Referism, Direct Democracy and Oblivion

In his usual Saturday op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore writes on the subjects of human rights, civil servants and David Cameron.

Moore castigates what he calls 'independent' civil servants, making the point that civil servants serve, that if they become 'independent' then exactly who are they serving and therefore have, by default, then become master. Can not the same accusation be laid at the door of our elected representatives? As with civil servants who have become 'masters', so have our elected representatives, generally, in that they uphold the belief of Edmund Burke; coupled of course with their slavish behaviour where party Whips are concerned, in the hope of gaining personal advancement.

In his castigation of civil servants, Moore then proceeds to criticise those appointed to head quangos, IPSA and other public bodies, the result of which he maintains leaves Parliament, government, those elected and the public at the mercy of the unelected. Neither does he mention that the problem is self made - after all, who exactly is it that makes those appointments? Unfortunately, Moore does not then highlight that that is surely a democratic deficit in our present system of democracy.

David Cameron may well - to quote Moore - have been suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Again, rather unfortunately, Moore fails to note that Cameron must know that the return of 'rights', as with the return of powers from the EU, can only be accomplished with a decision to cease membership of both bodies, along with the Council of Europe. Moore also fails to proffer the suggestion that perhaps it is the people living in a country who are the only ones to decide the rights to which they - and anyone visiting that country - are entitled.

In making the point that in our present system of democracy the people have little or no say in that which is done to them and supposedly on their behalf, it is also worth my linking to a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, on the subject of a report by the National Audit Office on the subject of carbon capture and storage - and the small matter of £64million that has been wasted attempting to accomplish that which Richard North states is not technically feasible.

That much is, indeed, wrong with our present system of democracy is illustrated wherein Moore questions the power of bureaucrats viz-a- viz politicians and asking just what are Ministers for - which further begs the question just what is our system of representative democracy for. On the matter of Sir Jeremy Heywood and that of who is the superior partner - politician or civil servant - it is worth reading Quentin Letts in the Spectator, if you have not already done so.

The articles by Moore, Quentin Letts and Richard North demonstrate that where our money and rights are concerned, all that politicians and civil servants do is take - we, the people who fund what is no more than a giant ponzi scheme of interconnected elements - are never asked. I am forced to suggest that without the imposition of 'referism' and direct democracy, not only will our money be assigned into oblivion - so will our rights; and thereby we, as individuals.

Abuse of women

That no woman should be physically abused is I think a 'given' amongst right-thinking men - and those right-thinking men would consider such action despicable. Having said that, it is not disputed that the law should set that out in clear language, but do we need the 'level' of law that is proposed by the Council of Europe - to which Cameron is about to commit our country?


Because I do believe that the fanaticism within the women's equality movement has got out of hand; that that fanaticism is women's worst enemy; that this is an area in which 'government' has no right to intrude and only do so in the hope that it may garner them a few more votes; and that, on the whole, I find the legislation farcical allow me to provide a couple of quotes:

"The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is “What does a woman want?”"
Sigmund Freud, Ernest Jones' Sigmund Freud: Life and Work

"Every woman should have four pets in her life. A mink in her closet, a jaguar in her garage, a tiger in her bed, and a jackass who pays for everything."
Paris Hilton

I would also refer readers to this post of a few years ago. Over at Orphans of Liberty, Longrider has a post which I believe sums up, in a nutshell, the stupidity of this piece of legislation.


On a more serious note, can one blame an employer who when considering a woman for promotion and in whom that employer has invested money in training being wary of promoting that woman, knowing she may 'fall' at some time in the future? Is it not demeaning to women to have equality imposed by law, rather than them achieving that equality by endeavour and ability? If a quota of women in boardrooms is dictated by law, would not a man, passed over, with obviously far better qualifications and work ethic not have a grievance in law due to discrimination?


This entire matter is another Pandora's Box which will only bring yet more grief to men and women alike - but hey, it has been devised and implemented by politicians and bureaucrats so why should we expect it to work?


If women want equality then should not that equality entail the requirement to accept the odd jest (or compliment), one made in good faith?


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

Contradictingleigh?

Following what is being reported as a 'U-turn' by David Cameron at Brussels today Guido Fawkes reports that the 'Malcontents' are meeting in the office of Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough.


Edward Leigh is obviously against the idea that this country - and he - should be told what to do by any other organisation because writing here, he states:

"This centrality of parliamentary supremacy to the British constitution cannot be over emphasised. The Victorian constitutional scholar A. V. Dicey wrote that Parliament – that is the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons together – has “the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

This of course is the same Edward Leigh who made an impassioned speech in the Council of Europe, just days ago, in support of a resolution that will mean, in the due course of time, the people of this nation lose the right, if they so wish, to end their own lives by "assisted dying".


One rule for MPs and one for us..................