Tuesday, 31 July 2007

More Points on the Graph of Statism pt.4 - Property Rights re Guesthouses

We are seeing an attempt to prevent business owners, specifically Guest House owners, who stays in their property and how. It aslo suggests a photographer who does not wish to do Gay Weddings takes up portraiture.


The Devil and Nation of Shopkeepers are doing a good job in a head-on assault on this Statist moonbattery.

This is a breach of property rights. It is not about "gays", nor is it about Muslims or Christians.

It is touted as increasing freedoms for people. New Labour has NOT increased freedom for people. All it is doing is aiming to give "rights". A MASSIVE difference.

Freedoms bring a responsibility on the individual so free not to use that freedom to impinge equal or superior freedoms.

Rights impose an obligation on a third party to enable that right. E.g. a right to welfare imposes the obligation on taxpayers to pay it.

Rights are often zero sum, while freedoms accumulate.

Here, the right to stay in a Guest House is made possible by making it an obligation for proprietors to have you stay. I say "have", not "allow", not "let". There is no "let" about it with this poisonous mindset. No choice. No freedom. The proprietor must have you. For the photographer, they are forced to take the pictures. Yes, forced, by the threat of imprisonment.

I must say that I have less than zero time for Muslims and Christians who are aggressively anti-gay. However, we are talking about their own businesses on their own property. If they were working at a State funded facility, the question would be altogether different, but we are not. The excuse of saying a property is "licensed" by the State is also not good enough either - a license is about saying something does not disobey regulations, NOT that it is "allowed" to operate - though I am sure Statists up and down the country will disagree. Again, a VERY important distinction as to the role of the State. In the UK it has long been there, along with the laws, to tell us what we cannot do, not what we are allowed to do, as in Europe.

Europe is all about "rights". In the UK, it has been, until recently, about freedoms. The EU Treaty is all about cementing this kind of perverse, Napoleonic hegemony over the UK.

Sociofascists undermine, break, destroy, "fix"

Gordon Brown really is performing the mother of all.

He is back-pedalling on NHS and Education reforms. I suppose it is a cheaper way of destroying things.

Tony Blair brought in the wrecking balls and knocked down many good structures. He did intend to replace them with dysfunctional, ugly, fragile, expensive but useless edifices - much like modern "developers" do in the real world - but he did not have time. Gordon just hates spending the money so is just going to leave the rubble there and force us to live amongst the shattered remains like some besieged Stalingrad.

Gordon has done some good things in public vs. the showman Blair. But behind the scenes he still manages to work his evil Communist ways.

Monday, 30 July 2007

HIPs - as expected, a backdoor snoop.

We know it. We predict the future. We do not even need a crystal ball anymore.

The rapacious, authoritiarian, control-freak, taxing Sociofascists might not gas people, but they sure as hell build the showers.

It seems the Valuation Office Agency (isn't that the Valuation Office Agency Department Bureau Organisation Trust?) has applied to get its dirty fingernails into the HIP reports. A voluntary code would not be so useful for them and I am sure they were pushing for it to be compulsory.

However, I think the real reason HIPs were made compulsory this time round was due to the vanity and bovine wrongheadedness of one Yvette Cooper. Mrs Balls. Anyone with any common sense and understanding of both human nature and the markets (repetition repetition) would know that a voluntary system would either work if it is good, evolve if it could or fail as it should. But what would this tweedy wand know about the real world? Not one non-political job in her resume. Yvette is a classic example of what happens when people go straight into the political machine from school.

Not only should MPs not be lawyers, they should also have a career in the private sector - and no, working for Capita or a State-funded Charity does NOT count!

She is the anamorphic Hazel Blears.

UPDATE: Yvette was on BBC Breakfast this morning. Did the BBC ask her about the Valuation Office Agency Department Bureau Organisation Trust? No. Did the BBC ask why not make it voluntary and surely the value will prove itself? No.

The angles were

1. Cost. Yvette said that first timers do not pay - nonsense, they pay via higher sale price.
2. Only 4-beds. Nice segue into making it compulsory for all of us.
3. Energy report. Yvette makes earnest but disingenuous noises about energy efficiency.

She is a bare-faced liar and the BBC are toadying Sociofascist lickspittles...as if we did not know.

More Points on the Graph of Statism pt.3 - Cohabitation

Those pesky busybody interfering lawyers cannot resist trying to control everything via legislation.

The issue of cohabitation pops up again, with lawyers calling for "rights" for cohabitees. Such rights come with obligations, but an obligation on the other. Freedoms come with responsibilities.

People should be free to cohabit.

If people want rights as cohabitees under law this already exists - it is called a marriage license. £45 or so. These lawyers re just touting for business. Like the lawyer Tony Blair, they can see no solution except more daft law to interfere with our lives.

It might better that lawyers should have no say in the creation of new law, as they have a conflict of interest.

Friday, 27 July 2007

EU Constitution: Treason revealed

The Devils Kitchen writes a good piece uncovering the treasonous nature of the EU Constitution Treaty. In a nutshell, it means ministers must place the EU first, the citizens second and the Nation third.

This has been clear to me for a long time. Regions will be used to bribe the pompous amateurs of the local and county councils. New ministers are already appointed for this task and have been since the second day of Brown's maladministration. The sparkling beads of Devolution have already bewitched the Welsh and Scots. Oh, how they must laugh at them back at Childcatcher Central the EU Commission.

Even Cameron is massaging the Tory party so it can remain "kosher" in the EU, which will soon outlaw political parties that are not aligned to a pan-European grouping that signs up to the concept of the EU in all its forms.

People are being frog-boiled and I think stupor has set in.

Right now, only UKIP is not acting like an outright traitor to the Nation. The biggest traitor of them all I think is Cameron, for they are not tearing into the detail and implication of the treaty, just wanting a vote - how can they be asking for a vote without articulating the implications? I almost wonder if they want the referendum to be a "yes", so it will be buns for tea with no guilt. Scumbags!

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Gender "Equality" at Work

BBC Porridge this morning had an interesting pair of ladies on this morning talking about gender equality in the workplace.

One was a businesswoman and the other was, well, not sure really. Ah, irrationally opinionated, that was it.

The businesswoman spoke her mind and said what is almost impossible to say these days - hiring women of childbearing age is an absolute nightmare unless you are some vast corporation or government department with excessive slack. The businesswoman just wanted people to be in work 9-5, 5 days a week. In our new sexist world it is very difficult for a man to say such things, if at all. The truth is not permitted for some.

What was interesting was the presumption by the non-businesswoman that the way men work and what is expected of them is somehow a "male" thing.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the way men work might actually be the best way for the company to function? That this might actually be the practical thing for the employer, as in regular, reliable attendance with a focus on the job being paid for, not the employee's kids?

Has it ever occurred to anyone that women are paid less not because they are less capable or discriminated against for just being women, but because they might disappear repeatedly at any time for up to a year at a stretch and then return with a legal right to their job? If a man tried that he would not be paid less, but would more likely not be paid at all! In short, less valuable to the organisation - all other things being equal - means less pay.

The move for gender "equality" is not equality at all, but a means to secure rights for women. This is not a complaint per se, but lets not try and confuse the two.

Let us have more women in business and more starting their own companies. May they progress to running for parliament and so inject some sense into the proceedings and displace the men and women who have come through the ranks of the party machine or via non-jobs in Quangos and government departments isolated from reality.

Towards an EU Referendum

Gordon Brown has again mumbleswerved his way past a call by David Cameron at PMQ's today to have a Referendum on the EU Constitution Treaty.

The Referendum List is a project set up by Gawain Towler and Chris Mounsey a.ka. "Devils Kitchen". It seeks to ask each MP their stance on the call for a referendum and to post up the results.

It is a very rational approach which improves transparency, especially as it includes the "silence = no" clause, which is very sensible indeed. As such, Grabber Gordon should not be against it. But he will, for, underneath that dour, grumpy, introverted and autocratic Socialist exterior lurks the totalitarian mind of a raving Communist.

Go take a look.

For my part, I consider the "red lines" trumpeted by Blair and Brown to be "Maginot Lines" - ones that can be easily bypassed or rendered irrelevant. An example are the guarantees that Britain has supremacy in certain areas of British law. Alas, not much "British law" will be created as most of it will come from Europe. What disgusts me most is how the Conservatives have been singlualrly incapable of "tearing a new one" for the Treaty on such things. Although they do ask for a referendum, I doubt their capabilities at this time.

I should meet our EU negotiators because I have shares in a Jelly Mine that they might be interested in.


In the effort to ensure that no respect was demanded, the Sociofascists have managed to create a place where no respect is given.

Water Supply Failures: The Monopoly Strikes Again

We see that water, and to a lesser extent, electricity supplies have been hit badly by flooding.

It is understandable that a water treatment works was taken out of service when it was inundated if they are configured as I remember when visiting Beckton Treatment Works many decades ago (and boy, that was a fun, if smelly day out!). Floodwaters tend to end up as very dilute sewage, so allowing that mix to slosh into the water treatment ponds can render them unusable until cleaned up. That decision to close the plant is acceptable.

What is NOT acceptable is how one treatment works out of action means so many houses without ANY piped water. I suspect this fragile state of affairs is replicated across the country.

A major part of this is due to the monopolistic structure of the water supply industry. We have privatisation, but we are subject to geographic monopolies, which are against our best interests.

I have posted before that monopolies are a bad thing, but sometimes necessary or pragmatic in certain limited areas. The area where it is pragmatic is in the DELIVERY of water. It is NOT pragmatic in the treatment and SUPPLY of fresh water. Had our water system only retained a geographic monopoly in delivery infrastructure and not treatment and supply, people would still have their water as the delivery infrastructure would be so arranged to enable a plurality of sources to feed any given area - a "National Water Grid", as it were. Such an arrangement would be in place to enable price and quality competition to occur. It would also be possible to equalise supplies in times of drought. When a treatment works is knocked out for whatever reason, it would then not result in what looks to be WEEKS without water, though possibly a time of lower pressure.

Electricity substations are far harder as they are, in effect, part of the distribution network, stepping down voltage as it gets closer to habitation. However, I suspect they are far easier to defend due to their smaller footprint.

All Your Earnings Are Belong Us

So says the State, I feel, after reading the Taxman's thoughts as highlighted by Tim Worstall.

Gordon Brown has long had form for considering that all our earnings and the earnings by companies are his, and that he "allows" us some of it so we might not cause the utter collapse of the economy. One wonders if Gordon sees that allowance as having one primary purpose -to maintain the interest payments on fiat money (credit) so that he may tax it still further.

We need flat tax + welfare reform and quick.

Home Office Consultation on Drugs

The Home Office is to begin a wide ranging consultation on drug use (awaiting link).

This is good news, but considering the actions elsewhere by NICE to give out vouchers for shopping, I hope they do the sensible thing and decriminalise and freely distribute drugs instead of more "band-aids for gunshot wounds".

Monday, 23 July 2007

Look and Feel

I have revised the look and feel of the site to a less doom-laden countenance, eschewing what might appear to be an eco-friendly blackle look to a more polar-bear roasting look.

Frankly, considering most people view blogs via LCDs, the more light from the backlight set free is more likely to help REDUCE power consumption, not raise it, as an LCD is a subtractive form of display and a black rendering just shuts up the light behind closed pixels.

Just shows what a bunch of misguided numpties the eco-nazis are.

UPDATE: I have switched back to black for the moment, using the layout and font changes picked up as part of a fleeting Pipaluk moment. An aggressive, in-yer-face reminder of our Governments Fascist ambitions is an important point to make. A colour scheme can be considered distasteful, but in light of the hard, systematic, premeditated, cynical, authoritarian and treasonous actions by the Government, it is just a mirror exposing their crimes.

Friday, 20 July 2007

Cash For Honours: Innocent or Unproven?

Having insufficient evidence is not the same as innocent.

We will now witness a concerted campaign to enable the State to relieve us of our hard-earned so a bunch of self-interested sorts can be paid to pester us.

With this will come the ability to classify which parties get funding and which do not. It will be biased in favour of the incumbents and any remaining Euro-poodles.

It will be preparing the way for a one party state with badge engineering to make people think they are buying into something "different".

Thursday, 19 July 2007

BBC: Self-loathing Alien in our Midst.

The appalling treatment of The Queen and the spooning of responsibility to RDF§ provides yet more evidence that the BBC is chock full of self-loathers. With the scandals about phone-ins, it shows they have demagnetized their moral compasses, if they were ever magnetized in the first place.

Nothing short of a flame-thrower will resolve that.

I imagine being a Libertarian or Conservative in the BBC is like being one of the Marines in "Aliens" trying to rescue Newt. As many as you kill they keep on coming and Auntie Beeb sits deep in the bowels of Broadcasting House laying hundreds and thousands more of them.

"Game over, man...Game OVER!"

§ RDF, in Apple terms means "reality distortion field" - the one that envelopes Steve Jobs when he is in full flow.

PollyT: Taxation, propaganda and spiteful irrationality.

Polly has been spreading unreason so close to a lie that you could not fit a cigarette paper between them.

Here goes:

Polly, you appear to have a perverse misinterpretation of what goes on.
“All that capital gains tax would otherwise go into the exchequer to be spent according to the democratic decision of taxpayers.”
No, Polly, you are wrong. The only way you can have the money spent democratically by taxpayers is to reduce the tax they pay. This way they each decide for themselves where that money goes. State largesse is NOT democratic.
“Instead the taxpayer sees their own money purloined and spent at the whim of the giver.”
No, Polly, you are wrong. The money does NOT belong to the taxpayer. It never did and never will. It either belongs to the owner or it is purloined, to use your word, by the Treasury and spent at the whim of the Treasury. The Treasury never “gives” unless it has already taken.
“Every time anyone donates to a cat sanctuary or cruelty to dogs in Japan, the taxpayer is obliged to contribute another 28% on top, willy-nilly (and often nilly).”
No, Polly, you are wrong. The taxpayer does not contribute a penny. They never do in such cases. What happens is that the Treasury does not TAKE that 28% for itself, but allows the giver to give all the money they give without the Treasury grabbing its piece. Maybe this “28%” malarkey is confusing people. It used to be either 20% or 40% depending on if you paid top rate tax. This dodge to 28% could be seen as a sly trick to disconnect the relationship between the giver’s tax and the tax refund. It certainly gives your argument a momentary fig leaf, but I am having nothing of it.
“So long as they fulfil the very basic requirements of probity, registered charities may cover a multitude of crankiness and inefficiency:”
The State is incredibly inefficient with our tax money. A tax £ ends up in the Treasury with the spending power of 30p it is so inefficient and bad at its job.
“cut-throat wasteful competition between near-identical tin-rattlers, advertising campaigns that distort important social issues; or empire building charity managers with little genuine assessment of their outcomes. “
Just like government lobby groups, quangos and other parasitical tumours on the Nation’s body.
“Of course many are excellent, but, good or bad, the taxpayer has to pony up that 28% extra for every pound put in a tin.”
As above, this is just wrong.
“Donors with their hefty cheques can cause serious trouble for good charities doing difficult, skilled work. Masters of the Universe are used to running the show themselves in their own companies, and they think they know best how to run any organisation. Sometimes they do, but sometimes the cash comes at a high price. Once they've got all the "toys", the danger is that using their money to run poor folk, their schools, their estates or their children is just the most fun toy of all.”
Just as the State sticks its dirty fingernails into the “third sector”. New Labour is as we speak undergoing a concerted plan to totally ruin this area with precisely the results you accuse private people of. In the case of the State, it is not even their money they are using to destroy things!
“I suggested to this particular Master of the Universe (who happens to give to an excellent programme) that as well as giving by whim, wouldn't paying more tax be a better way for the wealthy to pay their dues? He used the usual high-earner's get-out: governments won't spend his money as well as he can. If he gives it, he can direct it exactly where he wants. No doubt we'd all like to do that with our taxes, but the better way is to elect a government to spend it as rationally and accountably as it can.”
That is not possible, Polly. Do you actually believe that nonsense? Governments are the WORST spenders going.
“There is no evidence that charities spend money better: indeed researchers are too polite to conduct the sort of thorough, value-for-money scrutiny of charities that the state is subjected to.”
Ah, but this is not the point. People can choose which inefficient charity they put their money into. Being charities, they might be inefficient, but with no profits, some redistribution may occur. This is unlike the State, which the payee, the taxpayer has limited or no control over what moonbat causes the State decides to spend money on and when it does it often spends money hiring fat, inefficient private parasitical organisations which siphon of vast sums in consultancies and profits for the non-deserving few.
“The truth is, if the top good philanthropists got together and admitted that they now have more money than is decent, they could make a huge difference. Quite a small group of powerful clan chiefs of the City could change the tax-averse culture of the rich. They could shame the non-domiciled, the private-equity tax evaders, the trust fund inheritance tax cheats and their whole wicked tribe of tax advisers bent on denying the state as much money as possible.”
How about backing flat tax which would pretty much solve the issue and make life easier for everyone, not just the rich? No, you like “progressive” taxation, don’t you, Polly. Nasty, discriminatory and unfair “progressive” taxation that is used as a vindictive form of social engineering.
“They could advocate a top tax rate of 50% on earnings over £100,000. That would only affect the top 1.5% of taxpayers and it would bring in £4.5bn every year. “
No, it would mean more people try to evade tax and that UK PLC becomes more expensive and so less competitive.
“Consider this week's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on the growing chasm between rich and poor. Earmarked for the neediest, that same £4.5bn would be enough to lift half our poor children over the poverty threshold.”
The best way to lift the poor is to provide a vibrant, low tax, efficient economy so the poor can find work and live their lives. Making the rich poorer is not the way to make the poor less so. As Winston Churchill once said – "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.".
“ (while ordinary taxpayers will be obliged to contribute another 28% to whatever causes take his fancy).”
Repeating a lie is the classic trick of propaganda. Polly, you are repeating a lie yet again.
“ It is good to give - but it's even better to pay your taxes.”
And better still to have those taxes flat and fair!

Wednesday, 18 July 2007

Metronet: A Private Company Operating Under A State Mandate.

I touched on this company in my article on monopolies over at LibertarianUK some weeks ago.

Metronet is/was NOT a proper private company at all. It was a consortium, nay, cartel inside an umbrella corporation, a private company operating with a State mandate. A monopoly of the worst kind.

The cartel behind it should pay back what is owed. It is a disgrace that the cartel members were able to suck so much money out of the organisation via the "contracts" they gave themselves.

Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Organs, Statism and disingenuous BBC wordmangling.

The march of the Napoleonic forces continues. Now it is the turn of the Chief Medical Officer , Sir Liam Donaldson, to recommend that people should no longer have sovereignty over their bodies, but suggests that the State should give the option to opt out of organ donation. Oh, thankee kindly, great Statan!

How dare they even suggest such a thing? How DARE they "presume" consent! I already have absolute title and possession over my body. It is ABSURD that the law can be changed to enable another to have a prior claim that I have to proactively overrule.

We have Dr Vivian Nathanson, the BMA’s head of science and ethics, moaning “We have exhausted all other ways of increasing the number of organs available”. Wrong. You have NOT had a decent sustained public awareness campaign for ages. I cannot recall the last time I saw something regarding organ donation that hit home. Dr Vivian Nathanson has capitulated and gone for the Statist, Napoleonic option. It is also the convenient (for her) option, which makes it all the more chilling, unprofessional and disreputable.

I suspect we will see organs taken against people's wishes because "there was not enough time to check" or "no record of an opt-out was on der com poo 'ah".

Dr Vivian Nathanson stated “We are now getting closer to a system of presumed consent,”. There, writ large for all to see and thus dispel any doubts as to is existence from their minds, is the Tyranny of the Masses. They want to own your ass because someone else is happy for theirs to be so taken. The details of organ donations pale into comparison to this and the issue of sovereignty over our own bodies. Surely such a ruling would be unconstitutional, as it presumes the State is sovereign over the individual, not its servant.

As a small note, the BBC coverage is a very sloppy attempt by someone lacking in critical reasoning. That, or they attempt to misrepresent the facts so as to promote their self-loathing Sociofascist agenda. It headlines "Everyone 'should donate organs'". Note the quotes. No, this is not about donation, nor is it about 'should'. The title should read "Everyone to have their organs taken". You cannot 'donate' something that is taken without consent (presumed does not count). 'Should' implies a spirit of recommendation or suggestion, which could not be further from the truth. BBC - shame on you. Again.

Illegal Immigration and the IPPR Newspeak.

If you came home one day and found someone squatting in your back bedroom, you would be very upset. What if you went to the police to have them removed only for the authorities to say you were not allowed, but instead, from now on, you must share your home with them. You would be very upset, no? Who is that person? Are they a criminal? Do they have any dangerous diseases like HIV or TB? They might seem OK on the surface but, frankly, being British we get VERY UPSET if someone does not have the common decency to ask first! It is all about freedom and consent, don't you know.

We have now a report from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) that demands an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The IPPR, being a Sociofascist/Statist throat, does not seem to care much for freedom and consent, but prefers to just take so it can feel good about giving to others.

Before we even begin, the IPPR are conducting an insidious tactic of trying to introduce a new term - "irregular migrant". No, IPPR, they are ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Irregular is not generally used to imply illegal activity, even if it can take that meaning, and migrant is a pointless fudge - we are talking about incoming migrants only, so they are immigrants from the context of the UK. However, the use of the term "migrant" makes one think that the authors are self-loathers who are not particularly fond of or loyal to the concept of the UK as a sovereign nation. I suspect they get into rapture about the EU, though.

"irregular migrant" is a synthetic term and should be rejected at every turn.

As to the substance of the report itself, the main focus seems to be on gaining more tax revenue and to hang with the consequences. We know Gordon Brown has been smashing piggy-banks and pawning necklaces left, right and centre, but for a so-called (as if) independent think tank to tempt a dribbling addict with more "gear" is a pretty low tactic even for their ilk.

The increase in tax revenues does not seem to factor in the increased medical, housing, educational and other costs, but of course, to Statists like the IPPR, these things are "free", are they not?

The entire concept of an amnesty in the UK is:

Unsustainable: The UK has a shortage of housing, healthcare, schools and, in the South where they will most likely settle, water even. Once the UK has one amnesty, the nagging for more will grow and grow, like a spoilt child. Illegal immigrants already view the UK as a soft touch. Giving such an amnesty will encourage desperate people from all over the world to make an attempt for the UK. Even compared to other safe, prosperous nations in the EU, the UK is singled because of our Government's flaccidity. The UK needs skilled migrants and also needs to cut down the cosy hammock that has been constructed out of the Welfare State's safety net. The IPPR have chosen to ignore the very rational maxim that mass immigration and a Welfare State are incompatible concepts.

Undermining the Rule of Law: Citizenship is a legal status. Passports are required by law. Visas are required by law from many places. Proof of identity of foreign nationals enables some control over who enters and when they leave. Foreign nationals are not permitted to settle and/or work by law. Granting an amnesty is an abdication of law, and so it undermines the Rule of Law. The people so granted are unknown, unchecked. I wish to point out that I would not blame the immigrants themselves for being willing to break the law to enter the UK, for who could say truthfully that they would not do so in similar circumstances? If I were living in Sub-Saharan Africa, I would chance my arm in coming to the UK, make no mistake about that. The blame for undermining the rule of law is not the migrants but the foolish ideas from the IPPR and the contradictory and treasonous directives and rulings in various human rights documents which successfully hamstring the Nation State in its role as protector for the people.

Destabilising: Vast numbers of unknown individuals, often with no concept of Britain or Britishness will cause conflict and resentment. The situation is on a knife-edge as it is and an amnesty will make matters worse. Giving legal status to illegal immigrants will tar the entire migrant population with the same brush, even though their migration occured generations ago. All will be suspected of being one of them. It causes doubt, then fear, then hate. Hate causes violence and discrimination. From fear onwards, business and trade are less efficient due to the higher perceived risk. Communities are built on sand. If migrants were skilled and professional people, the general perception of them would be higher. The Polish plumber is a welcome arrival, for example.

Irresponsible: Who ARE these 700,000 individuals? What skills do they have? What is their attitude to Rule of Law? You just don't know. You are rolling the dice 700,000 times. You WILL get murderers, rapists, forgers, thieves. It only takes one person in 10,000 to make the lives of all a misery. Sending a very strong signal - nay, I call it an invite - to desperate people all over the world is indeed highly irresponsible behaviour by a government, who are, lest they forget, OUR servants and are there to look after and care for citizens of this country, not anyone who happens to float in.

The IPPR is being utterly irresponsible. If we want to give opportunity to people all over the world, instead of IMPORTING bodies into this crowded place, we should be EXPORTING the English Common Law, Rule of Law and an efficient economic system along the lines I have posted before - fix the problem, not the symptom. Migration is the symptom. Dysfunctional States are the problem.

I suggest those in the IPPR show the strength of their convictions and just be allotted any number of unknown, unverified or vetted illegal immigrants without a medical to stay in their home. Actually we should not even bother to ask them, but just do it. That is what they are suggesting for us. See how they like it.

Monday, 16 July 2007

The Danger of "illegal" in Regard to Illegal Drugs.

Illegal drugs cause untold misery, crime and death. I now put the case to you that the reason illegal drugs cause so many problems and of such great magnitude is primarily the very fact that they are illegal.

A drug user needs to buy drugs. A dealer supplies the drugs at a price as high as they can get for it. The user needs cash. Very often they rob to gain that cash. This creates an environment of receivers/fences who pay for the stolen goods. The dealer’s high margin for the drugs makes the need for more cash and so more theft and criminality. Dealers implicitly or explicitly work to expand the range of drugs consumed by an individual and the number of users. The cash is collected and used to protect and expand the drug dealer’s market and for the cartel to purchase more drugs. The cash needs to be laundered for it to be seriously enjoyed by the upper tiers. Violence, intimidation and murder are the means to protect and expand market share. Such a structure becomes a read-made army for expansion and influence in other, otherwise legitimate areas. The Rule of Law is threatened by the sheer amounts of cash that are involved.

Here we have THEFT, FENCING, MURDER, ASSAULT and MONEY LAUNDERING at a bare minimum, even ignoring the fact that the importation, distribution, sale and even consumption of the drugs are illegal.

The key here is that vast sums change hands. It is why dealers are in the business. If selling balloons were as profitable, these people would sell balloons. It is why there is so much crime involved, as many users cannot generate sufficient funds. Rich people who have drug habits rarely commit crime and often their habit goes undetected. This is because they are likely to have a regular supply of good quality product and have no shortage of funds to buy it.

The crime is caused by the cost and the corresponding profits to be made and protected. The increase in users is in no small part down to “marketing” by pushers.

If you render selling drugs uneconomic, then drugs will hardly be sold. If you render it uneconomic by distributing it for free or at token cost, then the users will not need to steal to feed their habit. Similarly, dealers will not make a business and so there will be no point trying to expand their markets by violent turf wars or adding then upgrading users.

If users no longer have to steal, they almost certainly will not do so. It has been said that 60-80% of crime in the UK is drug related and much of this can be eliminated to a significant extent§. If addicts stop performing these crimes it is highly unlikely that another group will, as crime is not a trade as such, where thieves notice that the burglary niche is not being exploited in a region and move in, for example.

Decriminalise drugs and you reduce overall crime including theft, receiving, violence, gun crime, murder, assault and money laundering. The whole apparatus of intrusion into peoples’ financial affairs no longer has the justification of fighting “the war on drugs”.

The distribution of drugs should initially be via registered premises and for consumption thereon. The State should control the units, strength and quality of the produce sold so the user knows what they are getting and that it is predictable just as it controls the labelling of alcohol. After a time it many be possible to enable drugs to be taken off the premises, but this step needs to be taken with caution.

It is expected that freelance cannabis production would still occur for special varieties and tastes, but popular varieties would soon become mainstream and the private production would not be a massive industry.

There is a temptation to tax drugs. The whole idea is to remove the financial incentive to sell the products. Tax will create a black market. Taxation should be resisted at all costs.

An important dimension to this is that prostitution also be decriminalised and regulated and gambling regulations strongly enforced. It is almost certain that drug dealers will seek new niches. If limited niches exist in the UK, the idea is that they will relocate to another country. The UK should become an undesirable destination for the criminally minded.

It should be stressed that at all stages, the concept of personal responsibility holds. If you are adult enough to consume drugs, you are responsible for your actions thereafter. No excuses for drug use in regard to behaviour or action should be tolerated including driving, operating machinery, public conduct and being in positions of authority or trust.

This article is also posted at www.libertarianUK.net.

§ E.g. Deitch, Koutsenok, & Ruiz, 2000. This is not universally agreed. Some criminals become drug addicts and continue to commit crime after coming off drugs. Another study (Pernanen, Cousineau, Brochu, & Sun, 2002) attributes 40-50% of all crime to drug use, up to 35% illicit.

TUC and Education

The TUC has been moaning about Academies.

Not that I am saying I am in favour of Academies or that people and organisations cannot speak up about what they dislike, but surely the TUC has more important things to waffle on about...like the welfare and treatment of their members, praps?

Bansturbation, Banticipation and now Banopoly!

Tim Worstall points out a new parlour game - Banticipation - where people predict what will be banned next. This evolved from the term Bansturbation, (Nation of Shopkeepers) which is about the mastabatory glee people have over banning things and watching people get caught or frustrated over the banning.

I have a few suggestions on what might be banned:

Banning councillors voting on something they care about? No, done.

Banning habeas corpus? Almost

Banning England? Almost

Banning protests by MEPs about EU corruption? Done it.

Grief! This is like being Dr Evil coming out of Cryogenic Stasis and trying to hatch an e-vil plot to get $1m, er, no $1bln in extortion.


How about "Banopoly", a game where you have local authorities, not streets, Government Departments, not Utilities. Railways remain (ha). You build Quangos, not properties, in the authorities you own (I am not kidding) and fine people who land, not charging rent.

"Community Chest" will have a card - "Get out of Jail Free due to overcrowding".

Er, no. I did think it would be made, but you never know, it could breed a whole new generation of numbnut bansturbating Statists.

Friday, 13 July 2007

Cleaving to the Winner, pt.2

Roger is in Ealing Southall, so I get to see the current bye-election at first hand.

First we had the municipal elections in 2006 which saw the London Borough of Ealing switch back to Conservative control after a very long run of Labour.

During this bye-election, there have been a spate of defections by councillors from Labour to Conservative, mostly in the Southall part of Ealing. I suspect that the biggest pain is being felt not by the Labour group, but by the LibDems, who must be wondering, "if people do jump, why not to us?".

I suspect the shifts are in part driven by the need for people to cleave to the winner. Tony Lit, the Conservative candidate appears the most polished and is well known as an individual in his own right in the Asian community of the Southall section of the Constituency. He has the best plumage.

Frankly, I have always wondered why Hindus and Sikhs vote Labour - one would think they are more Conservative. I definitely think many would like a Libertarian party.


Right now the three main parties are equally unappealing.

When asked which leader you prefer, right now, Fri 13th July 2007, for me it is Gordon Brown. The term "prefer" is not quite right, as it is really a form of least-worst - who is the least objectionable.

WHAT! You cry, has Roger gone mad?

To answer, I have my hamster/snake/alien argument. If you wanted a PM, which one would YOU choose? I know it is a false dilemma, but bear with me. UPDATE: Note that this does not imply I would ever VOTE for ANY of the three, least of all Brown.

A hamster is naive, trusting, weak and self-centred, if cuddly. Ming, basicially.
A Snake is quick, cold, often aggressive, secretive and dangerous, but a known quantity. Brown.
An Alien is mostly unknown. The veneer looks good and appears smooth, but when in power what on earth (or beyond) will happen? Cameron.

I think if you have any sense you would choose, like I did, the Snake. A hamster is a risk to itself and to us. A Snake is dangerous, but at least you roughly know in what way. It will defend itself though and is not to be taken lightly - and probably views the hamster as its next snack. The Alien is an unknown quantity - the worst kind, in fact. Many suspect, given recent behaviour, that under that mammalian exterior, a reptile lurks, not quite like the Snake, but with similar motives.

Right now, modern British Politics presents itself to us as this false dilemma - Hamster, Snake or Alien. It is an utterly absurd situation. It cannot go on like this. Something needs to give. A Libertarian party is so desperately needed.

If you think so too, then how about writing an essay on the subject and potentially win £1000 from the Libertarian Alliance?

I'm certainly going to give it a go!

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Fencepost No2. Criminal Justice Bill 2007

We have another fencepost. This time it is in regard to items that "offend".

Some aspects are clearly offensive, such as in regard to the dead and animals, as no concept of informed consent can be applied. The same, would apply to earlier legislation regarding children. That is not under question.

The worry here is in particular the subjective nature of guilt, so that something does not need to "be", but can be decided to appear to be by the prosecution. It also exempts classified or rated material except when a section or image of that material is isolated and deemed to be for sexual arousal even when the images are synthesized or actual and involve consenting adults. I find that part absurd, for if an innocent bystander saw the entire work then saw the section, they could arguably and some would say likely see it as part of the original. To use, if you forgive me, a Wicker Man example, someone keeping the ending of said film (spoilers) could be accused of keeping offensive material. Maybe the Bill should be about "items that someone thinks will arouse themselves a nameless third party"?

This concept of permitted behaviour is all part of the creeping Napoleonisation of our law, in that everything is illegal or not permitted unless the law says so - the reverse of English Common Law which says everything is permitted unless laws exist to prevent it. Our round English peg is being forced into the European square hole.

This law can lurk until someone who needs to be knobbled is found with something on their hard drive. The authorities can be coy about it and destroy a person's reputation. It does not bode well for our freedom.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a fencepost is a law or legislation that is strict and deep rooted but which the breadth of which is not enforced...at first. A previous fencepost was laid when the Smoking Ban was brought in. Not the high profile pubs, but all the other silly encroachments like home offices, company cars and the like which can be used at some stage to knobble someone. I summed it up here thus:
The problem is, they will outlaw almost everything while enforcing very little. Imprisonment by stealth. People will not know they are encircled until it is too late - like putting in all these very deep, robust fence-posts with no fence panels. All seems open. One day you will wake up and the panels are in, you are trapped and they can decide what law they wish to impose to nail whomsoever they desire.

Tuesday, 10 July 2007

Breakthrough Britain

The report is out. It is a shame that the launch was marred by daft scaremongering on one policy point by the BBC and other media in a successful attempt to whip up bleats about discriminating "against" unmarried and single parents. Daft.

However, the good news is that it does seem that the findings are being praised, even if the recommendations are not unanimously agreed upon. This means we work done can produce further suggestions using a baseline of inputs.

The key areas are:
  • Family Breakdown
  • Economic Dependency and Worklessness
  • Educational Failure
  • Addictions
  • Gambling
  • Serious Personal Debt
  • The "Third" Sector
Before I continue, I am reading the briefing, so I apologise if I respond inaccurately or in ignorance of the full report - I am very happy to be corrected if that is the case.

Family Breakdown: Some good thoughts, yet the worry I have is that yet more people will be involved from the State who will wish to manage the situation, not prevent it.

  1. The State should allow voluntary groups to operate more freely but not be gatekeepers to funding, which will always have strings and so distract and undermine sincere intent. I cannot stress this too much - State funding will pollute the Voluntary Sector with their agenda and glacial timescales. This does not appear to be well safeguarded here - quite the reverse. A Minister for the Third Sector - the rot is setting in.
  2. I have long made the case for no additional benefits to be given to people on benefits or housing who increase the size of their family unit and I remain convinced of this as the "least worst" option. There is nothing here to reverse the perverse incentivisation of feckless procreation, to put no finer point on it. This adds to my suspicion that all these people are there to manage the problems, not prevent them.
  3. I do think it is right to consider the concept of "family" as a single taxable entity if children are involved, allowing all legally bound adults to transfer their tax allowances to the household that is there to support the children, including grandparents. Civil partnerships, yes. A cohabiting couple, no, but a grandmother and mother?, yes. This report does at least move a little in that direction.
  4. I find it distressing that no mention is made about the entropic programming pumped out by the BBC and others, such as Eastenders, which appears to be a "Blueprint for Dysfunction". Where are the strong media role models are needed to promote self-reliance, fortitude, courage, moderation, inventiveness and other qualities? Our State broadcaster often seems to have decided on the role of "recruiting Sargent" to keep our Social Services fed with a plentiful supply of "customers"!

Economic Dependency and Worklessness: The recommendations do not appear to do more than tinker and they tinker in a way that requires more oversight and inspection, so more "salaried unemployed". Some things suggested are an improvement, but this is a missed opportunity to put forward significant changes in the context of all the other recommendations. The nettle has not been grasped. No talk of Flat Tax and a fat personal allowance, which is key, IMHO, to boosting productive employment, taking the low paid OUT of Income Tax and enabling a smoother and more rewarding segue from dependency to self-reliance.

Educational Failure: This has excellent stuff - to allow the formation of independent schools free of LEA control and allow parents to switch to such schools, taking the underlying funding with them - it is vouchers by any other name but articulated properly (for once?) so that it makes it hard for the Sociofascists to disingenuously denounce. This alone could do so much, it is hard to articulate the importance this could have on our society. Alas, I feel the LEA Mafia will stomp on this as soon as their rice-bowl is threatened. A pox upon them!

Addictions: Tinkering. Totally misses the key issue of removing the criminals and pushers from the loop. There is only one sensible way to do that and that is to make the supply of drugs not economically viable for criminals to bother selling or recruiting new customers (i.e. pushing). This is through low cost, flat fee supply at regulated outlets. Until you stop the "marketing" end, you are fighting an uphill battle to kerb usage and the crime that is caused by the addicts needing to feed their habit. Many of the recommendations are great if you are in the State machine - lots of jobs. You know the rot is well and truly set in here, with terms like "treatment journey" - the poison of the NHS behemoth leaks far and wide. This is about addiction - addiction to the State.

Gambling: Mostly Statist tinkering. Linking gambling treatment funding and the tax revenues raised concerns me for reasons I cannot quite articulate. No mention of Super Casinos, which is shocking. If the State earns zero revenue from gambling, it would consider it an irritant and not wish it to grow. I am convinced that Super Casinos are about tax revenues, which is DAFT as the taxes are on profits which will almost certainly be repatriated overseas, sucking wealth out of the nation. Maybe the State needs some treatment for their addiction?

Serious Personal Debt: This section does not hit home, in my view. IVAs are allowed and to an extent still encouraged, which I believe will do the opposite of the intended purpose. Considering how numerically illiterate people are, it is no surprise they are financially illiterate, too. I did not detect a way to formally and clearly display the terms of credit cards and refinancing. I know people should be responsible, but the State has a role, in my view, in the area of "weights and measueres" and more intuitive ways to display the consequences of various forms of credit should be put forward, including graphically.

The Third Sector: Alas, we see more moves to entrench the State into the activities of Voluntary Groups. The idea that the unemployed can be brought into volunteering is a good one, as long as it is not abused. This will be hard. It could sort out sheep from goats in terms of the sincere out of work who can volunteer and build up a CV, even if they are not actually in paid employment - this is "unpaid employment", which is at least a step in the right direction, the antithesis of Gordon Brown's 900,000 "salaried unemployed". I suspect the State will not hesitate to get its talons into this area, interfering in what projects can "qualify", so engineering and influencing the precise work of such entities. Once that is in place you are a short hop and skip to some dangerous ground in terms of mobilising masses. The TWO groups who should influence what happens should be those volunteering and those contributing.

The State should BUTT OUT. It is not good news for this area - the State is on the prowl - it has OUR money, but IT wants control over how it is spent. If the State wants to see more taxpayers money going on voluntary groups may I suggest it cuts out the middle man - itself - and lowers taxes.

The document does not tackle State housing, which I feel is a millstone in its current form. If you are in State housing, you need to ASK to move and apply to join the queue of the relevant Local geographic monopoly Authority. Not good for chasing work. That is a very bad thing. Housing needs to be taken out of the 'entitlement' sphere and into the voluntary sector. If housing is not a 'right', dysfunctional families will need to reform to remain housed. I sincerely believe 90% will reform themselves when faced with such a reality.

Overall some good points, and especially one of the two key issues - Education. However, drug reform is not dealt with and most of the other areas seem to reach for the State interventionist approach, with the serious risk of creating yet more organisations, QUANGOs and "bodies" that want to manage the problem yet, subconsciously, will not wish to eradicate it, as that will threaten their rice-bowls.

Saturday, 7 July 2007

Flooding "Compensation" - Outsourced theft.

The infantilisation of the Nation progresses. Now we have calls for people who did not take out contents insurance but who could have to be "compensated".

Did anyone ask me if I wanted to pay?

Surely if you had anything of value in your home you would have the means to pay insurance.

A flat panel TV is about 5 years cover. We have one "hard luck story" about somebody putting in a £15,000 kitchen extension but not bothering to spend 1% p.a. of that value insuring it against damage...and yet the implication is that we need to compensate people.

If people are compensated or see that other are compensated then they will become ever more dependent, irrational, irritable, grasping and feckless - just where the Sociofascists want them.

In this case we see a classic example of why the Welfare State is so often a form of outsourced theft. Why rob from people when you can get the State to so it for you as a willing partner?

As for people who could NOT get insurance, like in Hull, it begs the question how can they benefit on one had from lower house prices as a result of living in a flood plain, NOT have the cost of insurance to pay, yet get compensation? If you choose not to live in a flood plain you have to pay more for your house AND pay insurance.

I am sorry that flooding happens to anyone, but the argument against compensation still holds.

p.s. Countries that have regular flooding tend to build their homes on stilts. That is the answer for anyone in a flood plain.

Wednesday, 4 July 2007

MCB's Disingenuous Statement (as expected)

Dr Bari and his Persian Rug

The MCB has done it again. I really want someone to nail these people down to get them to unequivocally condemn attacks on the general population. Each time I have seen someone try this they have wiggled and mumble-swerved. You will see that, yet again, they slip in the code word 'innocent', which then raises the question: "Define 'innocent'". It is my suspicion that those in the MCB do not consider the general British citizen as being 'innocent' and as such they are condemning no one.

Statement from the Muslim Council of Britain on Recent Terrorism 03 Jul 2007

The events of the past few days have been very disturbing and challenging ones for all of us. At the very outset we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all the police officers and security experts who were tasked with removing the threat from the explosive devices in London and Glasgow.

It looks sadly as if the terror threat currently facing our country will be with us for some time to come. So let us be absolutely clear about this: those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of all of us. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity. Those who engage in such murderous actions and those that provide support for them are the enemies of all, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they stand against our shared values in the UK.

Note here the use of the term 'innocent'. Extremists do not consider British civilians to be 'innocent' as they are infidel. Even muslims caught up in events can be dismissed by the ridiculous fatalism that 'it was written', so indicating it was somehow the Will of Allah. IIRC the MCB and their various throats have used this term after 9/11, 7/7, 21/7.

The police and security services have the enormous responsibility for trying to ensure the safety of all Britons. As such they deserve the fullest support and cooperation from each and every sector of our society, including all Muslims.

The phrase clearly shows the separateness. One wonders if they consider terms not explicitly mentioning Muslims to not apply to them.

With this in mind, the Muslim Council of Britain will, this coming Saturday, be convening a meeting at the Islamic Cultural Centre in London of key Imams and leading community activists from across the country. At Saturday’s meeting we hope to discuss how we can work better with other partners, including the police, to try to undermine and defeat the terrorists who seek to attack us. It is our Islamic duty not only to utterly and totally condemn such evil actions, but to provide all the necessary support to prevent such atrocities from taking place.

One has no idea if "the terrorists who seek to attack us" refer to the bombers or to the infidel and Western culture in general.

We would take this opportunity to commend the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for the calm and reassuring tone of their responses to the recent attacks in which they made clear that it was unacceptable to hold any one faith group or community as being somehow collectively responsible for the actions of a few. We also appreciate the stance taken by the Scottish first Minister Alex Salmond, who re-assured the Muslim community in Scotland in unequivocal terms when he visited Glasgow Central Mosque recently.

I note that no condemnation or parallel is made of the bombers who seek to hold a community as collectively responsible for the actions of a few (in their eyes).

It cannot be stressed enough that terrorists actively seek to divide us and to undermine our collective strength. To be successful in our collective effort to deal with the threats of terror it is imperative that we all work together. We need to have confidence and mutual trust in each other. The challenges facing us as a nation require us to work together for the joint benefit of all.

Again, the label of 'terrorist" is not specific and could easily apply to the infidel and not these bombers.

Thank you.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari
Secretary General
The Muslim Council of Britain

Alas, inconclusive, evasive, ambiguous, coded message. Btw, Dr Bari - we know you wear a rug.

UPDATE: The MCB cannot even be straight with their quotations from the Koran. There was an attached quotation to the above:

5:32 - If anyone kills a human being, unless it be (in punishment) for
murder, or of spreading corruption in the land, it should be
looked upon as though he had slain all mankind, and if anyone
saves a life it should be regarded as though he had saved the
lives of all mankind.

They have taken this down now, but the actual quote, with next verse is:

5:32 - On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. 5:33 - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

I.e. you cannot kill anyone (actually, Israel cannot...) yet anyone who resists Islam is fair game. What were these bombers doing but "spreading mischief"? In fact, what are the MCB doing?

Sunday, 1 July 2007

Bombings: The Muppet Show Has Returned

Regardless of how sophisticated such people get over time, we need to ridicule and humiliate these hysterical, self-righteous, carpet-munching, book-burning muppets.

The chap yelling "Allah" must now feel a right Jessie. His god has abandoned him. There he is, after a failed attempt, trashed motor, no casualties but his own and now at risk of MRSA. Boy, I bet it stings. He has been systematically lied to, brainwashed, cheated, tricked and misled into this farcical blag that would put Zippy and Bungle to shame. The real shit-for-brains coward who cooked this "plot" up is likely never to risk his own well-stroked beard.

I would not be surprised if this chap, should he survive, realises his god was never with him, never supported his actions and so reverts to normality and rejects the Islamist lie.

UPDATE: No peep so far from the apologists and "community leaders". Still, I am sharpening my fisking cutlass in preparation...