- 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."