Fencepost No.11: Proposed Website Classifications

Most of you know now that the Government is promoting the idea of a "voluntary code" for website rating.

Many have soundly fisked Andy Burnham's blatherings already, so I will just look into my crystal ball, because for me this is just a Fencepost...

1. Voluntary Code for website ratings (Andy Burnham's latest)
   
2. "free"* filtering software provided
   
3. "demands"** for universal website ratings
   
4. "free* internet" accounts to operate via above filtering only, centrally imposed
   
5. State-funded rating agency "for free*" put out to (fat) tender to Google or such (to neuter commercial sector opposition)
   
6. All page views harvested to "permit rapid detection of other dangerous content using surfing patterns" - bootstrapping, in other words.
   
7. Delays in ratings for personal sites and blogs appear (corporate sites can afford the "fast track" service introduced)
8. New Blog services appear that allow instant posting, but are utterly under the thumb of government and will filter or pull pages without murmur.***
   
9. Ratings extended so kids "protected" from "subversive political comment", e.g. opposition to the EU.
   
10. State ratings agency begins to refuse certification or pretends to delay due to obscenity, political or other reasons to protect "the children"
    
11. Adults complain over limits to material
12. ID-based log on is required to gain access to uncensored internet.
13. The end of free speech and the total monitoring of all traffic.
    

* Noting, NOTHING the State does is "free", it is all taxpayer funded.

** from beholden State funded, subsidised or otherwise poodle bodies.

*** Typical Socialist/Statist trick. Break something, then "fix" it to suit them. They put you neck high in ordure then offer to only put you in it up to your waist - most people are thankful...

New Routemaster Design Winners Announced.

Well, the winners for the new Routemaster are now out.

While most are fine designs at a graphic art level, they appear to be a slave to one or two aspects that cripple their use and do not appear to push forward a number of important issues for a large London bus of the future. Warning: I am biased.

All appear to have the front wheels right at the front, single staircases and permanently open rear platforms, therefore preventing practical one man operation and rapid passenger movements when necessary. It would be good that a London design is seen as a London-wide design if not a worldwide sales opportunity. Unless you can close that rear platform and operate with just a driver, these designs will be impractical - just imagine the scope for vandals!

A design was hatched not too far away from these pages by someone known to Roger...

Now, the rendering above is a photoshop of a Trolleybus*, but incorporates a number of key features:

1. Dual staircases, positioned one at the front and another at the back. This allows the bus to have passenger flow from front to rear and avoids any "dead ends", promoting passive passenger safety. I have seen this work VERY well in Hong Kong on the trams there, which are jammed solid most of the time - you slowly make your way along the vehicle from back to front (and in the case of the Routemaster, it would be from front to back). 

2. 3 or 4 axles. One design in the competition, the Concrete All Round entry from Belgium had dual rear axles, but the rest were locked in the 2 axle straightjacket. 3 or 4 axles permit single tyre hubs and so makes the interior space more flexible and removes the need for a narrow "throat" at the rear.

3. All wheel steering. With a degree or full all wheel steering, a bus can be longer, more manoeuvrable and the throat between the front wheels can be wider as those wheels are not required to turn to such extreme angles.

4. A drivetrain using full regenerative hub motors (much like the PML Flightlink drivetrain). This makes all wheel steering far simpler and allows the vehicle to easily adopt series hybrid, fuel cell, plug in or trolleybus (overhead wire) operation as necessary and permits very low floors as not even drop axles are required.

5. A fully modular body frame similar to that used by the original Routemaster. This allows the design to go from a short 7'6" wide single deck "hopper" bus right up to a 13m long, 4 axle 8'5" wide double deck leviathan using a majority of shared components. Currently many bus designs hardly have a single window pane or body panel that can be used elsewhere in the SAME bus!

6. A proper front entrance next to the driver that can allow the design to operate with just a driver or with a conductor as needed.

7. A rear platform that can be opened or closed depending on the operational environment.

I think the exterior designs of the winners are far better than I or many others could have ever come up with, but I hope the interior and drivetrain configurations can incorporate a wider range of ideas from across all the entries. The key advantages of the Routemaster was that it could disgorge passengers rapidly and was a light, modular and highly maintainable design (unlike today's models which barely get 4mpg, a 50 year old Routemaster gets 8mpg and weighs 8t vs the latest crates that are 11t+ and dead on their tyres after 15-20 years).

One novel entry was brought to my attention as it included aspects my brother was suggesting to me, in the form of a rounded rear that permitted a rotating door to open and close the rear platform that swept around the rear. 

I am not too enthusiastic about some of the ideas for alternate use of this design (freight?) and it is still "stuck" with the lack of a fully forward front door,  but it at least had 3 axles and a novel way of opening and closing the rear platform.

The competition is over and the designs have been handed over to the bus manufacturers. I hold out little hope though - these "enterprises" struggle already. We currently have rough truck components shoehorned into ugly, haphazard, heavy bodies by these NIH throwbacks. It will be like asking Vauxhall to build a Mercedes. It might have some superficial resemblance, but underneath it will be a mess and totally miss the point.

Still, if I am proven wrong, it will be a good day for London.

* These were fantastic vehicles of their day and were withdrawn with decades still in them. The Trolleybus in question has had an additional (front) axle, front staircase and a front entrance ahead of the front axles spoofed in. I am happy to put up a credit to the original photographer if I could find it!

Dusting off still pertinent words.

Thatcher speaks the truth, predicts, as if it needs to be a prediciton, of Labour failings economic and of the intentions of the leeching away of sovereignty to the EU.

Very pertinent we see Labour Eurosceptics, even Wedgie Benn. David, now Lord, Owen MP makes things clear in his intervention in the following edited video:

The full event can be seen here.

And people think things have changed for the better? No, they have got worse. The contempt for anyone not dancing to the EU tune can be seen by the outrageous behaviour of various Federasts in the EUdenrat towards the Czech President, which I am sure you can find on Youtube.

p.s. I did find it amusing how the Blimp-like Tory Christopher Beezley asked Dan "The Man" Hannan "will you come out side..you can't say that!". Oh yes he can - prove him wrong.

Friday: One of my most favourite films

A Matter of life and Death.

It is not a matter of what a man thinks and says, it is when and where and to whom he thinks and says it! A man striking sparks over a wet blanket is one thing, but striking them over a tinderbox is another!

When will people realise the current 'big three' parties are wet blankets? No sparks, Sir, just FOG!

Unfortunately, the attack upon the English - that you can't pick a jury that isn't prejudiced - now applies to the Americans.

Tanks on Lawn: Gordon Tempted to Slap.

You see this hand, Ungellar...

The Germans continue to speak the reality of Gordon's new clothes. Good on 'em.

Banardo's Reality deck shuffle misses the target

I suspect many have seen the advert by Banardo's that has upset those watching "reality TV".

Two things.

1. It is ironic that those who think they are watching "reality" get their panties in a bunch when something more like reality is put in front of their noses.

2. The sequence of the advert is misleading and is, IMHO, another form of denial, this time by those at Banardo's.

Each time I see it, the sequence goes: Robbery ->prison->father hitting->school problems->drug fix->robbery->prison etc.

The "school problems" has never included the voices-off hint about not being able to read which is in the version shown on the link I provided.

Fact is, that should be the FIRST scene in the story or, as a poor alternative, the disruptive home life, though I note that it is all the man's fault, of course - they had to kick fathers, natch. It is totally misleading that the story "begins" with the robbery, as if crime is the seed here, the trigger. Drugs are seen as the problem, but note that the robbery is caused by the high price of drugs itself caused by prohibition which is caused by the State.

I say the school-home pair, with the school as vital, for if the child can read they can escape and know of better things, regardless of their immediate suffering. It is THE way out. The failing here, as in the failing that the State can do most about, is the educational system. The State educational system that systematically fails children. Not being welcome in your "home" is, I suspect, a major contribution to educational problems. Who wants or can sit quietly and concentrate on homework in an abusive household? It is hard, but then again it is far harder for the State to intervene or fix it vs fixing, i.e. getting the heck out of, education.

So, the State can do two key things.

1. Get out of micromanaging education and allow Heads, teachers and parents to sort it all out. Education is recognised as one of the best escape routes from bad circumstances.

2. Stop making drugs so expensive by the crazy policy of prohibition. Cheap, reliable drugs not sold by some criminal who continually wants to "upgrade" users to more profitable and addictive products.

Only The Libertarian Party tackles these things head on.

Imagine the resources freed up and the advantages to everybody if those two steps were taken. Resources and a stable school environment where teachers might pick up on other signals more reliably instead of it being lost in the noise.

Imagine the power and reality of an ad that begins with a girl of 5 not being able to read while their "teacher" is filling out forms while trying to be "inclusive" and "project based" instead of realising that unless a kid can read, school will be one long frustrating and pointless exercise.

THAT is how the ad should start.

Break it to "Fix" It: Single Mothers to be forced to provide Father's Name

Via Timmy,

We see His Smugness, Pretty-boy Purnell coming out with this Authoritarian piece of codswallop. Jim'll Fix it, indeed.

The excuse is about providing support to the Mother.

Another example of Socialists screwing things up so they can "fix it" to their own dastardly advantage. 

Lets see how this works.

1. Fabians begin to undermine traditional marriage.

2. State begins to fund single mums

3. Need for sexual partners to be stable and reliable males reduces significantly

4. Further funding and support for single mums.

5. Explosion in number of single mums  (as in those who were never a couple)

6. Explosion in cost of Welfare

7. Gordon breaks Country's finances.

8. Coffers are empty.

9. State demands that the Father is identified to plug the gap*

10. Outrageous authoritarianism to achieve 9, requiring mother, child and father DNA from everybody.

How convenient.

What if we were not forced to subsidise all these births? Then the need to force fathers would not be of interest to the State, but it would be the responsibility of the woman in question to yield only to a man of good character that they judged for themselves to be someone who would support her. Far too trad, of course.

The woman would know the man. They could pursue claims for breach of contract via the courts. What contract? Well, some can get married, others can form whatsoever a contract they wish. If women and men want to be free and easy, then fine, it is their responsibility. Caveat conjugator.

* bit late, and the wrong gap, methinks.

Childcare and Poor Mothers

An excellent comment was posted in response to an article in the DT moaning about childcare provision for "Poor Mothers".

R Mason had this to say:

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.

Top drawer. The man should join The Libertarian Party!

So Called "new" Electric Mini

Oh dear, the luddite crowd are out again, pushing a half-arsed attempt at making an Electric Mini. It is deeply flawed and backward. It is nowhere near as good as the Mini made by PML Flightlink, yet no-nothing politicos and attention seekers are lining up to be seen with another throwback and technological tide-pool.

Well, it has a range of 200miles vs the PML's 900 (using backup generator), if it runs down you are stuffed, unlike the PML version. It cannot possibly regenerate all the energy during braking, as the PML needs a 600HP powertrain vs the 200HP of the throwback. The rear seats are lost, unlike the PML. I suspect this loss is because the PML uses hub motors, so the bonnet area is empty and available for the storage of batteries and that the battery space need not be so large due to the full regeneration capability. 

The Mini E is basically someone removing the ICE, stuffing in an electric motor and then scrtatching their bonce about where to put the batteries, sacrificing the rear seats and so rendering the Mini, frankly, a joke.

The PML Mini is a true series hybrid following on from the work done by such luminaries as Porsche, who made is first Series Hybrid hot-rod in 1901 - it went 70mph and used 4 hub motors. Quite a hot-rod 4x4. 100 years later and the Mini can squeeze out 20mph more. Not very impressive.

But, with no-nothing morons elbowing their way infront of this sham vehicle, I fear that it will get all the publicity and the no-nothings will buy it.

Another Rumour of Socialist Hypocricy.

As if we needed any more points on the graph, the rumour is that The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, wishes his son to take over from him when he steps down.

All those years protesting against heredity and "the elite", yet the first chance they get, Socialists slide their bum across to perch. We see them trying to get above the law, in controlling government contracts and pulling power and influence to themselves to gain patronage and control. Basically, they are desperate to have everything the elites they despised had and used.

Fact is, Socialists do not hate elites, they just hate an elite that they are not part of.

Hypocritical Ladder kickers, the lot of 'em.

Does What it Says on the Tin

Plane Stupid.

Disingenuous, Righteous Econazis.

Not content with wanting to live their own lives in a mud hut on the Danube (so they imply), they want to force others to believe or submit to their beliefs.

On one hand their scrubbed spokesmuppet on BBC London was bleating that they did not intend to disrupt passengers - yeh, right - but then said it was a success because 250 tonnes of carbon was not put into the atmosphere due to the cancelled flights.

Make your mind up.

Fights are high profile. There is a killjoy, envy politics angle to all this that is a hot button for all the disaffected Enforced Collectivists and unwashed Clarse Warriors out there. People who are frustrated about airport expansions are seeing their protests hijacked by these parasites who want to tack on the unproven, rabid and fantastical "Convenient Lie" that is AGW, now rebranded "Climate Change" because even they know it is bollocks but this is just too good a bandwagon not to keep pushing.

Heathrow should be shut and turned into housing, but the capacity of a three runway Heathrow should be built in the Thames Estuary with effortless expansion to 5 runways if need be.

Planes will eventually become less polluting with constant pressure from passengers. The FIRST task is to make them QUIETER. However, these protesters will have about as much traction over the flight industry as vegetarians have over the meat industry. The treatment of animals has improved because meat eaters want that to happen. Veggies have ZERO economic traction. Air travel will improve if and only if the passengers demand it, not a bunch of self-indulgent, infantilised, self-centred and self-righteous involuntary collectivisers.

They will not learn because their mindset is grounded in Socialism, which has been a flawed ideology since the day it was invented. Socialism does not recognise the sovereignty of the individual and as such cannot comprehend how to use self interest to improve the lot of all. All it can do is try and force others to obey. It is doomed to failure.

Director of Social Services in Haringey Sacked Without Pay

Well, it has, surprisingly, happened. Sharon Cobblers Shoesmith has been sacked without pay, we hear.

Let us see if there is a backhanded bung or other "consideration" behind the scenes. Maybe it was done so that SS of the SS could then mount an appeal later and get her "compensation".

Well, I am keeping an eye out for any attempt to backslide or even for this rancid Common Purpose unapologetic, arrogant Fifth Columnist to try and make another attempt to gain income from the public purse.

Try and earn a crust in the private sector, Sharon, and by that I mean the REAL private sector, not some "privatised" QANGO or other Righteous bolt-hole or Luftgesellschaft/Wibblefabriken. 

Labour's Biggest Fear

Prosperity.

The foundations for the Welfare State were laid in 1908~11 and it took the Parliament Act to force this through, and even then they dropped much of the land reform acts.

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.

Yet more insults to Rule of Law

We see a pensioner fined £60 because he states had his cigarette knocked out of his hand by a struggle between Police and shoplifters. Some prod-nosed clipboard wielding lickspittle decided to fine him instead of assisting the Police in an arrest.

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.
"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."

"cannot"? Oh yes you can, you rancid little bureaucrat.

Robert Mugabe Declares the UK in state of emergency

Robert Mugabe declares UK in state of international emergency

Robert Mugabe has described the fiscal incontinence outbreak in Britain, which has claimed almost 600 lives as an "international emergency".

His Excellency said conditions in the European state had deteriorated to such an extent that the international community must stand together and tell Gordon Brown "enough is enough".

The fiscal epidemic has so far killed 575 people and left another 13,000 clinically depressed since an outbreak in August. In a statement Mr Mugabe said there was a duty to give the British people a "better future".

The disease could spread to other parts of Europe unless urgent action is taken, he warned.

RELATED LINKS

• Suffering in Britain similar to Auschwitz

• Calls grow for Brown to be removed by force

• Long, slow death throes go on in Britain

“This is now an international rather than a national emergency," said His Excellency. "International because disease crosses borders. International because the systems of government in Britain are now broken. There is no state capable or willing of protecting its people.

“International because - not least in the week of the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights - we must stand together to defend human rights and democracy, to say firmly to Brown that enough is enough."

London, the capital, has 179 deaths and has a further 6,448 suspected cases according to the United Nations 's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

"The entire health system is collapsing, there are no more doctors, no nurses, no specialists," said spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs.

Zimbabwe has pledged an emergency aid package to help tackle the spread of the recession, a fiscal infection which leads to dramatic devaluation and can prove fatal if not treated.

Mr Mugabe said a "command and control structure" needed to be put in place quickly to allow international aid to reach people.

Further deaths could be prevented by the distribution of common sense and fiscal testing packs.

His Excellency said he hoped the United Nations Security Council would meet urgently to consider the situation in Britain, adding: "The people of Britain voted for things to get better. It is our duty to support that aspiration.”

My apologies to Simon Alford and The Times.

Sir Ian Blair Alleged to have Used "Cash For Honours" to survive deMenezes Killing.

So says Tarique Ghaffur, formerly Britain's top-ranking Asian Police Officer in The Telegraph.

Next week the Dept of the Bleedin Obvious brings you: how water can make things wet, the colour of the sky revealed and the latest results showing if raw eggs break when thrown at a brick wall.

Queen's Speech Broadcast by the LibDems

Just watched Nick the Clegg's attempt. What a load of wibble and piffle.

"fundamentally change the tax system" "close loopholes". Man is in a dreamworld. The very rich can avoid any attempt by Clegg and Vin Scable to get at their wealth. 

Prepare to have your savings stolen.

Its time for "Grand Theft Gordo"

Well, there was always a risk of it happening in the open instead of by the back door via Government Debt. The BoE is preparing to reduce the value of our savings by starting up the printing presses.

Imagine if you were a brewery and you had a warehouse containing full barrels of beer, your savings. The State is coming. It is driving up in a tanker full of water. It is about to break into your warehouse, water down your beer and then cart off that tanker; not with the water it came with, oh no, but a load of your now diluted beer so it can sell it off for its own profit. This is called theft in all other circumstances. 

For some reason it is "permitted" for the BoE to steal my wealth. This is happening in part because the BoE is instructed to protect against price inflation. All those years while true currency inflation was being masked by cheaper imports, the BoE kept interest rates artificially low. This is frankly absurd. The BoE should be there to stabilise the value of the currency, for it has an obligation to uphold its value to those who have exchanged their wealth for those same promissory notes the BoE issues.

Get ready for a "Quantitative Fisting".

The BBC are complicit. They call it a "cash injection". No, it is a SALINE injection into a body that is already suffering from anaemia. Once complete, the blood-letting will recommence.

We really will be Les Miserables!

RED! The ink for overdrawn. BLACK! The heart of Gordon Brown.

RED! Our future they will pawn! BLACK! The abyss they'll pull us down!

Axe The Beer Tax

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.

I have been neglectful in voicing up over this.

A worthy campaign to Axe the Beer Tax in support of the traditional British Pub.

I consider traditional British Pubs to be all our Parliaments, were free citizens can sound off, debate and socialise in a place run by and under the authority of the Landlord, not some prod-nosed State lickspittle - an environment not limited by the diktats spewed forth by the Tyranny of the Majority, or, in our case, Minority of killjoys and self-loathers.

They have the following 5 demands in their manifesto:

To stop plans to increase beer tax by up to a third


To enforce existing laws – not create new ones - to deal firmly with irresponsible drinkers and premises


To end the irresponsible promotion of alcohol in supermarkets, pubs and elsewhere


To trust responsible adults to make informed choices about what they drink, not punish them for the actions of an irresponsible minority


To support the British pub as a vital part of social life in local communities.


I would say that the third demand is quite hard to square with my views. I think they should look to remove State Corporatism and bias to any particular sector. If pubs have to rely on the State preventing competition then something is wrong, but I understand their jist. The end result is a level playing field, so the best thing is to not find something to level up the pubs but to clear away the apparatus used to build up the competition. If you compensate State meddling with more meddling, you end up with yet more. Strip it away.

p.s. If local councils stopped moaning about public urination and installed simple metal pissoirs, we might see less of it - pissoirs were first installed in Paris for the very purpose of preventing public urination. If you have people leaving pubs anywhere but round the corner to their home and no public facilities, what do they expect to happen?

Telling the Truth

Jeff Randall has written an excellent piece in The Daily Telegraph today, one which I wholeheartedly agree.

He points the finger at disingenuous, evasive politicians, "progressive" infantilisers and, indeed, a public that has begun to expect all this to protect their delusion.

Jeff misses one point. Speaking the truth requires the ability to accept responsibility for that truth. Denial of the truth is IMHO caused by the inability for the Political Classes to do that. Why? Well, they are good for nothing (else) and they know it, so they cling on to their sinecures with all their might. No resignations, no admissions of fault or responsibility, no apologies. If we are lucky we get an expression of "regret".

It is well worth a read. I dare you.

"Unwarranted Interference" - Harriet Harman

Harriet Harman said that "MP's should be able to get on with their job without unwarranted interference" (Newsnight, 3.12.2008).

Let us see that again:

"unwarranted interference".

The Police DID conduct unwarranted interference because they entered, searched and removed WITHOUT a warrant - they were UNWARRANTED!

It was amazing that Harriet did not appear to notice the very language she was using.

Back Burner: Internet Provision

Some time ago Labour floated the idea of "free", i.e. taxpayer funded internet connections for all children, i.e. another vote buying activity. This reappeared in the Labour Conference 2008.

The government paying for your internet? Some think that is a good thing, but regardless of your hatred or obsession over "redistribution", there is a massive bear trap awaiting this good intention.

Once the government pays for something, it wants to control it. Utterly. It uses the excuse, not without merit in isolation, that if it pays for it, it should have a say. However, once you begin to have a say you end up with companies vying for the tender, which is a magnet for corruption., You then get poor purchase by the Simple Shopper, who will end up almost certainly with either a cartel or a monopoly. The excuse of control wears threadbare. It is not a good enough excuse for the unintended consequences.

If the above was not bad enough, expect the State to interfere in WHAT is downloaded or accessed via this "free" service. Those who are poor will be limited and restricted in what they will see. There are so many occasions when the poor are labeled "deprived" when all they are are poor or living in a ropey location - the disingenuous use of a word that implies proactive denial is rife and thrown about by "progressive" sorts (another such term used to deceive). However, in this case it will finally make sense. Those who end up with a State restricted yet "free" service - making the escape velocity for those on limited means very hard - will well and truly be deprived for the first time in their lives.

New Labour: Nationalised Feudalism.

A Fish Rots from the Head

Speaker Michael Martin appears to blame the Sergeant At Arms and comes out of the Damian Green Arrest Affair looking worse and worse.

Harriet Harman talks of concern, but I do not trust her an inch.

Mandy continues to pull the strings in the background.

Gordon mumble-swerves and tries to keep out of everything.

Jacqui Smith first deploys bombast, faux outrage and glares before finally reacting in something resembling a professional manner.

Police blag their way into the HoC and not only search an MP's office but bluff other MPs into leaving them alone AND then removing computers and documents WITHOUT A WARRANT.

A fish rots from the head, so it is no surprise the rest of the public sector is in such a mess.

"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.

NAMF gets to 82 in the Wikio ratings

I saw the likes of Iain Dale, Guido and fresh air Old Holborn roaring up the listings but moved on. However, OH was very kind to point out that NAMF has managed to get to 82nd.

Thanks to OH for the heads up and thanks to all those reading.

Roger.

"Social Justice" addling the mind of IDS

Oh dear, we see the idea of "social justice" infesting the Tory Party. Well meaning people begin to pave the road to hell while Collectivists look on and smile at the "good work" of their "useful idiots".

Ian Duncan Smith has begun to push the idea by saying on the Today programme today that Council tenants be given equity as a "reward" for good behaviour and paying their rent on time...

Before I continue, let us refresh ourselves about the idea of "social justice".

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.

Wrongheaded.

The "reward" for behaving and paying your rent is, surely, to continue to be provided with subsidised housing! Once you begin to get a "right" - and you can bet your bottom dollar (if you still have it) that these people will make it "law" - to equity just for upholding a contract, then it will become the obligation of the State to PROVE that people are not able to gain their "entitlements". It will be a ratchet, as is anything that has the ghastly phrase "social justice" pinned to it.

Guido seems to like it. I cannot see why. Anyone thinking this through without rose tints will see where this will lead us. 

If you translate IDS's words it can be said thus:

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.

Apart from the fact that it is another example of "prizes for all" and heaping praise on people for just behaving like a civilised human being, it is, in effect, a forced equity transfer from the taxpayer to those in "social housing". 

It is, in a word, extortion.

Energy from low speed water currents

Researchers at the University of Michigan have come up with a means to extract meaningful amounts of energy from slow moving water.

The device absorbs the energy in vortices formed around an object placed in a water current. The innovator, Michael Bernitsas, had previously spent his time trying to mitigate the damage caused by these vortices as they swirled around submerged pillars, pylons and cables and induced harmonics and vibrations. He realised that there was energy in them thar vibrations and set about finding out how to harness them. The natural world already does - salmon use the energy from such vortices to assist their swimming upstream.

The prototypes have cylinders laid horizontally across the current flow. How simple is that? An added advantage is that the cylinders just oscillate up and down so are far less harmful to fish than great big turbines or propellers. The ability to operate in very slow currents means it would be very flexible. They expect 5.5cents/kilowat and 90cu ft per megawatt.

Can we stop building those ghastly wind turbines now?

Words and Phrases to Detest pt.3: Safeguarding

Where did this ghastly aberration get in?

I suspect it is used when people want to be seen to "protect" or "care" for something but know they, in truth, cannot achieve that, so use this term to give the same impression while promising nothing at all.

It has the whiff of protocol about it. You know, those robotic, box-ticking, flowchart, process orientated narrow-minded, linear sorts of things we encounter when some stupid phone menu, software or, worse still, individual is encountered who cannot understand the difference between what we want - a choice - and what they give - a false dichotomy. 

Not being a denizen of the Public Sector, the term only came to light during the Baby P case in which we now hear the Director of Social Services and Chair of the Haringey Local Childrens Safeguarding Committe or some such cobbled together scrabblefest, Sharon Shoesmith* has been "removed from office".

That is not the same as being sacked. That does not imply being prevented from passing GO and collecting a gold plated pension, expected salary and bonuses equivalent to the next 4 years etc etc. As some people have mentioned, this person is a member of "The Masons for W&ankers", Common Purpose.

We are watching.

* Cobblers, to be exact.

Disingenuous or just ignorant?

We see that a relationship counsellor has been fired from Relate because he would not deal with same-sex couples due to his Pavlovian bigotry religious beliefs.

Tough.

Relate is not a Christian entity and, matey, you should have known full well what you were getting into and so excused yourself from such a role and worked for another organisation that allowed you to exercise your prejudices, er, I mean, religion.

The councillor, Mr McFarlane bleats:

"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. 

His idea is that we surrender our rights and in return he gets respect. Of course he is in favour of such a deal. He can go hang.

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of some ghastly self-righteous pressure group Christian 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 asserted accommodated.

"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."

Andrea, Mr McFarlane's personal beliefs can be accommodated by him keeping them where they belong. Mr McFarlane can stay within the system if you are able to ensure that he delivers his side of his employment contract. Note how this group is trying to get their beliefs "protected" in Law. Anyone with two unbiased braincells to rub together would, after a brief mulling over of possible scenarios, consider such legislation irresponsible and against the Rule of Law. 

Swiss VOTERS back a £14m p.a. for Free Heroin

In the Daily Telegraph today we see that the Swiss via a referendum of 2/3rds majority have voted FOR a programme to give free heroin to addicts.

The trials had shown that it was a successful process. Addicts no longer need to associate with criminals, pay vast sums and potentially be forced via their addiction to crime because of those vast sums created by the very illegality of their addiction - and that alone. I am certain that the quality of the heroin they inject will increase their life-span and general mental and physical health.

The Government had been running a programme and tried to introduce a law, but one party did try and block it via a Referendum. 

Switzerland has also recently voted to continue to use Nuclear Power via referendum. Politically, drugs and nuclear are hot potatoes that can trigger irrational behaviour in political parties. This is when a referendum can unblock the process that has been constipated by the govt-MSM nexus.

The Swiss could easily impose a charge at some stage, evolve to allow heroin addicts to administer - this would mean, for example and initially, they only sell heroin with a clean syringe as a package so the requirement regarding supervised consumption can be relaxed. Heroin would become unprofitable for criminal gangs to sell. They stop bothering. You can see how criminal gangs would withdraw from drug pushing entirely if it became legal so allowing any organisation to supply.