The Census, Part 2.

A letter has arrived at Fort Thornhill.

It is addressed to "The Occupier", but begins with "Dear Householder".

These two people are not the same. My hamster is an Occupier, but is not yet the Householder.

If I gave the letter to him, I think he would make very good use of it - probably better use of it than most of these letters sent out. Very good advice too - he'll sleep on it*.

What is interesting is the language used.

They "ask" for the Census to be completed, yet threaten one with a fine for non-completion. Why don't they just admit their aggression? No, that would not be the Fabian way. It would be more honest to just send a letter with "WHERE IS IT!!!?" in big bold letters. That would match their intent. "HAND IT OVER OR WE TAKE YOUR STUFF".

The letter then outlines various statutes that give this activity the veneer of legitimacy. Any despotic regime can get laws passed to suit its purpose.

Next is a variation on the disingenuous Fabian mumble-swerve that The Ministry is pumping out at our expense -

"Census information is important and is used to help plan and fund the services that you, your family and your community will need in the years ahead"

Now, first off, "important and...". Note it is "important" AND it is used to "help plan...". It is not important TO plan, no. It is "important", full stop. Of course it is "important" to G Watson, 2011 Census Director, for it is his/her rice-bowl. He/she has a vested interest in making this exercise appear as "important" as possible. It might be "important" to those who want to sell on the data. It might be "important" to those prod-noses who have the utter conceit to think they, and they alone, can steer, mould, direct the lives of others. Yes, The Lives of Others. The wise and renowned Sir John James Cowperthwaite KBE CMG, Financial Secretary to Hong Kong, 1961-71, made a point of NOT collecting statistics, because he knew, once collected, the Administration would then begin to INTERFERE. This Census is a massive Bureaucratic, Fabian Masturbation. It is stat-Pr0n of priapic proportions. It will be used to justify an endless stream of social engineering projects. That in itself is reason enough not to comply.

The information, we are told, will "help plan". If it will "help", is it therefore necessary to threaten me for that "help"? What does it "help plan", then?

"Services like schools, public transport and hospitals".

Schools are currently part of a de facto State monopoly, but that should not be the case. It has no business being a monopoly. When it is not, then the reasons for State planning goes away. The State can barely respond as it is. Hospitals are they key to the information about schools, as they record most births. There is no need to know WHO a 4 year old is to provide them with a school place. There is no guarantee that that child will be in the same Borough in four years time. All the children who will be handled by a school, the school will know when they get applications. Before then it is vague guesswork. Do you think the modelling will be improved by the Census over collecting anonymous births+postcode? I very much doubt it. Hospital records update every day, whereas the Census is once every decade. It is almost USELESS for the purpose of school management. FAIL.

Hospitals might benefit from knowing demographics, but all that information should be easily collected and bang up to date via the local GPs. Again, this can be anonymous when used for planning and can be enforced by the GP-Patient bond of trust. FAIL.

Public transport takes decades to install. Voter records, vehicle registrations at the DVLA and other sources of information can be used to "help plan". A once in 10 years snapshot is not going to cut it, now, is it? Not unless you start asking damn fool intrusive questions, it will not! FAIL.

So, the three examples of why this will "help plan" - note that even their own letter does not say it is actually "important" for this process, just that it will "help plan" - shows that the Census is, at best, not much use, will immediately be out of date and is hardly justified to threaten people over. In fact, it is probably worse than useless. It will be misleading. It will give false value to crock.

Next up

"Your personal information is protected by law and is kept confidential for 100 years"

Seeing as HMG have contracted the processing of the data to an entity that is legally bound in its own country to hand over any or all information without delay or right of appeal to the US Government, the concept of "confidential" used here is very much different from mine. HMG must be aware of the status of that entity, so cannot complain to it when it has to fulfil its obligations. HMG would therefore be party to any disclosure and responsible for it. Further, the statutes enable HMG to hand over the information to various, unnamed, and as yet determined, third parties who will promise never never ever, cross their heart and hope to die, to blab it to others or to enable people, in exchange for a padded brown envelope, gain access to the data. It is a joke. Probably "confidential" means that the USE of it will be kept confidential...from us, for they do not aim to tell me when or who, let alone ASK me if I want the information divulged.

The Census is being operated without my consent. It is unnecessary for the pathetic reasons they think we will believe that it is essential. It is being operated with covert threats and coercion. It will almost certainly increase State interference in our lives and entrench monopolies that are funded by coercion and threats.

When one is threatened to act, that action is not "help", but at best servitude, but more serfdom approaching if not reaching slavery.

I am not livestock to be tagged. As I said in my previous post on this topic, we should have an audit of THEM. They are ours, not the other way around.

* do not worry, Hamster fans, I fear for the inks in the paper, so would not risk the health of said occupier.

The Census

The coming census, one that is to be collated by a US arms manufacturer who is compelled by US "law" to hand over ANY information they hold to the US government.

This is a textbook example of an attempt to conduct treason in plain sight.

I am not cattle. I am not a piece of inventory.

WE pay their salaries, so why is it THEY have the audacity to force US to tell THEM against OUR will?

We should be the ones doing a census on the STATE - where they live, how much they earn, how many kids. The car they drive. The sort of house they live in. Their religion. Number of holidays. Ethnicity. TV sets. PS3s. So WE who pay, WE who suffer them can see if bias, fraud, bloat or any other malpractice occurs.

Ha! I say "if".

We should begin with the House of Commons - go in and conduct a census to ask them the questions and "promise not to disclose to anyone except people who have or will pay us for the data but we shan't tell you whom nor ask for your consent when we do".

Why MPs first? Well, these people are the ones who are supposed to represent US, not their parties, not the State nor the Executive, but US, the voters. They are supposed to be our voice in Parliament, not a bunch of Farmers with his livestock going to market to get the best bids or to trade the milk he extracts.

They will refuse, so why should we accept it from them?

They need to remember who works for whom. No, I correct myself, they need to be TOLD whom works for whom, because I see no evidence of any stand in Parliament to stop this cattle drive.

Jacqui Smith: Hypocrisy and Conflation

Jacqui Smith is a hypocrite. Further to her blatant display of parasitism, she now goes on to say:

"Coming to the UK is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life. Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here.

Well, Jacqui, your fiddling and disingenuous and mealy-mouthed self-justification via the letter and not spirit of the regulations is abusing our standards and values, and undermines our way of life. Coming from a Home Secretary is obscene to start with. This is why when you pontificate as above, you just make yourself out to be a ridiculous hypocrite. Life is about what you SHOULD do, Jacqui, not what you CAN.

Jacqui then goes on to conflate "extremism", which is rather a nebulous opinion, with presumption of guilt and throws in erosion of the freedom of speech, to boot:

"The Government opposes extremism in all its forms and I am determined to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country. This is the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour".

I consider New Labour's Authoritarianism as "extreme" and unacceptable behaviour, so by that definition, it needs to be excluded, no? Only when it impinges on my life must it be curbed in my view, and right now it needs to be curbed, but not "excluded" from the country. No, let them rave on, so that others may know them mad.

If these people actually commit crimes of incitement, then they need to come here first, surely? If these were murderers or rapists or actually proven guilty of conspiracy to commit outrages then I might understand their being excluded, but "potential thought crimes" are another matter.

Bigots and rabble-rousers need to be exposed, ridiculed and confronted with rational argument.

One day Jacqui or her successor may refuse the return of a UK citizen because they are an Anti-Statist "extremist", or an anti-EU "extremist". If and only if we do not bring in a Libertarian Party government, I suspect this will happen at some stage.

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!

Alcohol: All Three Major Parties are a joke

On the issue of minimum prices for Alcohol, it now appears that Gordon Brown has done the right thing by deciding to do nothing. Maybe he should learn the lesson and apply it towards the economic debacle we now face.

The Tories propose more meddling

Andrew Lansley, Shadow Health Secretary, said: “There is clearly a need for action. But it is very important to recognise that we need to deal with people’s attitudes and not just the supply and price of alcohol.”

He said that Conservative proposals, which include measures to tackle loss-leader promotions and higher taxes on high-alcohol drinks aimed at young people, would address this without penalising the majority of moderate drinkers. “This would seem to be a much better route to go down than distorting the whole drinks market, which in any case may not be legal.”

so they show their Authoritarian, micromanagement feathers. As such they can just clear off.

The Liberal Democrats are worse:

The Liberal Democrat culture, media and sport spokesman Don Foster backed Sir Liam’s call. “The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the ridiculously cheap below-cost price of alcohol in some of our supermarkets and off-licences is a key contributor to the problem of binge drinking,” he said. “There is clear research showing that putting an end to pocket money-priced alcohol will influence drinking behaviour. While more work needs to be done on the details, we welcome Sir Liam’s intervention and hope that the Government will act.”

proving the point recently repeated by DK, that the LDs are neither Liberal, nor "democratic", as in the commonly held understanding of the term to mean basically upholding Rule of Law.

Gordon has such a poor Political Compass, I wonder who advised him against it. Gordon's demagnetised political compass was bought at the same shop as those held by LibDems, but in their case it appears they believe in such twaddle root and branch.

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.

Fencepost No. 12: Religion replaces Science and Reason as a means of discourse

I just want to flag up another Fencepost - the acceptance by the Establishment of unreason and unscientific justifications to impose opinion upon all, to make it policy, to enact it in legislation (I do not call such things "law"). Religion, in all but name. This is as a result of back-to-back posts at Dick Puddlecote. Please read them. I joined the dots.

The religious mindset we have recently seen in the sphere of Anthropogenic Global Warming, now renamed to Climate Change (while pulling up the ladder to reason, inquiry, doubt and common sense, natch) has also existed in the temperance movement - the demon drink.

This has not been of such great concern in the past for, unlike the AGW mob - and they are a mob, happy to leverage the Tyranny of the Minority/Majority - the Temperance Movement has been almost purely about a religious standpoint. As such, it has remained a matter more of personal choice and conviction and as such easier to keep in its box. That does not mean it has not wished to get out of its box and force us all to comply, but I suspect over the years a Fabian approach was preferred.

Recently, however, they seem to have lost patience as well as reason and hijacked Science and we have the lobbying of various bodies growing. Others do it, so... The biggest bootstrapped scam is the "20 units per week" wibble. As Dick exposes, the head of Weatherspoons consumes 40+ units and the chap who came up with* the number, he suggests, did not believe it. 20 units of Stella vs 40 of Real Ale or Champagne? I'd venture that the latter is better for you. Units are meaningless, it is like saying "2lb of meat" not distinguishing between sausages and sirloin.

Into this mix we have the Anti-Smoking movement. This is an odd one. In some ways you could say it began as a true scientific health-based concern. It has mutated into a quasi Anti-Capitalist, Authoritarian thrust, (intentionally?) blurring the divide between anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism. Big Tobacco is a nice, easy, guilt-free punchbag for those of an anti-capitalist mindset, even though the actual stance would correctly be anti-corporatism. I wonder if some edge towards the anti-cap and away from anti-corp due to dissonance arising from Socialist views which tend to be happier with Corporatist activity.

All three contain loud advocates that use dodgy science, misleading and selective information and attack dissent with foaming, inquisitional fury. To them it is heresy to disagree.  It does not take much imagination to work out how they treat those who stand up to them. Reason, scientific rigour and personal choice are cast by the wayside.

So, the  Climate lobby never really used proper science and has now become a religion in all but name under the cloak of science. The Temperance Movement has rebranded itself, and is using made up figures and specious arguments but has also grabbed the cloak of science as a basis and to give it an excuse to become more aggressive and demanding. The Anti-smoking lobby has gone on a power trip of Authoritarian dimensions. Personal choice can go hang - all must obey. 

The Government has a duty to resist such snake oil. Yes, listen to reason and scientific evidence, but to begin to fund such groups to produce policy triggers? To not only listen but parrot their unreason? To pander to their desire for Authoritarianism and social tyranny? No. No. No.

As we know, however, our "Government" is chock full of de-educated Statist imbeciles. Authoritarianism and arbitrary control of the personal sphere is like mother's milk to them.

* polite term for pulling it out of his arse

Jacqui Smith: Bare Faced Parasitism.

There is really no other word for it.

Jacqui Smith stays with her sister in South London and pays her rent for a room which she now calls her primary residence. 

Her husband - paid £40,000p.a. by us, the taxpayer - sits at what is claimed as the second home. 

The Homes Secretary can claim council tax (IIRC), fit out, repair and cover mortgage interest payments for such a residence.

Anyone with an ounce of self-respect, honour, integrity and professionalism would class the room she rents at her sister's house as the second home.

It is not good enough to say that the claims conformed to the letter of the law. It is just as, if not more important to obey the spirit of the law. 

For such acts and attitude from any public servant is appalling. For it to be held by the Home Secretary is an outrage. She had the bare-faced cheek to demand that only one question be asked on the matter. Pure and simple she cannot cope with reality and wishes to avoid being held to account, to avoid freedom of speech and to manipulate the message. This, our "Home Secretary".

Jacqui Smith should be sacked, let alone be permitted to step down. However, we are talking about an administration that has not a Tesla, not a Weber in regards to the magnetic polarity of their so-called "moral compass". 

New Labour is morally, economically, ideologically and spiritually bankrupt.

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.

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. 

More Econazism: Incandescent Light Bulbs

As many of you may know, the EU had previously slapped an import tariff on CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs). Anti dumping? Well, protecting German manufacturer Osram, more like.

So, they, the EU, are now banning the manufacture and sale of incandescent, i.e. "trad" lightbulbs at or above 100W, they say because of "green issues".

This is wrong on so many levels.

1) Alternatives are far from mature. 

CFLs:

take time to come on (when I turn a light on...I want it ON)

flicker, causing headaches

give off an ugly light

are often just not powerful enough.

they contain highly toxic mercury, so MUST be recycled. 

Apart from the above, if one shatters or breaks, you have to reach for your NBC suit...

The Government advice is:

• Vacate the room and ventilate it for at least 15 minutes.
• Do not use a vacuum cleaner.
• Clean up using rubber gloves and aim to avoid breathing in any dust.
• Sweep up all glass fragments and place in a plastic bag.
• Wipe the area with a damp cloth, add that to the bag and seal it.
• Don't put the bag in the bin. Take it a council amenity site or recycling centre where it can be handled as hazardous waste.

Nice. Just what I want around my home. 

LEDs:

Very expensive

Not powerful enough

Not dimmable in normal conditions*

2) The "replacement" is subject to protectionism, which means we, the consumer, have to pay more than the market rate to keep Osram execs in Mercedes Benz.

3) Traditional light bulbs give off heat. This is only a "waste" when outdoors and in summertime. Considering the ratio of lightbulb use in summer vs winter and the fact that most traditional bulbs are in domestic, interior settings, the "waste heat" is far less than people would initially deduce from a direct bulb-to-bulb comparisons.

4) The issue over CO2 is rapidly becoming a canard.

Damn them and damn the EU for forcing me to buy such hazardous products. Note the concept of force here. I am not being advised or encouraged via lower purchase prices and lower running costs - quite the reverse as the high up-front price of Corporate Welfare - but forced due to "legislation" (again, I will not tarnish the term "law" by using it here). The term "enviro-mental" rings ever more true.

I do believe that LEDs are the way, so it is half-cocked to go off banning the only viable alternative for human beings (unless your brain runs so slowly the 50Hz flicker is ok for you) until they are bright and cheap enough to take over.

This is another example of Authoritarianism, protectionism, Corporate Welfare and Eco Fascism from the EU.

It is not a case of "can we leave yet". I've never joined, so how do I make it legal so they stop pestering me?

* unlike EU ministers, who seem to come pre-dimmed.

Like a Kipper

Further to my post, below, about State intrusion, now that the Police can, without a paper trail, enter your hard drives, then surely anything that they find is inadmissible, seeing as it was not obtained with a warrant.

However, if they do subsequently get a warrant and enter the premises, there is no way of knowing if they, as in some other agency, did not plant any data "via the back door".

Who knows all the files on one's hard drive. A hidden file (very easy to do) can lurk on one's disk for months and then be 'discovered' by the Authorities. They can create supposedly old files and sneak them on at any time, giving the impression that the file has been around for ages.

One group could plant the evidence and then tip off the regular Plod who just come in, take away the machines and discover all manner of  material. As with the hapless chaps in Forest Gate, false, presumptive and self-serving leaks and rumours* can get out surprisingly fast - guilty until proven innocent.

Warrants were created for a very good reason. EUdenrats, Federasts and New Labour Lickspittles are clearly too arrogant and ignorant to realise how important they are. Forget the Boston Tea Party and taxation, the real unrest that spawned the American War of Independence was over the unwaranted (as in NO WARRANT) entry of private property by the King's Soldiers in search of documents not bearing the Stamp, and so the lack of the tax that goes with it. Sounds a bit like TV Licensing, if you ask me.

So, beware. A warrant is a vital part of property rights and thus Rule of Law. This has been tampered with. It is at their peril. They know not what they are doing, but think they do. Regardless, ignorance is no defence.

* they were "accused" of possessing child pr0n. It would be very easy to miss the retractions and corrections that dribbled out later, but by that time their names would be mud.

Fencepost No.11: Proposed Website Classifications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Timmy,

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

The excuse is about providing support to the Mother.

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

Lets see how this works.

1. Fabians begin to undermine traditional marriage.

2. State begins to fund single mums

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

4. Further funding and support for single mums.

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

6. Explosion in cost of Welfare

7. Gordon breaks Country's finances.

8. Coffers are empty.

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

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

How convenient.

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

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

* bit late, and the wrong gap, methinks.

"Unwarranted Interference" - Harriet Harman

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

Let us see that again:

"unwarranted interference".

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

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

Back Burner: Internet Provision

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

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

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

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

New Labour: Nationalised Feudalism.

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.

Keynes

Keynes famously said "When the facts change, I change my mind".

Alas, he was wrong from the outset, so as that fact did not change, neither did he change is mind.

He also said "In the long run we are all dead", which might give us a hint at why he was happy to mortgage the future.

Keynes is so utterly wrong, yet now at the very point when we should reject his dysfunctional, bankrupt ideology the more, Gordon Brown and Darling are embracing him.

Today's borrowing is taxation...with interest. Borrowing today reduces the spending power of every pound in every pocket, so it is an insidious, indirect and unavoidable taxation upon us all. It is taxation for the future, too, as that debt plus interest needs to be repaid. As WSC said, taxing your way to prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.

The only possible reason I can see for all this is that the Government wishes to conduct a scorched earth policy so that the next Tory government will be a short one. Ladder-kickers, the lot of 'em.

If you want to stimulate the economy, make it run faster, reduce the friction. Reduce government spending. 

It is an absurd notion to think that by taking money away from individuals, handing it to a bunch of the Government's pet friends, mainly in the construction industry, to then spend and employ people, that somehow those people employed and suppliers supplied will magically create demand across all the economy. How about just not doing anything so that everyone keeps their money and can spend it directly in the first place? How about REDUCING taxation so people feel more confident, can pay off their loans and then resume spending? Oh no, that alternative does not require the State to be involved. Its mates cannot get largesse. It is then not the arbiter, the director of resources. It will not be able to delude itself that it knows best.