The Private Prosecution Service

I feel, albeit in my limited opinion, this is a great stride forward. There are clearly problems in our judicial system and, at last, this initiative will, I believe, offer a second string to the bow of all who feel they have either been misrepresented or have inappropriately suffered at the hands of lawyers, judges or the system ('child protection/social services'?). I am sure that the vast majority of good and caring lawyers will not feel challenged by this and, perhaps even welcome the move?

This is the Press Release for: "The Private Prosecution Service" Friday 5 August 2011

"On the 1st August 2011 a private prosecution service was launched in the UK by Paul Randle-Jolliffe, an experienced law advocate, along with a police officer and a retired barrister. Added to these, who have experience in various aspects of family and criminal law there are a number of supporters in investigative and other supporting roles.

This is the first time in the UK in at least 150 years that such a prosecuting organisation has existed. The PPS, as it is known will be focussing on family law crimes. They have issued a comprehensive 50 page "Crimes in Family Law" brief which details many aspects that are happening in secret - in closed courts. However crime is a public matter and this is the first time that these issues have been able to be spoken about in public. Things that previously even the press couldnt report because they were family law matters can now be reported publicly because they are now criminal matters.

Many of the aspects in the 50 page brief will be shocking to those with no experience of family law but everybody who has had dealings with the family law system will recognise one or more of the appalling things described in it."

PDF FILES:

 

1}  BRIEF ON CRIME IN FAMILY LAW:

http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/gzzom

2}  PRIVATE PROSECUTION LAUNCH AND PEACE OFFICERS WANTED:

http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/b6li4

Please check the documents in the links. Breaches of various laws 'under the colour of law' that occur in secrecy of UK family law show that family law operates separately, apart from - and outside of - the rest of the 'whole body of law' and the reasons for the lack of accessible remedy for all practical purposes. 

Covering outline breaches of

Criminal Law (Common and Statutory)

Case Law

Administrative Law (Court Proceeding Rules)

Children Acts

Common and Statute Law in General

Constitutional Law

International Law & Treaty

Others as applicable.

Multiculturalism - (never the twain shall meet*)

"Britons seem to have given up on assimilating their Muslim population, with many British elites patting themselves on the back for their tolerance and multiculturalism."
Linda Chavez

"What 'multiculturalism' boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture."
Thomas Sowell**

Katherine Berbalsingh has an article on Telegraph Blogs about the Tottenham 'riots' and which is required reading for all politicians. The article is headlined: "These riots were about race. Why ignore the fact?".

When two (or more) cultures, each with their own 'society', religion and 'mores' are mixed, there can only result segregation and racial tension. Is our memory so short that we have forgotten Brixton or Broadwater Farm?

Not that I am aware that Muslims were part of the 'mob' in Tottenham, but when you have one particular section of society that reads in their 'holy book' (Qur'an)

"O unbelievers, I serve not what you serve and you are not serving what I serve, nor am I serving what you have served, neither are you serving what I serve. To you your religion, and to me my religion!"

is it any wonder that multiculturalism is doomed to failure?

As I write, reports are appearing on Twitter of 'trouble' in Enfield and Brixton - what was it that Enoch Powell prophesied?

* Never the twain shall meet - generally accepted as meaning: "two things which are so different as to have no opportunity to unite".

** For those readers unacquainted with Thomas Sowell, may I refer you to a previous post of mine?

A green and pleasant land?

The Sunday Telegraph editorial today contains an article on the furore about the Coalition's attempts to change the planning laws; and as with most things that this abomination of a government attempts, it would seem that the one thing missing in this, as with all their policies, is 'planning'. In the editorial it states:

"No, the source of opposition is much more profound than any political ideology: it is the desire of local people to have a say over what happens to their communities and their surroundings. The Coalition promised to build planning policy around that aspiration. If that is indeed what it has done, ministers have nothing to fear: opposition to their reforms will melt away. But if its proposals turn out to be merely a variation on the old model of central control, then opposition will become very potent indeed."

 Oh dear! "But if its proposals turn out to be merely a variation on the old model of central control....". Just where has the writer of this rubbish been since May 2010? He need only look at the Localism Bill to see that central control is a factor where supposed devolution of power is concerned. Not only that, but he/she seems totally unaware of what content is included in that edition of his/her own newspaper.

Not available, it would appear on-line - but in the print edition - is a 'two-page spread' article by Andrew Gilligan, one headlined: "Developers get the green light after Tory 'about turn'" in which Gilligan writes quite extensively on the subject; mentioning the fact that Grant Shapps, when Shadow Housing Minister, visited the villages of Elsenham and Henham in North Essex to back opposition to the last government's plans to build 5,000 houses thus joining-up' the two villages. Shapps told villagers that the Conservative Party would not let that happen and that villagers could rest in peace, something the villagers felt reassured about after 12th May 2010. Gilligan writes:

"Ministers insist that the changes are all about localism. And indeed, local areas will be able to get together to draw up "neighbourhood plans". At first sight, that might seem hopeful for places like Elsenham. But the small print, again, makes clear that neighbourhoods will not be allowed to draw up plans that conflict with national policy. They will, in other words, only be able to ask for more development, not less."

The object of this post is not to enter the argument about NIMBYISM, nor the fact that one aspect of the need for more housing may well be due to the present immigration policy of this country - nor that our countryside is alive with rabbits which, it is understood, hold the number one spot where breeding rates are concerned; and that countryside locals are naturally against other races entering their locale and attempting, to knock the rabbits off their number one spot.

The object of this post is to expose, yet again, the political obfuscation practised by this government where transparency and honesty is concerned. They are 'selling' the idea that power is being devolved to the people when, in fact, the opposite is the case - witness the 'small print'. As with the promise in the Localism Bill on the subject of referendums, 'control' still rests with our elected representatives. Do note the words: "neighbourhoods will not be allowed" - is not "allowing" something that dictators practise? 

It seems to me that Cameron chose to stand for public office in the wrong country - he should have tried North Korea, where he would, no doubt, have been welcomed with open arms!

Is this for which MPs are elected - personal advancement?

Toby Helm, writing in The Guardian, notes the growing unease of Tory rebel 'Young Guns' who are disenchanted with life in the Coalition, believing that it is inhibiting their progress up the political ladder.

"Unhappy at having to govern with the Liberal Democrats? Frustrated at the lack of opportunities for promotion? Miffed at not having the ear of No 10? All are symptoms of a malaise among young Tory MPs disappointed by their life as backbenchers in a coalition." (Emphasis mine)

But surely, it is a wish to serve those that elect an MP, not the potential for personal advancement, that makes one stand for office? Or have I missed the plot and 'politics' is indeed a career?

Amongst those cited as being 'unhappy' is Priti Patel (although surely, a misnomer where the 'first' name is concerned), someone who wishes for "a ressertion of Tory policy updated for the 21st century" - which must include a belief in self-government - yet this is an MP who has made herself 'unavailable' when important votes on matters EU have been held.

The fact that we may well have 'exciting' times to come within the Conservative Party could well be true - if only we had a Conservative Party..............

A Constitution

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a lunatic."

Dresden James (attributed)

That the constitution of the United Kingdom is defunct is a 'given'; that our political system is defunct is a 'given'; and that, due to the dictatorial system of government now practised by our elected representatives, the people of this nation are 'rudderless' is a 'given'. 

Enoch Powell once said that "Parliament is a word of magic and power in this country". If only that were true. It has surrendered its perogatives at home to the quango state and abroad to the European Union. It is no longer any check on the executive of government as a result of the 'whipping system' and it is fair to say that neither the legislature, nor any written constitution, can now arrest the unconstrained power of government. Constitutional changes have been made during the last few decades, purely on the 'orders' of a Prime Minister; 'orders' carried through Parliament by votes controlled by government whips. No longer do we have true democratic accountability, instead what now passes for government is a not-so-subtle despotism - or as I tend to label it: democratised dictatorship, or oligarchy as some would have it.

At the beginning of "The Plan" there are some quotations, two of which I wish to highlight:

"When the government fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

"The delegation of particular technical tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet the first step by which a democracy progressively relinquishes its powers."
F.A. Hayek

"The Plan", authored by Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell, has I believe been the only alternative form of "government" that has been offered to the British people - at least the only one that has received a reasonable amount of publicity and, it could be said, "The Plan" does offer a release from the 'political dictatorship' that presently prevails. Or does it? I ask the question as "The Plan" does contain elements of  'centralist control', which those of us who have 'libertarian instincts' condemn.

With the introduction of the Coalition's e-petition scheme (and allowing that I have conflated Peoples Bills and Petitions in that their aim is similar; namely the objective being to introduce, annul or change a law), it is pertinent to note that Hannan and Carswell write:

"Our aim should be to import the key advantage of the Citizens Initiative - that it prevents politicians from ignoring matters of overwhelming public concern - without derogating from parliamentary sovereignty. The only way to do this is through Peoples Bills: legislative proposals put on the agenda of the House of Commons having attracted popular support in petitions. There would be no obligation on MPs to pass the Bills; but they would have to debate and vote on them and then be held responsible for how they voted."

And the difference between this and that which is proposed by the present day Coalition, is? There is no difference, because what Hannan and Carswell propose is a continuation of the present status quo, namely politicians having the 'upper hand', the final decision on that which the people want. Actually there is, because what Hannan and Carswell propose is that any petition is accompanied by an administration fee and a deposit - the latter which would be forfeited should that petition 'fall' as only the six most popular proposals would progress to the next stage. Following any debate on those six, they propose that MPs would then have the right to amend those Bills at will - yet more 'central control'. (Whether there is merit in an administration fee and a deposit is not for discussion here, but in a post to come).

A further example of parliamentary control is exhibited in "The Plan" where Hannan & Carswell write further on petitions and citizen's bills. Making the point that in the United States, where 24 states operate citizen's initiatives and 26 do not, it is possible to make a like-with-like comparison. Quoting the findings of David Schmidt in "Citizen Lawmakers", Hannan & Carswell point out that far from reducing participation in legislative elections, popular initiative seems to increase it; that turnout amongst voters is five per cent higher; and that legislation in those states that do have citizen's initiatives is lighter and better drafted. Rightly pointing out that the evidence shows that popular ballots make better citizens, thus confirming Keith Joseph's assertion that giving people responsibility makes them responsible, Hannan & Carswell then continue:

"....our proposal retains an ultimate veto by Parliament. MPs would not be in a position of having legislation forced on them."

The idea of politicians being the guardian of the nation's morals and future is echoed by John Redwood, who wrote on 11th January:

"Today we will debate Parliamentary sovereignty. In truth, it should be called popular sovereignty. If Parliament can make and unmake laws, raise taxes and spend them without interference from the EU or judges, then the people are sovereign, because they can dismiss the Parliament in elections and influence it between elections through the pressure of public opinion."

Popular sovereignty is defined by Wikipedia, thus:

"Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the political principle that the legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people, who are the source of all political power."

If the people are the source of all political power, then it must follow that the people should not have to influence their parliament between elections as parliament should only be enacting that which the people wish.

Due to the three main parties basically having the same policies, but differing in the method by which those policies are implemented, the only main alternative is Ukip, yet even they appear to be wedded to the supremacy of a parliament over its people. Witness, from their policy on the constitution:

"Introduce a right of recall whereby electors can challenge an errant MP and force a by-election in exceptional circumstances, such as abuse of expenses....... [.......] .......Give Parliament powers such as treaty ratification and consent for declaring war."

I query the use of the word 'exceptional': what is 'exceptional'? Whilst it is acknowledged that MPs should not be recalled for spurious reasons, would not adherence to political party doctrine  - an adherence imposed by the whips on the direction of the party leader - to the detriment of what his/her electorate wished, not be 'exceptional'? By agreeing to parliament having the power to ratify treaties (presumably without the agreement of the people) means that as with membership of the European Union, the British people could well be 'saddled' with something they do not want. If this country is to declare war, should not the people decide, as when all is considered it is their lives which will be at stake?

Is it right that those who are the source of all political power are only allowed to exercise that political power once every five years? What we experience presently is a 'parliamentary democracy' when what in fact should prevail is a 'representative democracy', the latter, one in which those representatives carry out the people's wishes, rather than the present situation whereby those representatives carry out their own wishes.

Readers will no doubt recall this recent post and, as a result, that which will follow during the course of the next few weeks, will be a sincere attempt to propose a better system and an alternative to how this country is managed - and do note, I did not use the word: 'governed'.

I wasn't talking to you.......

A short film which brings the present financial problems into stark focus:

H/T: Restoring Britain

If someone is an enigma lets keep them that way

From the Daily Telegraph and Iain Hollingsworth we learn that ITV is attempting to dig back into Inspector Morse's youth.

From PoliticsHome we learn that:

"Ministers have moved to reassure people that the UK will not be adversely affected by global financial difficulties. Foreign Secretary William Hague insisted Britain was "not in the firing line", while Vince Cable said there was "absolutely no reason why anybody should panic"

So we have Saint Vince paraphrasing Captain Mainwaring. Still, you can't keep a 'Ham Actor' - as in an unskilled actor who overacts - down, can you...............

Mickle, Muckle (and a Merkel)

Many a mickle makes (or 'maks') a muckle' is a curious, I believe, Scottish saying of antiquity, although it is also common in the North of England and not entirely unknown elsewhere.  When considering 'mickle' and 'muckle' it stands to reason that all that needed adding was a 'merkel'.......

The saying "Many a mickle makes a muckle" means 'many of one thing makes another, larger, thing' and therein, no doubt, lies Angela Merkel's ardent wish to see the European Union prosper.

From the Number 10 website we learn that David Cameron has been in telephone contact with Angela Merkel about the current instability in European and American stock markets.

And there was me thinking that the post of Paymaster General was presently held by Francis Maude.....

In our name? Do we get asked?

Over at Bill Cash's European Journal we learn that moves are afoot to 'harmonise' the rights of  suspects which would have an impact on the structure of criminal proceedings as defined by each member state’s national laws. 

"Article 82 TFEU provides that the adoption of minimum rules “shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions and systems of the Member States.” However, the Commission has been putting forward proposals in complete disregard of the different legal systems within the EU, particularly the common law system. The UK has an opt out from Justice and Home Affairs measures. However, the UK loses protection every time it decides to opt in. Nevertheless, the Coalition Government has already decided to opt into several proposals, ceding jurisdiction in this area to the European Court of Justice. 


The Secretary of State at the Minister of Justice, Kenneth Clarke, has explained to the European Scrutiny Committee that the UK already complied with several provisions of the draft directive, nevertheless the draft proposal will, unless amended during the negotiations, require changes in the UK law and practice. The proposal if adopted would increase the scope of existing UK law and practice in this area, consequently it would have financial implications, chiefly for the UK’s legal aid budget. It remains to be seen whether the Government decides to opt into the proposal and what comes out from the negotiations between member states and the European Parliament."

If changes are required to our practice of law and if those changes, whether for the good or not, have implications for us, for example in respect of the cost of the Legal Aid system, leaving aside any other implications; then should not the question be put to the people? I do not recall any proposal in any of the manifestos published by the Lib/Lab/Con at the last general election that mentioned such changes. Is not how we are dealt with under the law not, in effect, part of our constitution?

And we do not live under a system I describe as democratised dictatorship?

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

Oh, when will they ever learn?*

The Sun is reporting that David Laws is set to return to government, probably in a reshuffle, during September or October - although this could happen sooner should Chris Huhne be found guilty of perverting the course of justice. The return of Laws has been mooted in the media for some time now, so this article is hardly 'news' in the strict sense of the word 'news'.

When this happens, as it surely will, it will just demonstrate yet again what a rotten, self-serving and venal world our political system has become. David Laws was guilty of malfeasance in that he misused public money - his reasons are neither here nor there. The fact that he attempted to hide his sexual proclivity, whether that was through shame or not, is also neither here nor there, he misused public money.

Politicians present themselves to their electorate as someone to trust, someone who professes that given the opportunity, they have the necessary skills to act in the best interests of that electorate. They present themselves as men and women of impeccable character, amongst which attribute is supposedly honour and principle. The misuse of pubic money by Laws is, in my book, no different to the that for which Devine has just been released from prison - namely they both claimed money from the public purse to which they were not entitled.

The fact that some MPs were prosecuted, served prison sentences (albeit short ones) and banned from membership of their political party and others have not been begs the question - to coin a phrase - just what 'back-door' deal was done in Laws' case? That Laws may be readmitted to the world of politics, that there are still sitting in the House of Commons other MPs who are 'technically' guilty of the misuse of public funds is to the detriment of the political class, politics in general and is a stain on the reputation of this country.

The sooner our electoral system includes open primaries and a recall system for errant MPs, the latter not dependent on the agreement of their colleagues, the sooner the corrupt political system that prevails can be purged by the electorate. As I write the edifice that is the European Union looks set to crumble and disintegrate - the sooner that same disintegration of our political system occurs the better the country and its people will be better governed - that also assumes that the people need 'governing'.


* Words taken from:"Where have all the flowers gone?" - Pete Seeger, 1961

Why the MSM can never be trusted

Richard North, EU Referendum, homes in on the recent 'IE hoax' and the resultant 'mea cuplas' issued. Writing that:

".... if you have prestige, your word is accepted – no one will question it. That is why the MSM produces so much unmitigated rubbish, and why it will continue to get caught out - it peddles prestige, not facts."

is why politicians  maintain their exalted position in our society - they have an MSM in their pocket, one that regurgitates their unmitigated rubbish by means of the 'art' of 'cut 'n paste'.

Just another thought.........

Blogging may be light

over the next few days, other than the odd acerbic comment, as I am starting work on this "constitutional thingy" I mentioned - which needless to say is turning into something far larger than first envisaged......

Bear with me - as they say............

The power of words

I believe it fair to say that anyone commissioning a survey, on whatever subject, poses questions with a view to receiving the answer they seek. The latest example of this theory is a survey carried out amongst Conservative members, presumably by the Conservative Party, on the question of foreign aid.

Andrew Porter, writing in the Daily Telegraph, interpreted the findings one way and Tim Montgomerie, on Conservative Home, spins desperately with an opposite interpretation. The question asked was whether they (Conservative members) agreed with the statement that:

"even as we deal with our deficit, Britain is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world and we should be proud we're continuing our commitment to international development."

Setting aside the point that we are not one of the wealthiest countries in the world (how can one be wealthy whilst having a debt of over £1trillion - but, again, I digress) I just wonder what the percentage of responses would have been had the words "to the disadvantage of aiding the elderly and vulnerable in our own society, coupled with not being able to defend our nation satisfactorily in the military sense."

It is also reasonable, I believe, to question Cameron's political aims, especially when we read:

"At a recent meeting of world leaders in France Mr Cameron castigated other leading nations for not fulfilling pledges on aid and invoked his own personal reasons for continuing commitment to overseas aid. He said: "We made a promise. I remember where I was during Live Aid in 1985."If we are going to try to get across to the poorest people in the world that we care about their plight and we want them to join one world with the rest of us, we have got to make promises and keep promises."(Emphasis mine)

One has to ask whether the omission of the word "government", after the word "world" was by design or accident?

Just asking, you understand........................

Presently, is there really any point........?

So the subject of e-petitions makes the headlines and in so doing does, unintentionally, re-open the debate on the subject of the effectiveness of Parliament - not that I expect the majority of people will consider that aspect. Conservative Home has an article by Paul Goodman, which in turn links to another article by Sir George Young in the Mail.

Presumably the snapshot of the Mail frontpage on ConHome is that of the print edition, in which case the Mail is guilty of disingeniousness in stating that MPs will vote on the death penalty. The fact that it is highly unlikely any debate would be held is due to the fact that a committee of MPs will be the arbiter of whether or not any petition is worthy of being considered for debate and, more importantly, any such debate would be meaningless even if it were held, as Mary Ellen Synon points out.

Sir George Young is likewise guilty of duplicity (but hey, being a politician why should we expect anything less) in that he writes:

"Parliamentary time is not unlimited and we want the best e-petitions to be given airtime. That’s why we will be closely monitoring the site over the coming months to assess whether the threshold is right, or whether it should be lowered or raised."

That statement is just 'code' for ensuring that only the petitions the politicians want get accepted and that no doubt the thresholds will be raised to make it even more difficult for the public to acquire the necessary signatures.

It also beggars belief that Young can also write:

"But if lots of people want Parliament to do something which it rejects, then it is up to MPs to explain the reasons to their constituents. What else is Parliament for? People have strong opinions, and it does not serve democracy well if we ignore them or pretend that their views do not exist."

Why break the habit of a lifetime, George?

If the people overwhelmingly present a petition for something it is not the job of MPs to vote it down and then go back to the constituents and explain their actions. Contrary to the requirements of a true representative democracy, which is what MPs maintain we have, MPs are not elected to be the moral conscience of the nation. Were such a petition with overwhelming support to be voted down by Parliament, that situation could well be the catalyst that will bring the masses out onto the streets.

And Young no longer feels Parliament is irrelevant?

Yup, its August..........

Known as 'the silly season', whilst still only a few days old the month of August is living up to its reputation as the month of stupid news and views.

Benedict Brogan, who is the Daily Telegraph's Deputy Editor writes a blog which purports to bring us news, gossip, analysis and occasional insight into politics, and more (which sounds like an infringement of the Trades Description Act is occurring - but I digress) 'pens' an article about what Cameron and MilibandE are reading whilst they are on holiday. With the euro looking like it is going to cause the UK to help fund another bail-out(s), who the hell cares what two comedians read on their holiday? Unless of course it includes a beginners guide to economics, sovereignty, truth, principle and honour.........

Douglas Carswell blogs on how to control Government spending and opines that every Whitehall department and quango should be made to annually appear before the Commons to plead for its budget. 'Fraid not. Douglas, for a number of reasons; namely (i) If MPs cannot control their own budgets and expenditure then why the hell should they be allowed to control that of someone else; (ii) just whose money are we talking about here - because it sure ain't theirs; and (iii) as it is our money then they can damn well come and plead their case with us! (Until Carswell accepts that MPs are not elected to be our nannies and that MPs are not the sole arbiters of what happens in this country, that is The Plan and Direct Democracy removed from the side bar of this blog)

A final thought: holidays are usually taken to recharge batteries after a period of hard work. As our MPs no longer govern our nation and the only exercise they have undertaken is to indulge in a self-induced frenzy caused by 'Hackgate', just why the blazes are they on holiday?

An update on a 'discussion' with my MP.......

Readers will know that last October I attended a meeting with my constituency MP in which I raised what I believed to be an injustice caused by government policy in respect of the treatment afforded the elderly and the 'vulnerable' in our society.

It will also be recalled that; at a promised meeting with Grant Shapps we had but 10 minutes of the 'great man's' presence; that representatives from the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Services Commission had withdrawn, citing spurious reasons; I had written to my constitutency MP requesting that the meeting be reconvened with all the promised attendees present.

After weeks of 'silence' I emailed once again and received a reply from Cameron's PA advising that he would reply, but was waiting a reponse from the MoJ, and that the delay was due to 'his wish to provide a full response'. My indignation at receiving a copy letter from Shapps to Cameron - which was patronising in the extreme and which did not address the points I had raised subsequent to my meeting with him, received under cover of a compliments slip from the 'Office of David Cameron - is perhaps understandable.

I can but quote part of my reply to his PA:

"It is appreciated that David Cameron is 'on holiday', but I have to say this demonstrates what I can only describe as 'sloppiness' on the part of someone within his office. It is also appreciated that being Prime Minister means that David Cameron has many pressing matters that need his attention, but - he is still my Member of Parliament and as such has a duty to deal with and answer correspondence from a constituent of his in a professional and acceptable manner - something which is obviously lacking in this instance.

Let us be clear; what has occured is that David Cameron has received what amounts to a petition from me, complaining that government policy is wrong on a number of points and requesting redress. Consider: as my constituency MP - and because of his dual role as Prime Minister - David Cameron is unable to 'air' my grievance in the House of Commons - something which also applies to any Sec of State, Minister and PPS; that bearing in mind also his statement made, during our initial meeting on this subject at his surgery, that 'national policy will always remain supreme over local policy; and that, according to the Parliament website, MPs "Generally,..... will present all petitions they receive from their constituents. However, MPs aren't compelled to present petitions...." it does beg the question whether our democracy is all that it is presented as being.

It would, perhaps, be advantageous were David Cameron and his office, together with Grant Shapps - to utilise a 'certain phrase' - 'get a grip' and act in the manner they should; and one to which I, although retired, contribute, albeit in a small way, to 'the pot' from which they get paid.

Please do on-pass this email to my constituency MP as I feel he has 'certain questions' to answer. "

That our democracy - and the process of - per se, is 'questionable' cannot now be beyond doubt. When a contstituent is being 'palmed-off' by one elected to represent him - but one who cannot - then it is obvious that we, as a people and a class of our society who are supposed to be the masters - are well and truly doomed to servitude.

A project

To anyone, other than a politician, it is evident that much is wrong with our country and our democracy and attempts have been made to offer alternative systems, of which probably the most notable was "The Plan" authored by Douglas Carswell & Daniel Hannan.

Yet even "The Plan", which wishes to devolve power downwards, is based on the contradictory belief that national government must govern and, in many areas, be given carte blanche to do as they see fit. As with most ideas that emanate from the Lib/Lab/Con, where devolution of power is discussed one factor appears to remain constant; and that is that, ultimately, the final decision rests with central government.

But is there not a better way? I have for some time believed that there is; and following a suggestion I made in the comments section to a post that a further article on devolution and localism might be worthwhile, one commenter picked up on this and replied that it might be worthwhile.

Many posts on blogs have appeared complaining and castigating various aspects of our democracy, yet none have actually (to my knowledge) put forward their 'alternatives' - so why do we not attempt just that?

What I propose to attempt is to set out, in a fairly simplistic form, how our democracy should be changed so that power actually does rest with the people and that MPs then actually do become representatives of the people - which of course is the situation that should prevail, but most obviously doesn't.

If readers wish to become involved in this 'project' then suggestions would be more than welcome and it may be that some of these could be incorporated into a proposed form of democracy that would benefit all.

So over to you..............................

Saying 'No'........

It is possible that the change to our form of democratised dictatorship that we seek can be achieved by peaceful means - and achieved by just saying 'No' to bureaucracy.

Two weeks ago a food bin, one that exhortation encapsulating saving the planet had been used to have the local populace comply with the latest form of eco-lunacy, remained uncollected. Following two telephone calls to West Oxfordshire District Council, where on each occasion I was informed it would be collected the next day, it was not collected until the following Friday.

When making my monthly payment for Council Tax yesterday, I referred to this incident and informed WODC that as I felt certain they would agree it would contravene the 'contract', one in which we had both entered, whereby I should not have to pay for a service which had not been provided, I was deducting the sum of £5.00 from my payment.

This brought forth an almost immediate response informing me that my deduction was not 'allowed' and that I should correct the shortfall forthwith. My reply was to the effect that the only thing I allowed where my finances were concerned, seeing as it was my money, was that I spent it on something that I had been 'offered' and subsequently received.

Hopefully logic will dictate to WODC that court action would be uneconomical to pursue, considering the paltry sum involved; and that this sum will remain 'due' until the end of time - however, as we are talking 'bureaucrat' here, I am not hopeful of such an outcome and am therefore quite prepared to attend court, if that is their intention.

Further updates on this as and when..........................

We are sheep led astray?

"Democracy's a very fragile thing. You have to take care of democracy. As soon as you stop being responsible to it and allow it to turn into scare tactics, it's no longer democracy, is it? It's something else. It may be an inch away from totalitarianism."

Sam Shepard

"Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda."
Hannah Arendt - The Origins of Totalitarianism

It becomes apparent that both statements are true where the direction our society is being guided and the methods being employed to achieve that 'guidance' are concerned. The British people have refused or seem unwilling, for one reason or another, to care about democracy; have allowed themselves to be coerced by the scare tactics of our politicians and their followers in the world of bureaucracy; and have succumbed to political and social propaganda.

We learn from Wikipedia that totalitarianism is:

"a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror."

Comparing that definition to our country today, the Lib/Lab/Con is a political system that would appear to know no limits to its authority, does strive to regulate every aspect of our lives, does disseminate propaganda through a compliant media, the Lib/Lab/Con are, in fact, a single party - they only differ on how their similar policies can be put into effecct - marked by personality cultism, insistence on control of the economy, and practise regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance in the name of prevention of terrorism and who do use terror, or the threat of terror, to achieve their aims.

To achieve mass surveillance of the population political leaders and their bureaucratic cohorts need a compliant and controlled police, coupled with an army of 'informers' from amongst the population. That this is happening is demonstrated by this article in the Guardian, which writes about an 'appeal' issued by the Metropolitan Police about anarchists, stating that anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Any information relating to anarchists should be reported to your local police. My own views on the state are well known and all it would take is one person to overhear what no doubt the authorities would consider a form of anarchist condemnation to report me and that would no doubt result in a 4am 'alarm call'.

Richard North, EUReferendum, has commented on the story of the Welsh pub landlady fined £300 for using alternative no-smoking signs in her establishment whilst waiting for the 'officially approved ones to arrive; and comments on the stupidity of those bureaucrats and the magistrate involved. Whilst being a great admirer of Richard North for his robust and common sense viewpoints on just about any topic; I do have to take issue with him about his use of the word 'stupidity', when it would appear that there is a common purpose thread running through all the organisations and bodies that affect our lives, one that has but one aim - total control through either coercion or propaganda.

On the 'coercion angle' a further example surfaces with this story in the Mail, wherein it is reported that the police will now be fingerprinting, if they so wish, everyone they stop in the street. We are also told that these fingerprints will not be retained on file - and where have we heard similar before? How long before we reach the stage where we are stopped with the request: "Papers?" - and yes, there won't be any 'please'.

The fact we are 'scared' of our police, that we are 'scared' of the unforeseen 'knock on the door'; that to question climate change 'science' means you are considered an 'eco-warrior', or worse, an idiot; that we are conditioned to take exercise to offset obeisity; couple with a multitude of other 'nudges', ones that eventually morph into 'diktats', reminds me of how things used to be - a situation best illustrated by the content of an email I received a few days ago on the subject of 'The Green Thing'.

"In the line at the supermarket, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags, or purchase one of the store's 'environmentally friendly bags' because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to her and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day." The checkout girl responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."
 
She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in it's day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go half a mile.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 240 volts - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the Surrey. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums and dads into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. We didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?"

It is undeniable that through time there have been the most wonderful inventions that have made our lives easier, more enjoyable and provided us 'luxuries' undreamed of by our forebears. Yet can one reader point to any of these 'improvements' that has not been achieved by either coercion or propaganda, in one form or another? Even our ability to think whether to embrace the benefits of each and every 'improvement' in our lives has been eroded by either coercion or propaganda.

Think about it - and think about where the blame should lie for our current state of affairs...........

EU speak with forked tongue........

Cathy Ashton, aka High Representative of the European Union, has issued a statement in connection with the execution of Robert Jackson in Delaware on 29th July:

"The European Union deeply regrets the execution of Mr. Robert Jackson in the State of
Delaware on 29 July, 2011. The European Union considers that nations, which have not as
yet abolished the death penalty, should not impose this punishment when a de-facto
moratorium has been in place for an extended period. The execution of Mr. Jackson has
broken the de-facto moratorium that had been in place in Delaware since November 4,
2005.

The European Union recognizes that a terrible crime was at the heart of this case and
extends its sympathy to the family and survivors of the victim. Nevertheless, the European
Union opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and calls for a global moratorium as a first step towards its universal abolition." (Emphasis mine)

 If the EU "opposes the use of capital punishement in all cases and under all circumstances", then perhaps Ashton can explain why the EU accepts the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the ECHR - and in particular, Article 2 ?

Capital punishment is the act whereby a person is condemned to death - aka the death penalty. A decision taken to open fire on those involved in an insurrection or riot means that whoever gives the order has condemned someone, or some people, to death. If the EU has the belief that capital punishment is abhorrent, then logically they cannot condone it under any circumstances.