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!

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.

Putting the Collective First

A crypto-grass-roots organisation has emerged to agitate and manipulate - "putting the collective people first".

Putting the obvious comments about the faux-edgy, with-it, urban, retina-busting website aside for a moment, lets just look at what they are saying on the surface, with Thornhill translation for the hard of spinning:

What are we demanding with menaces calling for?

The platform is united by three linked calls: Decent subsidised jobs and public services for the many all paid for by the enemy, end poverty by redefining it and inequality by pulling everyone down to the same level, build a green economy based on subsidy. More specific demands on the UK government are to:

• Create a ‘Green New Deal’ to create jobs in the environmental sector - Translation: Create a Econazi Charter to synthesize fake jobs and thus create costs in the rent-seeking, could-not-sell-otherwise sector.
• Invest in essential services including social housing - Translation: spend other people's money in areas we want to that give us and our mates salaried unemployment and provide subsidised housing for those we decide are worthy while those who work to pay for it live in cramped conditions unable to afford anything larger.
• Provide emergency funding to countries that need it to protect jobs and provide social protection - Translation: distort the economies of other countries to prolong the agony and delay the recovery.
• Tackle tax havens - especially those linked to the UK - Translation: make the globe subject to the same onerous, wealth-destroying, innovation-suppressing parasitical tax regimes, with self-loathing guilt thrown in.
• Insist on democratic reform of the World Bank and IMF - Translation: Force our form of Tyranny of the Majority on Supra-National organisations.
• Make all financial institutions and multinational corporations transparent and accountable - Translation: De facto nationalisation of financial institutions and multinational corporations, making them tools for our ends, thereby riding roughshod over property rights.
• Ensure that poorer states are allowed to take responsibility for managing their own economies rather than having liberalisation measures forced upon them - Translation: support protectionist, corrupt and totalitarian regimes around the world.
• Introduce robust regulatory requirements and financial incentives at national level and push for them at international level to stop climate chaos - Translation: Install a global mechanism for rent-seeking in pursuit of an unproven dogma while denying Mankind the wealth and means to mitigate natural cycles in climate change.
• Commit to substantial new resource transfer from North to South to support low carbon development - Translation: Commit to trying to salve guilt and self-loathing by making the rich poorer and the poor no richer.

Unfortunately, examination of proposed government solutions to date are either piecemeal, or advocate yet more ‘free’ trade policies, likely to only to make the crisis worse for moonbat policies.

Go on, believe it, you know it doesn't makes sense.

The Mask slips still futher

At times the Government puts up a little effort to pretend to be our elected representatives.

I now hear that the UK Police will be asked/allowed/enabled/directed to enter your property, vis your computer hard drive without your permission, without notification, nor with a warrant. They will do so if the active agent is a "foreign" Police force, i.e. another EU force.

Therefore, "our"* Government is happy to see our Police be a proxy for an EU Member State force, bypassing our Courts and English Common Law.

The EU is not one for Rule of Law and the EU is the source of this outrage. I doubt the EU will see it as an outrage, for it probably makes it "easier" for them to perform their activities -NEVER a sufficient justification for reducing the rights of the individual.

This Labour Administration has shown it is now no more than an EU Gaulieter. The UK Police is clearly considered no more superior with regards to our liberties than any other EU force. We have seen how foreign courts can demand the UK Police jump and arrest someone, but again, I do believe that the UK Government no longer considers them "foreign", just as they do not appear to consider other EU forces as "foreign".

This is how it now appears - that the Labour Administration does not consider EU Member States as "foreign", nor the EU Parliament, nor the EU Commission, but views the UK as just a collection of Regions with no more or less sovereignty over us as any other EU Region.

Come on, you bunch of Fabian Fifth Columnist lickspittles. Admit it. Have the stones. Then we can begin your trial for Treason.

BTW, forget the Tory Administration, they are Centrists who are part of the problem. The LibDems are a nest of Fabians for sure. Any Libertarians therein have got to realise this now, especially after the horsetrading that is going on over some so-called "National Unity" Government. Anyone who thinks this will do anything other than swallow up and spit out the Lib Dems is naive. Not forgetting that UKIP has an historic membership of albatrosses who are united by one thing only - a hatred of all things EU, so the true Libertarians therein are also up the swanee.

Nope, the one party that stands for Rule of Law, yet sees the EU and a bloated State as a threat to it, is the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is the one party that will not stand in the way** of you to live your own private life as Tory or as Socialist as you want to be, as long as you do not try and coerce others to be also, or make them pay for it against their will. Set up your voluntary workers collective or go it alone and set yourself moral standards...for yourself, we will not stop you. Try and impose your dogma on others and you have another thing coming, mind.

* "our" as in a cockroach found in one's kitchen could be considered "one's cockroach".

** note the term "not stand in the way", as opposed to the language of the others, which talks of "allowing". Allow - who do they think they are!

"Social Justice" addling the mind of IDS

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

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

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

Social Justice is an odious term. It is built upon the concept of "social rights" upon which I would not need to improve upon the words of J.S. Mill:

So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify.

Wrongheaded.

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

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

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

Taxpayers are forced to subsidise housing that people could end up gaining equity in for free just because those people have paid a subsidised rent on time and not misbehaved.

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

It is, in a word, extortion.

Fencepost No. 10: Regional Ministers

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

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

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

Not everyone is happy over the plans, however.

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

And we get some classic doublethink and unreason from the Harridan herself:

Commons leader Harriet Harman said the committees would "plug the accountability gap" and improve the scrutiny of regional health and economic development bodies with huge annual budgets.

Yes, Harriet, there was risk of some accountability, so you have plugged it up for good by giving these odious synthetic geographies credibility they have done NOTHING to deserve. Note how she mentions "huge annual budgets". Well, who gave them that huge annual budget without accountability, then, Harriet? What on EARTH do they provide, in reality? If you want to resolve the "accountability gap" and deal with "huge annual budgets" then CLOSE THE SCUMBAGS DOWN. Simple. And before anyone says anything, they will NOT be missed.

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

One day this government will get its Ceauşescu Moment.

Brown-Straw Bill of Wrongs

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are not.

At the very best this Bill will be the Tyranny of the Majority, but I suspect it will be the Tyranny of the Minority, a Tyranny of pressure groups and vested interests. It will begin the codification of "social justice", which as a word ranks in vileness alongside "deprivation", "progressive" and "entitlement". As you may know, social justice comes from the concept of social rights and social rights, as J.S. Mill has said, are "monstrous":-

A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language--being nothing short of this--that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious, passes any one's lips, it invades all the "social rights" attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Treason: Sharia "Courts" in the UK

It was hinted and "nudged", but finally the news is out (anything to distract from Gordon's woes, I suppose) that Sharia "courts" are operating in the UK.

This is both treasonous and utterly wrong-headed.

1. The UK operates an adversarial system where one has a right to defend oneself and be judged by a jury of one's peers. This was created for very good reason - Rule of Law. In Sharia, there is no right to speak or present evidence. The "judge" will decide what evidence will be "permitted" and can disregard whatever they feel like. For all its bogus "religious" pretensions, Sharia is Rule by Men, not Rule of Law.

2. Anyone who thinks this will not result in coercion to agree to a Sharia court is naive, a "useful idiot".

3. Anyone who thinks this will not result in calls for any case involving a Muslim or extension to criminal cases is also naive and a "useful idiot".

Now, Sharia as a voluntary arbitration with no force in law is another thing entirely, for that occurs in a multitude of social interactions, not just Sharia. What is now occurring is quite different - a legally enforceable wedge. It is discriminatory, unequal, divisive, Mediaeval and if people want to live that way personally, then it is their funeral, but it is another thing to tarnish what can be described as the best legal system in the world, English Common Law,

by making it recognise a backwards leap.

This is the work of self-loathers, quislings, appeasers. I suspect most Muslim citizens of the UK will be against this too. It is the last thing they need.

The Libertarian Party will kick this nonsense back to where it belongs - a private matter between individuals.

Keep up my mortgage payments, says Phillips (Track Changes)

Pay my mortgage Fight class divide, says Phillips

Mr Phillips said he was people were "very keen" for change

The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be given something to do the power to fight the class divide in Britain, its rent-seeking chairman has said.

Trevor Phillips told BBC Radio 4's World at One he would launch a "new assault" on common sense inequality and wanted an excuse for extension to the organisation's existence remit.

The economic slowdown meant his people were "very keen" for something to do change.

Everyone was "happy to take some of the payment pain as long as that payment pain is shared amongst me and my mates fairly", Mr Phillips added.

'Extremely self important'

A report by the commission now says there is too much "vertical" division in Britain between social classes.

It states: "We are not just limiting our job description [of inequality] by gender or race but we are also looking at this extremely important issue of our mortgage payments class."

Mr Phillips said: "We have decided to invent tackle the causes that supposedly drive inequality in our society to suit our warped, self-serving agenda and I think, to be honest, the public is very, very easily misled keen on this at the present time.

"People can see the economic slowdown coming. Everyone but us is happy to take some of the pain as long as that pain is shared fairly and what we want to do is to make sure that the burden doesn't fall on us unfairly on some groups rather than others."

BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton said this was "a radical departure which is likely to be criticised by some as an implicitly political policy from a statutory body that must remain independent of party ideology". No sh*t, Sherlock!

It would "mean taking on the wealthy and educated middle class who are already struggling to keep their heads above water despite the best efforts of rent-seeking parasitical self-loathers adept at playing the system to the advantage of their families", he added.

The commission was invented established in 2007, replacing the Equal Opportunities Commission as the QANGO keeping Phillips in free sandwiches and to give him a reason to put on silly glasses and shave his peanut-shaped head of a morning..

My apologies to the BBC.

Who Will Rid Us...

...of this turbulent Priest?

The bearded old goat Archbishop of Canterbury, thinks that adoption of elements of Sharia in the UK is "inevitable".

I suppose anything bad is "inevitable" when you are a self-loathing, guilt-ridden fifth columnist like "Dr"* Rowan.

He is an imbecile. A dangerous "useful idiot", a panderer, an appeaser. I suppose he is hoping for a seat at some religious table, but you bet he would be happy with a subordinate seat, as long as he had a seat. He is a loathsome creature.

Let us not be mistaken. Anyone who thinks that Sharia will remain an option once it gets its claws into the system is a fool. It is Totalitarian creed practised by Totalitarians. I suspect it is touted as an option, a "voluntary" code as long as both sides wish it. Do you really think for an instant that this will remain so? Very soon it will become mandatory, maybe not in law, but by brute aggression. Muslims will be intimidated to conform to Sharia "courts". It is easy to see how it can be done - if you do not, you are not "muslim", but apostate...and we all know what that can lead to. Once this is entrenched, we will see demands for any dispute or legal action involving a Muslim to be performed via Sharia "courts". Sharia "courts" will become the "superior" system, and by superior I do not in any way suggest better - quite the reverse - just in terms of precedent over people's lives.

Sharia "courts" operate the inquisitional system as happens in Europe. A "judge" collects evidence and makes a judgement. There is no right to your day in court, no right to cross examine. It is not the adversarial system we have where defence and prosecution work to produce the evidence before a jury which is then advised by a judge, but who's advice the jury can decline to take. We are judged by our peers in the UK, for all its faults, not some self-absorbed, bearded totalitarian with a chip on his shoulder.

Inquisitional systems are VERY BAD for Rule of Law.

We have recently seen the moonbattery that is paying out benefits to imported illegal extra wives. We see more hints at pandering:

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at." Gordon Brown.

This is the road to serfdom. Let me say that again. This is the road to Serfdom. Very soon we will see the need to get "approval" from the MCB or whohaveyou to ensure that any new tax is "Islamic". They will have a veto, or even finagle an exemption. They will get to see the budget before anyone else and their approval will be sought. It is utterly unacceptable. We saw hints of this when the MCB were worming their pimply backsides into meetings to "pre approve" anti-terror raids. MADNESS.

To "Dr" Williams, Gordon Brown, Jack "shit" Straw, the MCB and all totalitarian mysogenistic bearded goats out there I have a message for you:

If you want a disgusting inquisitional legal system, live in a place that practices it. England has the finest legal system known to mankind - HANDS OFF.

* "Dr of fairy tales" does not really wash with me, frankly.

Double Dose of Moonbattery: Hygene and Polygamy

We see two examples of utter moonbattery.

First, some Mulsim medical students are refusing to wash themselves properly due to the fact they consider it "immodest". Fine, they are free to think that and to not wash themselves, so long as they don't become a nurse or a doctor. I cannot see how such a person, once "qualified" would be able to properly treat a male stranger anyhow. Ah, lets follow this logic. Once qualified, such practitioners will go on to demand to be given roles in "women only" environments attended by women who also do not want to be treated by "men", i.e. special Muslim Women environments. Of course, once these are in place, the bleating and complaining will ensure that such a unit shall not be less funded or have lower standards than any other facility otherwise the discrimination flag will be raised. Think about that for a moment: no worse than any other, sounds innocent enough, doesn't it? Or does it - that means at least equal to the best, or better than the best. DO NOT PRESUME THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE. Cannot the Government see how the wedge is being slowly put in place?

No, I forgot our Government is chock full of self-loathers, panderers and imbeciles.

Talking of which, we also see that the DWP is to give additional benefits for polygamy, i.e. benefits for Muslim men. It includes housing support, so I suspect we will see a room for each wife and all the 6 and 7 bed properties snapped up by the State to provide subsidised housing! Who decided that nonsense? There is absolutely NO reason to have even put this forward. Which pressure group was behind this? Why on EARTH even spend a microsecond considering if such an idea was even worth considering? Who went totally out of their way to put this forward? Why was it not thrown out immediately? Have they not enough things to spend our money on? Who ARE these people? Who lobbied for this?

I WANT NAMES!

Pat Condell pulls no punches pt94.

The ever-dry, rapier wit of Pat Condell sets about the Canadian HRC dhimmitude.

Pat socks it to'em.

This is a nice augmentation to the ongoing exposure of the 'tyranny of the banal', the very lawsuit mentioned, which is going on in Canada. The Trench picks out an excellent soundbite, which pretty much nails it "I don't answer to the State".

"...ok"

Spot on. The above vid reminds me of Pulp Fiction when Tarantino was "discussing" with Jules and Vincent about coffee, storage, brains and getting f***ing divorced*.

We shall not grant them the moral authority, for they neither deserve it, nor are able to exercise it. These Fifth Columnists, these self-loathers need a mirror held up to their miserable faces for a reality check.

* no counselling, no trial separation...

Gordon Brown: Town Clerk of Britain pt.2

The scumbags have done it.

Gordon Brown can sign his own sovereignty away if he so wishes. He can become an indentured servant or a lickspittle to a tyrannical regime, even, but the creep has no god-damn right to sign away MY rights and freedoms.

Enough to warm the cockles...

I see The Grauniad has a piece up about "Every English Region Should Have London's Powers".

While this would normally result in some bile, the consistency and energy expressed in the comments has been heartening.

The utter contempt that the author - a self-loather if ever there was one - has now been shown is delicious, especially the expose of his recent past.

As you may know, I posted on the Regionalisation By Stealth some time ago. They never give up, these vile parasites. All they want are comfy, unchallenged, taxpayer funded featherbeds.

FencePost No.4: Food Police

They really are trying to do it. The Government are serious about controlling what we eat.

The tip of the iceberg was rumbled in DEFRA's intent, now denied, to change the buying habits of the UK away from fresh milk to UHT. The lights came on and they were found standing around a hole. They denied everything, but we knew then and we certainly know now that that act and now this, is about implanting yet more Fence Posts.

Apart from the control aspect we have people who should know better try and not just excuse it but support it, wrapping it up in the language of science and reason.

The linked article above concludes:

Whenever individuals' behaviour is controlled by habits that they should control, we are at the fulcrum of the relationship between domination and freedom. Government has been reluctant to intrude, but now it must.

The author, Anthony Giddens, is right in saying that it is at the fulcrum of domination and freedom. The issue I have is with the very last word - "must". The Government can intrude if one person harms another - in fact some can say that is a must and the very purpose of Government and should be its prime, nay, only role. Here we are talking about "saving people from themselves" not because they ask, but because self-appointed types decide for them. Instead of pursuing the line of addiction to bad foodstuffs, Anthony should take a long hard look in the mirror and see his addiction to Socialism. He has his Socialist a hammer and he considers us all nails and is quite happy for other Socialist Hammer wielders to set about us. And he is in the House of Lords. He should be utterly ashamed of himself.

As in the case of the Milk debacle, Authoritarianism, control of production remaining in the hands of private organisations but obedient to the State. It has a word: Fascism.

The Devil deals out a visceral response and expresses it better than I could and with more wit.

One can only imagine the poverty of talent that must exist and the desperation and grasping for position and career that results in people like Dawn Primarolo being in charge of anything at all. Are they so short of talent? The answer, I suspect, is yes when you decide to limit your tide talent pool to those willing to endure the indignities and moral bankruptcy of the New Labour hierarchy.

I see you, HMG. I see the Fence Post going in. We caught you doing it a day or so before and you squealed like a stuck pig in denial but this time you try again, probably because this was planned and you could not stop it. One could imagine that this was part of a coordinated "rolling thunder" of announcements by QUANGOs "Trusts" to bludgeon the population.


This Government is the longest Socialist Government the UK has had...and boy does it show.

Polly: Dead Social Democracy - Track Changes ON

This was the week that Labour's leaders left a bankrupt dogma social democracy for dead

Brown's capitulation to the Tory veneer agenda and refusal to make the case for yet more levelling down equality has exposed the lie shipwrecked his party

Polly Toynbee
Friday October 12, 2007
The Guardian

This was more than a horrible yet totally justified humiliation for the prime minister. This was the week that the bankrupt dogma that is social democracy ebbed away in England. Those words had already slipped from Labour's list of disingenuous platitudes lexicon, never spoken by its leaders in public, rarely spoken outside the privacy of Fabian meetings and Celtic parliaments.
In 1994 Tony Blair and Gordon Brown purged socialism when they forged the New Labour project: Clause Four was indeed an archaic nonsense. This week Brown and Darling all but killed off the pretense of social democracy too. We now have finally in the open a centrist government in Europe's most stubbornly non-Communist unequal country. Our government stands somewhat to the right of Ghengis Khan Angela Merkel's coalition in Germany, to the right of economic policy in France who isn't this side of PRNK, where Nicolas Sarkozy has absorbed social democrats. Fusion politics, like fusion music and food, is one utterly preposterous description of this strange death of the centre-left. At least in Europe there are leftwing parties still to trot out the lies make the public arguments: in England, due to our malfunctioning electoral system, a political generation has at least partially resisted total subjugation to the relentless fisting that is barely heard the case for social justice. Fusion is turning out to be Brown's "change" (Is Polly about to twig that "change" does not mean "improvement"...der-errr).

To not take from give the children of the well-off a £1.4bn inheritance waiver bonus while the children of the poor only got another 48p a week in tax credits taken without permission or consent from taxpayers is symbolically far worse to my pandering, addled, class-war confused noodle than that notorious 75p for pensioners. The halfway mark to abolish child poverty by 2010 will be missed by miles regardless. Holding down public sector pay rises to 2% for three years, only half next year's expected private sector increase, will redress the balance increase inequality. To cut capital gains tax on buy-to-let property, antiques, paintings and jewellery is as irritating to my envy-meter shameless as it is dysfunctional.
The comprehensive spending review every three years is mightily important. There is no company, parasite arts organisation, now beholden entity charity or disfunction of the state that does not hang upon its judgment. It was even delayed several months for political advantage to get it right for the conference season, causing serious budgeting problems to many bloodsucking balance sheets. Then at the last moment in a few days of hysteria, it all seemed to be done on the back of a matchbox as usual. One of the many unintended consequences of the en ntire New Labour project rushed capital gains change, it emerged yesterday, was the adverse effect on SAYE schemes (save-as-you-earn share ownership, for lower-paid employees). Private equity types laughed all the way to their merchant banks, having expected a much higher tax than 18%. Insert totally exposed, disingenuous, busted and utterly fraudulent meme for political advantage or as an expression of utter contempt or ignorance for financial realities They still pay less than their cleaners.

There is a stunned disorientation among Labour MPs as usual, alarmed by both Brown's vision void and his expected sudden incompetence. Talk to ministers and wise old heads of Commons select committees, and they are reeling with shock it took this long to be obvious. The backbenches sat through Darling's politics-free performance on Tuesday like the Animal Farm beasts gazing through the farmer's window in the final scene so no change there then. Far too late they realised something awful was happening before their eyes: you could have cut their silence with a knife its THE silence, Polly, THE silence...and you are a PAID scribbler???.

How has Gordon Brown managed in such a short time to shipwreck himself and his party (as if we did not know)? The seriousness of it is only beginning to sink in to my scatterbrain after Labour's long hegemony. Bungling the will-he-won't-he election was a hardly survivable self-inflicted injury. The intellectual and ethical bankrupcy injury is the real damage. Retreating armies raze the ground behind them to deny their enemy forage: but what Brown and Darling have done for the last 10 years did on Tuesday was to flame-throw the ground ahead, right up to the far horizon beyond the next election. They have nowhere to go, nothing to feed on, no narrative path ahead, no clear political turf to occupy so they will steal from us and lie as usual.

Start with the character question - politically the most lethal. For his first three months Brown was "the change" the public liked - a welcome no-glitz, slightly clumsy but honest contrast in a celebrity age. But when Cameron threw "phoney" at him in Prime Minister's Questions, it stuck like napalm. He could duck the bottles thrown over his election funk, but "phoney" will stick because his comprehensive spending review smacked of the same old panicky, comprehensive cowardice but I have just realised it because I smell a change in the air and want to be on the bandwagon . He has lost his character just when he needs trust to strengthen his arm for the coming European treaty row. His party is suddenly gripped by the realisation that doubt that the big brain never had has a strategy. Looking back on his content-light conference speech, it asks what he has been thinking this past impatient decade.

Inheritance tax is a Labour talisman: it deeply pains sanctimonious, envy-riddled and irrational social democrats to let the principle of posthumous wealth redistribution go unstolen. But it had become toxic in the 60 marginals - partly Labour's fault for never making the case for paying this or any other tax. It was too late to win the argument once the rightwing press had falsely persuaded even those with little that they were among the 6% liable.

Here is what Brown should have said: "I resign understand this tax is widely and reasonably if unreasonably hated, so we will cut it. Instead of well-off couples setting up trusts to double their allowances, we will give the same right to all without recourse to lawyers. But to be irrational, theiving bastards fair, the well-off must pay more in life, if not after death. So we will add an economy crushing a top income-tax band for earnings over £100,000." Then he should have said: "My pretense mission is fairness, education levelling down success for all and the totally unachievable given the methods and measurement of the abolition of child poverty in our time. So I will hypothecate that new top tax rate to spend on funding a dependent, client population tax credits and wasteful, undemocratic social programmes to improve children's drift into dependency and fecklessness life chances to reach that great goal of a totally beholden client State full of listless, lumpenillitariat."

It would have dumbfounded anybody the Tories for the sheer barking moonbattery of it all. Instead Brown gave away much more than money: he gave away the argument he never had a right to. He let inheritance tax go for nothing in exchange, a missed chance to talk of growing inequality just talk, mind, not actually fix it.

We may have a centrist government, but this budget had good things only a Labour administration would do - foreign aid to be ashamed proud of, insert plug for some luvvie I met at a Hampstead dinner party Richard Layard's therapy for depressives, a boost for parasites the arts, funding and encouragement to create more help for working single parents, and still more children falling into dependency behind.

The black hole at its heart was less the Institute of Fiscal Studies complaint about overborrowing because we don't want to talk about all that, now, do we?, more the blurring of any inspiring contrast with the opposition i.e. business as usual. It failed to do enough for his first priorities i.e. business as usual, again. His centrepiece housing policy is in fact a cunt, with less money for social homes. His education "passion" looks thin next to the populist sop necessity that gave health the lion's share. A review leading to the costs of better-off old people being paid will be popular, though there is no money for it for years ahead i.e. business as usual. And it redistributes to the better-off, another backward step on my vindictive form of Communism for the proles only equality.

Because we live in dread hope, Gordon Brown can pick himself up and start all over again, if he has the utter bare-faced nerve and the political will. The Tories may crow now, but they too have real problems. What can they offer next? Tax cuts were their trump card, so now the party will press sensibly dangerously for more.

Time is on Labour's side: mercurial political moods shift at the speed of light. Soon Brown could start to spell out a vision, with more authentic humility but then I woke up. He has tied his own hands financially, which makes bold moves hard but not impossible for next year's budget and I bet he manages to have a good deal of nosemining in the process.

What happened this week accelerates the need for a Turner-type inquiry into tax. Choices need to be aired so people can understand and support a fairer system where the poorest no longer pay a higher proportion than the rich. This much Gordon Brown owes to those he disappointed this week.

polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk


Yes, Polly, a fairer system - flat tax as a starter and then abolish the entire mess that is income tax and tax credits!

Andrew Neil Mauls New Labour

Some well aimed punches at New Labour by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics. He managed to expose their racism in shortlists, their theft of Conservative initiatives that they had at the time rubbished and Mad Hazel Blears was (as usual) trying to justify her poisonous hate-filled and frankly class war nonsense about Boris Johnson.

All the Labour throats were spouting a stream of non-sequiturs. I really do think they have lied enough to themselves to believe it, and think we will to.

The Sun is on Gordon's Ass...

It seems via Guido Fawkes The Sun has used an image of Churchill to tease Gordon.



I prefer my previous take on it, for Brown is a Chamberlainesque appeaser, not a defiant leader of a nation:




...but then I would, wouldn't I.

One thing that worries me is the "Dads Army" "Little Englander" inference in the Sun's imagery and the link between Churchill and stuffing the country. I prefer to focus on the delusional, dogmatic, irrational betrayal angle and not pollute the Churchill meme.

Health And Safety: A mental poison spreads.

I am sure many have seen the appalling decision to convict a headmaster of a school at which a child died jumping down steps and various posts by others in response.

While it is routinely absurd that the H&S ricebowlers were all over this, it is no surprise as that is their function, just as a cockroach will walk across your freshly cut sandwich.

The real worry here is that this ever made it to court. Further, that a jury would convict.

Four layers of failure have occurred.

Parents. H&S. CPS. Jury.

The child was just being a child and Mr Porter was not to blame in any way.

The fact that the parents felt "relief and satisfaction" over this is disgusting, even taking into account the distortions of grief. They said that the Headmaster "had a duty of care". Uttering that phrase should bring a 6 month supervision order for diminished responsibility.

The parents should never have brought this case. Period.

The Health and Safety cockroaches are just being cockroaches. They need to be exterminated just for being what they are. There is no point discussing this vermin further.

The CPS should have seriously considered not proceeding. Why is this kind of prosecution in the public good? We are beset with infantilising, blame-shifting compensation hounds and the CPS irresponsibly feeds the beast.

The Jury should hang its head in shame, though I suspect Blair, Cherie and all the authoritarian infantilizers out there would consider this a result for their poisonous "educational" and media apparatus which seems to be churning out people with no critical reasoning or common sense.

What is amazing is that the child took so long to die. Could it actually be that the healthcare given was not adequate or well executed? Did anyone not consider that the accident was not in itself grave or a result of any fault? The hospital even said the injury was "relatively minor".

I am struggling to find any angle in this case that has not been obfusticated by some barking-mad piece of blame-shifting or weasel words to irrationally spoon the responsibility to the School. The kid fell. He died in hospital. The steps had no hidden dangers. Could it be a pet hate of non-State education? Who knows.

The parents are not content with destroying this man once, they want a second pound of flesh, it seems, as part of a further private prosecution. "Scumbags" hardly expresses the depth of my contempt for these people, even taking into account the effects of grief.

The father said: "he’s been found guilty today but in my eyes he’s been guilty thousands of times".

Hate will eat you up. For sure.