it means. Their only interest in producing this bill is to trap the citizens, forever, in a cage of obligations and impositions, to reduce individual freedom and responsibility, and to change that fundamental of British liberty- the concept that one may do all which is not specifically prohibited. Instead, they would change our society (as they already have, in so many ways) to one in which you may do only that for which you are specifically authorised.
This Bill will be oppression in liberty's clothing, an underhanded tactic to officially make the citizens the property of, and supplicants to, the self-interested elite in power. It will be a licence for them to impose upon every aspect of life, and end forever the principle of the private person. It will be nothing but a charter for social engineering and even greater expansion of the bloated oligarchy surrounding the government with snouts a-troughed.
Let us prepare to fight it, block it, prevent it, until we can throw these prim, miserablist social engineers out of power at the ballot box.
Posted by Ian B on October 26, 2007 4:32 AM and again hopefully. This really does deserve another airing. Posted by Anne Palmer on October 26, 2007 3:35 PM
Thanks, Anne Palmer, for repeating IanB's post. A good, swift, but solid kick in the goolies for Uncle Jack. Top drawer, IanB!
Oh, and just another, in passing:
Your Government is the gravest threat to my freedom since Adolf Hitler.
Posted by Michael Rigby on October 26, 2007 9:55 AM
I originally planned to post on this when "Phase 1" was launched, but I thought I'd hold off until "Phase 2", to see how it went.
They are now pushing the meme "Islam is Peace", but peace is an odd term and actually we know that Islam is actually "submission" and not personal, but collective, and you are only permitted to submit to a predetermined entity and it must the be the same one. It is the same kind of peace that Hitler pushed, i.e. the "once everyone has submitted, then we will have peace" kind of peace.
The videos at the new site are also disappointing in that they contain, almost without exception, only tightly hijab'd women. Not a single uncovered head. Now, it is anyone's personal choice to wear hijab, but to have exclusively rigorously hijab'd women then say this is "moderate" does tend to promote the meme that hijab is both moderate and near universal amongst moderate Muslims. Some may say that is a fraudulent and misleading meme. I have significant difficulty in believing that the group is truly moderate, but lets see how it progresses before drawing final conclusions.
So, on to the underlying aims which are not openly shown on the new site, but previously existed on the Muslims for Britain site...
Regrettably, a group who may be well-meaning, have got off to a bad start with a campaign that the BBC says is an anti-terror campaign. Yes, it could well be anti-terror, but frankly it seems the terror they are anti is not the same kind that most people in Britain would think and ironically appears to have been hijacked along the way.
Lets take a look:
..Whoever kills an innocent soul.. it is as if he killed the whole of mankind, And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind”This opening has two main issues. First, it is a quotation from the Koran. If you want to foster good relations with everyone in the UK, using a quotation from the Koran is not the ideal way. Most people do not believe it at best and at worst some consider it a man-made terrorist handbook. Secondly, we have the word 'innocent' - alas, to an Islamist (though not necessarily to a Muslim) it only refers to pious Muslims - the infidel is never an innocent to an Islamist. Of course this is a quotation, so hopefully elsewhere the statements can clarify and remove this obvious mumble-swerve.
[The Holy Quran, 5:32]
The Muslim communities across Britain are united in condemning the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.This is a good start, but who asked them to speak for everyone? "I didn't vote for you".
We are united with the rest of the country at this critical time and are determined to work together to avert any such attacks targeting our fellow citizens, property and country.
Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.Alas, we have 'innocent' again. They are reinforcing the fact that Islam forbids the killing of pious Muslims. It says nothing of infidels, and, by omission, it speaks volumes. I do wonder if many in such groups are sincere, but one or two "moles" push this term so as to get themselves off the hook, as it were, with the radicals and their ideology. Off their hook, but onto mine.
We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam.Reject, but is it a valid link? I think there is a valid link. The use of the word reject is interesting, as it does not require proof. A refutation would be better, but that is hard to do.
• British Muslims should not be held responsible for the acts of criminals.Oh...ok, now we have rapidly switched away from anti-terror and are now talking about the Muslim community. No mention that the British community and nation should not be held responsible for the acts of criminals or governments. This is disappointing. The British people are routinely held "responsible" for acts like the Iraq war or the plight of Palestinians.
• We commend the government for its efforts to respond to this crisis calmly and proportionately, and welcome both the Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s and the Home Secretary’s emphasis on the need to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of British Muslims who are law-abiding citizens and a few criminals who seek to inflict harm and terror on our country.Again, focus on just the Muslim community.
• We express support for the emergency services who are working tirelessly and courageously to avert these attacks and ensure the safety of our country.Seconded.
• We urge the media and all politicians to continue to maintain the values of our open society, free from prejudice and discrimination, sustained by tolerance and mutual respect for all.It is not the media that is the biggest risk, but elements inside the Muslim community. You guys are looking in the wrong place. Alas, the statement is about ensuring the Muslim community benefits, not about condemning the ranting and preaching that creates such "home grown" terrorist muppets or might provoke reaction. There has hardly been any reaction, yet what has been done to kick out the troublemakers from within the Muslim community?
• We call on our government to work towards a just and lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world and to take the lead in helping eliminate the injustices and grievances that foment division and nurture violence.If you look closely and squint, you can almost see the words "Iraq" and "Palestinian" in there. Here it is, a coded message, a mumble swerve to weasel out of, to absolve responsibility by saying that, in effect, such acts of terrorism are triggered and excused by other situations abroad. The implicit message of simultaneous blame and excuse is there with the use of "injustices" and "grievances". Hop-skip-jump the aims move rapidly on from acts of terror on British soil, to only Muslim benefits and then dragging in external conflicts and demanding these are fixed "or else".
The unity of our society must be maintained and we must not allow divisions to emerge between us. We must remain friends, neighbours and colleagues, and take Britain forward as one nation – towards a Greater Britain.Seconded. The best way to keep up divisions is to ghettoize, to import non-English speaking religious and "community" leaders and to not face up to the facts. As an example, 8% of imams preaching in the UK were actually born here. Only 6% speak English as a first language and 45% have been here for less than 5 years. This means religious leaders are unlikely to be a force for integration, let alone toleration. It might be a good place to start. Since this came out in June IIRC, not much has been done to sort out the Muslim camp from within.
Alas, this release, though it has a couple of good statements, on the whole is about allowing the Muslim community to not do anything and to put the burden upon the rest of the UK to not react but accommodate. It is a form of passive-aggression. It is inward-looking, self-serving and self-centred. The terrorist acts are being used as a ratchet to further lock in special treatment and the use of kid gloves. It must be rejected.
The grouping have a 3-phase plan.
First is the above, which they say is "Full page advertisements, in the leading tabloid and broadsheet papers have been placed following the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow to clearly state the Muslim community's unequivocal condemnation of these terrorist attacks.".
If you want this to be equivocal, I suggest you guys drop the use of the word 'innocent' and begin to say 'British population'.
The second moves away from the pretense of anti-terrorism "Phase two aims to continue to resonate this message through advertising on bill boards, London buses, and the tube network. Part of this phase focuses on the positive contribution of Muslims in the UK.".
So they will advertise propaganda. I hear a Trojan Horse rumbling up the hill. This has now started with the "Islam is Peace" campaign.
The third is even more direct: "Phase III involves leveraging on the first two phases to engage our diverse communities to further interact constructively working together to fight the diseases of Islamophobia and racism that are a cancer in our society. In order to leverage, maintain, and sustain the impact from phase one and two there will be development of sites called "Café Islam" in partnership with high profile Mosques in the UK. The essence behind these sites would be to have permanent Islamic exhibitions, IT interactive displays and a resource directory set out in a relaxed and easily accessible environment. This is designed to be a mechanism to promote discussion and community cohesion, to improve race relations, and to foster tolerance and understanding of the diversities in our communities.".
Here we have it revealed. The true purpose of this is not to stop terrorism by misled, fanatical crazy Muslims, but to push for a focus on the fake, fraudulent concept of "Islamophobia". The best rejection of this term I have seen can be found here. There is no disease of Islamophobia in the UK. You cannot be phobic of something that is clearly proactively against your best interests - i.e. radical Islamism. This project has revealed itself to be about propaganda hand-in-hand with a determined attempt, in advance of that, to de-fang and neuter any debate or exposure of the flaws and inadequacies of Islam using Islamophobia as the cover. Most people in Britain would rather NOT know if someone is a Muslim or not and would rather not know that ANY religious grouping existed. It is in the British nature to keep religion private and personal. Muslims again want to ram their world down peoples' throats. Bad idea.
If Muslims truly want to foster diversity and tolerance, I suggest they really do condemn the terrorists who act in the name of Islam and ridicule them, too. They need to ensure that the communities will not harbour such people but, rather, denounce and expose them.
The Chinese have a saying "A man must silence his own dogs".
In addition I think it would be worthy to have all Mosques managed by mixed-sex committees. I think the presence of women will severely reduce the scope for radical bearded crazies to sneak in and spread their psychotic, and dare I say it, almost masturbatory poison.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
There also seems to be the suggestion of deportation, but I doubt if all the issues have been sorted out or enough hearts bled over this yet.
The development is sinister and dangerous in my view.
Firstly, it opens up the system to accusations that either foreigners are treated worse or locals worse. Due to the resources available and the limitless energy of the self-loathers, I suspect the State will just make sure that foreign national jails are consistently better. Its easier. Far less 'action groups' and QANGOs out there to worry about. Net result: foreign prisoners will get better conditions and treatment.
Secondly, pound to a penny we will see calls for "Muslim" or "Islamic" jails. Once this is established, these will need to be better than BOTH the foreign AND indigenous jails to avoid yet more moaning. All manner of problems will occur and very soon hop-skip-jump the various "Muslim leaders" will be calling the tune and demanding, well, the end to the demands will never happen. Not only that, the jails will then be considered "political" and "oppressive" and misreported.
The best way is to treat each according to their behaviour and the crime committed. Simple. Forget race, colour, nationality, diet (they should all be on a vegetarian diet, so to hell with the meat aspects), direction of toilets etc and just treat people the same. Best way to avoid any accusations of discrimination - and we know accusation becomes established fact in the minds of many - is to put people in the same buildings and under the same regimes.
As in so many areas, New Labour are imbeciles. They appear to have absolutely NO common sense whatsoever.