- Voluntary Code for website ratings (Andy Burnham's latest)
- "free"* filtering software provided
- "demands"** for universal website ratings
- "free* internet" accounts to operate via above filtering only, centrally imposed
- State-funded rating agency "for free*" put out to (fat) tender to Google or such (to neuter commercial sector opposition)
- All page views harvested to "permit rapid detection of other dangerous content using surfing patterns" - bootstrapping, in other words.
- Delays in ratings for personal sites and blogs appear (corporate sites can afford the "fast track" service introduced)
- New Blog services appear that allow instant posting, but are utterly under the thumb of government and will filter or pull pages without murmur.***
- Ratings extended so kids "protected" from "subversive political comment", e.g. opposition to the EU.
- State ratings agency begins to refuse certification or pretends to delay due to obscenity, political or other reasons to protect "the children"
- Adults complain over limits to material
- ID-based log on is required to gain access to uncensored internet.
- The end of free speech and the total monitoring of all traffic.
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
Friday, 19 December 2008
Thursday, 18 December 2008
Friday, 12 December 2008
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Another example of Socialists screwing things up so they can "fix it" to their own dastardly advantage.
There is no sense in paying women - and even teenage girls - to have babies on condition that the father does not live with them, paying them more for every baby they have, forcing them to go to work, to leave their babies with strangers, the strangers to also be women forced to work and leave their babies and for all their children to be less well cared for than if the mothers and father had stayed at home and cared for her child in the first place!!! This system makes the mothers bereft and miserable because they want to care for their babies themselves. Moreover, any complex conditional system is, like all means tested benefits, inefficient, ineffective, prone to fraud, unfair at the edges and very expensive to manage.
We need to abolish the whole paraphernalia of child care and do just two things: pay a good child allowance for the youngest child only, non-means tested, taxable, full rate for five years and half rate for a further ten years before ending, at a flat rate for all. This would provide enough money for mothers to stay home and care for the babies and go to work later, pay for child care or leave their child with a friend or grandmother as they see fit. Also it would dissuade women from having more children than the can care or provide for and abolish the need for means testing because it would be clawed back in tax from the better off. It would also not penalize fathers for sharing family life, protecting and providing for his family as men and women want them to.
One of the most destructive current beliefs is that all are entitled to have as many babies as they please paid for by others. For a minority, this principle means that babies become no more than a money maker which then become a majority in many places because of the numbers they have which is threatening the fabric of society.
The second measure is the easiest. Pay all educational institutions by voucher and leave them to be independent working under a code of practice in an open market. This would abolish the massive, expensive but ineffective bureaucracy we now have.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Monday, 8 December 2008
What I am going to say is radical and not something I think can be achieved, but is a thought experiment to assist us in how to think about this issue and put it into focus.
We have the idea of the "Chiltern Hundreds", where an MP must resign if they take the State's/Crown's coin, for they have been, effectively, "bought".
In 1908 laws were tabled allowing people who earn their living from the State to vote. This is where the problems started. Once you allow vote buying, for that is what it is, the Welfare State as we know it is almost certainly going to happen and far worse will happen thereafter.
Allowing those on benefits or paid by the State to continue to vote is to support vote buying. We can remove many people from State employ, such as Nurses and Teachers if we get a Libertarian Party that will dismantle the State-run monopolies. We will be left with Police, Army, Prisons and some other people such as those in Mental Health and elderly care.
The question is what is the greater wrong? To make as a clause of employment the lack of a vote OR to allow the taxpayer to end up as a form of indentured servant? Democracy is not our end goal, Ladies and Gentlemen, but Rule of Law.
Sunday, 7 December 2008
The local council self-loathing Fifth Columnists and Fabian interlopers threaten the gentleman with a higher fine if he does not "comply".
Anyone care to guess what the shoplifters will (or won't) get?
Thanet Council's environment chief Shirley Tomlinson said: "We are happy with the process that has been followed."cannot"? Oh yes you can, you rancid little bureaucrat.
"Thanet Council's campaign warns people the council will take a zero tolerance approach to anyone who drops litter, including cigarette butts and chewing gum.
"If spotted, no excuses will be accepted. You will be handed a fine.
"It is therefore important to dispose of any litter in the right way.
"Our wardens have been doing what they have been instructed to do and we cannot make any allowances."
Friday, 5 December 2008
Qui nos rodunt confundantur (May those who slander us be cursed)
et cum iustis non scribantur! (and may their names not be written in the book of the just!)
- in taberna quando sumus (when we are in the tavern) - Carmina Burana, Carf Orff.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
"there is a contract and a bargain made between the King and his people, and your oath is taken: and certainly, Sir, the bond is reciprocal; for as you are the liege lord, so they liege subjects ... This we know no, the one tie, the one bond, is the bond of protection that is due from the sovereign; the other is the bond of subjection that is due from the subject. Sir, if this bond be once broken, farewell sovereignty!" John Bradshaw, the Trial of King Charles I.
Social Justice is an odious term. It is built upon the concept of "social rights" upon which I would not need to improve upon the words of J.S. Mill:So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify.
Taxpayers are forced to subsidise housing that people could end up gaining equity in for free just because those people have paid a subsidised rent on time and not misbehaved.
Monday, 1 December 2008
"The issues are way bigger than one individual. Society will be the poorer if we do not balance rights fairly and respectfully."Yes, the issues ARE bigger than one individual, and not in his favour. It is the freedom of an employer to decide what they wish to pay for, i.e. in return for a salary. His assertion that society will somehow be "poorer" is poppycock. Rights are not some item to be horse-traded "fairly" and "respectfully". Rights exist, are equally applied and some rights are superior to others and take precedent. This doubletalk of "respectfully" is just a cover to say that he feels, incorrectly I must add, that his personal beliefs are superior to other rights, including the right of his employer to determine and enforce terms of engagement. Once you let this sort of thinking worm in, we will see more and more illiberal salami-slicing by religious groups who will begin to try and impose their personal beliefs upon the rest of us. A nightmare.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of
some ghastly self-righteous pressure groupChristian Concern for our Nation, said: "Mr McFarlane had an unblemished record of service for Relate and was trying to work out a way in which his Christian views could be assertedaccommodated.
"It is astonishing to think that in 21st Century Britain we are unable to ensure that people like Mr McFarlane are able to stay within the system. Unless, we are able to achieve this in law then there will never be true equality and respect for all."
Friday, 28 November 2008
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
IIRC the EU collects VAT revenues.
People had said that the EU would not "allow" Gordon* to cut VAT for the above reason.
Gordon is cutting VAT.
We are told the cut will cost us...Non-sequitur?
Maybe not. Maybe the above adds up with one additional suggestion - Gordon, Town Clerk of Britain, got the ok from his EU masters as long as the UK Treasury funded the difference between 17.5% and 15% and passed the full amount on to the EU. That is my suspicion.
* Dear Darling, stooge, front man. Toady. I actually feel sorry for you. Grow a pair and tell Gordon to shove his job. The population will admire and respect you for it. Resign. In a blaze of glory. History will never forget you. So the Lefties will hate you, but that will be a badge of honour. Trust me.
Monday, 24 November 2008
BRUSSELS, Oct 21 (Reuters) - In its first protectionist move since the credit crunch, the EU is set to impose anti-dumping duties on imports of Chinese candles this week, angering retailers and churches before their lucrative Christmas period.
EU diplomats and industry sources close to the matter said on Tuesday that Brussels' trade officials would impose tariffs of between 20 and 30 percent -- a day after the EU's new trade chief warned against a protectionist response to the current financial turmoil.
'They (European Commission) are going ahead with the extra tariffs on Chinese candles ... on Wednesday,' one diplomat told Reuters. An industry source added that the extra duties would range between 20 and 30 percent.
The tariffs will come into effect from Nov. 15 for six months. A Commission spokesman declined to comment.
The decision is not yet final since the Commission, the EU's executive arm, must make a definitive proposal following a full investigation within six months, which is then voted on by the bloc's 27 governments.
In February, Brussels launched a probe after candlemakers from Germany, the Netherlands and other countries complained that they were being hurt by illegal pricing practised by Chinese rivals and accused them of getting unfair export aid.
The Commission's initial investigation was due to be presented to national trade officials at a regular anti-dumping meeting on Wednesday. But the Commission, which oversees EU trade policy, removed it from the agenda, industry sources said.
'They didn't want a repeat of the embarrassing shoe vote,' another diplomat said, referring to the Commission's decision to extend duties on imports of Asian footwear despite opposition from the majority of EU countries at a meeting last month.
In 2006, Chinese imports accounted for around 270 million euros ($357.6 million) of the overall EU candle market, worth 810 million euros, and also more than 90 percent of the bloc's candle imports.
Major European retailers and consumer groups have attacked the proposed tariffs, saying they will cost jobs and penalise consumers, notably ahead of a peak festive period. Diplomats said churches, notably Christian ones which use a huge amount of candles, were also unhappy with the move.
The British Retail Consortium, representing companies such as Tesco(nasdaq: TESO - news - people ), John Lewis, and Swedish furniture maker Ikea, blamed high raw material costs in the EU as the real cause of damage to Europe's candle industry.
'All this will do is hinder European retailers, hit the consumer in the pocket and inevitably this type of protectionism will cost jobs in the long run,' a BRC spokesman said.
Ikea cited last month's fine of 676 million euros handed down by the Commission to nine petrochemicals companies for a 'paraffin mafia' to fix prices as a major contributing factor.
'There is no EU manufacturing of hand-made and decorative candles because it is not a competitive market. A candle is made from around 70 percent paraffin,' an IKEA spokesman said.
(Reporting by Darren Ennis, editing by Jon Boyle) ($1=.7550 Euro) Keywords: EU CHINA/CANDLES
Our costs will rise because those who can lobby the EU now have their cosy world fenced off.
Friday, 21 November 2008
Thursday, 20 November 2008
So, 100+ years ago with far far less technology, a group got half as far away, for that is what 86N is vs 81N, 500km instead of the lycra'd one's 1000km. Bearing in mind that the distance from the pole at the start of the latest expedition was 1200km to start with brings it all into context.The attempt was abandoned on 2nd September, when the team were still in excess of 1,000 km from the North Pole. In his weblog, Pugh confirmed that despite several attempts, they were unable to find a gap in the ice.Pugh claims on his website that this was the furthest North anyone has ever travelled by Kayak, (81 degrees N) however critics point out that in 1895, explorers using Kayaks reached 86 degrees North, and their expedition records show that one of them swam to retrieve a Kayak, thus exceeding Pugh's trip and preceeding him by 113 years. Pugh has not chosen to respond to these accusations.
Now, that to me says he was more than twice as far from the pole than some chaps in sealskins and straw boaters.
The good news for the world economy is that Mr Brown has become a leader of global stature, filling the policy vacuum created by the clueless dithering of the Bush Administration and the surprising failure of Barack Obama to step into the breach.is beyond me. Brown is a disaster. A dysfunctional. Cameron has power as his goal but not backed up by principle. Power comes first, so he sacrificed principle and was swept along. Only a few weeks later and he has been painted into a corner and Gordon Brown is holding the brush.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Well as I said it depends on if you can stimulate the economy enough to improve the employment situation you have more people in work and therefore you have more people paying taxes now if you can through that get back on an even keel it doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to increase taxes. That is the point; the point is to get confidence back into the economy, to get people back into work
So, Rosie first hopes that increases will not be needed. She is at the tables and intends to put everything on "Red".
OK Baroness Afshar...
Jonathan can I come in again. I was in this area on Monday with the Humber Economic Partnership looking at what the situation was and I think this is a very important point. That at this time we do have through the regional development agency a very effective way of analysing exactly what is happening in different sectors of the economy and particularly at a very local level and the reason why I think that is important is because for example here in Scunthorpe I visited one of the companies on Monday where they were supplying smaller supermarkets with food and what they said was that because of the current economic situation peoples habits had actually changed and they were more likely to be shopping locally and what that meant was that for their section of the economy it was actually they were saying that their business was going to be 10% at the moment.
So this is a kind of always look on the bright side argument is it
At the same time the caravan industry has been suffering. We have some areas but what we need to do is have a very careful analysis of exactly what is happening in different areas so that we can at regional and local level assist those companies that are in difficulties and stimulate others…