Showing posts with label IPJonPolitics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPJonPolitics. Show all posts

Sunday, 19 February 2012

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

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........

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

The 'dark' secrets of devolution?

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?

Friday, 23 December 2011

Separating the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'

The point is often made by those commenting on blogs that the internet is the only source for 'real news, ie: 'news without spin'.

No matter where you look at sites that profess to provide 'news' - Politics Home, Conservative Home, Labour List, Liberal Democrat Voice, coupled with all those 'independent' commentators - all they do is provide 'news' from within the 'political Westminster bubble', whilst linking to each other in that 'bubble'.

Whilst in no way decrying the efforts of EU Referendum, Your Freedom and Ours, IanPJ on Politics - and many, many others all of whom are not members of the  MSM - where is the media source of unadulterated, opinion free, news and comment? (Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts) Does not a 'responsible' media have a duty to inform and question that which politicians would have us believe? Do not 'media moguls' have a duty to their readership to provide just that? Do not what are 'information sites', albeit with political affiliation, not have that same duty? Politics Home is supposed to be, so they would have readers believe, 'without 'political affiliation' yet I notice that whilst  links to EU Referendum are 'legion' - when he questions political venality, principles, behaviour; such posts seem to be studiously 'ignored' by that website.

People, beware - the internet, per se, is not an impartial source of news. As with the MSM, it is still necessary to employ the use of a filter - which begs the question why, in a free society which is supposed to be a democracy, this should be necessary. Or am I being naive? (don't answer that!)

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


Saturday, 1 October 2011

A Challenge..........

UP Pompeii posts and asks: "Just what in the name of sanity is happening in this country....." whilst homing in on the remarks of Ian Duncan Smith on the matter of benefits payable to EU citizens, wherein IDS claims 'foul'.

Bearing in mind Article 4, 5, & 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), can anyone name one - just one - aspect of policy in which the EU cannot 'interfere'?*

As ever, just asking...............


*Similar to IPJ's '6 things' question (6 things in your life not regulated, in one form or another, by the state) - and as far as I know he's still waiting an answer......!