Friday, 28 November 2008

Imagine the Mumbai plan in NYC

Just imagine if the atrocities in Mumbai were attempted in NYC. 

The Indian authorities seem to have done a grand job in tackling these gunmen once they got going but I suspect that things would have been very different, namely that members of the public would have taken the scumbags out sooner rather than later. They would have been just a grease spot.

BTW, I do suspect that India may well end up carrying the torch of Western Civilisation while Europe allows the self-loathers, Fabian Fifth Columnists, religious zealots and Federasts to strangle itself.

When you disarm the population, they cannot defend themselves from the criminals who care not for firearms "legislation" (I will not give credibility to such verbiage by calling them "laws").

Tories and all the other MPs: Now do you know why you have 1984?

Police arrest one of your own, not quietly, but in force using "anti Terror" squad and "justification".

You are upset, right? Now you might begin to know how we have been feeling for years.

Gordon Brown. Stalin to Mr Bean and back to Stalin again.

Thursday, 27 November 2008

The "British Fritzl"

After "Baby P" we now have "British Fritzl", who got his daughters pregnant 19 times and used violence to enforce his will.

Many questions are being asked as to why the abuse could go on for so long. Well, you have to remember that under age girls pitching up at the GP pregnant with no sign of a young man in tow is sadly all too common these days. Everyone is more focused on providing their "entitlement" to think about other aspects of their lives, I suppose.

If ever there was an example of the corrupting nature of the Welfare State, this is it. Before the righteous get all steamed up (and they would rather get upset at those pointing out flaws in their religion, er I mean Welfarism than condemning the perp) I am not suggesting that Child Benefit turns you into a sociopathic serial incestuous molester. However, it cannot be denied that the benefits were a motivation for the births - though I would not think for a moment it could ever be an excuse for the rapes - and it cannot be denied that on the sliding scale that IS the human consciousness, people of a more, lets say, mercenary nature will see that kids bring cash so bring on more kids to a greater degree than others. Further, that those who ARE of a more mercenary nature or impuse driven are likely to be worse parents than those who have their impulses under control.

Under Libertarian Party proposals this financial motivation would be removed, as additional kids while on benefits would not bring additional money or housing (money, space, queue). It does not remove the lusts of an incestuous molester. I suspect only isolation will remove that from society with any surety.

More Points on the Graph of Statism Pt.6: "Mutual Action, Common Purpose"

The Fifth Columnists Fabian Society and UnFreeThinking have published a new document by Rt. Hon David Blunkett, MP entitled "Mutual Action, Common Purpose: Empowering the Third Sector".*

This is not the first time this has occurred.

The doublethink and newspeak is right there in the title.

1. The mutual/charitable sector is the FIRST sector. Then came private commerce/trade, then the State. Of course, we have the Fifth Column, Fabians etc, in the mix, when not infesting the Fourth Estate. 
2. By definition, true and free mutualism does NOT have a "common purpose", but I suspect the term "common purpose" has more to do with Common Purpose. Mutualism has a plurality of purposes as decided by mutual consent of the willing volunteers or their elected representatives of each co-op in isolation OR co-operation/co-ordination occurs in a non-binding way as each unilaterally sees fit. 
3. The State cannot "empower" but it will control. If there is any "empowerment" resulting from State involvement, it is to empower the State to control and dominate yet another sphere of life. Think this will not happen? Well, if the State hands over taxpayers money it will feel duty bound and justified to interfere, as it now has a responsibility to do so, bootstrapped in by its funding. Therefore, the only rational way for Mutual and Charitable entities to remain as Mutual and Charitable entities is to reject State funding for,  should they not reject it, they will become QANGOs or State organs in all but name.

I am quite certain that the State looks enviously at the good works that truly independent Charities and Mutuals do. I do not include the shills such as NSPCC, OXFAM etc, who take the silver already and spend far too much of their time and donors' money lobbying the punchable faces in Westminster. Envy and control freakery. They covet, and we know what happens when people do that.

The document needs further reading to find out more, but if it tries to do good, it is on a hiding for nothing, paving the road to hell, for its initial premise is so utterly dysfunctional and wrong-headed.

* This document seems to be supported by the union Community. They have their regions, of course. I wonder how the boundaries came about?

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Gordon Brown: Mortgaging the future

Gordon Brown thinks he has got away with it. He has not. He will roast for his plan to double the national debt to £1,100,000,000,000 -  up from an already outrageous £550,000,000,000. Maybe he is hoping that increasing VAT to 18.5% will bring it down to £999,000,000,000 so it does not seem so bad...

He has no shame.

Hat tip: Old Holborn.

Tuesday, 25 November 2008

VAT 'cost': Hold on one cotton-pickin' minute...

They say VAT will "cost us" £12.5bln p.a.

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

EU Corporatism/Corporate Welfare: Fork Handles

Oh dear, here we see the EU being used as a tool of vested interests. Free trade my painted arse! Not content to bow to the request of Osram in slapping a levy on Chinese CFL bulbs, we now have candles next in line.

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.

Pass the cup of envy, Darling...

The Pre-Budget Report.

Highlights and tid bit leaked by Robinson, a cut in VAT to 15% and a postponed income tax rise for those who can avoid it easily the very wealthy.

Much wibble on VAT groupthink. BBC this morning stated that the cut in VAT meant "that you would only get the savings if you spent more". Duh. No, moron, you get the savings on the VAT-liable goods you buy NOW anyway. The idea that a cut in VAT means people spend more and a cut in Income Tax means people repay debt save is, frankly, unfounded.

If you cut income tax you help the poor more than if you cut VAT, for the working poor spend more on zero-rated or 5% rated goods such as food and energy as a proportion of their income than the more wealthy. But I suppose that is not what this is about, is it. Helping the poorest earners. No, it is going to be a neat little "Easter Egg" for the Tories. In 2000-and-mumble when we have the next election, the Tories will either have to keep the Income Tax hike promise OR find the money OR cut services. Gordon has set up a booby-trap for the next Parliament. Cameron seems reluctant to face down the "Tory cuts" daemon, so he is a victim of his own circumstances. Apart from that, they should call the Labour Party on a core aspect of our Democracy - no Parliament can bind future Parliaments. This is an attempt to bind a future Parliament by mortgaging the future - spending now and forcing a future government to pay it off. Gordon Brown is, in a word, wicked. And he knows it. I suppose that is why he has that ridiculous smirk on his punchable face.

Beau of the Dinner Circuit, Cable, says raising income tax thresholds would help the poorest. I say raising them still higher would help them even more. How about removing Income Tax entirely, eh, Vince? No? Thought not.

However, the Libertarian Party aims to do just that and, like any sensible household in a time of economic hardship, cut spending significantly and live within our means. The pretence that we are a "rich" country that can "afford" all manner of wibble is farcical. Just look at our government debt mountain range. If we were a "rich" country that could "afford" the wibble, we would be running a massive surplus. We are not. The Libertarian Party aims to make that a reality, though. A rich country with a budget surplus where INDIVIDUALS can decide what wibble, in their own personal judgement, they think they can "afford" to fund with their own money.

Those last few words are key.

Friday, 21 November 2008

"I knew I should have joined UKIP"...


Seriously, though, Labour may well be in trouble, for versions of the list DO contain false names. It will result in individuals who are NOT BNP supporters getting victimised, which is a double wrong.

I suspect that when the legal challenges come, Labour will change the rules and exempt MPs from such action, putting them even more above the law than they currently are. I am sure they will try and work into the legislation some limit on non-EU loving parties too, for that is what is the EU's intention.

Recycling waste heat

As many of you will know, recovering heat at low temperature gradients is a tough one.  A company Ener-G-Rotors (a U.S. company, though I think you would never have known had I not told you) have developed a new unit that can indeed recover heat at lower temperatures, 65-150degC.

They use a "near frictionless" rotor system which, to me, resembles a Rootes blower used for supercharging or other kinds of oil or pumping devices. Still, incremental refinement is often how the biggest advances occur (e..g TV, which did not contain a single new piece of technology, only a clever combination). It is basically using the same concept as an air conditioner or fridge, in that a compressed fluid with a very low boiling point is warmed, it boils, the pressure is used to drive the rotor and then it is sent back, cooler, to be warmed again. To me, if they can use this rotor, then a floating piston linear Stirling Engine could be used, but that is another issue.

The company talks of many uses but, for me, ignores the No1 use - automobile cooling systems. Use this device to scavenge the heat otherwise thrown away into the air by the engine radiator. Think of this in the context of a series hybrid, so that the engine will produce even more electricity as even more of the heat energy is being converted to electricity.

I hope they can miniaturise it for vehicle use. Cannot see why not, as it is basically an air-con unit tuned to be very efficient. Vehicle radiators operate at around 80-110degC (water is under pressure so it does not boil at that temp) so the temperature is within range. How about it, guys?

Thursday, 20 November 2008

Remember the Polar Kayaker?

The chap by the name of Lewis Gordon Pugh? You know, the guy who wanted to show how the pole was pretty much ice free by setting off on the 30th August?

Apparently, according to Wiki:
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.
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.

Just to show you what it means graphically...

Now, that to me says he was more than twice as far from the pole than some chaps in sealskins and straw boaters.

Funny that we did not see this event splashed across the pages. POLES NOT FREE OF ICE would have been a good start, or even "POLES AT WORST HAVE MORE ICE THAN 100 YEARS AGO!!!". I suppose it would have been filed along with the "WWII Bomber found on moon has DISAPPEARED!" headline of the Sunday Sport in its heyday.

Balance? Nah, remember, we are talking Religion here.

BNP Membership List

Funny if someone got a copy of this list, added in the family members of various Labour cabinet members, MPs etc and re-posted it online to filter through the system.

Now, that might light a fire under the arses of those Authoritarians who think we have nothing to fear, yet have ultimate faith that when "Der compoo'er sez no" it means no.

UPDATE: It seems a number of Lefties are licking their lips at the prospect of this list. I also hear that the list has indeed been compromised. So when one of those woolly-headed fascists (yep, lefties) think they have some right to intimidate or "out" someone, they might find they are attacking an innocent person. The leaking of the membership list has shown the Left to contain some very Fascist elements. And why not? Socialism is just what Fascism was before it realised you could not motivate people via "revolution" and it was better to co-opt the private sector and stitch up control of the "means of production" by "outsourcing". Today, it is called PFI.

Labour, Tories, Lib Dems: In the same hole and still digging

At PMQs we had all the big three turds leaders pontificating as to how they could convince the banks to lend as the politicians see fit. They are deluding themselves. The banks have their money now, so unless it was written in ink on the deal, the politicians can go hang. Banks need cash to maintain their reserves and repay obligations to other entities that are coming out of the woodwork, so they thumb their noses.

We now have a case of the Great Protector's New Clothes. Gordon struts around in his new weave and the crowd of politicians who all bought into it have to keep up the pretence. They cannot bring themselves to cry foul as it would explode their own position and the conceit that their bailout would not have these unintended consequences. They are like a home owner who has paid a builder for a new extension up front, only to find the builder has dug the foundations, knocked out the back wall and buggered off to another site to begin a new job. The rain is falling, the wind is blowing and the garden is a useless quagmire.

But this suits Gordon right down to the ground. He has his consensus and he will now get all party support for yet more control and nationalisation. More regulation. This closet Marxist is utterly unreformed. Guardianistas are all squirming, moist with anticipation at the prospect of a capitalist meltdown that can bring forward their Fabian dreams of an oppressed, emasculated and dispossessed lumpenproletariat dependent on the State run by themselves, the new elite.

The LibDems we always knew were "a gone case" to use the vernacular. The Tories have shown themselves to be lacking in their true convictions. They should have spoken up to let the bad debts work themselves out. We would have had one or two bank failures. Northern Rock and HBoS, likely. Maybe not even HBoS, as the Northern Rock collapse may have prompted HBoS to have got its house in order months before. That is the point. Gordon blinked first, so the banks knew he was a loser.

That would not be a problem if it were not for the fact that Gordon can use the force of law to ensure we are all losers too.

How Anatole Kaletsky can say the following in the Times today:
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.

Oh how we cried.

The Libertarian Party would not have intervened. Northern Rock would have gone to the wall and the Board would have had their comeuppance. The lesson would have been stark. The other banks would have either adjusted and dug defences or gone to the wall. The result would have been short sharp and over with.

We now have 4+ years of recession, the prospect of a 1 term Tory government. Can the Libertarian Party be ready by 2016/7? I hope so, but given the behaviour of the Tories, the EU might well have outlawed any party that does not swear allegiance to the EU and placed almost all policy and legislation beyond the remit of Westminster.

Something tells me that if the Tories try that, it will be they who experience that Romanian feeling...

Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Harman: Bare Faced Deception

On C4 news today, Harriet Harman deliberately misled the audience.

Talking about prostitution and people trafficking, she spoke of 80% of women found in brothels are coming, brought in, from abroad. The term "brought in", used in a context of a discussion about trafficking? Well, those 80% are NOT trafficked except in a very few exceptions according to Niki Adams from the English Collective of Prostitutes. I think she would know what she is talking about. Fact is there have been hardly any evidence for trafficking, but then the law currently does not require any evidence, even if the women in question do not say they have been trafficked! Niki says most women rescued from traffickers have been done so by their friends - other prostitutes. Considering even approaching the Police means criminal action and/or deportation, that is no surprise.

To be frank here, I have a feeling that Harman KNOWS the facts. Maybe she has chosen to blind herself to them, for it does not fit the twisted world she has projected onto the inside of her very empty cranium. Or has she? I think she has not yet fully blinded herself, for you can see she used the term "brought in" but half back-peddled just a tad. Maybe that was an attempt to worm herself out of the blatant deception she was performing on live television in a mainstream, prime time interview. I do not know. Regardless of the pedantry, Harman clearly wished to make the audience think that 80% of women were immigrants trafficked in and working against their will, i.e. slaves. That would be a lie.

Her behaviour is such that I would not be surprised if Prostitutes would rather not consort with her, or be seen in her company. Prostitutes make an honest living, if only they were not criminalised. They do not pretend to be anything other than what they are, unless the client actually wants to suspend their reason and reality for the purposes of the transaction. Harman is not gaining consent from those who are the subject of her deception. How can such a person continue to be a lawyer or Lord Privy Seal?

Harriet Harman is known as a stranger to reason, but this new travesty of a law takes the biscuit. Prejudiced is a word for this. Moralistic. Spiteful. Sexist, even. Right up her street.

The Libertarian Party shall legalise prostitution. It will certainly not legalise trafficking, for that is coercion. Prostitutes will be able to operate safely, off the streets in brothels organised as they see fit. With legal brothels containing consenting women, it will be all the more obvious if a place is one containing trafficked women.

Yet again New Labour clings to outdated and dysfunctional dogma. Socialism and, in this case, Feminist spite and unreason.

Tuesday, 18 November 2008

Rosie Winterton: GOSPLAN advocate.

I sat there open mouthed* while I heard woolly-headed Rosie Winterton blather on about the dire economic situation on "Any Questions" (R4, 14/11/2008). Rosie, in effect, exposed an often downplayed strand in Socialist thinking - that things can be fixed if we find out every detail and micro-manage it. 

Take a read at the following:

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.

Ah, the Regional Development Agency. Regional Government-in-waiting with a taste for micromanagement, it seems. Rosie thinks that by finding such "information" out - for their "Doomsday Book", I suppose - things will change. They will not. It is a waste of money. Rosie seriously thinks that all this prodnosery is of value. She thinks that by understanding everything she can control everything. She is delusional. Stop taxing small companies, stop interfering in their business and wrapping them up in red tape and they might have a chance. Otherwise, all you do is rob Peter to pay Paul (with a %age for the Government Shylocks).
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…

There we have it. Intervention. Meddling. Micromanagement. Pathetic. The arrogance is just stunning. Rosie thinks she knows what is best, that each company should be levelled out into a grey soup - the weak propped up and the stars taxed into mediocrity.

What a ghastly fraud she perpetuates. Does Rosie Winterton believe all her hogwash? I suppose she does, but the question is, did she first lie to herself, or has she just swallowed the lies of another? Who cares. Rosie is inviting a truck load of FAIL.

* No, Lionel Blair was not trying to pull off "12 Angry Men".

Friday, 14 November 2008

Fencepost No. 10: Regional Ministers

We now see another step forward in the attempt to break up England as a Nation. I say "attempt", but a stronger word is needed for those performing this have been moving forward inexorably like fungi on a rotting oak.

We have seen the appointment of Regional Kommissars Ministers by Brown on the second day of his Premiership and the EU Constitution used to further the case without a peep from Cameron.

We have seen "proposals" to enable the Regions to take over income tax collection. If that is not a statement of intent for pseudo-sovereignty, I do not know what is. Just imagine the limitless capability for endless tea, biscuits and "travel expenses" that will occur when each Region fights over the divvying up of the revenue stream and to discuss, co-ordinate, liaise and fact find. Not to mention cover their arses over "safeguarding". 

Not everyone is happy over the plans, however.

I suspect some Soviets Regions will be demanding the transfer of revenue from one place to another and will haggle like crazy to form a clique with other parasitical Regions to push through deal after deal.

And we get some classic doublethink and unreason from the Harridan herself:
Commons leader Harriet Harman said the committees would "plug the accountability gap" and improve the scrutiny of regional health and economic development bodies with huge annual budgets.
Yes, Harriet, there was risk of some accountability, so you have plugged it up for good by giving these odious synthetic geographies credibility they have done NOTHING to deserve. Note how she mentions "huge annual budgets". Well, who gave them that huge annual budget without accountability, then, Harriet? What on EARTH do they provide, in reality? If you want to resolve the "accountability gap" and deal with "huge annual budgets" then CLOSE THE SCUMBAGS DOWN. Simple. And before anyone says anything, they will NOT be missed.

I did not agree to this treason, for that is what it is.

One day this government will get its Ceauşescu Moment.

Wednesday, 12 November 2008

A disaster in "Social Services"

Dealing day-to-day with all manner of troubled people might well create a sense of numbness or detachment. However, in the case of "Baby P" I do find it hard to believe that nothing was done for so long, despite the physical and logical warning signs given by Police and doctor alike.

Lets just see this: single mum. Boyfriend moved in. Male lodger. Baby gets bruised, injured.

Now, for some reason I have come away from the news reports under the impression that the mother withheld the fact that she had her boyfriend staying there. Was this a question of benefits? Was the fact that they had a lodger - erm...she renting a private flat with her own money or is she on benefits and in state housing? - also contribute to the problems? Why can a lodger able to fit into this accommodation, I wonder, but that is another story.

Yes, those who caused the injuries are to blame for them. Totally. However, the Mother AND the local SS are responsible for the continuation of such maltreatment and abuse considering they KNEW the child was being injured in such a way.

I find it hard to fathom. If you don't like screaming kids, DON'T shack up with a single mum, ok? It is THAT simple, MORON. But no, she has a place to stay, I suppose, and the rest. If this single mum were staying with grandma, even if they only had a 6'x8' box room, the welfare of this poor departed mite would have been infinitely better (unless the grandma was a crack den operator, I suppose).

When things like this happen, the thought returns that young single mums without support from their own grandma or ex partner are better off in sheltered hostels with other single mums and not out in their own flats where parasitical scumbags can get involved. If they have a man in their life, if he is working, has his own place, then maybe she moves out of the hostel and in with him and all is fine and dandy (unless the bloke smokes and they are in Redbridge, natch).

I am not a betting man, but I would bet a pint that the boyfriend and lodger were not in gainful employ, at least according to the local benefit office.

The local council appears to be acting as accused, judge and jury. The victim is free from suffering, one could say, yet has had their life robbed from them. I hope they return to a happier household and their next life be free from suffering.

In all of this little details become grit in the eye. You only need to look at the name of a group - dreamt up at some expensive off-siter I suspect - to get a gist at what wibble must come out of it: 

"The Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board" 

Apart from the ghastly newspeak "safeguarding", whatever that self-important patronising nonsense means, the title does not scan, and appears to be a grammatical train-wreck. Shunt it into a siding and break it up for scrap. Please.

Saturday, 8 November 2008

Trevor Phillips is at it again.

Hot on the heels of my suggestion, below, that Hazel is softening up the electorate for a Quota system in Parliament, race ricebowler-in-chief Trevor "Phillips has yet again stepped up to the mike to evacuate the contents of his highly polished bonce on the issue so dear to his mortgage payments heart.

He states that a British Barak Obama is unlikely. Well, a British Libertarian is unlikely in the short term, also, due to the same system. If anything, the more Libertarians, the more likely we will get a Black PM, for Libertarianism is all about equality and individuality. If it is about race, class, gender then it is is not actually about any of those things, but "difference", and that, my friend, is tilting at windmills. Asking people to stop selecting people they feel comfortable with? You might as well take their right to vote away, and this is my point and Trevor's lack of point.

As for Black only shortlists:
Mr Phillips went on to say that he opposed all-black shortlists for parliamentary candidates because it would be difficult to define "black" or to decide where they should be imposed, but he said action was needed by all parties.
I.e., he only opposes them because it is hard to define, not because of any issues of discrimination. Note: positive or negative, discrimination is discrimination.

You can see where this is heading, though. Quotas. Mr Phillips cannot pin it down to just racism or anything hard, yet is complaining about...something. Quotas legitimise the notion that somehow a white person cannot represent a black person and vice versa, which is, frankly, absurd. Quotas will be a step towards removing the very concept of a free vote.

Friday, 7 November 2008

The Labour Party Website

Have you see the latest incarnation of The Labour Party website?

Pure tabloid stuff - It is like "Sunday Sport" only with a different sort of tit.

A good fisk of Blears, except...

Over at The Peoples' Republic of Mortimer there is a good fisk of Hazel Blears' newspeech on blogging.

It covers most of the points I was about to make very well, so I will not bore you with a pale shadow. However, one slip was missed and in fact I do disagree with the posting's view.

TPRoM suggests that Hazel makes reasonable views about reducing careerism. 

I disagree. Blears presents a false dichotomy - Career Politicians or The Beast and other such "working class heroes". What utter twaddle. Tokenistic? Quota-filling? Social Engineering? You bet.

Next, and I would not put it past her, she will be proposing that all the MPs from all parties must conform to some quota system of ethnoclass pigeonholing and if you do not fit the bill, you will not be "eligible" to stand in any constituency, regardless of party.

Do not think that this is beyond the realms of possibility. Do not underestimate the control-freakery, the managerialist mindset and the utter contempt for freedom of these people.

Wednesday, 5 November 2008


So, it appears that Barak Obama has won. He offers change. I cannot understand why everyone is so enthusiastic for "Change". 

Little Boy delivered "Change" to Hiroshima.

We have had enough Blairite "Change", let alone Gordonian "Change".

Change is not good enough. Change is disingenuous mumble-swerve to avoid being called to account. Change is meaningless. 

What we need is "Improvement", even when it means unwinding some of the "change".

p.s. I hope the Obama win is a landslide, so they can stop bickering and get on with what they need to do. Even if they make the wrong decisions, the quicker they take them, the quicker the mistake is over with and the sooner it can be reversed.

Tuesday, 4 November 2008

Brown-Straw Bill of Wrongs

So, we see a Cabinet kerfuffle over plans for a new "Bill of Wrongs Rights".

Brown talked earlier in the year about a new constitutional settlement. This "Bill of Wrongs Rights" is part of that. Brown likes the term "new settlement", for he has used it in terms of the financial crisis, too.

What Brown &Co forget, is that a Bill of Rights is - or damn well should be - about restraining government, NOT restraining people. I take that back. Brown did not forget this. He knows that is what it should be, but I suspect the old Marxist-Manse nexus inside him cannot but interfere with, pester and control the population.

Brown said that such a bill would open a new chapter on British liberty. Epilogue, more like, for he is using the idea of "rights", which are more like "entitlements" to then justify restraining "responsibilities" upon us. 

We can see a precursor of what is to come in the attempts to bully fat people by threatening them with the withdrawal of NHS treatment. It is insidious to do this, for those so bullied are hardly in a position to opt out of the NHS, not pay into it and seek an alternative provider. The law demands you pay, so instead of being a customer, free to choose, you become a cost and subject to a squeeze. Funny that they do not offer to reduce their NI contributions due to lower life expectancy and thus pension obligations, but that is another thing.

The arrogance is astonishing. Who do they think they are to decide how people live and what responsibilities people have at such a level? They clearly feel they are in some way the arbiter of "correct" behaviour. 

They are not.

At the very best this Bill will be the Tyranny of the Majority, but I suspect it will be the Tyranny of the Minority, a Tyranny of pressure groups and vested interests. It will begin the codification of "social justice", which as a word ranks in vileness alongside "deprivation", "progressive" and "entitlement". As you may know, social justice comes from the concept of social rights and social rights, as J.S. Mill has said, are "monstrous":-
A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language--being nothing short of this--that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. 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; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious, passes any one's lips, it invades all the "social rights" attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

This odious "Bill of Rights" is just such a manifestation of the monstrosity outlined above. People think they have the right to control and oppress people in its name.

We will see limitations on our freedom to act and react because, make no mistake, certain kinds of acts will be protected, the kind that the Sociofascists and Statists approve of, while others that are inconvenient to them, contradict their world view or would enable people to demonstrate that they were wrong risk being curtailed. The Taxpayer will foot the bill under pain of imprisonment. Instead of people reforming themselves - for I believe 90%+ of the feckless will if no longer encouraged to remain so by bad policies and Welfarism - they will be forced to reform. Forced to reform instead of coming to the conclusion of their own free will. This road will, in my view, lead to the criminalisation of non-conformists*. 

The Bill is expected to contain such utter wibble as "the right to healthcare". That is only half the story. What it should say is "those whom the State so chooses should pay for other people's healthcare of a quality and composition as decided by the State if those other people are deemed to deserve it in accordance with criteria also decided upon by the State". Now, THAT is what will happen, yet it is not a right, is it? A right would be "Let no person, body, government, agent or organisation prevent any person gaining access to healthcare that is willingly provided". The same goes for education - religious carpet-munchers cannot prevent women from accessing schools, for example. However, that is a world away from saying the State will decide who will have to pay for that schooling and what form it will take.

So, under the umbrella of "rights" we see the scope for enormous powers collected to the centre and the bureaucracy. As J.S.Mill says above, there will be no violation which it would not justify.

And Brown and Straw try to sell this noxious brew as "Constitutional Reform".

* It will create the need for S.T.E.N.C.H. - the Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans -  Carry on Spying

Coastguards Banned From Using Boats

Coastguards have been banned from using boats in rescue missions after they were ruled to be a risk to health and safety.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency says the devices, which are used to navigate large areas of sea during searches, could cause 'considerable injury'.

Rescue teams have been told to use 'safer' alternatives such as inflatable animals and armbands during sea and beach rescues.

Health and Safety: Coastguards are told to stop using flares during night time searches as they could cause 'considerable injury'

Health and Safety: Coastguards are told to stop using boats during water-borne searches as they could cause 'considerable injury'

All 400 Coastguard rescue teams now have until the end of the year to use up their cache of boats or hand them over to the Ministry of Defence for disposal by a friend of theirs.

Yesterday volunteers claimed the decision will put lives at risk because boats are essential for locating lost people and vessels in the dark.

One crewman said: 'This is the most stupid, ignorant thing I've heard of.

'This is over-zealous bosses bowing to health and safety nonsense - but they don't realise it could put people at risk.'

'Unsafe': A flare gun, which is now banned, can help light up the sky to help rescues

'Unsafe': A flare gun, which is now banned, can help light up the sky to help rescues

A boat can be launched into the water and contain a number of people called "crew".

They have been used by the MCA since the Dawn of Time and deployed by Britain's 3,200 Coastguard volunteers in hundreds of rescue missions along the UK's 10,200 miles of coastline.

They require no legal licence to keep or board, but the MCA - a government organisation which co-ordinates search and rescue missions - requires at least one volunteer in each crew to be certificated in their use.

But the MCA conducted a review earlier this year, which found no 'sound operational reason' for their continued use.

It said 'multi-person water-displacing carcasses' were outdated and rarely deployed because of modern alternatives.

These include arm-bands, foam tubes and inflatable animals which are regularly lashed to the side of the Coastguard's 12 helicopters across the UK. But there are fears among rescue teams who do not have immediate access to the helicopters and say inflatable dolphins do not match the carrying capacity of boats.

Crews learned about the ban last week when the MCA contacted all 400 regional branches. 

Last night an MCA spokesman said he was unaware of any incidents in which coastguard personnel had been injured using boats. But he added: 'We have suggested withdrawing the boats after a consultation with coastguard teams showed they are not being used on land.

'They are capable of causing considerable injury, and for that reason alone using safer alternatives is meaningless beneficial.'

Boats will still be used by the RNLI because they are an independent charity not beholden to government QANGO lunacy and by the Coastguard's ten teams which operate in conjunction with lifeboat crews.

My apologies to Luke Salkeld at the Daily Mail.

Sunday, 2 November 2008

Definition of "Ceauşescu Moment"

Tom Harris, MP has focused on a term used during a new fundament ripping session that has occurred as a result of his contemptuous response to receiving a copy of George Orwell's "1984" as part of the LPUK campaign.

I used it in the original thread (above), then Old Holborn - for it was he - used it again in Tom's followup thread here.

OH: “Again, I state, there are but 646 of you. Don’t you EVER forget it, because it wasn’t that long ago that we really did hang politicians. And Ceauşescu moments will always happen.”

TH: How pompous can any individual actually get? So, are you threatening democratically-elected politicians with murder just because we don’t do what you and your small band of fanatics in the Libertarian Party want us to do?
Tom old bean, "Ceauşescu Moment" refers to when a cruel and oppressive dictator thinks the oppressed masses crowds are cheering, then suddenly realises they are rioting.

Some might say you already knew that but wished to play the "loony" card, but I could not possibly comment.