The Spell is Broken: Dealing Healing and Repealing

WARNING: In this post I will use the d-word – deprivation.

Two kinds of true deprivation stand out in the dimension of recent disturbances, IMHO, one is to deprive people of their livelihoods, property and safety and the other is to deprive a child of the upbringing they need to become a well-adjusted human being[0].

What jumped out for me was the behaviour of Turkish, Bengali and other groups of shopkeepers and residents in defending their businesses, property and homes - a very British thing to do[1] - and some very interesting articles which repeat long said truths, but which should now be a mighty slap in the face to some people.

Dealing

The immediate issue is defence, of lives, livelihoods and property. A strong, visible defence is the best deterrent. I am not talking about locks and shutters, but a pro-active defence whereby those who try it on will be met with a real, immediate, physical response and a real and highly probable legal consequence. If certain groups look around the street and see ordinary people all around them, but know that those ordinary people can suddenly mutate and coalesce into an organized defence force, then even the less controlled individuals will exercise self-restraint.

The problem is we have had decades of emasculation and disempowerment of ordinary citizens, brainwashed and brow-beaten to abdicate their own personal safety and defence to the Police. This drive for abdication is nearly all-pervasive, infesting education, health, welfare as well as personal defence. It becomes a meme, a Pavlovian, passive, sheep-like response. Add wolves and the result we have seen for ourselves.

The spell of Police “protection” was broken, creating chaos. However, that broken spell is part of the wider necromancy mentioned above, which is now in the process of breaking, too, for ordinary people. It is no coincidence, in my view, that some of the communities that have the least exposure to the Fabian witchcraft [5] reacted first and foremost. We saw the Turks of Dalson, for example, take to the streets to defend their community.

Healing

Children do not chose to be born into dysfunction. They rely on their parents and family to instill proper codes of conduct, to distinguish right from wrong, to engender a sense of restraint, deferred gratification, of consequence. Should a child be denied that – deprived of it – that child is not to blame for the lack. However, essential in the rehabilitation of such people is the need to learn right from wrong and too soft an approach risks entrenching the problem, not curing the malaise. Throwing someone in jail with no rehabilitation is equally short sighted.

I have read posts such as that by Camila Batmanghelidjh and Katherine Birbalsingh [2] . Although they approach the situation from different angles, I agree with both of them. Neither set out to excuse, but to understand and try to explain why such things have been a tinderbox and offer their solution or advice. The problem we have, some say, is that there is only one Camila and only one Katherine.

What we should NOT do is try and Xerox Camila or Katherine, systematizing their approach to be implemented by rote-learned practitioners following a protocol. There are others who, though they might use a different methodology, use ways that are effective, that can reach out and heal. If you try to impose wisdom, it ceases to be wisdom. We must try not to get hung up on one way, not to create a monoculture as that will ossify any system and reduce the speed in which innovation and, yes, experimentation can occur in tackling damaged individuals[3] . I am sure Camila and Katherine are not so arrogant as to think they have nothing to learn from others.

The State is pretty hopeless at doing anything other than form monopolies or monocultures. I am not convinced that the State is the right way to implement or drive the spread of good practice in a pluralistic and consensual way.

Repealing

I do think, however, that we still need to go deeper. Healing those damaged and quickly is one thing, but the rate in which such people are being damaged or left to get damaged is way too high, diluting efforts and resources, however superb and heroic, to near homeopathic levels.

I am not talking about the State performing some kind of “pre natal intervention”, which is a stock-in-trade for the Socialist mind of perfecting the clay that we call people. No, we need, first and foremost, for the State to STOP funding and doing things that creates the problems or creates the environment for such problems to occur or multiply.

An example is benefits and housing that should not be focused on those who bear others into poverty. Funding those who cannot afford to have children to have children is madness. Women who know that there is no source of support and accommodation "by right" will be far more discerning as to whom she interacts with, when and how. Of course such things are never perfect, but we are not talking about perfection – I leave that delusion to the Fabians – but about the basic truth that if you subsidize something you tend to get more of it. Such an approach will not eradicate, nor is it the business of the State or politicians to eradicate, the existence of single motherhood. However, it is not the business of the State to make certain choices viable “by right” when they otherwise would not be. The issue here is not support for single mums or those unable to support their children per se, but the automatic right in law for taxpayer support regardless of circumstances.

The failure of education is linked to this in part, for while you have the ability to exist regardless, then the basic, visceral incentive to survive is defused, rendering the absolute necessity to get an education redundant.

We have seen that gangs of ordinary citizens can assemble with weapons and no robbing occurs, no looting and no unprovoked violence. Law abiding people with weapons are not the problem here, but law abiding people WITHOUT a means of self-defence is. We need to repeal laws that limit law-abiding people while exposing them to the lawless who care not for such laws.

The spell restraining the thuggery has been broken somewhat, but that this has also broken the wider spell over the population as to the all-pervasive power of the State.

We need to deal with those who do wrong, heal those who are on a path to or involved in wrongdoing and to repeal the entitlements that contribute in part but certainly not exclusively to the creation of those who grow up without essential foundations for civilized living.

[0] Some of you may know I reject the use of the word “deprived” when it is used to mean “poverty” or “bad housing” or “lack of jobs”, which is to trivialize it and demean the real issues that exist for those who are truly deprived. It is an all too familiar behaviour of the Left to hijack such words for their own agenda.

[1] I now hear that, sadly, three men, and I repeat the word, Men, have been killed, run down by a car, in what appears to be a defence of their community from looters. My condolences to their family and friends.

[2] I have also read some utter tripe from the usual peddlers of such guff, for example Yasmin Alibia Brown, who might on the surface sound reasonable but is in fact a denial of the environment they have pushed for.

[3] I say, damaged, for I feel so very few, an infinitesimally small number of babies are born bad. Almost all are made bad. Many could be maladjusted, but with the right upbringing, guidance and boundaries they could be imperfect – and who is not? - but still decent and productive human beings.

[4] This is not to say that a single person cannot deliver both aspects, but that task is

[5] Those who have engineered it in the law-abiding majority while not managing to deal with the minority are, I am certain, still in denial.

R4isms: NHS and Homo Fabian Neanderthalensis

Listening to Radio 4, as I do on my wind-up Baygen radio, there was an interesting programme on Neanderthals last night. No, not Westminster Hour, but the ancient hairy kind. No, not The World Cup, actual Neanderthals, Homo Neanderthalensis.

Some interesting factoids came up to tuck away in my Trivial Pursuit cheek-pouches, such as the evidence suggesting that they were top tier predators, eating a diet similar to that of lions and tigers and likely had to use their organisational skills as much for defending the kill from other predators as much as making the kill in the first place.

What jumped out was a statement, and forgive me if this is not verbatim, discussing the life-span and robustness of these early people in that there is evidence that injured people were rested and laid up, supported by others, so that their injuries could heal rapidly. It was:

"Well, there was no NHS back then"

This is spoken by what we might describe as intelligent, learned people.

I could understand it if they said there was no penicillin or antibiotics, though I would question that even. No wheels for sure, but "No NHS"? There was no NHS in WWII, for goodness sake!

The mindset that pre-NHS was some barbaric dark age where we hunted mammoth, where we existed with flint knives and bearskins, so far away as to be forgotten, as if the NHS was some absolute fixture.

Of course, to many it is. To many, not having the NHS in all its forms is like being thrown back to an antediluvian nightmare, with, I suppose, those cruel Libertarians cast as the Cro Magnons threatening their existence with a steely eye and modern weaponry, as in William Golding's The Inheritors*, or the ruthless Fins in Pathfinder.

The NHS in its entirety is a sacred cow, or should I say some kind of cave-painting, fixed on stone, to be observed and worshipped. Extended, but never altered or replaced. To criticise is to blaspheme.

It has always been.

It must always be.

Wrong.

The NHS is more than it was originally supposed to be. It was only meant to be a universal State run health insurance programme**. It is now a de-facto monopoly and one that is being portrayed as eternal - "from everlasting to everlasting"! So it is written, so it has become.

To consider something that is systemically dysfunctional by nature of its monopoly and the third party payer problem, as eternal and unassailable is reckless folly.

The NHS needs to evolve. It needs to end the monopoly. It needs to look at what it was aimed to do, not what it as become. Healthcare provision does not demand a state monopoly. Healthcare provision does not demand NICE. It does not demand micromanagement, Soviet style, of our healthcare needs, with individuals manacled to some geographic fiefdom in the shape of your PCT and SHA that you can only escape by moving house. The PCTs and SHAs are not held to account in the true sense. They do not face extinction.

For the likes of Frank Field to think the unthinkable, he needs to encompass our attitudes to Healthcare, Housing and Schools, as well as what is known as Welfare, for all these things are part of what is currently provided as entitlement and makes up for a massive redistribution of wealth through coercion with all the unintended consequences, the negative incentives and distortions.

To ring fence or worship any of these is to condemn the UK to be Homo Neanderthalensis, cowering in a cave while modern man outside, coming from India and China, flexibly adopt, adapt and thrive. We will be sitting there, huddled around the embers of a fire we have forgotten how to make, looking out on a landscape full of animals we know not how to hunt.

* a course book in my school days.

**Even that has unintended consequences of forcing out independent Friendly Societies, because a State insurance provider has subsidies and by nature of the State being a monopoly, would steadily be given monopoly power and advantage. This was seen in the need to extend the monopoly power to provision even before the scheme was launched.

Telegraph Fights Global IQ with Reason-Negative Whale Faeces

I mean, is someone actually PAID to write this? The article might actually refer to some sensible research, but the author of this article is so clueless or hurried that they cannot see that they have left out important facts that make the selected assertions illogical.

Bear with me as I grind through the article and at the end see how the article comes across like horse (or Whale) manure, yet the research may, in fact, not be.

Sperm whales fight global warming with carbon-neutral faeces

Southern Ocean sperm whales have emerged as an unexpected ally in the fight against global warming, removing the equivalent carbon emissions from 40,000 cars each year thanks to their faeces, a study has found.

Oh, has it. Well, lets see, shall we, children?...

The cetaceans have been previously fingered as climate culprits because they breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common greenhouse gas.

But this is only a part of the picture, according to the paper, published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"climate culprits"? Whales? Has it occurred to anyone that all animals breathe out CO2? Even AGW/CACC supporters? (Well, they are worse because of the vast quantities of CH4, but I digress...). The fact that people are so twisted to assert that any life form is a "climate culprit" just because they breathe really should tell you the mentality of some people.

Australian biologists estimated that the estimated 12,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean each defecate around 50 tonnes of iron into the sea every year after digesting the fish and squid they hunt.

That is iron from the fish and squid that swim around them, no? Yes? Ok.

The iron is then eaten by phytoplankton - marine plants that live near the ocean surface and suck up CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

Yum. Ok, keep going...

As a result of the fertilisation, the whales remove 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice as much as the 200,000 tonnes of CO2 that they contribute through respiration.

That is like saying the paper industry "removes" x tonnes of CO2. Still, I am sure this is going to make sense later.

The whales' faeces are so effective because they are emitted in liquid form and close to the surface, before the mammals dive, said the paper.

Sperm Whales take a dump before going to work. I like them already.

Industrialised whaling not only gravely threatened Southern Ocean sperm whales, it also damaged a major carbon "sink," the scientific term for something that removes more greenhouse gases than it produces, it added.

Before industrial whaling, the population of this species was about 10 times larger, which meant around two million tonnes of CO2 were removed annually, said the paper.

DING! Presumption. Just because there were 10x as many Sperm Whales does not mean that 10x as many phytoplankton shall bloom [1]. Still, let us carry on, even if the idea of a "sink" has not yet been properly explored.

The scientists suspect that because sperm whales cluster in specific areas of the Southern Ocean there is a clear link between food availability and cetacean faeces.

How can you "suspect a clear link"? Well, that "CO2 of 40,000 cars" is now only suspected. Onward.

This could explain the "krill paradox," they believe. Researchers have previously found that when balleen whales are killed, the amount of krill in that sea area declines, which thus affects the entire food chain.

Which is all very well but Sperm Whales are not baleen whales, they are toothed, like dolphins and orca. Have they measured the iron in baleen whale poo? This is not mentioned, but it should be.

The study is lead-authored by Trish Lavery of the School of Biological Sciences at Flinders University in Adelaide.

If I were Trish, I'd be crying into my salad after seeing how all her work has been butchered by this woeful rendition.

The article is disjointed, non-sequitur and flimsy in the extreme. It tells us very little and what it does doesn't make much sense unless you are happy just to absorb baseless soundbites for later regurgitation. Near the surface. With plenty of iron.

What is being said here is that Sperm Whales eat fish and squid in the southern ocean, and out comes iron. What it seems to hint is that Sperm Whales are natural born alchemists or have a supernova in their guts, able to create an element, iron - Fe, the most stable element in the universe - from base things like fish and squid. It speaks as if the iron was not there before. Of course the iron was in the fish and squid. What it also does not mention is why Sperm Whales eating them is any different from other animals eating them or of the fish dying from natural causes and, most importantly, where did the iron in those fish and squid come from?

What is also overlooked is the fate of all that phytoplankton. What does it do, live forever? No, it gets either eaten by krill fish and squid or...drum roll...sinks to the bottom, also like some dead fish and squid.

The article here really should be mentioning the whole lifecycle. Phytoplankton take in CO2. Many are eaten. Animals that eat them then give off the CO2. No "sink". Some phytoplankton and some of the animals further up the food chain fall to the bottom of the ocean and this is the CO2 "sink". Phytoplankton in themselves are NOT a CO2 "sink" in themselves, for if they are eaten then the majority of CO2 they originally took in is almost certainly exhaled by those animals.

To say that phytoplankton take in 400,000 tonnes of CO2 and thus it is a 400,000 tonne CO2 "sink" is complete and utter codswallop, I am afraid.

What COULD be happening is due to the fact that Sperm Whales contribute to keeping iron in the upper waters, phytoplankton can breed in greater numbers than would otherwise occur and by some sinking to the bottom and the sinking of some of the animals that feed on them, some CO2 is "sunk".

Small flaw in this too. The iron is in the phytoplankton and resultant food chain, so as quickly as it is CO2 sinking, so Fe is sinking too. The only way this works is if Sperm Whales or the food it feeds on is IMPORTING iron to the Southern Oceans from elsewhere to keep the levels up.

Maybe this is in the paper by Trish Lavery. I hope it is.

What we do not need is articles like the one I have linked to. It not only provides incomplete "science" by garbling a research paper into a string of meaningless non-sequitur statements, it also risks conditioning people to accepting such incompleteness and non-sequiturs as a norm and a quite acceptable way of "communication". The Fabians must love it. A "result" for them.

To me it just grates. I want to know WHY, to UNDERSTAND, to not just accept blindly. To LEARN, rather than just be TAUGHT.

Is that too much to ask?

[1] I would also bet that if that nasty Mankind discharged iron into the Southern Oceans at 10x the rate of Sperm Whales, the environmentalists would be up in arms talking about a phytoplankton bloom that would destabilise the delicate ecosphere.

Labour and "me me me"

Various people "of the left" routinely criticise Libertarians as being selfish and "me me me", yet I have again heard a Labour MP on Radio 4 today talk about their future and the impact of the coalition in terms of frightening people about what would happen to "their" job - in one example being perplexed why Policemen and women were not voting Labour - and in terms of welfare/pension/services and such. It is all about direct benefits to that person, making that person think in terms of "me me me".

Libertarians are concerned about what property the State might TAKE from individuals, whereas we can see that Labour are preoccupied with scaring people or tempting them with what might no longer be handed over.

"those of the left" again engaging in psychological projection and logical inversion.

They relate to the electorate in terms of "me me me", corrupting them, encouraging dependence and a sense of entitlement that only a Welfarist setup would dare promise, knowing or not knowing the bankruptcy that is almost certain to follow.

They are still thinking in this way, even as defeat is handed to them.

Still, in pure tactical terms it is not a crazy approach, just outrageously cynical and manipulative. Many people will find the consequences of the last 60 years of Welfarism, and the last 13 in particular, come crashing into them like an Atlantic storm. Labour will be there, mark my words, whispering lies into their ears, blaming others, offering false hope, fake rewards and other mischiefs. It will be a second bite at the "Thatcher's fault" nonsense that had supposedly had Mrs T personally responsible for shutting down factories incapable of making things people wanted or were prepared to pay the price for, which, had it not been for Her, would have continued to perform their SOLE function, naturally, of providing employment for the Union masses.

If Labour is concerned about certain provisions and believes "everyone" wants to see it provided, what is stopping them organising it? I would welcome this, for Labour in opposition must operate by consent, not coercion. People will soon let Labour know what they feel is important enough to deserve funding it via the Labour Party or other organisations.

This is precisely what could happen under a Libertarian administration - if people feel something needs to be provided, then go out and organise it. Collect voluntary contributions. I see no reason why Labour could not create an umbrella charity to be a point for people to donate to and Labour in their wisdom then decides where the money goes. This means putting down the "gun" of State compulsion, of the threat of imprisonment that comes with funding via taxation. It could mean setting up Friendly Societies and other mutual organisations.

Anyone with sincere intent, anyone who truly believes that their stance and causes are just and proper should not be afraid of this arrangement. If you think people do not know or understand, TALK TO THEM. Are you so lazy as to rather take by force instead of having the common courtesy to explain yourself and ask, understanding and accepting the fact you may be refused? Or is it you think people so dumb, stupid or selfish that they will never agree with your "higher moral stance" and so should not be given a choice?

I am unsure if those in Labour are ready or able for such introspection, truth and accountability.

Quote of the Day

"Fabianism, MacDonaldism and pacifism today play the same role in relation to the historical movement of the proletariat. They are the main prop of British imperialism and of the European, if not the world bourgeoisie. Workers must at all costs be shown these self-satisfied pedants, drivelling eclectics, sentimental careerists and liveried footmen of the bourgeoisie in their true colours. To show them up for what they are means to discredit them beyond repair. To discredit them means rendering a supreme service to historical progress. The day that the British proletariat cleanses itself of the spiritual abomination of Fabianism, mankind, especially in Europe, will increase its stature by a head."

Leon Trotsky, Where is Britain Going? ch.4 The Fabian Theory of Socialism

I will not go so far as to say "the enemy of my enemy...", but he does a fine skewering.

Cameron in danger of opening the gates (and wedging them open).

Cameron's proposals will enlarge government, not shrink it, I suspect.

It is one thing being lorded over by 646* professional morons , but even worse is being lorded over by 64,600 amateur morons...on your doorstep.

I do suspect that Cameron will be an unwitting stooge (if he is benign) or an out and out traitor (if willing) in handing over more authority to the Regions. Wait for it, for his army of dim-bulb no-nothing "useful idiots" will be persuaded by some Federast to move power to the Regions and let them sort it out.

He will NOT, I repeat NOT be able to relocate ANY powers WHATSOEVER from the EU machine back to the UK UNLESS he leaves the EU. He will not, so any talk is pointless.

So, Cameron is going to move power from Westminster to the Regions (I suspect), who are EU lickspittles and beholden to the Brussels coin while not moving ANY powers back to Westminster.

It will be hollowed out.

Once the process begins, the call for each region to match the Scottish, NI and Welsh Regoinal Assemblies will become incessant - all funded, look you, with OUR money! OUR money used to fund the theft of OUR sovereignty and more of OUR money.

School For Scoundrels, in fact.

What should happen first and foremost is a mass repeal of needless and/or illiberal legislation. This would include the European Communities Act, so bringing back full sovereignty to the UK. Cameron does not promise this.

In parallel, the Regional Development Agencies - Regional Government In Waiting - must be dismantled. Nobody asked for them, nobody voted them in, but local politicians love them because they provide great "career" prospects, sinecures, comfy buggins-turn posts and more committees, biscuits, junkets and unaccountable power - a metaphorical ball-pit the size of Wembley Stadium for them to play in. They will not be able to throw their toys out of the pram because we would have taken all their toys and sent the pram back to the shop. Cameron does not promise this.

Any "devolving of power" should, in the first instance, be delivered to the Individual, NOT to local councils. Cameron does not promise this.

Remember we will be removing Education and much of healthcare from their remit. Their role is mostly parks, pavements and the lighting thereof. Libraries, that sort of caper. Oh, and something very very important - care of those who are not in a position to fully exercise informed consent - the Elderly and Mentally Ill. Kids, in general, have their guardians to do that for them, btw, and that will be restored too.

Cameron has not really promised power to the people, he has just made it more likely that more people - local politicians - will have more power and so people will experience this power and at closer quarters. I am in no doubt that the vast majority of people will not like it one bit.

For all his talk of reforming Parliament, until he gets us out of the EU, that is like talking about reforming a Steam Train factory during a nationwide electrification programme outside his control.

Put the kettle on, Dave, there is a good chap.

If you want to see the restoration of Sovereignty, the re-assertion of the Rule of Law with the reduction in coercion and the increase in consent that this brings, there is only one choice - The Libertarian Party, UK.

* give or take one or two genuine sharp tools.

Seemingly Disgraceful Police Behaviour: But the Left have no right to claim the highground

via Old Holborn, a video in The Guardian does seem to reveal key evidence in the fate of a middle aged chap in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Problem is, some are saying "The Left" have seized on this and appear to be trying to grab the moral high ground, as if they "own" victimhood from Police brutality. I have seen a comment in another place saying they are "with the Left on this one".

Oh for crying out loud. WHY does anyone think this a "LEFT" thing? Our Government and Home Sec are from the Rancid Left and so the Met takes their queue form them. Lefties are at LEAST as Authoritarian as the Right and certainly partisan.

This issue is about Rule of Law, NOT Left-Right. There was absolutely no reason to trip up/push over the chap AFAICT. Tripping someone up in a situation like that - paved floor - is a risk. Not a big one, but a risk nonetheless, especially if the person is not a youth who is likely to be more resilient and have faster reactions (no, that does not mean that young swampies can be thrown to the ground roughly with abandon, even if they have sad-act metal in their faces).

Of course we need to get all the facts, but right now, with what I have seen, the following terms come to my mind:

Cowardly. Unnecessary. Ugly. Disgraceful. Obscene.


On the question of the Police not knowing about any imminent heart condition before throwing someone to the ground unneccessarliy. Sorry, tough titties, Copper. If you were dealing with a CIP (crime in progress) and the perp had a heart attack, then no case to answer if reasonable force is being applied. Here, this is not a case of reasonable force. If this were a yob on the street tripping up a chap, I would want at least manslaughter charges and unless we get more evidence to the contrary, I want to see this happen here to.

I am fed up with the excuse "I diddern meeeeenn iiiiit/know" when people do things that clearly endanger others. Anyone who kicks a person when down - Attempted murder. Anyone who stabs someone except in say, the hand or buttocks - Attempted Murder. Violent attack on a pensioner - Attempted Murder.

The sooner people realise there are consequences for their unprovoked violent or aggressive acts the better. What you see in that Policeman is CREATED by the Left, by the Fabian undermining of social order and common decency. So please, don't give me no "with the Left" on this one...

Presumed Guilty: Personal Web Data to be Stored for a Year

Now the noose tightens.

We have had attempts by the EU to build a "Great Firewall of Europe" to somehow control what we see.

Now we see a more "effective" and altogether insidious move which has been on the cards for some time - the storage of our web movements and email relationships for a year. Mark my words, one year will soon become longer then become eternal. Content, not movement or relationships will soon be stored. Motive will be determined by the State observer and not the observed. Think of the absurd concept from the Macpherson Report (1999) on the death of Stephen Lawrence, stating that:

A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

This is utter hogwash, but that has not prevented it from being widely adopted by ricebowlers, self-loathers, sufferers of victimhood, Fabians and others. A terrorist incident, I suspect will be one determined by the "any other person". The motive and thoughts of the accused will be of no concern.

So, storing such information is an outrage that is unconstitutional for the following reasons IMHO:

1. It is an invasion of privacy.

2. No individual warrant has been issued for the collection of individuals' data

3. It presumes the guilt of all and not innocence

4. In relation to the above, it puts the burden of proof upon the individual to "explain" actions without due process or probable cause being presented by the authorities.

5. It has the potential to suppress the freedoms of all by making people think twice about otherwise perfectly legal activity in case it should be highlighted.

6. The pool of data is not, will not and could never be made adequately secure, allowing for individuals to be subject to blackmail, slander, innuendo, further contributing to the effect of 5., above.

7. The State is almost certain to begin "fishing" expeditions. Data mining is almost an addiction to some. Human curiosity and the need by many to systematise, pigeonhole and find out is unlimited and this database will feed and expand on that craving.

This project, I hear, is part of EU directives. I suspect our Authoritarian Gaulieters have been gold-plating it.

The argument that it is to fight "terrorism" or is "for the chiiiiiildren" is absurd. Anyone involved in such areas will make other arrangements immediately. No, I withdraw that - it is likely that such people and groups are ALREADY making arrangements. They would be pretty stupid not to have by now and with this news they will most certainly do so.

Therefore almost NO terrorists and almost NO kiddie fiddlers that might be caught will be caught by this. However, EVERYONE will feel the Panopticon breathing down their necks, the constant surveil of Big Brother behind the Telescreen.

Anyone pretending to suggest this measure will achieve the stated goals is either

a) Lying

b) A useful idiot parroting inanities

c) An imbecile

d) All the above.

As is so often with this New Labour Authoritarian administration, bureaucratic convenience trumps our freedoms in their eyes.

Again we see the mentality to "protect". This is to suggest that one proactively remove all possible threats and does not take into account freedom of the individual, personal responsibility and assessment of risk depending on circumstances by an adult or others under the supervision of adults.

We need "defence". We need a ready, willing and capable response to when something or someone transgresses. You know, like THE LAW does? Well, the Common Law, at least. And that is part of our problem.

I think it is the duty of all people in the UK to perform civil disobedience or forms of obfuscation to render their plans for naught. Maybe it will be the inclusion of tags and keywords to make ALL communications require manual checking, so bogging down their systems, or to implement highly encrypted channels and tunnels out of EU jurisdiction so as to prevent intercept or raise the cost of intercept to an unacceptable level.

On the other hand I might just learn gibberish.

Machine-wrapped with butter!

Scientists Film Common Purpose spreading for the First Time

Scientists film Common Purpose spreading for first time

Scientists have made a breakthrough in understanding how Common Purpose spreads through organisations and government after filming the process for the first time ever.

By Ben D'Sierre
Last Updated: 8:46AM GMT 27 Mar 2009

Researchers found that the mindset is transferred from infected people to healthy ones in a previously unknown way.

It is hoped that the discovery will help researchers create a vaccine to combat the mindset, which has led to the loss of integrity and moral deaths of more than 25 million people.

Related Articles

• Viruses can catch colds, says study that redefines life itself

• Glow-in-the-dark cat could help cut disease

• Hopes of vaccine for all strains of flu within years

• Stem cell technique named scientific breakthrough of the year

• 'Guiding star' jellyfish glow protein earns Nobel Prize for Chemistry

The study was made possible after experts created a monocular clone of infectious Common Purpose and inserted a protein into its genetic code which glows green when exposed to blue light.

This allowed scientists to see the people on security cameras, and capture the way Common Purpose-infected people interact with uninfected ones.

They noted that when an infected person came into contact with a healthy one, a bridge was created between them, called an illogical synapse.

Researchers were then able to observe the fluorescent green Common Purpose memes moving towards the synapse and into the healthy person.

The US study has broken new ground by revealing that it is the synapse through which the memes are gathered and moved into uninfected persons.

The team, comprising scientists from UC Davis university in California, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, believe that this knowledge could help create new treatments for Common Purpose and even Fabianism.

Study author Dr Thomas Huser, chief scientist at the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics Science and Technology, said: "Our findings may explain why attempts to develop a Common Purpose vaccine have so far been unsuccessful.

"The more we know about this mode of transfer, the better chance we have of figuring out how to block it and the spread of Common Purpose and Fabianism."

For decades it was believed that Common Purpose was mostly spread around society through freely circulating advertising, which attach themselves to a person, take over its intellectual machinery and make multiple copies of themselves.

In 2004, scientists discovered that person-to-person transfer of Common Purpose also occurred via illogical synapses, but it was not understood why the process was so effective in spreading the memes.

Due to this, previous efforts to create a Common Purpose vaccine have focused on priming the critical reasoning and moral compass system to recognise and attack memes of free-circulating Fabians.

The new video footage indicates that Common Purpose avoids recognition by being directly transferred between jobs.

Dr Huser said: "We should be developing vaccines that help the recruitment system recognise memes involved in illogical synapse formation and education that targets the factors required for synapse formation."

Co-author Benjamin Chen, assistant professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, added: "Direct person-to-person transfer through a illogical synapse is a highly efficient avenue of Common Purpose infection, and it could be the predominant mode of dissemination."

Further research intends to discover what happens to infected people once they are transferred into a newly infected organisation.

The study's finding are published in the journal Science.

Appologies to The Daily Telegraph

Global Currency, global enslavement

A new global reserve currency is being mooted in the run-up to the G20, not least of all by Russia and China to unseat the USD.

It is as if the Pharaohs have returned. We will be forced to glean stubble in the fields.

A global reserve currency will demand all States hand over assets, gold, securites to back it (sort of). You can see that some would plan to burgle the US to right wrongs. Of course, the UK - chumps they are - will scamper up and hand over everything getting us the worse possible deal "to get things moving" while all the other countries will just haggle. I predict a variant on the parable of the three beggars* - delegate after delegate feigning to contribute and expecting the shortfall to be lost in the crowd.

Not only will we have the debt, we will have it in a collapsed currency. I suspect that the new reserve will not want our Sterling, but will demand gold, assets, rights, resources. It could be as bad or worse than the US demanded pre Lend Lease, when all our gold, bonds, concessions, bases etc were taken. We have enough self-loathers who will perversely delight at the obliteration of the UK. Not only delight, but shove it over the cliff aided by the ignorant, spiteful and vindictive.

We are at risk of a new dark age, a new enslavement. A Pandora's Box is being dragged out and dusted off. The useful idiots are dancing around eager to take a look and open it becuase? Well, it has not been opened and, well, it's time for a change, isn't it?

* The parable of the three beggars. Three beggars meet on the road as dusk is falling. Each complains of their lot and the little they have been able to collect. One has some vegetables, another has some meat and the third has some herbs, each on its own insufficient and unsatisfying. Then, one of the beggars has an idea - "What if we put our food together - the vegetables, the meat and the herbs and make ourselves some stew?". The second replied "That is a good idea. How about I find some wood for a fire?". The Third then says "I will seek out a pot to put it all in". The first then says "Excellent ideas! I will then find fresh water". So off they went. When they returned with pots, wood and water, it was already dark. Soon a fire was lit, the pot slung over it and the water heating up nicely. "So", said the first beggar "we can now put in our food". The first beggar was crafty, and thought to himself "it is now dark and I can pretend to drop in my vegetables. The meat and herbs will suffice and nobody will notice, I will have some stew and still have my vegetables for tomorrow". So, the first went up to the pot and made a great display of appearing to place the vegetables in. The second beggar then thought - "what a fool that beggar is, putting in his vegetables. I will not put in my meat. Why should I? The vegetables and herbs will make a good stew and tomorrow I will still have my meat". So, like the first, the second beggar went up to the pot and pretended to place his food into the bubbling water. The third, watching the other two, was very smug indeed - "They have put their food in and it will make a good stew. I shall hold on to my herbs and keep them for tomorrow. They will not notice". So the third strode up and with a flourish, pretended to drop his herbs in the steaming water, like the others using the cover of darkness and deep shadows caused by the fire. The three beggars were all happy and very cheerful, each thinking that they alone had out-smarted the other two. So they talked and talked together, happy to let the "stew" bubble away as long as possible, even though their stomachs ached, twisted and rumbled, for the longer it was left, the better their deceit was hidden. Finally they agreed to savour this magnificent meal. Each walked up to the pot and ladled out their share. Then all three sat down and began their "stew". In silence. Each sat and stared straight ahead as they supped hot water. Each now knew what the others had done, but each knew they were as guilty, but to save face none of them said a word. Instead of a hearty meal shared and a new formed friendship built on trust and cooperation, what they were left with was just water, isolation and mistrust.

Gordon Brown: Bully and Coward

Publish Post
Gordon Brown barges around trying to bluff everyone into his crackpot scheme for a Global Bargain. Of course the Chinese, the Americans and others tell him to get knotted, for they know what it means: a loss of Sovereignty.

With his bubble pricked, he then concedes the entire party - he gives away Sovereignty to the EU of all entities to manage our financial markets.

The Devil blasts him with a suitably vigourous torrent here.

This, in effect, will give the EU de facto control over UK monetary policy - by hook or by crook. Do not underestimate the determination, the creeping infestation. This will be the Euro via the back door. The Pound will be pegged soon enough and the Treason will be complete.

Harriet Harman: Perverting the Course of Justice?

Further to Gordon Brown's intention to undermine or bypass the Rule of Law the other day, we now have Harriet Harman QC MP saying this on the Andrew Mmmmmaaaaarr* Show:

"Sir Fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it is not going to happen," she said.

"The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted.

"It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract, but it's not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that's where the Government steps in."

So, we have a person who is a Lawyer, an MP, a Queen's Council, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal who is openly and brazenly pushing for subverting the Rule of Law in exchange for the Rule of the Mob.**

Harriet Harman should not only be stripped of her QC, Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal position, but should be, in my opinion, indicted for attempting to pervert the course of Justice.

If the "Court of Public Opinion" had any force, Harriet, Gordon Brown and the entire pestilential pustule that is the Parliamentary Labour Party would have been dragged out into the street and shot like the dogs they are - and that would be the humane option for them, as I suspect many would like to see a Spandau Ballet.

However, I believe in the Rule of Law, so that is not a move I endorse. Rule of Law is more important than "voting". Democracy serves two purposes, as the least bad way to preserve and protect the Rule of Law and as a means to remove bad government. It is not very good at installing good government as we have seen for decades. 

With Rule of Law upheld, the Government becomes far less important, for if it is obeying the Rule of Law it will busy itself with issues of Law and Order and National Defence and be doing all it can to keep it and other people's hands off our property, mouths, ears and bodies.

Some hope that the Guardianistas and other sorts have now seen how New Labour (and indeed Old Labour given half a chance) is Authoritarian and most certainly no friend of Civil Liberties, let alone the Economic Liberties which most never agreed with in the first place - except for themselves and their own children, natch. I am not sure if they have had a deep enough realisation. I do wonder if they will remain in denial despite the now constant dissonance all around them. I bet they will protest that this is not "real" or "proper" Social Democracy or even Socialism. They will remain in denial that while the State is seen as "the answer" or in any way as a "good", it will grow and grow, taking over more and more of our lives. It is in its DNA. To deny it is to deny fungus. 

The State needs to be considered a necessary evil that needs constant re-justification in what it does. Unless it is restrained by our constitutional DNA and the constant vigilance of the population and our institutions of Law, it will cease to be a useful organ of life and turn into a tumour that will drain our resources, cause untold pain and eventually kill us all.

The only party that clearly understands this about the State and recognises the true value and supremacy of the Rule of Law and its best articulation and realisation in the form of English Common Law, is the Libertarian Party, UK.

* Interviewer for the Sheeple.

** I also consider the move as a means for Harriet to appear to support Gordon Brown. It is of zero cost to HH, though, as I am quite sure she already wanted to do this or worse. One can even see it as a triple win - she gets to kick and humiliate Jacqui "Jackboot" Smith, the Second Home Secretary.

Lambeth Logic FAIL - the shape of things to come?

Today I came across the following via the Libertarian Party unofficial blog.

A woman in Nottingham who owns a Toyota car was given a ticket because a white van was seen parked in a bus lane* with the same registration.

Lambeth automatic revenue vampire was swung into action with the default to "pay up or else". The fact that the vehicle type did not match was ignored or never even checked up on.

When the owner protested their innocence , the council, instead of looking at the facts - the van was using cloned plates - asked the lady to PROVE her ID and ownership. Now, the true ownership was already known, for how else did she get the ticket? Once the fact that the vehicle was a van and thus NOT her Toyota, the need to involve the owner would seem superfluous. Asking someone to "prove"? Prove what?

Lets see what they said:

A spokesperson from Lambeth Council said: "We share Miss Keiller's frustration but it is important she sends us the requested documentation as proof as soon as possible so we can look to cancel the ticket."

This is just mindless application of bureaucratic protocol and procedure. It has no basis in logic or reason. The fact that Lambeth persists in this charade is absurd. 

I am intrigued as to the reasons why.

Is it because the Council functionaries are ignorant and are just following a bad protocol?

Is it because the Council functionaries might have an idea if they bothered, but could not care less either way?

Is it because the Council functionaries cannot work out the unreason of all this and so dig in?

Is it because the Council functionaries know they are at fault but have decided that they must not be seen to back down?

Maybe they think they are right.

Considering the illogic one sees these days, I think it is the last option.

As the LPUK unofficial blog points out, the lady was asked to prove innocence, even when the evidence was clear. Now, if the clone was the same make, model and colour, that is another matter, but in this case, the demand as to proof of innocence is utterly unwarranted.

Just think of all the other ways you and I will get snagged as a Database State is built. Oyster Card cloned? Mobile Phone? Someone wearing the same clothes seen near a crime? Being in a pub at the same time as a dangerous subversive anti-authoritarian gang of cut-throats?

Who knows. Remember, these databases will not just be used to confirm facts or build evidence about known suspects, they will be used for fishing expeditions and trawled with a very big and destructive dragnet. Innocent people will be pulled in, left on the deck gasping for god-knows-how-long until such time as they might be thrown back. In what condition?

* far more dangerous than beating someone up in the street or intimidating passers by for months on end, you understand.

Dept of the Bleeding Obvious: Good Heads = good results.

It seems that Ofsted actually had to do a study to "find out" what common factors led to the turn-around in a number of previously "sink" schools.

Anyone with two braincells to rub together would, without a study or any form of Educationalist mumb0-jumbo, probably come up with the same answer.

A strong Head who kicked out sloppy and ill-disciplined teachers and disruptive kids.

What is certain is that, if left unchecked, the Satanic Embrace of the LEA and Teaching Unions would stop Heads and as likely as not hound them into early retirement or worse.

At one school the benchmark - for what it is - of 5GCSEs rose from 18% to 80%. And no, they did not expel 3/4 of the kids*.

The Fabian entropic model has held sway too long - excuses for poor performance because the area is  "deprived", which is, frankly, poppycock. These people WANT a dependent underclass. Ignorant, sloppy and lazy. Damn them all.

Kids are, almost always, a blank sheet. They can all become responsible, thinking, caring individuals. If the area they grow up in a rough area, now called "disadvantaged with a multi-faceted nexus of urban ills", and their parents, for whatever reason, do not provide structure, routine, discipline and aspiration, it is all the more important for the school to provide it. I am not saying schools MUST by central fiat, but if you leave things alone enough parents and professional teachers will create those environments. Yes, society, not the State, will create the environment so that the disadvantaged can climb the ladder. The School can be an oasis of safety, stimulation, order, fun and reinforcement in such areas. Right now, far too many just reflect the degenerating, violent, turd- and litter-strewn streets around them.

This is not rocket science. Schools run as a tight ship need not be brutal dungeons that conceal paedophiles and sado-masochists. If you ask me the real S&M fiends are those who both meddle and stand aside in turn while year after year of children are condemned to a bleak, narrow and grey life where highlights are Celeb Trivia and a Bargain Bucket O'Wings (plus sides). To what end? Oh, I forgot, an endless stream of new "customers" for the Social Services and Educationalists to pick over.

LEAs. Close them all down. NOW.

* 5 marks if you show your working out.

And now they track more of our movements

We hear there is a plan to build a database of all our travel movements. 

Of course, they say it is to fight illegal immigration...so why do they need to know if, when, how and with whom I, a citizen, travel?

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, defended the plans. “The UK has one of the toughest borders in the world and we are determined to ensure it stays that way. Our high-tech electronic borders system will allow us to count all passengers in and out and targets those who aren’t willing to play by our rules.”

Now, I think everyone will agree that Phil Woolas is probably one of the most odious lickspittles known even to the Labour Party. A nasty, spiteful piece of work with a voice suited to the role of Lord High Prod Nose.

How, Phil, is it "high tech" to keep a list on a disk drive, eh? Maybe it is "high tech" to the bunch of half-wits you keep hiring from "the usual suspects". If you are just keeping the records, then that is all it is to do, right? 

Well, it becomes a little "high tech" when the data is scanned proactively to see if there are any potential patterns. If a pattern is seen how soon with those involved be asked to "explain themselves" or become subject to covert surveillance or other investigations with or without warrant? How soon before presumption of guilt over innocence? How soon, Phil, you bureaucrat? How soon before this information is cross-referenced to other information? Very soon a department of proactive snoopers will grow, mark my words. It will. Anyone who says it won't is ignorant of the DNA of a State. A State wants to control, monitor, seek out, manage. It is what it does. "If only we had more or better information" they say. This is why the terrorist angle is so convenient, for then it gives a veneer of justification to demand people say who they really are and put a credible punishment to it - for if nobody is being defrauded, no punishment evaded by travelling under another name, then there is no crime. There still is no crime in law, but now we have "legislation" to make it so.

An administration run by the Libertarian Party would not even bother with the "non dom" issue, for Income Tax would be abolished so there would be no need to track chattel citizens. If you ever failed to "get" why abolishing Income Tax is so much better for freedom than, say, abolishing VAT, surely this now shows you why Income Tax makes you chattel, a cow to be milked, owned by the farmer. Surely this now shows you why the Libertarian Party is right to abolish a tax that gives the State first call on your earnings and in so doing makes them believe they own you and you owe them.

This is why the only people trusted to run a State are those who think it is an evil thing that is necessary if and only if it is the least bad way of doing things.

My movements should only be disclosed once a warrant has been issued. The State does not "own" me. I do not belong to the State, the State is there for my benefit, not for me to be some tax or vote farm for ITS benefit, so it can employ more like-minded parasites. 

The best way to achieve stronger borders isis to have a plurality of non government entities recording citizens data - private, mutual, listed, non-profit. The government wants to know about us? Go ask a Judge and prove you have probable cause to suspect a crime has or is being committed.

I am not one of the State's Gollywogs - as in rag doll toy representing a subservient human chattel, for colour is NOT the offence in relation to the doll - a black doll is not offensive per se. The perceived notions of slavery, subordination, cowed, whipped and oppressed soul enslaved and forced to dance to their master's tune is the issue with the Gollywog. Under a government such as this we all become Gollywogs - black, white, brown and yellow. That is how Socialist "equality" works. 

The colour of your face does not matter as long as the State boot is stamping on  it.

Obama: The US Declaration of Independence Affirmed

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thus opens the US Declaration of Independence and on the 20th of January 2008 we see the first non-Caucasian President of the United States of America. Although he is labelled such, Obama is not strictly "African American", IMHO, to do so is to unwittingly perpetuate the racist notion that anyone not 100% white was "coloured". Obama is half Kenyan and half Irish American*. He is as much Irish American as African American. The idea that one can only cling to and validate via an African lineage occurs in the UK too, where anyone with any trace of African blood labels themselves "Black". I am deeply curious as to why this happens. Is it cultivated? Does it ensure separateness? Does it foster victimhood? It might be because it is just plain cool. I, however, am suspicious and have every reason to be so when the Fabian stalks the earth in pursuit of fragmentation, passivity, victimhood and on the hunt for self-reliance and spontaneous unity. I think the term "Latte" should be used - special because of the blend of milk and coffee.

The BBC seem intent to hide the facts of Obama, talking about his Kenyan Father and his mother "from Kansas", but what else do we expect from that shower.

However, this is not the main thrust of this post, for there are countless posts on Obama (or, given the masturbatory way the BBC are behaving, I am surprised they don't call him "Onana"). No, this is to highlight a passage in that same US Declaration of Independence which is relevant to us today in the UK, faced as we are with a treasonous Administration and an Authoritarian Superstate "over the water".

Specifically the following:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.[1]

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.[2]

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.[3]

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:[4]

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences[5]

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

[1] = QANGOs, Regional Development Angencies &c.

[2] = PCSOs, Bailiffs and other prod-nosed Local Council "officers", ACPO.

[3] = European Armed Forces attempts to usurp those of Britain and be the overall commander.

[4] = The EU writ large, with most of the sub clauses being relevant but in particular

[5] = Consenting to extraterritorality of Nation State courts, automatic extradition with limited evidence within Europe and the disgraceful consent to the extradition of British Citizens to the United States of America for crimes not committed by US Citizens, not on US entities, not on US soil (Nat West 3).

The EU is acting like King George III. We are having our English Common Law dismantled and bypassed for the convenience of the State and a SuperState that wishes to rule over us.

There is no point looking to Europe for those responsible, for they are a nest of Communists and other Authoritarians. The real responsibility lies in those whose very purpose is to resist utterly the attempts by such. Labour is bang-to-right on this. The Liberal Democrats are chock full of Federasts and spineless appeasers. The Tories look like they are in fear of the EU so are conforming to the rules necessary to avoid their being an outlaw party in a few years time (i.e. when only pan-European Parties or parties in a pan-European Grouping can stand for Election). Cameron is interested in winning the next election, which is not bad per se, but is when the term "at any cost" is attached, which, as far as I can tell, it is. He just wants to win a 5 year soap powder contract that is binding on us but non-binding on him. He will promise whatever, he will, if you pardon the phrase, sell the shit out of his soap just to land the deal. Maybe I am wrong, but I await evidence to the contrary.

*So, being 1/8th Irish, I can be proud that another Irishman has made it to the White House!

Follow-up to Polly Fetishising

I really have to say a bit more about Polly's statements in her latest article. My goodness, what a mess she is in.

Before I touch on specifics, Polly is irrational. We know this, yes, but what I am saying is Polly is YET AGAIN irrational and here is another example. 

When is she going to realise that the Middle Class is basically the Working Class who have entered the professions or made money or, dare I say the term "bettered themselves" which is what most want to do or did want to do before the entropic influences of the Welfare State and the inverted snobbery leeched into them by the Champagne Socialists and Fabian Fifth Column to "keep them in their place". 

It is Sisyphean task, for as soon as you have moved "working class" people in, they cease to be "working class". Seeing as there are more working class than middle class and very few jobs in the professions overall, you will end up pushing OUT those who have made it before they retire to make way for the next batch of "working class" based on utterly bankrupt, dysfunctional, wrong-headed but oh-so-predictable quota targets beloved of this administration.

This is before we get to the crux that the State cannot "give" opportunities. Opportunities, by definition, are not "given" but "seized". Scholarships are an example of an opportunity seized. The poor-but-bright kid has solid proof of their worth vs. their richer peers who might have got in more by inertia than talent, though to generalise is to also be moronic - many children of Middle Class families are exceptional human beings and have every right to be at the top.

Just as the State cannot "give" opportunities, it cannot "empower" by positive action. Empowerment is, basically, NOT oppressing, micro-managing, second-guessing or interfering. Not controlling, in fact. The State is UESLESS at not controlling areas it is involved in. It is usless at stopping itself controlling more things as it is, let alone being sensible about areas it IS involved in! It is about letting the individual have authority and responsibility over their own future. That is empowerment. That is something the State can only hope to grow by LEAVING PEOPLE ALONE and GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THEIR WAY. It would be appreciated.

Not sure if I want to pick apart Polly's blatherings now, but I will just touch on a few points, one or two of jaw-dropping inanity. And she is PAID to write this? Oh, forgot - The Guardian is subsidised by all those Public Sector jobs...and this policy by Harman is likely to spawn a whole rash of new "equality advisors" and "empowerment czars". "'Polly publishes puff piece' - probe".

First, she says: 

Harman's law is Labour's biggest idea for 11 years

Which basically says the last 11 years were filled with something worse than total hogwash, spite, second-rate class-war obsession and disingenuous blather. Polly has said a truth.

Next, Polly goes on to say: 

A public-sector duty to close the gap between rich and poor will tackle the class divide in a way that no other policy has

Er, dismally? Since when is the Public Sector a tool of social engineering? Oh, yes, we are discussing Socialists here, where EVERYTHING is a "legitimate" tool of social engineering. The public sector is paid to do a specific functional job, not push ideology. The duty of the Public Sector is to deliver the services to the taxpayer, not spend time internally faffing about trying to bend reality into unreality.

Inequality is the root cause of social immobility.

Utter claptrap. Social immobility is caused by many things. With no inequality, social immobility would be universal. Without a difference, mobility is not possible! Inequality is the starting point FOR mobility. How can you rise if you are prevented from being above anyone else? In this is the basis for the utter unreason at the centre of Socialism and why it ends up levelling down and not levelling up. Social immobility occurs when it is not a meritocracy. Period. Race, gender, religion, politics, geography, perceived extant income can all stifle social mobility and this occurs in both directions, as discrimination is what we are talking about here. By preventing someone from the South East getting on even if they have the ability because the quota for the NE has not been reached is a hindrance to Social Mobility. Quotas will NOT help. "Positive" discrimination is still discrimination.

However, politicians of all parties are happiest talking about "opportunity", pulling the ablest up the ladders - without too many questions asked about why the ladders are so steep, and why the distance is so great from bottom to top. It is a great deal less controversial than talk of narrowing the gap itself.

Well, the first sentence is nonsense as I have said above. The issue is to not police the ladders, but let those who can climb them, climb them. The ladders need to be as steep and as long as necessary so those who reach the top are capable for the roles that exist there. They are that long for a reason. Now, some suggest that some can join the ladder half way up because of good education and family environment. Do you think it is better to not try and fix the education and family environment and somehow guess who would have made it up the lower section? How can that possibly be determined. The best way is to remove negative influences on the family environment - Welfarism being one massive example - and fix the educational system by, you guessed it, getting the dead hand of the State out of the way. No, it is not "perfect" by a long way, but it is the least bad way of doing things and the most sustainable. It is also the simplest and cheapest. Fix the causes, not try and mitigate the symptoms.

Labour gets round this by promising to increase the demand for top jobs

I include this as an example of the dysfunctional control-freakery and delusion of Socialists that they can actually sustainably change things in this way. Companies will increase demand for top jobs. The only way the State can is to create non-jobs in the Bureaucracy and QANGOcracy. Note they will then have to "do" something, which will be to interfere in the lives of the population. Pure Fabianism. Ghastly. Damnable. Authoritarianism on the road to Totalitarianism.

The entire premise is wrong-headed. It is stupid in the extreme. It is typical of Harriet Harman, who cannot see beyond her own prejudices and addled thinking. You cannot have the working class making up an equal ratio of the top jobs unless you constantly churn people into and out of the Middle Classes, and thrust those in already down again. It is just a reality. Frankly, I can see this as being a nice way to make sure people only remain in post if they "behave" and are "good little Fabians". It makes everyone beholden to the fickle whim of the State. It is a Fencepost. A way to ensure people can be removed not because they are bad - they can be very good - but because they do not behave. The White Paper provides an easily justified but centrally managed excuse - "make way for the poor".

So let us outline the Fencepost. It is to implant a totally unrealistic and unachievable target/metric that is centrally controlled as an arbiter to the right of employment. First the public sector, then spreading to the entire economy. Of course the system will not work in the public sector, but the excuse will be that it is "just" the public sector and so "must" be widened as all those nasty private sector companies are undermining the "good work". This fencepost will be lined up neatly with another which covers the right to the Public Sector to only give out contracts to companies who conform to their employment or other criteria, which is either in place or on the way as I blog. This other Fencepost lines up with the moves for the State to get involved in more and more aspects of the commercial sector or be an arbiter on greater an greater areas of commercial activity because of its distorting influence and asymmetrical legal power. It is, basically, the new generation of Enclosures, the State being, in effect, Nationalised Feudalism. The Harman plans are like a Feudal Lord dispossessing Yeoman to make way for landless peasants just because the Yeoman has grown from a landless peasant. It is, indeed, "Socialism in one clause" - it is entropic, levelling down...unless you are a good little lickspittle, for the decision criteria is made by the party, not by a huge plurality of independent companies.

It is another Fabian wet dream.

What will the Tories or Lib Dems do with this turd if they got into power? Tinker, I suspect.

The Libertarian Party will repeal this legislation at the first opportunity.