Witterings from Witney

Magical dexterity?

2012-02-26T10:30:00.000-08:00

Where 'close-up' magic is concerned magician's dexterity has always fascinated me. The following video is posted for aficionados of the genre and to provide a break from continual politics. For non-German speaking readers, my apologies.

Compare & Contrast

2012-02-26T10:15:00.001-08:00

It is reported that Frank Carson counted Bernard Manning as a friend and defended him against charges of racism. “How could anyone call Bernard a racist?” he wondered. “He even had black horses at his funeral”.

In the same newspaper we read of a man who, having placed his belongings including a scarf on the belt to pass through a scanner, noticed a woman in a hijab pass through without showing her face. Querying what would happen were he to cover his face with his scarf resulted in a lengthy questioning session in which he was accused of making a racist remark. After considerable time, during which the police were called and management from BAA, a compromise was reached in which this man agreed that his remark could be considered offensive to a Muslim. So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?

How have we allowed ourselves to be conditioned to the extent that free speech and even our private thoughts can be held to be verboten? As with the health & safety brigade, so have the politically correct brigade built an industry, ones that the taxpayers fund.

Frank Carson was renowned for suffering from what might be called verbal excess, yet this man - because of the pc brigade - was prevented from talking the hindi leg of a donkey. Is it not better that we allow a thousandfold abuses of free speech than to deny free speech? Likewise, does not free speech carry with it the another freedom; to listen?

To underline my point that we do indeed live under a system of democratised dictatorship, I am reminded of a quote by Herbert Hoover:

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."

On that note - and to borrow a legal phrase - I believe I am entitled to say that I rest my case!

What, exactly, are property rights?

2012-02-25T13:24:00.000-08:00

Dick Puddlecote posts an interesting video, one that repeats the question of the heading to this post. Is it not right that the owner of a property or business should decide what can and cannot take place within the confines of which the government - and the law - maintain is 'theirs'?

From this post three years ago and the 2005 'manifesto' (page 67) of the Labour Party:

"The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free." (Emphasis mine)

Yet another manifesto 'promise' that became but ASH(es) as a result of a government funded pressure group - but I digress. Neither will I delve into the Conservative Party opposition towards this policy.....

Anyways, back to the video that DP posted and the question posed therein.

This subject, as with so many others, begs the question whether 'government' has the right to impose a blanket policy on the country, or should not - within the policy of devolution and invoking the belief in 'Big Society', assuming of course they actually believe in those policies - decisions such as this be left to local people to decide?

With regard to the last paragraph, I suppose my message to our politicians is if they believe in direct democracy - which they must do if they wish to devolve power and believe in a 'Big Society' - either implement it or stop talking about it!

Yall and all is to be forgiven?

2012-02-25T06:54:00.000-08:00

A letter appeared in the Guardian from Adrian Yalland on the 'hard life' that MPs have and in which he mentions L'Affair Joyce. It should first be mentioned that Adrian Yalland is Vice-President of Chelgate, is also an Approved Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservative Party - and a lobbyist. The content and tone of the letter are that which one would expect from a 'wannabe' politician who is also a lobbyist.

"The way they are forced to live is fundamentally inhumane" What????? "They work ridiculous hours....with no job security and a not particularly good salary. The worse thing is the constant misrepresentation they endure." What???? "The vast majority of MPs I know, across all parties, are motivated by a commitment to making this country better. Very few go into politics for an easy life or to get rich." What????

Perhaps Yalland would care to show exactly who has forced them to live a life he claims is fundamentally inhumane. Perhaps Yalland can refute the argument that anyone earning approximately three times the average salary must surely be well-paid indeed - and as for job security, since when did anyone on a fixed, short-term placement have job security? Perhaps Yalland would agree that if MPs, across all parties, are motiviated by a commitment to making this country better, then they have been accepting public money under false pretences. Perhaps Yalland would like to reconsider his assertion that few go into politics for any easy life and to get rich. Perhaps Yalland has not looked at the Register of Members Interests lately? Perhaps Yalland can answer how David Miliband can earn £70,000 for just three days work when it is highly doubtful that Miliband would command such fees had he not been a politician who had held Cabinet rank?

Perhaps Yalland has yet to learn about that political requirement of being transparent? Perhaps it would have put his letter in better context had he mentioned his background and present job?

Just saying...................

Going Green

2012-02-25T05:59:00.000-08:00

The case for direct democracy

2012-02-24T12:46:00.001-08:00

Regular readers will know that I have, of late, become an advocate for direct democracy, encapsulating 'referism', to be introduced in our nation; a system to replace the present 'representative democracy' which I maintain is no more than 'democratised dictatorship'.

Politicians present themselves as the only means wherein their forming a government is the only vehicle by which a nation can deal with the outside world through international relations and in so doing decide, facilitate and guide what are a nation's interests; as it is maintained by politicians that only they can protect and safeguard all that lies within its borders. In which case a democracy would only permit a government to be responsible for its military, defence, security and economic policy. Contrary to current political belief it is not the role of government to create wealth and prosperity - although they have this idea that that is something they can do.

The 'primary' responsibilities of a government are those set out above, which means that any others are 'secondary' and are, therefore, not concerned with the survival of a nation but more of development of a nation and its society. Bearing in mind human nature, whereby once an individual gains a power it attempts to acquire yet more power, politicians have a tendency to confuse and conflate secondary responsibilities, thereby creating a suggestion that those secondary responsibilities are in fact of vital national interest - and must be 'regulated' by them - and thus increasing their power.

In a true democracy national interests cannot be removed from an electorate's interests otherwise what has been created is government by fiat. If democracy is to be the system by which a nation is to exist, then the benefits that the people enjoy and the rules of the society in which they live must mean that the people have a fundamental role to play in the guidance of a nation's future and must be able to act as the "port of last resort" where decisions affecting that nation are concerned. It is for that reason - and that reason alone - why the active and participative involvement of the people is not just desirable but is, one could suggest, mandatory. It therefore follows that the more distant from the people that decisions are taken, the closer democratised dictatorship becomes.

Where 'government', as presently practiced, is concerned it will always be rooted in a possession of power and expansion of that power, or a preservation of the status quo with a view to expansion of that power - and therein lies the danger of the people's individual freedoms being eroded - which in turn means that there can be no 'demos'. Clausewitz famously declared that a nation's behaviour is motivated by its need to survive and prosper - and who better to make that decision than the people of a nation? The fact that the European Union is desperately seeking "a soul" - a "crie de ceour" of Jacques Delors - a characteristic that it surely lacks, shows that because each individual nation wishes to be itself, the European Union cannot, logically, succeed in its aims.

That the foregoing shows the present system of democracy cannot be allowed to continue, is undeniable. That the people who fund democracy must be allowed to dictate the system of democracy under which they live, is undeniable.

In ceding the power to dictate, guide and decide our nation's future - have not our politicians abrogated their right to 'power'? Is it not time that the people reclaimed their right to decide their nation's future? Is it not time that the people re-assumed their inalienable right to decide their own future?

Does not the piper call the tune?

Just asking...............

Its that damn 'Cyprus problem' again!

2012-02-24T05:55:00.000-08:00

From the Open Europe press summary we learn that Turkey is refusing to have any normal relations with the rotating EU presidency when Cyprus takes over on 1st July.

Well, what a surprise - not! As I posted here, where Turkey's accession to the European Union is concerned the 'Cyprus problem' was always going to remain just that - a problem.

Just saying...........

Being unable to see the wood for the trees

2012-02-24T05:35:00.000-08:00

Returning to the subject of John Bercow and following on from my preceding post, Politics Home is now reporting that Cameron 'backs' Bercow in calling for an end to a £400,000 contract for Commons fig trees. I notice that Bercow maintains that the public will think they were being "fleeced" and that MPs were living in "another universe". The BBC have picked up on this interview and their report quotes Bercow stating, on the subject of the party conference season and the long summer break: "I think a lot of our electorate think, given that the MPs finished in the latter part of July, why are they not back at their place of work undertaking their scrutiny, standing up for our interests, debating our concerns, in September?"

When exactly have Members of Parliament undertaken any scrutiny? When have Members of Parliament stood up for our interests? When have Members of Parliament debated our concerns? As for the public being "fleeced" and MPs living in "another universe", where has Bercow been for the last 40 years - in another universe?

Finally, does Cameron or Bercow actually, really "care a fig" - as long as the gravy train continues to roll?

Westminster? Nope, Brussels.

2012-02-24T02:33:00.000-08:00

John Bercow has a 'big-up' piece on Politics Home, authored by Paul Waugh and Sam MacRory, in which he maintains that "the House (of Commons) is the cockpit of our democracy."

It would appear to have escaped Bercow's notice that the one thing we are short of in this country is democracy - and if one were to concede that we did possess democracy (purely for the sake of argument) - the cockpit most certainly is not in Westminster as, with the consent of those in Westminster, it has been moved to Brussels.

Just saying...........

David Owen 'spectates'

2012-02-23T13:43:00.000-08:00

David Owen has a lengthy article on the Coffee House in which he gives us the benefit of his views on the eurozone and its present troubles, together with his idea of a 'double' EU - one with what he terms an inner zone and and outer zone. Let us leave to one side his views on the former and concentrate on his views on the latter. Do read the entire article - it is laughable in the aims that Owen proposes.

Like all europhiles, he maintains we should not walk away but remain, using quiet persistence, in order to achieve 'two Europes' -a wider and an inner - that would live in harmony one with the other (is this not more 'change from within' - a policy that has been shown to have failed already?). Just what is it that the idiot Owen does not accept about the entire reason for the EU's existence? The minute the EU allowed one member to leave, the minute the EU allowed a 'two-core-membership', its entire reason for existing is dismantled - the EU is an all or nothing membership!

Later, in this illogical piece of political thinking (but hey, when has any political thinking been logical?) Owen acknowledges that there would have to be a UK referendum on a choice of wider membership or inner membership, but fails to even mention that a third choice should be available - one of neither. He discusses the matter of enlargement of EU membership, one possibly comprising a membership of 40 countries - which leads on to another thought.

There is much discussion about the drift to world government - which leads one to question whether the EU is part of this 'movement'? Richard N. Gardner, recent Ambassador to Spain, writing in Foreign Affairs, stated:

"In short, the 'house of world order,' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down....but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

Which is basically the tenet of Jean Monnet in proposing a European union.

From Jordan Maxwell, Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge, (n.p., 2000) pp. 15-16 we read the words of David Rockfeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity....But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government....The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

Bilderberg?

The English Constitution contains two documents; the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights of 1689 which cannot allow any of the above. From a Bruges Group 'paper' we read:

"If the British Constitution were simply followed, the rights and liberties of the British people would be placed above reproach. Recall that the collective body of documents comprising the British Constitution nullify government-imposed limitation of liberty. Even if a government were technically successful in achieving limitations on liberty, the corresponding action would be immediately void, as mandated by the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, and the Magna Carta itself. As explained earlier, the Declaration requires that, “…the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration…shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration…in all time to come.” But are not rights merely words on paper if the people are not vigilant in their defense? The Magna Carta contains actionable measures designed to thwart despotic machinations."

That we the people need to become more vigilant in their own defense is not in question - and is but another reason why the introduction of direct democracy is required. A move wherein and whereby the people, being asked to assume more responsibility for their nation, would thus be able to impose vigilance for their own benefit and future.

Or put more simply - and as proposed by Richard North, EU Referendum, some months ago - would it not be simpler if the people just rose up now and slaughtered the present political elite?

Just why do we elect these idiots?

2012-02-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

The latest findings from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) shows, according to the BBC, that where immigration is concerned:

"....an increase from 235,000 in June 2010 but a fall from 255,000 in September 2010."

and that net migration to Britain remained steady at 250,000.

I find it incongruous that Damien Green can herald these figures as a decrease - likewise I find it incongruous for Chris Bryant to criticise the present government for failing to live up to the pledge to cut immigration, especially when one remembers it was Bryant's party that caused the problem in the first place - and for possible electoral gain. I am sure we all recall Andrew Neather

I find it totally unacceptable for politicians to, in effect, lie to the public about immigration, or any other matter. What is under discussion here is the inward immigration from outside the United Kingdom, which the government is trying to control whilst having no control of those immigrants coming from Member States of the EU - yet the impression given by our politicians is they are attempting to control immigration per se - and for the purposes of political point scoring opposition MPs allow that misconception to continue.

That MPs lie to their constituents is well known and is a deficit in our democratic system. Whilst on the subject of deficits in our democratic system, allow me to mention two others in passing. My constituency MP also happens to be our Prime Minister (a fact which may already be known), however my MP cannot rise in Parliament and highlight the plight of one of his constituents - neither can a Secretary of State or Minister. That is equality where parliamentary representation is concerned? (And please don't even mention that 'other routes' may be available to my MP or those of any others that hold ministerial responsibility). How many readers have a district councillor who also happens to be a county councillor? To take Witney as an example, the county council of Oxfordshire are hell bent on the imposition of a 'relief road', roads being their 'competence' (one which began with a costing of £12million but has now escalated to a cost of £20million), yet a growing number of residents in Witney are against this 'relief road'. What is the point in them lobbying their district councillor when that same person is also a member of the county council and has voted for that road to go ahead? Conflict of interest?

Anyway, returning to the original topic of this post, I am drawn to a post from Up Pompeii highlighting the percentage of births in this country where one, or both, parents is foreign born. And society in our country, its traditions and customs, is not being socially engineered? When the events portrayed in two books mentioned in my sidebar, namely "The Horse at the Gates" and "Invasion", come to pass - as they surely will if current policies are continued - it will be too late for our political elite to recall the old adage: as you sow, so shall you reap.

If only I were able to repeat the attempt by Guy Fawkes - but this time with a successful result!

The joy(ce) of drink

2012-02-23T09:41:00.001-08:00

IanPJonPolitics, The BoilingFrog and Richard North, EU Referendum, have all commented on 'L'affaire Eric Joyce'.

It will indeed be interesting to see what transpires where the police investigation is concerned and whether if charges are brought and Joyce appears in court, what sentence will be handed down should the verdict be guilty. It will indeed be interesting to see whether the people of Falkirk do demand the recall of their Member of Parliament and whether the decision of his peers will concur.

It should be remembered that Joyce is a member of a class in our society that spends most of its time dictating how we should behave - some role model (not). From They Work For You comes two quotes by this sorry example from amongst the good and the great. First: ".....I go about my constituency occasionally with the cops on a Friday or Saturday night. We see a bit of violence in the streets and recognise where it comes from, what is happening and who the bad guys are—who has been caught up in things because they have drunk too much and so on....."; and second, speaking during Public Bill Committee: Drugs Bill: New Clause 1 - inclusion of khat as a Class A drug: "....I would be very reluctant to classify alcohol as category B. This debate goes on when we talk about how we should classify any type of drug. Ultimately, one of the most serious drugs is one that we tolerate enormously in society—everyone is this Room uses it, in moderation, of course—and it is alcohol." (Emphasis mine)

Richard North is correct to query why we have elections, as is IanPJ to maintain that this 'affaire' is just another reason why this rough house where the gang known as the rotten parliament hang out must be dissolved.

Update: It would appear that Eric Joyce had a previous 'problem' with the police in 2010. In case it has been 'amended' I am grateful to Max Farquar for taking a screen grab:

Mindless wimps or mindless automatons?

2012-02-23T08:53:00.000-08:00

"As long as some specialised class is in a position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interests that it serves."
Noam Chomsky

From press reports in the last few days come stories that pose the question of this post heading. Consider the case of Simon Burgess and firefighters, the latter who are graded as to whether they have had training to walk through water ankle high or waist high. Consider that ITV has felt it necessary to issue an apology because one of their reporters used the word 'coloured' twice 'on air', a story commented on by Mark Wadsworth. Consider the case of Mark Jury who stopped briefly at a bus stop, having seen an old lady fall over, resulting in his receiving a £70 fixed penalty notice.

Is the world a better place because we are all exhorted to follow dictats issued by those who have built an industry out of the issuance of said dictats? Has racism disappeared because we no longer use words like 'coloured', negro, black, etc? Has our attitude towards others less fortunate than ourselves been improved by mindless bureaucracy which prevent our helping others?

Is it any wonder that as a nation we have become mindless wimps or mindless automatons? Where thoughts of possible failure are implanted in our minds the result will be failure. Perhaps we need a culture wherein constructive thoughts are the norm as from them will result positive outcomes.

Just thinking.............

Talk Constitution (2)

2012-02-22T12:02:00.000-08:00

In setting up Talk Constitution it was made known at the outset, in the ‘Welcome’, that a blank canvas had been supplied and that it was hoped participants would build each segment ‘brick by brick’. Ian Parker-Joseph also repeated that point, adding the comment that being a participatory forum, it is the participants who make the running, who decide what sort of Britain is wanted.

It is, I would have felt, generally agreed by all participants on the forum that "the less government, the better" must be the maxim when devising any new system of democracy and one which still retains the ultimate sanction, one whereby political dictatorial power can be constrained/denied by the people. Consider: the more distant decisions affecting a nation’s future and the lives of its peoples are taken without the ability to be influenced by its peoples (which is the situation presently), the less any government is then able to claim it operates as a democracy. All governments have one single raison-d’etrê - and that is control. It is when political control centralises power it always follows that that power and control expands to a size and scope that goes beyond the wishes of the people (a situation under which we presently live), hence the need for the people to be the voice providing the necessary checks and balances.

Over at the Talk Constitution website I have posted a suggestion detailing those matters for which a national 'government' should have responsibility, together with the 'democratic restraints' that are required to ensure that the voice of the people can be heard and which maintain their 'absolute' right to be heard and dictate that which is done in their name.

Off you go...............

Afterthought: No comments on this subject here, please - comment on Talk Constitution. If you have not registered, then please do so. Due to the number of registration requests from what are obviously spammers, very few registration requests are granted. If anyone does wish to register then I would request they email me through the facility in my sidebar, informing me the name they have selected in order that I can process their registration.

So where are our elected representatives?

2012-02-22T10:36:00.000-08:00

There is a debate taking place in the House of Commons, as I write, on the NHS and the Coalition's proposals for reform. As at 18:15 it would appear that there are approximately only 40 Members of Parliament actually in the chamber. On this point I reproduce a tweet from Alex Cunningham, timed at 17:54:

"There isn't even one Tory minister listening to the health debate at this time only a whip staffs the front bench. It is a disgrace."

Cunningham is, I believe, being polite in calling that situation a disgrace. Where are the other 610? Do not Members of Parliament have a duty to attend on behalf of their constituents? At the end of the debate those missing will appear and troop through the lobbies, but on what will their decisions on how to vote be made when they have not heard the arguments put? My Member of Parliament, unfortunately, happens to be our present Prime Minister and whilst it is acknowledged he has 'affairs of state' with which to deal, does he not have a duty to his constituents to be present? Or is his absence yet another area of democracy in which I am disenfranchised? As an aside, how many Members of Parliament have held public meetings with their constituents to garner their views?

This is a system of democracy by which our lives are decided? This is democracy? This is a system that costs taxpayers £millions - and for what? Members of Parliament will, generally, vote along 'party lines' - aka the diktat of their party leader. And we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?

State Conspiracy

2012-02-21T12:53:00.000-08:00

Conspiracy - and conspiracy theories - take many forms, of which perhaps the best known is that 9/11 was in fact a US government led operation, but where this post is concerned that is neither here nor there. The state conspires against its people in a number of ways, included in which can be: lying, acting for the personal gain of those that work for it, or the use of state organisations to protect those that matter to it - and all this happens under the noses of the people.

Taking the last example first, look at this video posted on the Free Robert Green website in which the cases of Hollie Greig and Ian Puddick are discussed by Brian Gerrish, Ian Puddick and Lou Collins, their radio host. It may be rather lengthy, being 59 minutes, but it does bear watching and is well worth your time. As you will see, those fighting the injustices of the State have had the full resources of the State used against them. In the case of Hollie Grieg serious accusations have been made against prominent people, of abuse including rape and worse, of a Down's Syndrome child. With regard to Ian Puddick, as you will hear, a private security organisation became involved in his persecution, namely Kroll. And who is Chairman of that organisation? None other than one Bill Bratton, who it may be recalled was originally touted as the new 'police chief' for the Met and is now an advisor to the Home Office on 'policing'. Note that Bratton's hands would not appear to be that 'clean'. In respect of Kroll, Channel4 are producing a programme "How power corrupts City of London police and Kroll". The film questions why officers from the Counter Terrorism Directorate made misleading statements in court under oath and the questionable relationship between City of London Police and elite global security giant Kroll.

Let us turn to another form of conspiracy, one practiced by the State and in various forms and returning to my first paragraph, what follows is an example of where the State lies to the people. It is necessary to go back in time to Tony Blair's attempt, through John Prescott, to set up 'regional governments', where the first attempt in the North East was firmly rejected in a referendum. Having been rebuffed - and in typical political mode - the government of the day had another go with the attempt to create Multi Area Agreements (MAAs), on which I posted in January 2009. Probably due to the fact that I had only just begun blogging about three weeks prior to the publication of that post, it only attracted one comment and that was spam! What you find in that post is the government of the day attempting to impose an EU 'wish' without any mention of the 'EU factor' - so once again we were lied to by the State.

To return to the accusation of the State using State 'organisations' to preserve those that matter to it; two examples and admittedly the first is but a WfW 'theory'. Today, courtesy of the BBC, we are advised that Rachel Reeves, Labour shadow chief secretary to the treasury gave a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank (text here), one in which accusations were made and various figures 'bandied about'. For sure the BBC mentioned, almost as a footnote, that the present government accused the previous administration of leaving the nation in an economic mess - but where is the 'detail' of that last statement? Why was there no mention of the fact that it is rather ironic that an administration which left this nation 'economically broken' is now criticising a new administration for it's economic policies and alleging it is creating yet more debt? If we are talking about 'double standards', which is what in fact is happening with Rachel Reeves' accusations, why no mention that the present government is implementing a policy which, in opposition, they criticised as being a "reckless" invasion of privacy? Are we not witnessing two supposedly opposed parties in agreement on policy? Are we not then looking at a situation whereby opposing parties are 'going through the motions' of appearing to be at odds, yet are committed to the same ends - purely for public consumption - thereby, as part of the State, ensuring the the preservation of those that matter to the State, the State being the self-preservation of the Lib/Lab/Con?

On the same subject, preservation of those that matter to the State, let us consider a second example. What is the punishment for those convicted of paedophile tendencies? Years in jail if you are one of the public - not, it seems, if you are someone who 'matters' - and I am indebted to Subrosa for this information. Presumably the court involved used this ruling to justify their decision - why, in which case, not this ruling? And justice is applied evenly, without favour?

Reverting to the question of regionalisation of the UK I am drawn to another post by Subrosa on the question of Alex Salmond's intention to impose one police force and one fire service on the Scottish people - a subject also covered by Raedwald. This, I would suggest, is no more than a ploy by Salmond to further his aims for Scottish Independence and the subsequent membership of Scotland to the EU. This aim of one police and one fire service also ties in neatly with Blair's aim of regional government - and he too aimed for both. I refer to the matter of the regionalisation of fire services, one which the Coalition appear to be dismantling - which begs the question why? It is a policy for which taxpayers are still paying the cost under PFI agreements - but the question remains, why is the Coalition appearing to go against this policy? Reverting to MAAs above, perhaps in years to come it will be in-built into the continuation of this policy to create MAAs, one which I do not recall the Coalition actually repudiating - lets face it, they have devised Local Area Partnerships to replace Regional Development Agencies which in effect allow the continuance of MAAs, which logically will include the creation of one police and one fire service? As with the idea that by local authorities sharing 'back office' staff savings can be made for the public purse, so the creation of one police force and one fire service to make 'savings'? This policy is duplicious in that by presenting to the public the idea of cost-savings, they are able to implement the wishes of their masters in Brussels.

There are two methods by which any nation can be 'taken over'. First, by outright invasion and the imposition of military rule, or second, by stealth - or as Monnet and Schumann maintained slowly and surely by political means.............

What the foregoing shows is that any sense of democracy is 'stone dead' where our nation is concerned and that we do, indeed, live under a democratised dictatorship'.

Afterthought: Apologies if I have 'rambled' a tad - hopefully, you get my 'drift'.

Why Ukip languish in the polls

2012-02-20T14:02:00.000-08:00

Exhibit 1 (and only 1 example is needed, really) Gawain Towler, Ukip Press Officer, posts on Twitter:

"@GawainTowler: I liked a @YouTube video http://t.co/jzHzzG22 New Project"

a link which appears not to be 'repostable', but one in which Lawrence Webb, the Ukip Mayoral Candidate, talks about third place being up for grabs as Ukip are on 6%, only 1% behind the LibDems.

6%?! Bearing in mind the political climate why the hell are Ukip not on 26% - more importantly, for a party that would have us believe they are a force in British politics, why are they boasting that third place is 'up for grabs'? Would not any political party, 'worth its salt', not be proclaiming it could take 1st place - whether it believed that or not?

The mind 'boggles' - let alone go into decline. Who allowed such a 'message' to be produced? Where is the leadership, the strategy, the management? If a political party, one that maintains it could form a government, cannot put out a positive political campaigning message and do so competently - what chance does it have of convincing a country that it is capable of forming a government?

Just asking.................

Oh dear!

2012-02-20T13:14:00.000-08:00

Douglas Carswell posts, lambasting the UKBA whilst stating that half a million people are able to enter Britain without checks, apparently.

To which I have commented (awaiting moderation at time of posting):

"And 650 people are able to dictate to 65million, each 5 year period, without 'checks' - and the difference is?
"Seems yet another arm of the British state is run primarily for the convenience of those who work for it."
Oops!"

If Carswell - and come to that, Hannan - believe in this direct democracy thingy, why are they not advocates of total direct democracy 'a la Switzerland'? Because they are not - and if you read "The Plan", that which they are promoting is but a form of direct democracy (not) 'controlled' by Westminster - ergo, it is not direct democracy!

I can but think they are disciples of Judas, ones who have sold their principles for monetary gain in order to remain in the Conservative Party, thus maintaining their careers, positions and power. Are these two politicians truly representatives of the people? Methinks not - but they are 'representative' of the majority of those 650 that inhabit Parliament.

I can but repeat the question - we live in a democracy?

Just asking.................

Vested Interests?

2012-02-20T12:39:00.000-08:00

Much is made about serving politicians having 'outside jobs', the argument being that it gives them the benefit of the "workplace experience" from which can be brought wisdom in the framing of laws which affect us all. Such politicians are in receipt of remuneration from organisations of which they are employed; and/or represent as 'consultants'; or have received a fee for having given a talk about a related subject at an event hosted by an organisation/company that has an 'interest' in the subject under discussion. Politicians with 'outside interests' have either accepted a position within an organisation, for monetary gain, to act as a supporter/lobbyist of that organisation, or they believe in the aims of that organisation whilst accepting a fee to further its aims. The minute anyone accepts a fee from any organisation, that organisation becomes your master, in that no organisation will provide you with a remuneration without you, in turn, providing a 'return' in lieu - which is why ordinary mortals get fired for nonperformance.

Politicians are supposedly elected to further the aims of their constituents, when MPs; or their country, when elected to the House of Lords. In both instances those members of our society are provided remuneration from the taxpayer's purse, which begs the question for those MPs and Lords with 'outside interests' of how they can serve two masters? When speaking in Parliament MPs and Lords are required to make known any outside interests they may have in relation to the discussion in question, yet no requirement is made of them to state for which of their interests they are speaking.

The current 'debate du jour' is about the proposed changes to how the NHS is to be organised - consequently it has to be asked how can any such debate be carried out impartially for the good of those that use the NHS and for the good of the country when those on this list have two masters?

Are not MPs and Lords listed in the foregoing link not disciples of Judas, thus also Judas Goats? Are they not careerists? Are they not mercenaries, selling their expertise to the highest bidder? Yet, have they not already sold themselves, where they are MPs, to the highest bidder - the highest bidder being the number of bidders who caused them to be elected?

And we wonder why our democracy is in such a mess, that it has reached a nadir none could have foretold?

Initially, just a thought - then, consequently, just saying...................

Ever decreasing circles*

2012-02-20T09:20:00.001-08:00

"It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it. Yet it is this support from the Left of the tendencies toward monopoly which make them so irresistible and the prospects of the future so dark."
Friederich A. von Hayak, The Road to Serfdom

"The British People, taken one with another, now constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the middle ages."**
H.L. Mencken

That our politicians are all of the 'Left' in that there is little difference twixt their policies and that when regarding us as the source of their next meal, only argue whether we should be served 'rare', 'medium' or 'well done'; that they are intent on retaining a monopoly of control over our lives; that they appear to have forgotten they are elected to govern for the people, yet by their actions deliberately omit the word 'for', is now an indisputable fact. One only has to read James Kirkup's article in today's Daily Telegraph in which he refers to "David Cameron as governor" to see the mindset of politicians and the press where our democracy is concerned. That the majority of the British people are exactly as depicted by H.L. Mencken is also true - just look around you.

Ana the Imp, a most erudite young lady - and whose posts are a delight to read, whatever the subject - recalling, from act 2 scene 1 of Shakespeare's King Richard II, the words of John of Gaunt, ends her post (well worth reading): "The fortress is gone, the wall breached, the moat bridged; the enemy is within the gates. The happy breed gets less happy by the day".

From Politics Home we are advised that every single phone call, email and website visit is to be recorded and kept for a year under new legislation tabled for the next session of Parliament. Security services will also have access to social network site visits under a revised version of plans initially put forward by the Labour government. The irony that the scheme was originally drawn up by the Labour government under the title of the Intercept Modernisation Programme seems to have escaped the Coalition. The only main difference would appear to be that the Labour scheme would have created a central database of all the information, something decried by almost all the opposition at that time with the Conservative politicians condemning Labours 'reckless' attitude on privacy. Terrorism is indeed a most convenient hook on which politicians hang many hats in order to maintain their control of those they are meant to govern for. Were we not promised by the Coalition, in their Programme for Government (page 11), that: "We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion..........We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation...........We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason."

As Chris Huhne had reason to be called an honourable man, so has his replacement Ed Davey, indeed they are so we are told both honourable men. Unfortunately not all politicians are honourable men - as we witnessed with the 'Expenses Scandal'. Ed Davey is one of a rare breed where our politicians are concerned in that he did not claim for a second home, nor food, furniture, a penny piece for mileage, neither does he employ relatives. So, Ed Davey is indeed an honourable man - however, unfortunately 'mud sticks'. Bearing in mind politicians all wish to 'clean up politics' and thereby place themselves above any hint of suspicion, it is hard to understand the appointment of Ed Davey to the position of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Why? Because his elder brother, Henry, is a partner with the leading London law firm Herbert Smith and from the Mail we learn he has handled multi-million-pound deals for firms such as Centrica, EDF and the Brazilian giant Petrobras. We are assured by Department of Energy and Climate Change officials that the relationship will not compromise Davey's work on energy issues in the Cabinet. It is extremely sad that the lowering of standards of behaviour within politics means that two brothers - both no doubt honourable men - should not even remotely be connected within their spheres of work.

Tim Montgomerie, Guardian CiF, has an article headlined "Cameron must make brave steps towards a Federal UK" with a by-line "Giving more powers to Scotland would save the union, empower the Conservatives and haul the UK into the 21st century". Being the blinkered commentator that he undoubtedly is, Montgomerie chooses to totally ignore the question of Wales and Northern Ireland when suggesting that Cameron should move towards the creation of a federal UK. Is it not logical that were Cameron to move towards a federalised UK, Wales and Northern Ireland would want the same powers? Does Montgomerie not understand that it is impossible to create any form of federalised UK within the current system of representative democracy and its 650 (or even 600) MPs? That Montgomerie makes no attempt to even mention how, within his ~~potted~~ potty idea, he envisages federalism will work shows that in his case blinkers are unnecessary when one is completely sightless. That Montgomerie also chooses not to take his argument about federalism to its logical end and write about direct democracy and 'referism' can only illustrate that he too is a goose-stepper in wishing to maintain the present system of democratised dictatorship. The fact that on this question of devolution, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle can only lead, eventually, to a system of direct democracy being introduced - meanwhile the public suffer while politicians fight their battles for self-preservation as elected yes-men answerable to a foreign power.

It is indeed ironic to read in the Foreward to the Coalition's programme for government that Cameron and Clegg acknowledge technological innovation has - with astonishing speed – developed the opportunity to spread information and decentralise power in a way we have never seen before, whilst they currently attempt to hide information and centralise power. At the same time it is both sad - and slightly humorous - to witness democratic movements supporting policies that can only lead to the destruction of democracy and, in so doing, chasing round in ever decreasing circles attempting to stave off their own demise.

* With acknowledgements to the BBC programme of the same name

** Actually Mencken's quote used the word 'American' instead of 'British' - but no doubt you get my drift.

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

2012-02-19T11:43:00.001-08:00

well country actually, in which we live - and, dare one say, corrupt to the core. I am indebted to fellow bloggers Richard North, Julia M via Orphans of Liberty, Quiet Man, IanPJonPolitics and Fausty for articles which demonstrate the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be governed - in one form or another - by idiots.

Richard North, EU Referendum, picking up on an article in the Sunday Telegraph delves deeper and finds that the ST figure is but the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the story may be apocryphal, perhaps the political elite have not heard of the story involving King Canute, which according to Wikipedia informs us that Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". Indeed, it is not only the power of kings that is empty and worthless - but also that of politicians with their belief they can control nature.

From Julia M, via Orphans of Liberty, we are alerted to this story - one also blogged by Quiet Man - of a 7-year-old child being accused of uttering a racist remark. Just what planet are those in authority, who are involved in the actions taken, from? It must be one on which common sense is not a requirement on attaining adulthood.

IanPJonPolitics writes on the case of Hollie Grieg and in particular the circumstances surrounding Robert Green (do follow all IPJ's links). From IPJ and a press release we learn that Robert Green has been a most robust and valued campaigner on behalf of Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, in seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon Hollie, exposing the lack of a duty of care from those in positions of trust, the perjury of Grampian Police and highlighting the nefarious nature of the legal system and the Establishment in both Scotland and England. I understand that in the case of Robert Green's arrest and subsequent detention certain legal processes were not followed to the letter, which leads one to question just how safe is anyone who dares to challenge the state? Once those in authority can 'bend the law' for their own ends then totalitarianism has truly arrived.

Last, but not least I come to this post by Fausty on the reported sacking of Judge Napolitano from Fox News for an 'inappropriate' broadcast, one in which he asks a series of "What if" questions.

Whilst this video (well worth watching) is aimed at a United States audience, just substitute Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats; Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg, for the American references and then apply Napolitano's "What if" questions. I would add a few "What if" questions. What if we, the people, rose up and slaughtered our entire political elite and what if we then instituted in place of our representative democracy (aka democratised dictatorship), direct democracy? What if, besides instituting a recall system for politicians we also brought in a system whereby bureaucrats in both national and local government could be 'recalled' and placed before a jury of the people to answer for their misdemeanours? What if we made a system of 'Referism' mandatory?

What if we, the people, 'grew a pair'?

Just asking.............

Afterthought: I cannot resist the temptation to paraphrase Enoch Powell - We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting an elected - and unelected - cabal to rule us, to change our nation state, to change our traditions, to change our society and thereby to change 'us'. I repeat, what we need to do is to change 'them' - unfortunately Enoch forgot that bit........

A different 'wind of change' required?

2012-02-18T12:58:00.000-08:00

Within his Sunday Telegraph regular column, once again Christopher Booker manages to hit three nails on the head. First, he shows how and why the European Union is doomed to fail; second, where he hopes that Edward Heath is indeed in Hell when writing: "If only Edward Heath could look up to see where his hubris has led us to."; and third, where he highlights the draconian attitude of our social workers where the well being of a child is concerned.

Never mind that Christopher Booker should be awarded a Knighthood for his work, one which won't be forthcoming needless to say; he can perhaps console himself that - and long may the day be in coming - when it is his turn to 'look down'.............

Just saying, CB................

A personal reflection

2012-02-18T12:14:00.001-08:00

Yesterday when suffering a loss of laptop, until someone 'fanned' an idea to solve the temporary problem, being at a total loss of how to occupy myself I resorted to a tad of self-circumspection on the subject of happiness.

Happiness can mean many things, not least that of meeting someone with whom one desires to spend their life; in this some of us are fortunate and some of us are not - through no fault of their own, or possibly through some fault of our own.

For those who have unfortunately missed that one important person in their life - and are left with but memories - the following song sung by Harry Nilsson probably will resonate.

"Gone is the romance that was so divine.
'Tis broken and cannot be mended.

You must go your way,
And I must go mine.
But now that our love dreams have ended...

What'll I do
When you are far away
And I am blue
What'll I do?

What'll I do?
When I am wond'ring who
Is kissing you
What'll I do?

What'll I do with just a photograph
To tell my troubles to?

When I'm alone
With only dreams of you
That won't come true
What'll I do?"

So, what do we do?

Hannan still doesn't 'get it'!

2012-02-18T11:13:00.000-08:00

Daniel Hannan in his latest Telegraph blogpost writes on the question of the Scottish referendum in which he promotes what he considers 'localism'. One sentence immediately stands out and this is where Hannan writes that: "Our disputes are political – often fabricated by politicians" to which one has to ask what disputes have not been fabricated by politicians, be that international or domestic? As to Hannan then maintaining that those disputes can be solved politically - has he not learnt that old adage that when in a hole one stops digging?

Daniel Hannan (together with Douglas Carswell) is 'big' on direct democracy, in fact they have written quite a few pamphlets on the subject, whilst also publishing their 'tome', one entitled "The Plan". Unfortunately these two politicians disprove the theory that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Nowhere in "The Plan" is there any mention of the possible reduction of the number of MPs through adoption of direct democracy and the whole tome is basically to bring about a return to the status of 'pre-1972', with a few crumbs thrown to the electorate, while leaving MPs 'in charge'. Incidentally the comment from 'Salmondnet' (surely not Alex in disguise?) shows he has no idea of what direct democracy means - and his comment is probably indicative of the general intellectual level of the majority of commenters on the Daily Telegraph - but I digress.....

What this entire question of independence - and any referendum - for Scotland boils down to is a battle between two politicians; one attempting to increase his own personal power base and the other attempting to ensure there is no decrease in his own personal power base. While these two potential despots play their games there is only one loser - the people of the United Kingdom.

That all politicians are but careerists can but bring forth the cry of Henry II who (paraphrasing) asked who will rid us of these turbulent priests who require but one thing - total control of those they are meant to serve?

And the rights of ordinary people?

2012-02-18T09:25:00.000-08:00

It is reported that Stonewall, the homosexual rights activists, have presented a draft Bill in which the terms 'husband' and 'wife' would be substituted with the words 'parties to marriage'. This proposal is prompted by a proposed change in the law to allow civil marriage for homosexual couples. The Daily Telegraph reports (not apparently available on-line) that Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, has stated that a consultation on the proposed change in the law would commence next month. It also reports that all three leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con have publicly expressed their support for such a change.

Admittedly at the moment the suggestion that the words 'husband' and 'wife' should be replaced by the words 'parties to marriage' is but that, namely a suggestion, however it raises some rather basic questions where rights are concerned. Yes, everyone has rights but why should the rights of those who wish to use the words 'husband' and 'wife' be removed on the wishes of a minority pressure group? By what right do the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con presume to dictatorially change the words used in marriage ceremonies? As with all 'consultations' this one will no doubt be held with 'stakeholders' and once again it will be those actually involved in a process who will not be consulted.

Politicians seem unable to cease their practice of social engineering - witness their attempt to decide what size home people should have. This latest idea, if it became law, would be yet another individual liberty lost, one to add to what is now becoming a long list. We are indeed being de-humanised to the point where the right of choice over our life and how we live it is being taken away - by force if necessary. When one considers this political process one has to ask just what will be the trigger which will result in the people forcibly removing those they have come to despise? Or, perish the thought, have the sheep been safely corralled?

Nucleus

2012-02-18T06:25:00.000-08:00

From Conservative Home we learn that:

"......now we have Nucleus, an independent group headed by former Conservative candidates Peter Wilding and Rob Marr, to lead something of a Europhile fightback. Nucleus also includes on its Steering Committee Sarah Chilman, the Secretary/Organiser of the Conservative Europe Group (whose President is one Rt Hon K Clarke MP). The Group also has a Labour presence on its Steering Committee - Kevin Doran, once an adviser to Alan Donnelly, the former European Parliamentary Labour Party leader."

The fact that bulletins will be provided for MPs "across all parties" would appear to be a wasted exercise in that whilst party leaders, with the aid of their enforcers (whips), continue to support EU membership, whether or not an MP is for or against EU membership is neither here nor there because as we have seen the majority vote as they are instructed.

I have subscribed to the bulletins - hopefully some fun can be had in being argumentative.......

Back on-line........

2012-02-18T04:52:00.000-08:00

.......with a temporary fix whilst waiting for a new laptop, which has been ordered on-line and should be with me Tuesday at the latest.Un-buggered

Off-line

2012-02-17T09:17:00.000-08:00

WfW will be off-line for a day or two - laptop crashed!

You pay - They play

2012-02-16T14:53:00.000-08:00

Cross-posted from IanPJonPolitics.

"Following on from the corruption mentioned in my last post, and the political smoke and mirrors involved, there are two EU bodies operating under the radar whose budgets have been increasing in an unchallenged way: the Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR).

As taxpayers, and therefore the paymasters of these organisations that make decisions that govern your life, you have a right to know who they are and what they get up to, although I guarantee that the vast majority of Britons have never even heard of them.

The CoR is made up of local and county councillors as mentioned before, and the EESC is made up of technocrats, businessmen and trade union reps, all appointed, none elected to these positions.

Over the last eight years, the budgets of the EESC and CoR have increased by some 50 percent, with over half of the annual budgets devoted to their members’ expenses, travel costs and staff salaries and pensions, collectively amounting to €220 million of your hard earned taxes.

There are around 50 officials at each committee with a minimum salary of €123.890 and six officials at each committee earning over €180,000 – more than the Dutch or UK prime minister.

The main mandate of both committees is to "engage participation" from citizens. But there are many indications that neither committee is successful in this, especially as most citizens have never heard of them or even have a clue as to who they are.

The EESC has 344 Members who are appointed for a term of five years. The current mandate runs from October 2010 till September 2015, and the Members elect the Committee’s Presidency each time for a period of 2,5 years. The Lisbon Treaty permits the number of Members to grow up to a ceiling of 350 Members with the next EU enlargements.

The Committee’s Members are lead by the President. The President is assisted in his tasks by two Vice-Presidents, one in charge of communication and the other one of the budget. The President and the Vice-Presidents form the EESC presidency.

You may access the full list of EESC Members here and search for Members by name or country, you will find the full list of CoR UK members in the previous post.

Hundreds of self important people all pontificating and generating ‘opinions’ on how you should run your lives, living the life, claiming the expenses, wining and dining ALL at your expense, and what an expense with the average ‘opinion’ coming out at an average cost of €660,000, while no information is made available regarding how these opinions influenced legislation, if at all.

You pay, they play.

But then, these are just 2 of the 31 EU Agencies that were analysed by the European Court of Auditors. Their report (produced in Nov11) was sent to the EU Parliament on Wednesday (15th Feb) and it does not make good reading.

Eleven out of the 22 surveyed could not properly account for half the expenses they filed in 2010, the auditors found.

All 31 agencies except two are subject to the European Parliament (EP) budgetary control. MEPs in 2010 already refused to sign off the accounts of a police training agency which used EU funds to purchase furniture, cars and mobile phones for personal use.

You pay, they play.

One of the agencies not under the scrutiny of MEPs is the Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market (Ohim) which is self-financing because it cashes in on the creation of EU trademarks. "Nearly 50 percent of the total amount of cash [of EU agencies] is held by Ohim. Considerable annual surpluses have been recorded by the agency over successive years, leading to a surplus, in 2010, of €495 million," the report notes.

Nice little earner. You pay, They Play.

Pic: EESC members.

These people are elected by no-one, these people add nothing, these people make nothing, these people contribute nothing, yet they expect you to pay, whilst they spend millions of your taxes in talking shops, on hotels, bars, restaurants and travel. Across the EU there are now in excess of a million people who do nothing but spend your money whilst contributing nothing to your life except grief, hardship, rules, regulations and excessive taxation.

We have long said that the EU is nothing more than a corporate mafia, forcing your taxes, local and national ever higher whilst their budgets and playtime keep going up."

This post of IPJ's neatly links into this post of mine.

Invasion via The Horse at the Gates

2012-02-16T13:22:00.004-08:00

I have just read two works of fiction - one could almost term them faction because the building blocks of the end result that these two works foretell are currently being laid before our eyes. Both books are written by DC Alden; the first "Invasion" and the second, "The Horse at the Gates". Both books deal with the islamisation of our country, the first through outright invasion of our nation and that of Europe; and the second through the take-over of our nation through our political system. Both books are available on Amazon and for those interested DC Alden has his own website.

That there is an 'art' in writing a 'thriller' cannot be in question and DC Alden - like Tom Clancy and others of his standing - most definitely has that 'art'. Where reviewing any book, film or play is concerned, I am probably the least qualified as it is easy to criticise the end product of an ability that you do not possess yourself. My immediate question, where both books are concerned, is why the 'security services' of our nation were unaware - or appeared to be unaware - of the 'events' leading up to the endings detailed in both books, especially where the 'preparations' of the enemy are concerned.

But hey, forget my reservation - just go acquire both books as you will not be disappointed.

Cameron and the 'Edinburgh' Speech

2012-02-16T11:07:00.000-08:00

The New Statesman has a transcript of this speech - and interesting reading it makes. Here we have a Conservative Prime Minister who readily admits he is not 'flavour of the month' where he and his party is concerned, who admits he should show a tad of humility - then forgetting both points and pleading with the Scottish people not to take away any more of the dictatorial power he has left.

Bearing in mind that last point, Cameron may be doing something rare for him in that when he talks about not being in Scotland to make a case on behalf of his party, its interests or its approach to office - he may well be telling the truth. It is a pity that he could not add that he was not there for personal political reasons either. I find his statement that the United Kingdom isn't just some sort of deal, to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, a tad odd when is that not just what our Masters in Brussels are aiming for with their programme of regionalisation? Is it not the EU's aim to remove the nation state, thus making us all 'EUians'? With typical Cameron aplomb we then have the suggestion that any referendum should be 'in/out', with a discussion on what powers would be devolved afterwards. So a man who cannot keep a 'cast-iron' promise is asking people to accept an unspecified promise? We all know that Cameron has a background in PR - it is now becoming clear that where PR is concerned, PR relates to being a Prize Rat.

Then we have the other 'actor' in this saga, Alex Salmond, who in common with all politicians wants to be 'top dog' in his own country, yet who with his wish to be part of the EU, cannot see that he would then no longer be 'top dog'. To be fair one cannot blame Salmond for his attempted 'power grab' when idiots like Blair open the bottle and let the genie out - leaving his successors the problem of trying to control it.

There is of course yet another legal 'problem' in that it was the United Kingdom who joined what was then the EEC and it could be argued that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom would not what remained - and I'm not sure what it would be called - have to then re-apply under its new name, as would Scotland. That would surely mean a referendum would have to be held, something Cameron will shift heaven and earth to avoid - so it is no surprise he doesn't want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. On the point of the legalities involved, no doubt far better brains than mine will be able to enlighten us on the legalities that a break-up of the UK viz-a-viz the EU would pose.

Needless to say the entire question of the United Kingdom remaining 'united' could easily be solved with the introduction of direct democracy - of which, more later........

Regional assemblies

2012-02-16T09:33:00.000-08:00

Ian Parker-Joseph (IanPJonPolitics) has an interesting post on the above subject, one in which he focuses on 'misdemeanours' within the East Midlands Regional Assembly, whilst linking to the little known UK Delegation of the Committee of the Regions. On that subject you then of course have this idiot 'bigging-up' that group of parasites. Interestingly, in his 'about' section the link to his cv does not work, hence it is necessary to view Wikipedia to then find he is another EU sycophant.

The Coalition may have stated an intention to disband Regional Assemblies and from the relevant page on parliamentary website we find it is the intention for this to have been effected by 1st April 2012. Where Regional Development Agencies are concerned, these were originally set up to, amongst other 'duties', manage the disbursement of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Rural Development Programme. As with all things political there is an 'element of 'smoke and mirrors' because, under the Coalitions programme for government, we find on page 10 the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships to replace Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and that these may take the form of the existing RDAs in areas where they are popular.

In other words: 'same old, same old', thus allowing the regionalisation programme to continue.

Just saying...............

Charitable donations

2012-02-16T07:36:00.000-08:00

When taking a neighbour who suffers from a lack of mobility to Sainsburys in Witney, our local Air Ambulance which covers Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire were fund raising at the store entrance.

There are few charities I support - if you look at fakecharities.org you will understand why - however I willingly donated to this charity. From Wikipedia we learn that in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Ambulance Service operates two helicopters and two fixed-wing aircraft twenty-four hours per day. These represent the UK's only government-funded air ambulance service; whilst the service to London receives most of its funding through the National Health Service.

Thames Valley & Chiltern Air Ambulance Trust receives no funding from the government, lottery or the NHS. Now compare that with the amount of public money that is poured into all those fake charities and perhaps our government should have a rethink. More importantly, government 'donations' are made using public money, so should not an element of 'referism' enter the equation - ie, should we not be asked to which charity we wish our money to be given?

Just saying.....................

Flying a kite?

2012-02-15T14:02:00.000-08:00

From Politics Home we are advised of the following press release:

"15 February 2012

With just five weeks to go until Budget Day, Simon Buck, Chief Executive of the British Air Transport Association, said:
"The Government is investing more than £120 million over the next four years to encourage millions more overseas tourists to visit Britain. This is an ambitious but important objective and vital for UK tourism and jobs, given, for example, that France attracts six times as many Chinese tourists compared to the UK.
Due to our geography, most foreign tourists visit the UK by air. But the UK has the highest taxes on flying in the world and George Osborne is planning on further increasing this tax by 8% from 1st April - over twice the rate of inflation.
This will mean UK taxes on flying will be almost ten times as high as the European average. However, several European countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands have drastically reduced or scrapped their taxes on flying because of the damage they do to their tourist industry.
With just five weeks to go before the Budget, the Chancellor needs to ditch the increases he has planned and announce a phase out of the tax if the Government is serious about boosting UK tourism.
With just five weeks to go until Budget Day, Simon Buck, Chief Executive of the British Air Transport Association, said:
"The Government is investing more than £120 million over the next four years to encourage millions more overseas tourists to visit Britain. This is an ambitious but important objective and vital for UK tourism and jobs, given, for example, that France attracts six times as many Chinese tourists compared to the UK.
Due to our geography, most foreign tourists visit the UK by air. But the UK has the highest taxes on flying in the world and George Osborne is planning on further increasing this tax by 8% from 1st April - over twice the rate of inflation.
This will mean UK taxes on flying will be almost ten times as high as the European average. However, several European countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands have drastically reduced or scrapped their taxes on flying because of the damage they do to their tourist industry.
With just five weeks to go before the Budget, the Chancellor needs to ditch the increases he has planned and announce a phase out of the tax if the Government is serious about boosting UK tourism."

With 'transport', in all its forms, being a competence of the EU it matters not what national "toy governments" do as their decisions can always be overridden by Brussels - and in any event if the "toy governments" of member states have any sense they will 'clear' their intended policies beforehand with their masters.

One would think that the Chief Executive of the British Air Transport Association would be aware of the legal 'technicalities' involved within his field of business, or perhaps the current holder of that post is living up to his surname; and practising the art of passing the decision-making process - after which he appears to be so aptly named.

Consequently one has to ask whether this press release is no more than a public PR exercise- one designed to let the government of the day 'off the hook' - from under which they can wriggle at a later date......

Just asking....................

Anyone disagree?

2012-02-15T12:23:00.000-08:00

From British Freedom, the following I have 'nicked' - or in polite 'blogger-speak - I am cross-posting.

"When I offered to write something for the British Freedom website spurred on by the excellent articles I had read, and the party’s ideas which are very much in tune with my own, I suddenly wondered what I could usefully contribute. In the past I have written to politicians outlining my intense displeasure with the state education system, mass immigration and the unfolding demographic disaster exacerbated by the corrosive effects of multiculturalism, and the plight of the working class, and all to not to much purpose, I might add. However, that said, I decided to share some thoughts with readers that I suspect are in keeping with those of many other people, especially of my age, who find it almost impossible to comprehend just how ugly this country has become in the space of a few short years, because in truth, it is anger that has brought me here, and to the British Freedom Party.

‘They have no idea how much I hate them’, a colleague told me a short while ago, and even I was slightly taken aback by the venom with which he said it. The ‘they’ in question, you will not be surprised to learn, were our ‘honourable’ politicians. His anger was directed at New Labour politicians in particular, and what he saw as their complete betrayal of people of this country. But as Paul Weston has written so convincingly in his essay, ‘How to Destroy a Country’, our fate as a people had been sealed a long time ago by politicians taking decisions that had no democratic legitimacy, and done so with utter contempt for the electorate. When politicians talk of President Assad’s attack on his ‘own people’, I often wonder if these traitors ever consider the consequences of their own insidious, downright evil attack on the English people, and do they realise just how easy they have made it to hate them?

And, it is of course, the English working class who have suffered the most from the Left’s rancid ideology. It is they who have seen their communities changed beyond recognition; it is they who have seen their wages plummet and working conditions eroded; it is they who have to fight for access to decent housing and schools for their children; it is they that are being screwed into the floor by big business, such as the energy companies; and it is they who are the most likely to be victims of crime, and exposed to cultural practices that are completely alien to this land, and which politicians were content to hide in the name of ‘social cohesion’.

Tim Mongomerie of ‘Conservative Home’ has written recently of Cameron’s mistake of not recruiting ‘gritty Northern candidates’ when modernising the Conservative Party, preferring instead women and ethnic minority candidates. I do not think this was a mistake at all, but deliberate policy. It was the working class who were going to bear the brunt of the changes wrought on this country, and most likely to be resistant to them. The last thing the political class wanted was working class representatives defending their interests. Blair’s New Labour intake was indicative of this strategy of exclusion, and it was continued by Cameron. It is to their credit that patriotic working class people have organised themselves because there was, and is, no sympathy from the political class who abandoned them. Indeed, I see more guts, honour and loyalty in the EDL than I do amongst the so called ‘political elite’. When Kevin Carroll said MPs should be ‘booted into the Thames’, I was inclined to agree with him. Actually, I would like to see the majority of MPs and Lords placed into a pod and launched into outer space never to be seen again, and we could do no better than start with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

Peter Hitchens writing of mass immigration on his blog dated 12/11/11 states:‘The elite wish to pretend that they sympathise with us about the problem. But secretly they want to change the country for ever, and see mass immigration as the best way of doing this…One day, perhaps, those to blame for this disgrace will be punished. But I think it will by then be too late.'

Politicians are well aware of the failure of mass immigration and multiculturalism and still they do not deviate from their lunatic path. We have over a million youth unemployed, the numbers of women out of work it at its highest for twenty-three years, vast numbers of people in part-time work, and an economy that continues to stagnate, and we are asked to believe that this has nothing to do with mass immigration. And who do we have waiting in the wings to put all this right, Ed. ‘Hope over Fear’, Miliband, who stood at the heart of New Labour and announced recently, ‘we got it wrong on immigration’. It does not matter who resides in Downing Street from the Lib-Lab-Con, the great EU integration project will continue.

So, yes, it is anger that has brought me here, and it is an anger that has grown over time as I have watched and listened to deceitful, self-serving members and vicious ideologues of the political class destroy our country."

Personally, I find nothing offensive in the words written above - although, no doubt, our leftie-colleagues will - and they are words that I would suggest resonate with the majority of people in this country, whether they take an active interest in politics or not.

That we do have the means to change all this cannot be in doubt because all we have to say to our political class is: either you come with us, peacefully - or else.......

Unfortunately, methinks that at the end of the day it will take: 'or else' - which means that those who have taken a 'futures punt' on AK47s, piano wire and lamp posts are onto a 'winner'!

But, Mr. Hannan, is not that.......

2012-02-15T11:53:00.000-08:00

......something that the peoples of a nation state should decide?

That 'something' appears in his Daily Telegraph blog where Hannan writes:

"As late as the first Bush presidency, most American opinion-formers, including most conservatives, vaguely favoured the idea of a united Europe...."

a philosophy which was also prevalent in the UK. Ah, you may say, we were asked - and so we were. Unfortunately, where the people of the United Kingdom were concerned, the ramifications of an affirmative response were never fully explained, the campaign was rigged and the Prime Minister at the time blatantly lied - but hey, that is politicians for you.

Hannan continues in his article to state that Britain is a common law democracy and he is wrong on both points. What common law we had has been steadily eroded by the political elite - and continues to be - and neither do we have a democracy, per se. That, in effect, we live under a system of democratised dictatorship in which once every few years we are allowed to choose which party of incompetent thieves should 'rule' us is something which Hannan does not address. Oh and please don't quote 'The Plan' to me - that is no more than a way to maintain the status quo, one whereby ultimate control still rests with the political elite.

In fairness, Hannan does make one or two relevant points - unfortunately I gain the impression that Daniel Hannan talks a good fight, but when the fighting starts he is conspicuous by his absence. Richard North, EU Referendum, has referred to Hannan as 'Myrtle' - as in Myrtle, the Judas Goat - and I for one cannot disagree.

Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell! (2)

2012-02-15T10:52:00.001-08:00

That Cameron does not' govern Britain was raised in the first post with this title which dealt with the point about coastguard closures and Cameron's lack of power. This subject was also covered here in respect of the Costa Concordia tragedy.

Today yet another example of Cameron's inability to 'govern' has been illustrated with the report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph from Bruno Waterfield and in today's edition of the same paper James Kirkup reports (does not appear to be on-line) that the UK is one of 12 countries facing an investigation by the commission under a new "economic governance" procedure to "detect and correct risky economic developments. Kirkup's article goes on to state that Olli Rehn, the European economic affairs commissioner, said that if the "in depth scrutiny" concluded that household borrowing was dangerously excessive, the Coalition would be told to"take appropriate action to correct the situation". The European Commission press release on this subject can be read here, a press release which contains links to the full report.

Do note the words 'the Coalition will be told to take appropriate action to correct the situation'. So Cameron, as Prime Minister, heads the government of our country - and George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in charge of our country's economic policies? Where there any 'eurosceptics' within the Conservative Party, surely they would be crawling all over this news item and asking questions in Parliament and raising the matter in the press?

Two quotations spring to mind:

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws."
Amschel Rothchild

"Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who predict don't have knowledge."
Lao Tzu, 6th century BC poet

The first quotation is, perhaps, now redundant as the EU has virtually managed both, but I digress - and the second shows why politicians (especially the likes of Osborne and Balls) should not attempt to predict economic outcomes - or outcomes of any kind.

Just saying...............

Afterthought: While our democracy, our 'independence, our status as a 'sovereign nation' is being trashed before our eyes, Cameron is presently fixated on binge-drinking? Priorities, Mr. Cameron? The mind, something he appears to be missing, boggles.......

Reducing Costs

2012-02-15T08:45:00.000-08:00

Having been out most of the day it had been my intention, on returning home, to write about Cameron entering the alcohol debate, however Richard North, EU Referendum, The Boiling Frog and The Talking Clock have covered this topic exceedingly well, Richard North linking to the latter two blogs. I note from the Daily Telegraph that Cameron will attack the “scandal of our society” caused by Britain’s drinking culture which costs the NHS more than £2.7 billion annually - or so it is said.

As an aside to all that has been written, perhaps Cameron might also consider attacking an even bigger "scandal of our society", wherein the taxpayer is being stung £165million to fund a group in our society who obviously have no understanding of the meaning of the word 'representative'. £165million may seem peanuts when compared to £2.7billion, but bear in mind that when considering the costs of idiotic and ill-informed decisions our politicians have taken over the years, the actual cost to the taxpayer probably cannot be computed!

Just saying.....................

Deeply Worrying

2012-02-15T05:49:00.000-08:00

Back in January this year I posted about interference in our education system (at least that is what the politicians call it - an education system) and wondered whether parents were aware of this. Today, courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents, comes notice of another insidious intrusion into the welfare of children, an intrusion of which I was not aware and one that makes me wonder whether parents of children are.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) produces what is termed a S'cool agenda for young people and which advises that the 2011 Agenda does not only help young people to keep track of their daily activities and homework, but is also intended to raise awareness on fundamental rights issues in Europe. The FRA S'Cool Agenda provides useful information on topics like racism, xenophobia, discrimination and homophobia as well as a calendar of commemorative days and a number of other features. From the 2011 Agenda it is also learnt that S’cool Agenda is published by the FRA for teenagers between 12 and 18 years old. The purpose of the S’cool Agenda is to raise awareness about fundamental rights. Every year, limited numbers of the S’cool Agenda are printed and distributed across the EU for free.

I may be old fashioned but I always assumed that children went to school to gain an education - to be taught the correct use of their language, to read and hopefully develop a love of great literature, to learn about the history of their country and its evolution, to acquire a basic grasp of mathematics, etc etc. Do read S'cool Agenda and then ask yourself this question:

If our politicians are so hell bent on preventing the 'grooming' of children for sexual practices, how in the name of damnation do our politicians allow the 'grooming' of young minds for political purposes?

Just asking.......................

As I read I wonder.......

2012-02-14T11:28:00.000-08:00

..... just what the hell we get for our £165million?

From the print edition of the Daily Telegraph today, 14th February, the following headlines can be read:

"Britain being taken over by militant secularists."
"Brussels threatens pensions and jobs."
"22 hour curfew for Qatada as he is freed."
"No10 powerless in college tsar row."
"Britain in slow lane of global recovery."
"Quango bonuses are fair,says union."
"Elderly care is the great scandal of our society....."
"Public should be charged for freedom of information requests."
"Breast cancer too costly for the NHS."
"Hospital trust counts the cost of translators."
"£1million fund to end blight of binge drinking."
"Women should get time out of jail to see their children, judge rules."
"End of the line for rail firms making millions from weekend buses."
"Hague rules out Syria role for British troops."

There is not one item there that will not involve, in one form or another, the government using our money for finance either now or at some time in the future. I repeat a question from an earlier post, namely where was the element of 'referism'? Where have the people been involved in the decision making for any of the above? Where are examples of any MP returning to his constituents and asking them how they would wish he should vote on each issue? Where, for example, is there any instance of the government asking the people if they are prepared to fund an attempt to end binge-drinking?

If politicians elected to govern, so obviously cannot or will not, why are we paying them £165million per annum? If politicians are able to spend our money, without any recourse to us, why are we paying them £165 million per annum? If politicians, elected to represent their constituents, ignore those constituents and vote according to their principles and views and/or who ignore their constituents by dutifully following the party line, why are we paying them £165million per annum? If politicians obfuscate, lie to us, fail to tell us the truth, trick us, swindle us, and have the morals of a sewer rat, why are we paying them £165million per annum?

The sooner those 'sick' within our society are 'hospitalized', the sooner our country will return to good health.

Just saying................

Transparency,Truth, Honesty - There isn't any!

2012-02-14T05:43:00.000-08:00

"There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy." Joseph Pulitzer

The Guardian picks up on a story to which I linked in my preceding post to this, namely that the Ministry of Justice is maintaining that the Freedom of Information Act has not improved government. Too true it hasn't - at least from the politician's and bureaucrat's point of view. The FOIA has turned the spotlight on the behaviour of the political class and they obviously don't like it - one only has to think back to the expenses saga to realise that.

Apropos that preceding post, it is only necessary to give a little thought as to why Dominic Grieve will not release the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998. Grieve's decision only reinforces the fact that there was an element of 'EU' involved and that our political elite do not want that information known by the public. That decisions have been taken that affect the United Kingdom without the people being aware of the reasons is tantamount to dictatorial government - or as I prefer to term it, democratised dictatorship.

On a related matter, Chris Snowden - aka Velvet Glove and Iron Fist - posts here and here on what may be termed the dictatorial use of public money, yet another decision over which the people have not been consulted. Where was the element of 'referism' involved in either of these two decisions? Come to that, where is the element of 'referism' where any government spending is concerned - be that national or local? If these so-called charities were charities, instead of being paid vassals of government, then should not their existence be maintained by public donations? Why should people have money forcibly extracted from them to fund organisations whose 'cause' is one in which they may/do not believe?

Did the Coalition not promise transparency in government? If so, how can an anonymous website be set up to lobby for government policy, unless of course the government has redefined the word 'transparent'; how can Dominic Grieve veto documents if he wishes the public to know the truth, unless of course he doesn't - in which case he cannot lay claim to honesty.

The longer the political class are allowed to continue with their system of democratised dictatorship, the longer they will be able to commit crimes against us, dodge us, trick us, swindle us and maintain their life of vice!

The 'dark' secrets of devolution?

2012-02-14T01:56:00.000-08:00

A Freedom of Information request, which had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998, has been turned down by Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General on the grounds that release would not be in the public interest to release the papers because it would undermine the operation of Government. Digressing slightly, it appears that there is now a move to charge for FOI requests; a report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice has been submitted to the Justice Select Committee found that the number of requests had risen by 25% each year and are being seen as a drain on resources. This rather makes a mockery of the promise contained in the Coalition Programme for Government (page 11):

"We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency".

It is necessary to return to the days of the Brown Government and the year 2007, when on 28th June Gordon Brown appointed Regional Ministers. When the Coalition was formed the Prime Minister's Spokesman was asked on 17 May 2010 if Regional Ministers had been scrapped. He said that the process of completing appointments to the Government was continuing, and that the Prime Minister, David Cameron, "had been very clear on the importance of devolution". On 4 June 2010 the Evening Standard reported that the post of Minister for London had been scrapped. No formal announcements were made in relation to regional ministers, but I believe it correct to say there has been no announcements of any similar appointments by region. However Greg Clark was appointed as a Minister of Cities in July and according to the report on Conservative Home Clark will initially focus on the so-called 'Core Cities' outside of London; Birmingham (West Midlands - UKG), Bristol (South West - UKK), Leeds, Sheffield (Yorkshire and the Humber - UKE), Liverpool, Manchester (North West - UKD), Newcastle (North East - UKC) and Nottingham (East Midlands - UKF). That takes care of 6 of the 9 English regions, those omitted being London (UKI), the South East (UKJ) and East of England (UKH). (Note that I have added the Eurostat NUTS nomenclature for each region at Level 1).

Leading up to point of this post it is necessary that we consider two further links; the Committee of the Regions - from which we learn their raison d'être - and a most illuminating post from Ian Parker-Joseph (IPJonPolitics) to which I linked here.

With the appointment of Greg Clark it is obvious that the regionalisation of England is still 'alive and kicking' - it is also obvious, I maintain, that the reason for Grieve to veto the release of the papers in question is due to the fact it would show too much of the 'elephant in the room', which would be a surprise - not.

Needless to say Grieve can negate my accusation by releasing the damn papers - no?

Down with trousers - up with skirts!

2012-02-13T11:26:00.000-08:00

The Mail reports on the case 13-year-old Luca Scarabello who believes he has the right to wear skirts like girls. This item of news also appears in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph but does not seem to be on-line. Young Master Scarabello's case has been taken up by Tam Baillie, Scottish parliament's Commissioner for Children and Young People and Scarabello's campaign, needless to say, is being backed by the Scottish Transgender Alliance and LGBT Scotland, which represents lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Leaving to one side that this may well be a case of a child attempting to be 'clever'; or his mind has been led astray by a 'not-fit-for-purpose' education system, one aided and abetted by Baillie; the question has to be asked whether a 13-year-old actually does have any idea what gender he is? I cannot help but be reminded of 1 Corinthians 13:11 "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me".

Having said that, it may be Master Scarabello has not noticed that for yonks, where he lives, men have been wearing skirts..........

All is not what it would appear......

2012-02-13T09:37:00.002-08:00

.....if the facts in this are correct. If the facts are correct then, as my email correspondent stated when forwarding the link to me, perhaps Deutschland gets a bit more ueber Alles?

Anyone seen any mention of this in our MSM? Just asking.........

Update: Post this, go to my blogroll and find Richard is 'on the case'........

Note: the link is in Greek - use the translate button....

Greece

2012-02-12T13:44:00.000-08:00

From the synopsis of Apocalypse Now:

"During the on-going Vietnam War, Captain Willard is sent on a dangerous mission into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade Green Beret who has set himself up as a God among a local tribe."

From 'Acropolis Now':

During the on-going EU war, the Greek people have sent themselves on a dangerous mission to overthrow a renegade EU Troika who have set themselves up as Gods among the local tribe."

Just saying.....................

And Ukip is a 'Libertarian' party?

2012-02-12T12:51:00.000-08:00

On reading this post on Independence Home I posted a comment that stated the content of that post was 'a load of spheroids" and referred them to my post here.

If one claims to be 'libertarian' then surely one of the basic concepts of that creed should be that of free speech, however disliked the opinion may be. In defense of that statement I can but quote Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

The moderators of Independence Home may well be 'busy' however it has to be asked whether moderators should be 'monitoring' their sites if moderation is in force. Having posted my comment an hour ago, I believe it reasonable to expect that it should be visible.

Or perhaps Independence Home is like Conservative Home - censoring free speech? Or, God forbid, Tim Montgomerie is moonlighting as a moderator on Independence Home?

Just asking..................

Question

2012-02-12T12:28:00.000-08:00

"Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The correlation twixt this and this, is?

Just asking................

The NHS (2)

2012-02-12T12:04:00.000-08:00

Following on from my previous post on this subject, it would appear that where provision of health services in the EU is concerned all is not as first appears. Whilst health care was specifically excluded from the scope of the services directive, in June 2006 Ministers of Health of the (then) 25 Member States adopted common values and principles which are to guide EU health systems - and which, as far as I am aware, are still 'extant'.

From the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) website we read that:

"In their declaration, ministers agree that health services must be underpinned by the following values, as defined below:

universality (access to healthcare must be ensure for every person living in the European Union);

access to good quality care;

equity ( equal access to health care regardless of ethnicity, gender, age, social status and ability to pay);

solidarity (linked to the financial schemes under which the health systems are funded)

They also state that reducing health inequalities must be one of the aims of health systems, as well as a shift towards preventive measures.

Besides values, they specifically note that the implementation of those values vary from one State to another and that should remain the rule. Nevertheless, they outline operational principles:

Quality

Safety

Care that is based on evidence and ethics

Patient Involvement

Redress

Privacy and confidentiality

In passing, do note that phrase "as well as a shift towards preventive measures." which is more than likely the reason for legislation such as the 'smoking ban'; latterly, the attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, obesity, 'cheese rolling' (someone might break an arm or a leg); and other such 'dangerous practices'. Note also the 'operational principles' outlined, which provides ample scope for the Lib/Lab/Con to inflict their ideology on changes that they make to our 'national treasure' - aka the NHS.

It is also worth noting Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in particular clause (a):

"The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of Member States. The areas of action shall, at European level, be:

(a) protection and improvement of human health"

So not only do we find that Cameron' proposals for changes to the NHS conform to the 'common values and principles', being the good 'European' that he so obviously is he has ensured they do.

Reverting to Article 6(a) of the TFEU, it does beg the question how long it will be before a 'harmonisation' of healthcare and the provision of same emanates from Brussels?

Just asking...........

Psychological Hogwash?

2012-02-11T14:02:00.000-08:00

The Mail reports that human beings are 'hard-wired' to 'fancy' to other races and that Dr Michael Lewis, who led the research project, said:

"It will come as no surprise to many that facial attractiveness makes up part of the decision of who we marry. ‘And it's no coincidence that groups perceived as more attractive - black males and Asian females - feature more often in mixed-race marriages. ‘In the past more measurable features such as wealth, status and fertility have been considered more important in how we choose out partners. ‘Our study matches the same patterns observed in the Government's data on marriage."

I would argue that this 'research' is no more than yet another attempt at 'social engineering', as intimated by Up Pompeii. The case that Up Pompeii makes, that white males and females supposedly 'prefer' coloured partners; that the media will 'pick-up' on this supposed fact and promote is not in doubt, because (a) we all believe in 'myths'; and (b), the media believe everything they are told and do not bother to query or investigate claims.

Now, where does the word 'myth' enter the report in the Mail. Have we not been led to believe that men of black ethnicity are 'bigger' than white men, or in 'polite-speak', better endowed? Where is the 'research'? Are we not led to believe that Asian women are more subservient to the male? Where is the 'research'? Consequently I would argue that 'facial attractiveness' has bugger-all to do with it. As a result both men and women have been led to believe 'something' - and once into 'it' then find that it ain't so. Whereas men may be quite 'happy' with a situation in which they find they are 'top dog', where women are concerned the situation alters because I would suggest that the female gene 'kicks-in' whereby they accept their situation 'for the benefit of the children' and their desire to maintain a family atmosphere. The latter point is underlined with cases where women who accept 'violence' from their partner for that one reason, so who is to say that they do not accept their situation in 'mixed marriages' for the same reason?

It may well be that there are cases of happy and successful 'mixed marriages' but has there been any 'research' into cases where this is not so? Bearing in mind that I have now become a cynic, this begs the question whether the latest 'research' is not 'government inspired'? I would not put anything past our political bastards!

Over to my readers - but just saying.................

The NHS

2012-02-11T10:12:00.000-08:00

Much in the news these days is the latest plan by the Coalition to operate on the NHS with the aim of providing a better service, as has just about every government since it was created by the National Health Service Act 1946. Also in the news of late has been the question of care of the elderly.

Douglas Carswell has entered the fray with this post, announcing that he intends to support the coalition plans. In this post he writes:

"Of course there are various vested interests opposed to change. They should be listened to carefully and with respect. But at the same time, we should remember that the British Medical Association, for example, has pretty much opposed every single reform ever since the NHS was founded. We should no more run a health service for the benefit of the BMA than we might run a political system for the benefit of MPs." (my emphasis)

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings........ Mr. Carswell, we do run a political system for the benefit of MPs and it is called representative democracy - but I digress.

Of course Douglas Carswell is correct when he says 'we', as in 'government and politicians' should not run a health service and it is a great pity that government and politicians cannot accept and understand that they should not run anything - but again, I digress.

I would venture that most people believe the NHS, in it's current format, has existed well beyond its sell-by-date and that change is needed cannot be denied. The main problem, in enacting change through the years, is that that change has been driven by political dogma to the detriment of the people. Radical reform is necessary, reform that puts the people in charge of their healthcare and in this respect perhaps a system based on that operated in Switzerland would be the way forward. On the two matters mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, do read this and this - while bearing in mind the content of the preceding post. That change would, no doubt, present problems in implementation and may necessitate two systems being operated for a number of years, but then radical change never is easy.

Just saying..................

Direct Democracy: a safeguard to limit public spending - shock horror!

2012-02-11T04:58:00.000-08:00

From Vox comes news of a study by Patricia Funk, Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra; and Christina Gathmann Professor of Economics, University of Heidelberg. In summary they found that:

Having a mandatory budget referendum in place reduces public spending by 12%.
Voter initiatives that allow citizens to propose new laws also lower public spending. For every 1% reduction in the signature requirement, public spending declines by 0.6%.
The constraints imposed by direct democracy at the state level do not result in more local spending. This result suggests that state politicians cannot avoid the disciplining effect of direct democracy by simply shifting responsibilities to lower levels of government.

A further paper that is worth reading is: "Preferences Matter! Voter Preferences, Direct Democracy and Government Spending" (Unpublished Manuscript) a paper written in December 2011.

But, QM, they're all parasites - especially the political class!

2012-02-10T13:50:00.000-08:00

The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on the matter of Emma Harrison (a4e) who "pocketed £8.6million last year - most of it from the taxpayer". QM also quotes from the newspaper article:

"MPs voiced astonishment at the size of the payment to Mrs Harrison, and questioned why the firm had continued to win contracts despite the ‘abysmal’ record.The company even received a share of £63million in ‘termination fees’ when the DWP ended a previous back-to-work programme in which the firm was involved and replaced it with a new one. MPs were told that A4e had missed its target of getting 30 per cent of people on the previous ‘Pathways to Work’ programme into a job. The committee heard the success rate was 9 per cent. The company last night claimed a 24.2 per cent final figure. Despite missing its targets the firm was taken on to run five lucrative contracts."

It does beg the question whether Emma Harrison, in gaining five lucrative contracts (having previously 'screwed up') hit upon an idea that had 'legs' - and promptly opened them; but I digress.......

In accusing Emma Harrison of being a parasite on society, are not MPs parasites on society? At general elections party candidates present themselves as representatives of a political party that will form the government of our country - yet we all know (well, some of us do) that they will form no more than a willing herd to do their party's bidding and that of their leader who, in turn, will do the bidding of Brussels. In other words they are presenting themselves as being able to do something which they cannot, the end result of which is they become parasites on our society by being paid by society for 'non-performance'. It is also worth remembering that phrase "representatives of a political party"; because that is exactly what they are, even though they would have us believe they are our representatives.

Where any group manages to instill a system that perpetuates their continued existence, it is understandable that they will do everything in their power to maintain that situation, by whatever means. Our politicians may talk about 'localism' and 'devolution of power', but they have no intention of doing anything like that because that would immediately result in their own impotence. Our politicians may talk about 'transparency', but have none; our politicians may talk about the fact that only they know best, but don't; our politicians may talk about the fact that they are the font of all knowledge, but aren't. I am reminded of a quotation by Honore de Balzac, one which I paraphrase: "Politics is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies". If one considers any political ideology, it has but one aim and that is to distance the political class from those they are meant to represent - and it is done by the pretence of making the electorate believe they have power when that power actually resides with the political class by means of 'hidden' central control. As part of that 'control' one only has to look at the number of advisory bodies and quangos that have been created to assist 'government' to control those they are meant to serve and also, in so doing, distance themselves from those they are meant to serve.

The Bruges Group have just published a paper written by George Buchan (do read it) in which, discussing "National Interests and the European Union", he writes:

"Particularly in Europe, however, national interests are very politically expansive and partisan because government itself has become very expansive in size and scope. The narrower the size and scope of government, the less chance national interests have to be politicised and politically manipulated because governmental responsibilities themselves remain narrow. Therefore, the more the size and scope of government goes outside its core responsibilities (and therefore vital national interests), the more opportunities it has to design and create national interests which are not vital to the survival of the state (i.e. secondary), but to the survival of the government in power....."

And that last sentence has been embraced by our political class with enthusiasm as it ensures their own survival.

QM ends his post by mentioning 'tribal voting', something which the political class have furthered by their own underhandedness, epitomized by statements couched in 'politicspeak' where truth has no place. How else can one explain a situation whereby a political party, rejected by the electorate for incompetence, finds itself 5 percentage points in the lead in opinion polls once unpopular policies are announced by their opponents in government? In Parliament politicians talk about 'sovereignty', yet were the average member of the electorate to be asked what that word meant, I suspect most of them could not even spell it let alone define it. Why? Because the political elite don't want to engage in a conversation with the electorate about something that would immediately show that they, the political elite, are but a self-serving collection of egotists and careerists.

When writing "1984" it could be said that George Orwell got his date wrong by 18 years - but hey, at least he got two of the digits correct!

The European Union and railways

2012-02-10T12:07:00.000-08:00

In January this year I posted yet another article about HS2 and noted that Justine Greening and Statutory Instrument 3066/2011 stated that our rail system is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU)".

On the 8th February Siim Kallas, Vice-President and Commissioner for Transport, gave a speech entitled: "Europe's railways - on track to the future", one in which he made plain that the railway systems of member states will no longer be national railway systems, but will be the European railway system.

"This should be a real European railway to join up east and west, north and south – and not the collection of national railways we have today, struggling with technical differences in track gauges, electrification and signalling."

That Kallas is determined to standardise rolling stock, signalling, locomotive construction, brake design and technology, ticketing, cannot be in doubt. Neither can it be in doubt that as transport is an EU competence there will be some directives issued in the future.

No doubt in the years to come, as with Cameron and his wish for gender equality on company boards, changes to our railways will be presented as a UK government initiative while a little 'digging' will soon show that they are anything but.

Just saying.........

And Ukip are doing............

2012-02-09T12:43:00.000-08:00

So a 'mock' referendum is to be held in Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Doncaster North – the constituencies of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.

At the time of writing, mention on the Ukip website amounts to.........Zilch, Nada, Nowt! The fact that these 'mock' referendums were to be held has been known for some time now - which begs the question what Ukip branches across the country have been doing by means of preparation. Probably Zilch, Nada, Nowt - yet would not a committee of a constituency where the sitting MP was a party leader surely be interested and do their utmost to gain support for their party? Would not a party, intent on gaining support among the electorate for their policy of leaving the European Union not ensure that local committees were making preparations? Would not the leadership of that party have thought about - oh, hang on..........

UKIP - U Know Its Pointless.........

'Care' Homes & Smoking

2012-02-09T12:16:00.000-08:00

On twitter @DickPuddlecote has drawn my attention to this article from deadlinenews, one relating to a 83 year-old man who will be forced to go outside as the smoking-room is being closed for the reason that the health and well-being of other residents is an "utmost priority" of the care home in question,

The care home in question, Canmore Lodge Care Home in Dunfermline, Fife is one of many owned by Barchester Healthcare who pride themselves on "treating everyone as individuals..........and ensuring every day is thoroughly enjoyable."; whilst also priding themselves on the fact they consider "their dedication can be seen 'across the board' where their hospitality is concerned". The Barchester website also proclaims that "......you can be assured of the best quality care tailored to meet your individual needs; home environments that are warm, friendly and leading-edge....."

It has to be said that depriving an individual of the freedom to enjoy what can be assumed is one of a few remaining pleasures that remain in this man's life is not treating him as an individual, nor ensuring every day is thoroughly enjoyable. It also brings into doubt their claim about 'hospitality', whilst also casting doubt on their claim to provide home environments that are warm and friendly. I would have thought that in the last years of our lives those looking after us would do everything to ensure that those last years are enjoyable and thus free from sorrow. Yet the situation of the two men involved in this article means they are subjected to a life that will not be enjoyable and free from sorrow - and it is being decided by those with a belief in political correctness and their decisions being those based on highly questionable 'scientific' findings. It has to be said that when those making the decisions of today become subjected to the world they have/are creating - they ain't going to like it much!

My mother, who has attained her century, is also in a care home, one run by West Berkshire County Council. Where the level of care and dedication of the staff who work there is concerned, neither can be faulted. The story, related above, made me dig out' the brochure I received when I was touring the choice of care homes available at the time it became necessary that I ceased acting as her carer because I felt uncomfortable attending to her personal needs. This brochure stated that "We understand that living in ones own home may be preferable, so we aim to create a homely atmosphere." and "Smoking is only allowed in your own bedroom and the grounds of the home". West Berkshire have recently announced that not only is smoking not allowed in bedrooms (ones that they maintain is the residents own room) but also within the grounds of the care home.

Which reminds me, I must start asking a few questions.....................

Pickard of the FT

2012-02-09T11:15:00.000-08:00

Apropos my earlier post about boardroom targets, one in which I took to task Tim Ross of the Daily Telegraph, it would seem that Jim Pickard of the FT is suffering from the same deficits - namely lack of research or choosing to hide the truth.

Now, Jim Pickard and I have 'crossed swords' previously, here - I wonder whether a similar apology will be forthoming?

Just asking, Mr. Pickard, just asking................

Ray Honeyford

2012-02-09T10:32:00.000-08:00

An obituary appeared in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph for the above-named, a teacher who in 1984 dared to criticise multiculturalism. This man was also the subject of two articles, one in City Journal in 2002 and the other in the Daily Telegraph in 2006. Besides being right on multiculturalism he also was totally right when considering the worth of politicians.

When Ruth Kelly, then Communities Secretary, made a speech publicly questioning the multiculturalist orthodoxies that, for so long, had acted almost as a test of virtue among "right-thinking" people - and asked if he had been impressed by Kelly's speech, he is reported as having said that she was only a politician, a bird of passage, minister of education one day and minister of communities the next, and like all politicians liable to say whatever was fashionable or useful to her career at the moment. (my emphasis)

It is perhaps pertinent to repeat the last words of Theodore Dalrymple, writing in city Journal:

"If we had only listened to Ray Honeyford, we should not have sown what we are now reaping and what we (and others) shall reap for many years to come."

Boardroom targets

2012-02-09T05:04:00.000-08:00

We are informed by Tim Ross, the Daily Telegraph's political correspondent, that David Cameron may set targets for women in boardrooms. However, as usual, no-one at the Daily Telegraph has done their research - and if they have they choose to ignore it in order that, yet again, an article can be written that 'bigs-up' David Cameron as a decisive and forceful figure.

This business of women quotas arose this time last year when Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann's comment that a woman's presence on a company board might make meetings "prettier and more colorful" was one of the less constructive contributions to the debate raging in Germany and across Europe about the chronic absence of women serving at the top of major public companies. At the same time German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned German business leaders to "be creative, or we will be creative" and EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding stated that quotas might be necessary if businesses don't start to voluntarily comply. If self-regulation fails, legislation on quotas may follow. In fact in March last year EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding met European business leaders to push for more women in boardrooms.

"We need to use all of our society’s talents to ensure that Europe’s economy takes off. This is why the dialogue between the Commission and the social partners is so important. I believe that self-regulation could make a difference if it is credible and effective across Europe. However, I will come back to the matter in a year. If self-regulation fails, I am prepared to take further action at EU level."

The Commission stated in its 2010-15 gender equality strategy that it would address the gender imbalance in business decision-making through targeted initiatives. Commissioner Reding called on publicly listed companies to sign a ‘women on the board pledge’ by March 2012, making a voluntary commitment to increase women’s presence on their boards to 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020, by actively recruiting qualified women to replace outgoing male board members. The Commission will assess in March 2012 whether there has been significant progress and whether ‘credible’ self-regulatory initiatives have been developed to increase women’s participation. If not, it will consider proposing EU legislation on the issue.

So what we have here is not Cameron being decisive and forceful - what we have here is Cameron doing what his masters in Brussels have asked him to do before he is ordered to do it! It would seem that Tim Ross is but doing the same job that Winston Smith was employed to do.

Afterthought: It is doubly sad that Yvette Cooper cannot admit that were she in government, she would have to do exactly the same thing!

More humour - not so risqué

2012-02-08T14:24:00.000-08:00

A few pertinent sayings......

To our politicians who, especially at PMQs, delight in quoting each other:

Silence is not only golden - it is seldom misquoted.

To those of the political elite, on discovering they have been caught out':

Lawyers are people specifically educated to discover legal excuses for dishonest, dishonourable and anti-social acts.

To those among us, who seem unable to see or hear that which is being done to us:

When it comes to evil, to tolerate is to accommodate, to accommodate is to appease, to appease is to concede defeat.

To those politicians who daily demonstrate their unsuitability to government:

Every morning is the dawn of a new error.

Finally, to politicians in general, for whom I have no respect:

You have one advantage over me; you can kiss my arse - I can't.

Time for some risqué humour......

2012-02-08T13:45:00.000-08:00

While taking a break from two 'serious' papers I'm trying to write for Talk Constitution - plus having imbibed a tad - I notice that the Express is forecasting a loada snow, which reminded me of a joke, or two.

God made man before woman so as to give him time think of an answer to her first question.

A mistress is something between a mister and a mattress.

Women are the foundations of our society - just remember who laid them.

Snow......? Snow.......? - oh, yes:

For a woman sex is like snow - they never know how many inches they are going to get, nor how long it will last.

Bill Cosby: "I'm 76 and tired

2012-02-08T08:10:00.000-08:00

This should be required reading for every man, woman and child in Jamaica, the UK , United States of America , Canada , Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the world.

"I'm 76. Except for brief period in the 50's when I was doing my National Service, I've worked hard since I was 17. Except for some serious health challenges, I put in 50-hour weeks, and didn't call in sick in nearly 40 years. I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks as though retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honour"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in Australia , New Zealand, UK, America and Canada , while no one from these countries are allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country to teach love and tolerance..

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses or stick a needle in their arm while they tried to fight it off?

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

I'm also tired and fed up with seeing young men and women in their teens and early 20's be-deck them selves in tattoos and face studs, thereby making themselves un-employable and claiming money from the Government.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 76.. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter and her children. Thank God I'm on the way out and not on the way in."

No apologies are offered if you have seen this previously - it bears repetition!

Update: Doubt has been cast in respect of the authenticity of these words - to which I say it matters not as they are but that which an awful lot of people think and are beginning to say!

Europe Needs Democratic Rejuvenation

2012-02-08T07:49:00.000-08:00

So writes Viviane Reding in an article which appears in the WSJ (subscription necessary), one in which Open Europe reports:

"In an op-ed in the WSJ, EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, writes that 20 years after Maastricht, Europe is in need of “democratic rejuvenation”, and she proposes a five-point plan for 2020. The plan includes convening “a convention to draft a treaty on European political union. Such an agreement should ensure that the European Parliament becomes a true European legislature, with the right to initiate legislation and the exclusive right to elect the Commission… From 2016-19, the treaty on political union would be subject to ratification in all member states by way of referendums. It would enter into force once two-thirds of member states have ratified it. Citizens should be given two alternatives: either to accept the new treaty, or to reject it and remain in a close form of association, notably by continuing to participate in the single market."

So we are to have a referendum after all, although of course not the one we want.

This move by Reding presents Cameron, were he to still be Prime Minister, with a slight problem right at the outset, namely does he participate in the drafting of a treaty on political union or does he politely request that everyone else takes a long walk of a short pier. Were Cameron still Prime Minister and still heading a coalition government the problem for Cameron becomes even more intricate, especially if Clegg is still leader of the Liberal Democrats. A third piece in this jigsaw can best be summed up with the words: God forbid that Labour were to win the next general election, in particular were MilibandE still leader.

From Open Europe it is also reported that that which Reding is proposing is echoed by Angela Merkel:

"Separately, Handelsblatt reports that at the same event, Merkel said that “step-by-step, European politics is merging with domestic politics”, and called for “comprehensive structural reform” of the EU in the form of closer political integration in order to overcome its “major shortcomings”. Specifically, she said that member states ought to be prepared to cede further powers to the EU, and that the European Commission ought to function more as a European government, with the Council of Ministers operating as a “second chamber” alongside a strengthened European Parliament."

One can only hope that before any such treaty on political union could become effective, we in the UK will have exhausted our stocks of ammunition for AK47s and also be experiencing a problem where the supply of piano wire is concerned!

'Simples' - for the masses

2012-02-07T16:06:00.000-08:00

Richard North, EU Referendum, produces a depiction of the present political situation under which we presently live - one which I reproduce below.

For those who don't understand the message contained therein, fear not - go back to your Eastenders and ,X-Factor - those of us who do will make life better for you.

We are short of monetary 'cash' - unfortunately we appear to have too much parliamentary 'cash'

2012-02-07T12:41:00.000-08:00

Bill Cash - in case it should miss your notice, even though he does mention it - is Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and he has an article on Conservative Home in which he puts forward the argument that the failure of previous governments to veto EU treaties is to blame for our troubles today. Coupled with this he also maintains that successive administrations have allowed the European juggernaut to continue.

It seems to have escaped the notice of Mr. Cash that it is the failure of those elected, who could have vetoed those EU treaties, that are to blame for our troubles today. It is the failure of those elected - that have supported successive administrations - that have allowed the European juggernaut to continue. It is the failure of those elected who, by their own admission are against the policies of their party, have given tacit support when they should have resigned their party whip, who at the earliest opportunity could have - and should have - stood as independent candidates. That they did not can only be due to the fact they put their careers above their principles and honour - what one might term: cash or honour.

Bill Cash would appear not to recognise that he and his committee can hold all the inquiries they wish - and on whatever aspects of the EU they choose - it will change not one comma on that which issues forth from Brussels, nor will it affect the intentions of Brussels, nor the intentions of those who it might be said attained the leadership of their party through dubious statements.

That our politics has sunk to the nadir it has, where it is viewed with outright cynicism, that it becomes legitimate to question whether those who maintain they are eurosceptics - Cash, Carswell, Hannan - are not in fact closet europhiles - aka 'Judas Goats'. I have to revert to a point made in the preceding post in which I asked: "What is the point of a politician who states that a situation is unacceptable - which is what May said - and then not being able to do owt about it?"

The House of Commons, aka The Talking Shop

2012-02-07T10:18:00.000-08:00

The House of Commons used to be the place where the laws of this land were made - and unmade - where decisions on who could enter this country and who could not were made; where decisions on whether any individual should be 'escorted off the premises', were made. That the House of Commons can no longer do that is illustrated by the statement made by Theresa May on the matter of Abu Qatada. For May to stand up and in effect admit that Qatada should be deported but cannot because she no longer has the power to to that is not just an embarrassment for her but also for this country.

That the House of Commons is now no more than a talking shop is illustrated by May's statement; by Dominic Raab's complaint that the decision undermines public protection; and by Cash's plea that the Human Rights Act needs to be amended. Instead of whining that Qatada can't be deported; instead of complaining that the decision undermines public protection; instead of pleading that the Human Rights Act needs amending, perhaps these three politicians might attempt to do something about it.

It is said that actions speak louder than words - and by heavens have we not had bucket loads of words from our politicians. Having had a surfeit of the latter, hows about a tad of the former? If they have no intention of providing the former, perhaps they should 'zip it' in respect of the latter? What is the point of a politician who states that a situation is unacceptable - which is what May said - and then not being able to do owt about it? Why are we paying him/her a salary, funding a second home and paying their expenses? Why did we elect them in the first place?

Note also how Politics Home presents this news and the words used - we are informed "May blasts Qatada bail ruling". How about one media outlet, at least, making the point that the country is fed up with whinging by politicians and that it would love them to, in modern parlance, 'grow a pair' and actually decide to do something, to restore our independence where we could decide who stays and who goes.

How about we get rid of - or fire, using AK47s if necessary - the present crowd in the House of Commons (with one or two exceptions) and choose another lot? With the proviso that failure to carry out our wishes will result in a quick trip to a wall? Lets face it, there's nothing that brings results quicker than a concentration of the mind - is there?

An accelerating process

2012-02-07T08:44:00.000-08:00

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, makes the point that while yesterday marked the accession to the throne by our present queen, today marks the 20 anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty. It is worth reminding ourselves that treaty after treaty has handed over more and more powers and abrogated yet more and more responsibility, a process which has a tendency to accelerate.

As the Bruges Group has noted, the Treaty of Rome provided the groundwork for 38 vetoes to be eventually surrendered. The Single European Act added another 12, Maastricht another 30, Amsterdam another 24, Nice a further 46; and the EU Constitution would have provided another 68. Of course the EU Constitution was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty - and unfortunately we are still counting.

All this has been accomplished with the compliance of those elected supposedly to protect our country, but who have, in effect, done no such thing. An example of this compliance is exhibited in a post from Douglas Carswell, one entitled: "The Power of None". Carswell begins by posting a question, namely asking what is the common thread linking UK contributions to Eurozone bailouts, the failure to deport Abu Qatada and wind farms. These are, as one of his constituents told him: "the sort of things I voted Conservative to stop. Yet they just seem to happen anyway". Carswell continues that outside the world beyond SW1, there is a growing feeling of powerlessness - to which I would respond that obviously, within the world of SW1 there is no feeling of powerlessness, unfortunately.

That Carswell's constituent voted Conservative in the hope that bail-outs would not happen, that deportations would resume and that the march of windmills would cease, says a great deal about that constituent's lack of knowledge and the Conservative Party's ethics in allowing that constituent to believe as she did. To be fair, the Conservative Party is not alone in the apportionment of blame where Carswell's constituent is concerned because had Labour and the Liberal Democrats been as honest as the Conservative Party should have been, they would have confirmed that on those three issues it mattered not which one of them gained that constituents vote as there was nowt that they could do about it. Of course had they been truly honest all those three parties would have informed her that if those three factors were that important she would have been better casting her vote in favour of Ukip - but hey, when did truth matter where elections and politics are concerned?

There are those who appear to be 'busting a gut' for a referendum wherein they can vote to leave what they consider to be dictatorial rule imposed on us by Brussels. This may be true, however is there any point in escaping one form of dictatorial rule only to accept another, which would be one imposed by Westminster. Carswell may talk about 'localism' and 'power to the people', but in fact what he is promoting is no more than a form of communitarianism. His idea is no more than the maintenance of the 'status quo' with 600/650 MPs etc etc, with the real power still exercised by those in the SW1 world.

If the likes of Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan really believed in localism and power to the people they would be shouting from the rooftops about the benefits of Direct Democracy and 'Referism'.

Heritage

2012-02-06T14:12:00.000-08:00

From The Boiling Frog, from whom I am cross-posting:

"The Environment Agency currently has a project to replace all five of the remaining old paddle and rymer weirs on the River Thames, three of which are Grade II listed structures. The EA justifies this by saying:

As owners and operators of the weirs on the River Thames, we are responsible for keeping them in good working order and safe for our staff to operate and maintain. We regularly carry out engineering surveys to identify areas on each weir that may need repair or replacement.
We are replacing the paddle and rymer weirs because they can cause inherent long-term health problems. They can also have operational issues, be time consuming and potentially dangerous to operate.
As owners and operators of the weirs on the River Thames, we are responsible for keeping them in good working order and safe for our staff to operate and maintain. We regularly carry out engineering surveys to identify areas on each weir that may need repair or replacement.
We are replacing the paddle and rymer weirs because they can cause inherent long-term health problems. They can also have operational issues, be time consuming and potentially dangerous to operate.
The new weirs will be operated more rapidly, safely and effectively. They will preserve the existing biodiversity and appearance of the river.The proposed work has been controversial and very unpopular - much criticism levelled at the expense of replacing weirs that have worked for over a hundred years:
Villagers in Appleton and Eaton claim motorising the weir would be a waste of money and would removed a much-loved element of local history. “It will be a tragedy when they are replaced.

“Apart from the initial installation cost of an automated weir the annual running costs to provide power to the electrical systems and maintenance costs will be a small fortune.
“But now the Environment Agency seems bent on spending unnecessary millions to achieve the same result.“It doesn’t make any commercial sense whatsoever.”And, with work soon to start on replacing the Northmoor Weir, we witnessed on this evening's local news - BBC South today - Tory MP Nicola Blackwood echoing similar views; arguing that she couldn't justify the expense to her constituents at a time of austerity, and complaining that no proper cost/ benefit analysis had been done.
Now, as anyone who follows the EU closely knows, anything to do with the environment, rivers etc will ring EU alarm bells - of the gigantic brass variety - particularly when "preserving the existing biodiversity and appearance of the river". And so it proves. Not only does river management come under EU Directive 2007/60/EC which:

...now requires Member States to assess if all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. But more specifically, as this Paddle & Rymer Weirs Replacement Programme Scoping Consultation Document makes clear the weirs fall foul of this EU required regulation (my emphasis):

The need for the projectThe operation of paddle and rymer weirs is labour intensive. The Environment Agency has recognised that there are long-term health and operational issues associated with the operation of these paddle and rymer weirs, despite measures having been taken over the years to reduce the risks. A manual handling assessment (Williams 2009) concluded that there is a high risk of injury when operating these nine weirs because the guideline operational weights to be lifted/lowered as detailed in the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 are significantly surpassed. The issues were highlighted during the 2007 floods, and could mean that the weirs cannot be operated effectively during periods of flooding.The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 which is based on European Directive 90/269/EEC.
Unsurprisingly all of this goes unmentioned by the various local media outlets and not least also by Ms Blackwood. As a Tory A-lister - her eye is on promotion wiin the Cameron set - it simply wouldn't do to point out inconvenient EU truths."

Now 'paddle and rymer weirs' may be 'small beer' - or, dare one say, not 'Top Totty' in the overall scheme of things - yet they are a subject that is part of this country's heritage.

If the European Union can make something that is part of our history disappear, what is next? Should our 'Battle of Britain' flight be disbanded because it is a reminder of our history or, as the EU may well wish to plead, of 'discord in Europe'? Van Rompuy may wish to 'infuse' the states in the EU but he seems to forget that the UK 'fought' against Nazism and Communism - and it will fight again!

If we are to suffer a system of democracy involving the element of 'government', can we please have our own 'government' back, useless as it may be. At least it would be ours - and we could opt to shoot the bastards!

EUSpeak - by Van Rompuy

2012-02-06T13:15:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of England Calling:

1. We, the people, have no bloody choice!

2. And the difference is?

3. Same bloody question!

It is sad the man is not of this planet - and even sadder is the fact that neither is Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and about 600+ others!

Impostor!

2012-02-06T12:35:00.000-08:00

Chris Heaton-Harris has just posted on twitter:

"@chhcalling: I see "Top Totty" has been replaced by "Kangaroo Court" in Strangers. How appropriate!"

to which I responded:

"Sponsored by your party, presumably."

The term "Kargaroo Court" is used by a man who is the member of a political party, one of three, that refuses to let the people decide whether they wish to be governed from abroad; this is the man who, having written to the Prime Minister and calling for a reduction in the public subsidy for one form of renewable energy carries an advertisement on his website promoting the grant for another; this is the man who has voted strongly for more EU integration, yet is supposedly a eurosceptic according to his friends in the MSM.

Heaton-Harris is obviously a man who is more than content with our system of 'representative democracy' - aka democratised dictatorship. Heaton-Harris is a prime example of the people electing what they thought would be their representative in Parliament but who turns out to be, as with most of the other 649, no more than a self-serving, self-promoting, willing tool of his political party leader - who, in turn, is no more than the same self-serving, self-promoting, willing tool of Brussels!

Now, where did I put my sick-bag?

Bugger Syria - what about the UK?

2012-02-06T11:47:00.000-08:00

William Hague, Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom (aka mouth piece of Cathy Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) has stood up in the Toy Parliament (located in Westminster, in case it has escaped the notice of readers) and proclaims that the ongoing violence in Syria is "unacceptable".

It may have escaped the attention of this man but the bald truth (intentional use of the word 'bald', by the way) is that we, the people, of this country have been suffering 'violence', both physical and mental, from Hague and his fellow politicians for yonks now in the form of imposed 'central control'. Our sovereignty, our independence, our standing in the world and our individual freedom has been 'shot to hell' by Hague and his ilk - consequently they themselves stand accused, by their own actions, of being 'shot to hell'.

If charity begins at home (which it doesn't where our politicians are concerned - witness aid to India) then so does concern for one's fellow man which encapsulates the act of ensuring the safety and well-being of the country which both Hague, his ilk and we, inhabit.

Either our politicians come to their senses or, as surely as God made little apples, we will ensure that, in time, they do!

Yet again, just saying.........

A political deficit of self-governance - where MPs are concerned

2012-02-06T11:03:00.000-08:00

Member Allowances Committee: The formal minutes of the Members' Allowances Committee list only the various formal decisions and other proceedings of a formal nature. They are not a record of all the discussions which may have been held.

Members Estimate Committee: The Members Estimate Committee considers matters relating to MPs pay and expenses insofar as these are covered by the Members Estimate. From the start of the current Parliament, responsibility for Members' expenses has been transferred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). The Members Estimate Committee has the same membership as the House of Commons Commission.

House of Commons Commission: The Commission is responsible for the administration and services of the House, including the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster and the rest of the Parliamentary Estate. Once a year the Commission presents to the House for its approval the 'Estimate for House of Commons: Administration', covering spending on the administration and services of the House for the financial year. The Commission meets approximately once a month in Speaker’s House. The Commission provides the non-executive governance of the House by Members, but it does not manage day to day operations. It has delegated this power to the senior officials who make up the House of Commons Management Board. The Commission is not responsible for expenditure on Members’ salaries, pensions and allowances.

Committee on Members Expenses: The Committee on Members’ Expenses is established under Standing Order No. 152G (as amended on 7 July 2011). Its role is to consider matters relating to Members’ expenses referred to it by the House.

Standard & Privileges Committee: The Committee considers reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, oversees his work and recommends any changes to the Code of Conduct or to the rules relating to the conduct of MPs, and inquires into matters relating to privilege that have been referred to it by the House.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority: The Speaker’s Committee considers the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following fair and open competition, for the posts of Chair and members of the IPSA. The candidates for these posts are then approved by the House of Commons and appointed by the Queen. The Committee also reviews the IPSA’s annual estimate of the resources it needs, in order to ensure the estimate is consistent with the efficient and cost-effective discharge of the IPSA’s functions, before the estimate is laid before the House by the Speaker. The Committee has a membership of 11. The Speaker, the Leader of the House of Commons and the chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges are ex officio members, and five further members of the House of Commons are appointed by the House. In addition, three lay members are to be appointed by the House of Commons following fair and open competition. A lay member is defined under the Act as a person who is not, and has never been, a member of either House of Parliament. Lay members have not yet been appointed. The quorum of the Committee is three. (Emphasis mine)

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA): IPSA was created by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and was tasked with bringing independent oversight and control over MPs’ expenses. IPSA put in place new rules which are a clean break from the past. IPSA operates transparently by regularly publishing details of MPs’ expense claims.

Notice anything about the above? No doubt readers will have 'got it in one'. They all comprise MPs, or appointees of MPs, who decide their (MPs) pay, pension, the money required to maintain them (in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed), their 'standards' of probity and behaviour, the 'rules' under which they operate, whether they are guilty of any breach in those 'standards' - and it is all done 'amongst themselves', without any agreement, or consultation, with those that provide the monies required.

The best condemnation of the Expenses Scandal was summed up by Simon Carr in the Independent of 22nd June 2009 when he wrote that the cost was nationalised and the profit was privatised. He also proposed what is perhaps the most obvious system to negate all the problems - and public expense - caused by the foregoing committees and what are quangos. On the basis that it is well known that Legislators can make language mean what they want it to mean it has to be asked why we, the public, allow our politicians to 'self-police' and to self-decide what they should earn and what pension they should get, what expenses they should receive, how much their food and drink should cost them, etc. No statutory code, or set of rules, drawn up by those that will 'benefit' is worth the paper on which it is written!

Where politician's 'expenses' are concerned, why not one website on which everything is recorded - and let those who provide the funds for that be the judge? Where MPs salaries are concerned, why not one website containing any requests from MPs for a 'raise' - and let those who will be providing the funds be the judge? Why not one website on which the costs of 'Parliament' are provided and let those whose money provide for that decide what is and is not 'acceptable'. I believe all that to be part of the idea of 'Referism' proposed by Richard North.

The foregoing negates the need for legislation, quangos, complex bureaucratic structures, summonses and appeals, interminable consultations. It puts scrutiny in the hands of the people, it devolves power to the people - which after all is what politicians maintain they wish to do. Above all, it ensures the participation of the public in politics - something that is missing at present and about which all politicians complain (tongue in cheek?).

There is another - one might say overriding reason - for the change I suggest and that is where politicians present any scheme covering their personal income or behaviour, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will already have found a way round it!

Just saying................

With acks to Stuart Wheeler: "A Crisis of Trust"

Most definitely not Britain then

2012-02-05T12:51:00.000-08:00

Haiti where Port-au-Prince is one of the most densely populated cities on Earth, a pretty wretched place for the tens of thousands still living under temporary shelter and tents; where vast pyres of burning rubbish can be seen on most corners, where rivers and canals have become open sewers and cholera is rife.*

"In a little coastal town an hour from the horrors of the capital, a wooden shelter houses several hundred schoolchildren. I sat in the shade of a tree and watched one of their lessons in Creole. Each child was immaculately dressed in clean, ironed clothes. The girls all wore ribbons in their hair and I could see my reflection in the boys' shoes."

Anyone noticed our schoolchildren going to or coming home from school lately?

Just asking.........

* From the print edition (sadly, apparently not on line) of today's Sunday Telegraph in which Ben Fogle pens a short article in his regular Country Diary column, this time about his recent trip on behalf of Shelterbox, a charity of which he is an Ambassador.

A small point (2)

2012-02-05T11:04:00.000-08:00

For those not on twitter, please be aware that the original post has been updated with screenshots of how Carswell's and Heaton-Harris' blogs appear in Spain.

Carswell's carries advertisements for live chat with Chinese girls and dating same. Now, I know that MPs are allowed outside business interests, but surely............

Words fail me - really.

Rotten to the core - enshrined in Laws

2012-02-05T08:59:00.000-08:00

As if we the people did not have enough laws constricting our freedom the political elite are softening us up to accept the return of another - David Laws. This is the man who, it will be recalled, deliberately used the art of deceit to hide his sexuality from the public domain even though it is said that fact was well known among the remainder of his fellow politicians and also to the press.

So, once again, we have the situation where a politician who has admitted behaviour that is not accepted in the public domain - and I am not talking about his sexuality - is to be re-appointed to a position in which he will be able to decide matters which will affect us all - and how we may be permitted to act and behave.

In instances where anyone elected has committed a crime, it should not be left to his colleagues to decide whether he may be given a second chance, it should be the decision of the people, the electorate, to decide - and not just those of the constituency of the politician concerned.

This matter brings to mind the phrase "Thick as thieves"...........

Yet another 'journalistic' masterpiece (not).....

2012-02-05T02:56:00.000-08:00

.....comes from the latest offering by Matthew d'Ancona in his usual Sunday Telegraph op-ed piece, this time on matters Huhne and the credibility of politics. It may have escaped the notice of even so 'self-renowned' a journalist as d'Ancona that the credibility of politics and politicians has long been in the 'public dock', if not in the 'MSM dock'. d'Ancona ends his 'offering' thus:

"At worst, whether he is acquitted or not, the court of public opinion will look upon Huhne, the political class, its antics, and its hypocrisies – and deliver a furious verdict."

The public will not deliver a furious verdict because by then they will probably have forgotten about Huhne - and the political class will no doubt ensure that another 'crisis du jour' is presented in order to make sure the public forget. No doubt that point never entered d'Ancona's thought process - and if it had, he would not dare write about it.

Just saying.................

A small point......

2012-02-05T02:02:00.000-08:00

.....that has come to light is MPs whose websites now carry advertisements, examples being Douglas Carswell and Christopher Heaton-Harris.

As it is fairly certain neither would respond to me, my not being a constituent, perhaps one of their constituents would care to question what fees these advertisers pay; if one is being accepted; if accepted to whom does that fee go?

I have to question the ethics of a Member of Parliament's website, funded by the state or privately, carrying any form of advertising, whether paid or unpaid and whether surreptitiously or not 'pushing' a government policy. If it were not for their positions in our society they would probably not have the readership that they do and probably may not have secured any subsequent revenue stream.

Just saying.......................

Update: An email correspondent has forwarded two screenshots which show how Carswell's and Heaton-Harris' blog appears when viewed in Spain.

(Click on screenshots to enlarge)

One wonders if these MPs are aware of this and feel that it is acceptable their sites carry adverts for dating Chinese girls or news about vacancies in another land?

Should either of them arrive at this blog, perhaps they would let me and my readers know how they feel about this subject - and perhaps they would answer the question I posed?

An EU Referendum......

2012-02-05T01:37:00.000-08:00

........would no doubt be 'rigged' in exactly the same manner as is the proposed one in Scotland on the subject of independence.

Once again, beware of that for which you wish!

Just saying.................

More 'faux' journalism from another 'faux' journalist

2012-02-04T15:50:00.000-08:00

Patrick Hennessey, erstwhile 'Political Editor' of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, reports that David Cameron has been hit by a major protest by Conservative MPs over the Government’s backing for wind farms.

That current planning laws are 'rigged' in favour of the state is not addressed by Hennessey; that Huhne, rather than face a charge of treason, has settled to face the lesser charge of perverting the course of justice is not addressed - but I digress; that the building of wind turbines is the result of compliance with EU requirements is not addressed; that these 101 MPs will have as much effect as those calling for the repatriation of powers is not addressed; that Chris Heaton-Harris is no more a eurosceptic than Cameron is a Conservative is not addressed; that the Conservatives who are ministers and parliamentary private secretaries are unable to sign because they are part of the government “payroll” and as a result are unable to represent their constituents concerns (another deficit of our democratic system of representative democracy) is not addressed; that Tracy Crouch can punt a football further than she will be able to punt opposition to this is not addressed.

And this article is journalism? And Hennessey is a journalist?

Sheesh! Is it any wonder the public are 'ignorant' of matters important when they are reliant upon 'informers' such as Hennessey?

Just asking...........

Update: The text of the letter to which the article refers can be read here. Heaton-Harris' amendments aren't worth the proverbial crock of!

The fightback continues.....

2012-02-04T09:32:00.000-08:00

.....with West Oxfordshire District Council over my withholding a small amount of Council Tax, a subject on which I posted previously.

On Friday the following exchange took place:

"3 February 2012 15:07, Kelly Parry wrote:
Dear Mr Phipps,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 23 January 2012 in reference to the overdue balance letter you have received.
I refer to past e-mails sent by Mandy Fathers where it was explained that as a Local Authority, West Oxfordshire District Council have a duty to ensure all local taxation is collected in full and whilst we appreciate your concerns regarding the local services provided we do not find it acceptable that you make deductions from the amount of Council Tax to be paid. I would remind you that an amount of £10.00 is outstanding on your account and if this is not paid further recovery action is likely to occur.
Kind regards,

3 February 2012 15:13
Dear Ms. Parry,
Thank you for your email of today.
West Oxfordshire District Council may well have a duty to ensure all local taxation is collected - they also have a duty to ensure that all local services, for which they are responsible, are delivered.
While your concerns are appreciated, I do not find it acceptable that I should be forced to pay for a service that has not been delivered.
Kind regards"

It will be with regret (not) that I shall be emailing this lady again to advise that the food bin, which should have been collected on Thursday and which, following a telephone call late Thursday, was promised for collection by 17:30 Friday, was not. As any Council Tax is now not due to be paid until April, the sum of £5.00 will be deducted from that first payment; whilst politely pointing out that I am doing my best to make it worthwhile for them to take me to court.

Updates as and when...........

Afterthought: Anyway it would appear that rubbish collection is free, according to a former minister for climate change, biodiversity and waste.

Ignorance is truth

2012-02-04T05:24:00.000-08:00

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."
John Locke (1632-1704)

"I believe its better to tell the truth than to lie, better to be free than to be a slave and its better to know than to be ignorant."
H.L. Mencken

Perhaps the greatest of all properties that the people own is their own freedom, yet politicians through the ages have usurped that freedom and done so by dictatorial means. Consider, why is this country still a member of the European Union when that body is far removed from that on which the people were last given a choice? Why have draconian laws been introduced - and are still being introduced - which bear no relation to that which political parties promised in their manifestos? Immediate examples of the latter question that spring to mind are the smoking ban, the recall of MPs and the devolution of power to the people, including a right to request referendums.

When the Coalition was created the public were led to believe that political differences had been put to one side for the good of the country and the Foreward to their programme for government intimated that. The people were also assured that the two parties realised that by forming a coalition their visions would not be compromised by working together; that they would be strengthened and enhanced. Strange then that those differences which were supposed to have been put to one side, have resurfaced; that the visions would not be compromised but would be strengthened and enhanced, have not been strengthened, nor enhanced. We are treated to articles in the press detailing what amounts to internecine warfare between the two Coalition parties, here and here (free registration available for access). How can such a situation arise if the two parties are supposed to be working harmoniously together for the good of the country? How is the good of the country served by two parties, supposedly working together, yet spend what seems to be an inordinate amount of time 'point scoring' off each other?

The answer lies in every political party's inherent lust for power - and absolute power - because, under our system of representative democracy, why else would people enter the field of politics? It most certainly is not to act in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent - and if it is, then it is indeed odd that they form what is called a government, a word derived from 'govern', ie, to 'rule'. It also begs repetition of Ronald Reagan's question from his first Inaugural Speech "But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"; so by what 'right' do politicians continue their usurpation of power via the practice of politics?

No country can be served when those elected to work for that country's benefit are at virtual loggerheads. No country can be served when those elected have, in effect, unfettered power whilst holding office unless the people have the means to halt those policies which they are against. No country can be served when those elected to office assume the belief that they and only they have the right to dictate to their fellow man. No country can be served when those elected to office are untruthful with their fellow men, through omission of all the facts, or in some instances resorting to downright lies.

Through the lack of transparency and truth, one of the deficits within our democracy and one practiced by our politicians, the people remain ignorant. As an example, let us consider that of membership of the European Union, in which the political mantra is maintained by all parties, that the benefits are obvious. Is it any wonder that this subject does not appear very high amongst concerns expressed to MPs by their constituents when it is rarely raised by those MPs - and on the rare occasions it is, is ignored by the MSM? It is logical to assume that were that not the case the subject may well rapidly rise up the list of consituent's concerns.

Daniel Hannan has just posted, 'railing against HS2" (pun intended), and quoting the old line that it matters not for whom you vote as nothing changes. He points out that while Councillors, MPs and even MEPs are against the new line, it has mattered not and questions is it any wonder people have give, up at the ballot box. Towards the end of his article he laments the passing of Sir John Hempden who, he asserts, lived and died for the democratic cause: for the ideal that the executive should not be allowed to disregard the people's representatives -- unfortunately he omits to state that neither should the people's representatives be allowed to disregard their constituents - a fact that is probably the root cause for why the electorate has 'given up a the ballot box'.

The sorry state of our democracy is further illustrated by a another quotation from H.L. Mencken, one most pertinent to our politicians:

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

and then, in accordance with present political principles, rescind that promise once elected.

Afterthought: In answer to a parliamentary question, details of all consultants used by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport have been published, details which includes their names, remits and costs to date. (H/T: Sue at Muffled Vociferation and @EU_Dictatorship on twitter)

True......

2012-02-03T12:58:00.000-08:00

From an email and am unable to authenticate - but it resonates somewhat........

From a British soldier:

"I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay , I train for war and eventually deploy. I am required to pass a random urine test… for drugs, with which I have no problem. ... What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a benefits cheque because I have to pass one to EARN IT for them? Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a benefit cheque?"

Fair question, methinks............?

Did you know smoking can cause blindness?

2012-02-03T10:13:00.000-08:00

More a subject for Chris Snowden (Velvet Glove Iron Fist) or Dick Puddlecote (Dick Puddlecote) - but anyway........

While waiting for a neighbour for whom I had provided a lift to our local doctor's surgery, I pondered all the notices and leaflets exhorting us not to do this that or the other for health reasons. One that caught my eye was headlined as this post and dealt with 'Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD). The leaflet advises that studies have shown that smoking more than doubles the risk of developing AMD and that smokers are more likely to suffer from all types of AMD. It then goes on to state that an estimated 53,900 UK residents over 69 may have AMD attributable to smoking. (my emphasis).

From the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) we are informed that: "At the moment, the exact cause for AMD is not known". Medical News Today advises: "In summary, while controlling for other factors, smoking appears to be related to the incidence and progression of AMD in our population". (again, my emphasis).

Cmon chaps, either smoking does cause AMD, or it appears to cause AMD, or the exact cause for AMD is not known. Just make up your damn mind - please?

Just asking..................

Afterthought: Scared to Death, a book by Richard North and Christopher Booker, had a chapter on smoking and is well worth a read - not just on this subject, either.

Huhne pays the 'Pryce'

2012-02-03T04:10:00.000-08:00

So Huhne and Pryce have been charged by the CPS, something which has set the twittersphere ablaze with comment and condemnation. It has to be made clear at the outset that both must be considered innocent until proven guilty as it also has to be made clear that the CPS must be fairly sure of their ground when considering the amount of time that has been spent on the case.

Leaving the question of guilt or innocence to one side, the Huhne/Price matter magnifies what is a most serious problem within the system of democracy we presently have - and it is one illustrated in a tweet from Paul Waugh who states that the letter from Clegg to Huhne "hopes he can 'rapidly' clear his name and 'return to play a key role in govt as soon as possible".

Whether Huhne is found guilty or innocent, the initial charge will 'stick' and were Huhne to escape conviction on a technicality the initial charge will 'stick' even more. Too many examples exist of politicians who have committed 'crimes' - whether proven or not, think expenses - and yet remain as MPs, subsequently being re-instated in ministerial positions or positions of importance within government or their party.

These individuals are those who impose their laws - very often laws that dictate how we must act and the punishments should we break those laws - yet are then welcomed back by their own at a later date (witness David Laws?). It is not illogical to demand that those who profess to be able to govern must perforce be as 'white as the driven snow' - their probity must be beyond question,

Peter Hitchens, in his latest blogpost, writes about the disgraceful state of our political parties and politicians, ending: "How are we to obtain reform of the parties, and to get parties that actually care about what the people care about?". The answer must surely be that a change from representative democracy is urgently needed because, as I have repeatedly maintained, it is but a system of democratised dictatorship. The change required is one to a form of direct democracy including a dose of 'referism and on Sunday next two articles will appear on talkconstitution.net on the limitation of government and how a system of direct democracy could be enacted. It is also hoped that at the same time, or shortly thereafter, a new draft constitution will also appear.

How much longer will the public's patience hold while example after example appears demonstrating their lack of honour and principle, disregard for the public purse, disregard for the law (alleged) and disdain shown to those who pay their wages and expenses? The time has surely come whereby this corrupt system of democracy and government must be axed and a fair, transparent system put into place.

Afterthought: While pure speculation, a thought occurs and that is what is Huhne's position if he maintains his innocence and Price opts to plead guilty? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned - and all that?

Afterthought (2): Presumably Huhne and Pryce will appear in the dock together? One has to wonder how that thought appeals to each of them?

Where are the dads?

2012-02-02T13:29:00.000-08:00

In the Daily Telegraph today, Henry Wallop, in the section Television and radio writes that this is the year of the small-screen baby and that it's about time fathers got a look in.

This article appears to me to be part of the 'consensus' that believes fathers should be present at the birth of their child. While admittedly I have never fathered a child (well at least not to my knowledge) and that had I, I may well have a different opinion, I am well aware that the process is painful to women, that it is a tad 'bloody' - and I would not wish to be there (and if forced to be, I would most definitely be at the 'head end') as regardless of which end I was positioned I would more than likely 'hit the floor' in very short order.

Generalising, I believe it logical to assume that most women for reasons related to their genes have a desire to conceive, a wish they may not be able to logically explain - and knowing the pain element involved - still wish to undergo the process of childbirth. But why does that mean the husband has to be present? Why is it necessary that he should be 'forced by present thinking' to witness what amounts to the physical humiliation of the woman he loves? Why should she be forced to have her husband/partner witness that 'humiliation'? If a man is required to undergo circumcision in later life, is his wife/partner forced to witness the act? If a man has testicular cancer, is his wife duty bound to witness the operation? Should a husband be forced to watch his wife deal with her periodic problem? Every member of the human race has certain acts they have to perform - and childbirth is one of them. Should not each person be accorded the privacy of that act from their 'other half if they so wish'?

It is appreciated that some readers may find my view/thoughts outdated/unacceptable/chauvanistic - to which I can only apologise, while saying that is me, that is how I feel - coupled with the fact that it is easy for me to hold such views as I am at an age where my chances of being part of the reproduction of another human being equate with my chances of winning the lottery.

Just who are these people who wish to have all men/women confirm to their way of thinking? Is childbirth not one of the last individual decisions that should be left to the two people concerned - the one who 'began' the process and the one who has to 'end' it?

When will 'those who know better' just butt out of people's lives and leave them to make their own decisions?

Just saying..........

Another sporting 'red herring' resurfaces

2012-02-02T11:13:00.002-08:00

The BBC trumpets that: "Euro MEPs back call for sports shirts to feature EU flag" with MEPs also endorsing a plan for the EU flag to be flown at major international sporting events in Europe, but neither of the measures would be compulsory.

Bearing in mind that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Union competence in sport the statement from their spokesperson, in this article, that: "But the commission has no authority to impose such a decision and nor would it wish to." ring a tad hollow.

Of course one would have thought by now that the BBC, with all their resources, would have done their research - but one again we see yet another failure from them. Only last July Richard North, EU Referendum, succinctly summarised the position in this post. It is worth repeating his closing sentences:

"So what was approved by Thatcher in 1985 comes back to haunt the heir to Heath in 2011, 26 years later – in a treaty he could have stopped, by chose not to. Like as not, the EU won't get its badges this time, but the idea won't go away. It will keep pushing and probing until it gets what it wants, waiting another 26 years if need be, unless we (or events) destroy it first."

They say that what goes round, comes round - we can but hope that the next time a story comes round, the BBC will have eventually got their news service staffed with those who understand the word 'research'.

Another sporting 'red herring' resurfaces

2012-02-02T11:13:00.000-08:00

"So what was approved by Thatcher in 1985 comes back to haunt the heir to Heath in 2011, 26 years later – in a treaty he could have stopped, by chose not to. Like as not, the EU won't get its badges this time, but the idea won't go away. It will keep pushing and probing until it gets what it wants, waiting another 26 years if need be, unless we (or events) destroy it first."

Well, we all know that politicians tend to 'fanny' about.......

2012-02-02T10:06:00.000-08:00

......but do we really have to pay for this?

Just asking...................

The juvenile antics of politicians

2012-02-02T09:58:00.000-08:00

We learn today that Kate Green, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston since May 2010, has used the House of Commons to complain about a guest beer that is available in The Stranger's Bar - despite her reportedly never having set foot there. The actual exchange between Kate Green and Sir George Young is recorded as:

"Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on dignity at work in Parliament? Last night I was disturbed to learn that the guest beer in the Strangers Bar is called Top Totty, and that there is a picture of a nearly naked woman on the tap. As well as arranging a debate, will the Leader of the House join me in asking for that beer to be withdrawn from the bar immediately?

Sir George Young: I was not aware of that particular picture in the bar. I will raise the matter with the appropriate Officer of the House through the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that appropriate action will be taken. I should very much regret it if any offensive pictures were on display in any part of the House."

Beside querying the manner in which the question was raised (publicly), would not a quiet word with the Leader of the House not have been more acceptable? One can only assume that Kate Green exhibits that trait of all politicians, namely that of 'attention-seeking'. Perhaps her next public utterance will be to call for the famous scantily-clad Flying Lady on Virgin planes to be removed - or does one have to be a virgin to so complain? The reply from Sir George Young also begs one or two questions; namely, are we to infer that he has never, ever been in The Stranger's Bar - and if that is incorrect, has he had his eyesight tested lately? That his first response is to regret if any offensive pictures were on display speaks volumes.

Kate Green is not alone though in exhibiting juvenile behaviour when one considers the spectacle of Prime Minister's questions yesterday. Both Conservative and Labour backbenchers indulged in chanting the responses to their leader's rhetorical questions and in so doing indulged in antics that one would expect from children in primary school - although acknowledging the poor standard of our education system, perhaps primary school should be amended to read secondary modern.

Depending on who you believe - Keith Vaz or Jack Straw - MPs are either so busy they have little time for important matters of state, or they are bored out of their tiny little minds. Where Kate Green is concerned we must therefore assume it is a case of the latter and that she does, indeed, have a tiny little mind.

It is regrettable that such behaviour is presented for public consumption by those to whom we mere mortals are supposed to 'look-up-to' and revere. And MPs wonder why the public is 'switched-off' by politics?

Unlike the Lockheed 'Connie'........

2012-02-02T05:36:00.000-08:00

......we can but hope the EU becomes obsolete sooner.

From EurActiv we learn that Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Change, is having second thoughts about biofuels. After a draft Commission impact assessment indicated that the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels may exceed those of fossil fuels, she is quoted as saying: "It’s great to see the potential in new technologies, but we should take very much care in Europe that we are now not establishing a new big industry that we then - after some time - say, wow, that was not so good". In a separate report Bloomberg reports that a study by Malcolm Fergusson, the former head of climate change policy at the UK’s environment agency, shows that EU policy on biofuels will cost EU consumers €126 billion.

It is not just the above policy that people are paying for - wind farms is another immediate example that springs to mind. Both subjects - and the industries they have spawned - are the result of a flawed premis.

What chance do we have of preventing idiots from pursuing catastrophic goals, especially when we in the UK produce our own idiots 'huhne' from the same gene bank?

Proof that there is most definitely a 'them' and 'us'

2012-02-02T03:47:00.000-08:00

A lady by the name of Dot, who pens a Commons' Diary on Politics Home, reports on an exchange twixt two MPs, one of whom was George Young, Leader of the House, who when giving evidence yesterday to the ongoing procedure committee inquiry into sitting hours revealed he was a fan of the short-lived period when the Commons sat from 11.30am to 7pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

"The idea of changing back seemed not to appeal to committee member Sir Roger Gale. "Members of Parliament travel to London on a Monday and then are stuck here and I think we need to maximise the use of that time," he complained. "What on earth are these members going to do in their garretts on Monday night, Tuesday night?" Sir George Young, as always a model of avuncularity, replied: "As a former London Member of Parliament I have to advertise the wide-ranging attractions of the capital city. I preferred to work the old hours. Some of the work you might have done earlier you do later. I just preferred a more civilised working day than working at 10 o'clock on a Monday and Tuesday."

So one MP considers he is 'stuck' in his London garret and the other believes that having to start work at 10am is far from civilised. The former derides what the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines as a top-floor or attic room, especially a dismal one, which begs the question why the public are funding such inferior accommodation? Likewise the latter might wish to get himself a proper job, one that unlike his present employment actually produces something worthwhile?

Just how further 'out of touch' is it possible to be? Just asking.........................

The unknowledgeable in pursuit of the unbelievable

2012-02-02T03:02:00.000-08:00

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, writes that dark clouds are gathering over Number 10 because they do not predict a Conservative majority at the next general election; consequently Montgomerie lists what he believes to be ten reasons why the life of the Coalition may need to last beyond 2015.

Montgomerie begins his article by listing those journalists to whom he looks for what the Conservative Party should be doing; and those to whom he looks for what the Conservative Party is doing. In both categories he lists, among others, Iain Martin, Bruce Anderson, James Forsyth and Matthew d'Ancona - hence the title of this post. He also seems to miss the point that the brand name does not do that which the tin says it will. Montgomerie ends his article by stating that he presents his article as an analysis of the Number 10 mood and that it is not what he thinks is desirable or possible. If only the verb used in the latter part of his statement was possible!

There is of course an eleventh reason why the Coalition existence may remain likely - and that is the man who created the Coalition.

Journalists & politicians are either stupid, or liars - or both!

2012-02-02T01:58:00.000-08:00

It is not surprising that journalism is now ranked somewhere below estate agents and politicians on the scale of questionable behaviour and practices, when considering the article by David Millward, Transport Editor, in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

That the article by Robert Millward and the utterances of our Secretary of State for Transport lead one to believe that either neither of them understand the subject of which they write or speak or that both have intentionally set out to mislead and lie to the public, is amply illustrated by Richard North, EU Referendum, Of the two alternatives, if one was being kind, the first would no doubt be selected; however, if one was being truthful, the second would be the only choice.

That journalism has reached such a nadir that it is highly questionable it can sink any lower cannot be in doubt. That a conspiracy exists to deny people the truth is beyond question and that where the truth is concerned we are no better than those living in North Korea.

Wednesday 1st February 2012

2012-02-01T05:01:00.000-08:00

In London this afternoon and evening, so posting will resume tomorrow.

Benedict Brogan - Sycophant!

2012-01-31T12:54:00.000-08:00

It is said that anyone will swallow their pride and principles to "earn a buck" - and one only has to look at our political class and journalists to witness that is true (in respect of the latter, Benedict Brogan). In his customary 'op-ed' piece in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph, Brogan headlines his article with: "David Cameron is drawing his battle lines firmly in the centre ground.", beginning with the words: "It may infuriate his back benchers, but the PM is keeping his inner Tory suppressed".

First, David Cameron has no "inner Tory" - the man is a left of centre socialist! Brogan writes that the first duty of any party leader is to get his side into power and on that measure Cameron is impressively successful. Successful? Presented with an 'open goal', courtesy of probably the most incompetent Prime Minister this country has seen for yonks, Cameron put the ball in the net? Brogan continues that Cameron has shown himself to be a natural at the business of governing, decisive when needed, calm, confident, able to delegate and communicate with ease. Decisive? How many 'U' turns has this man done?

"Consult any Conservative MP", continues Brogan. Now just why would we wish to consult any Conservative MP who is more interested in his/her career; who is more interested in conforming with their Whips' wishes in the hope of the personal advancement; who is no more than a paid mouthpiece? Why should we give Cameron, or his compliant MPs, another chance when all both are interested in is the present form of 'democratised dictatorship'? The remainder of Brogan's article is no more than his usual 'Big-up Cameron meme' - which forces me to ask where is the prime source of his income, the Daily Telegraph, or the Conservative Party?

It is understandable that, where Brogan is concerned, one cannot blame him for pursuing a course of career that has been shown to be a 'money-spinner' - namely creating a false scenario, after all is that not which politicians do?

Brogan, your name has 'gone on the list' - and that, unlike a knighthood for services to journalism, is not something you really, really want!

Scared To Death

2012-01-31T12:12:00.000-08:00

From the Introduction of the book by the same title as that of this post (Authors: Richard North and Christopher Booker):

"In the night, imagine some fear, how easy is a bush supposed to be a bear"
A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1

In the past twenty years, Western society in general and Britain in particular has been in the grip of a remarkable and very dangerous psychological phenomenon. Again and again since the 1980s we have seen the rise of some great fear, centered on a mysterious new threat to human health and wellbeing. As a result we are told, large numbers of people will suffer or die."

To 'dangerous and psychological phenomenon' I would add 'political news releases' (although same thing, really). It cannot have escaped the attention of those with a brain that when times get difficult for governments of all hues, suddenly there is a 'scare' or 'announcement of great concern'. Witness only today, when Cameron should have been skewered by his 'eurosceptic' backbenchers in the HoC (but wasn't - no surprise there, then!) another 'story' 'breaks', that of Fred the Shred being stripped of his knighthood. Ever noticed how, when awkward questions are asked of government, suddenly there is 'something' more important - an 'importance', the level of which is increased with the assistance of what is suppose to be an 'independent' media?

And we are not being 'thought-controlled'? We are not being 'led'? 'Newspeak' doesn't exist?

C'mon people - wise up!