" The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.”Eleanor Holmes Norton
" The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with."William J. Brennan Jr
Monday, 30 June 2008
Quote of the day
Friday, 27 June 2008
New Labour loose deposit in Henly by election
Gordon Brown’s New Labour are clearly as popular as ever.
New Labour actually lost their deposit in the Henley by-election. No wonder they are not willing to stand up to David Davis, they can’t afford to loose another deposit, either financially ;-) judging by the state of their finances, or politically.
Is it possible that the Lib-Dems can usurp their place nationally at the next election as they did at Henley? If I were the Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg I would beware of anything that sounded like “prepare for government” quite yet.
John Howell the victorious Conservative candidate probably called it accurately when he suggested his overwhelming victory proved voters wanted "a government that is on their side not on their backs."
New-Labour seem incapable of understanding that or if they do incapable of weaning themselves away from their love of patrician, social services mentality, authoritarian control freakery.
Fortunately Gordon probably can’t muster the sort of shock troops Mugabe can and to be honest, for all his failings, he probably never would if he could. Thank goodness.
New Labour actually lost their deposit in the Henley by-election. No wonder they are not willing to stand up to David Davis, they can’t afford to loose another deposit, either financially ;-) judging by the state of their finances, or politically.
Is it possible that the Lib-Dems can usurp their place nationally at the next election as they did at Henley? If I were the Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg I would beware of anything that sounded like “prepare for government” quite yet.
John Howell the victorious Conservative candidate probably called it accurately when he suggested his overwhelming victory proved voters wanted "a government that is on their side not on their backs."
New-Labour seem incapable of understanding that or if they do incapable of weaning themselves away from their love of patrician, social services mentality, authoritarian control freakery.
Fortunately Gordon probably can’t muster the sort of shock troops Mugabe can and to be honest, for all his failings, he probably never would if he could. Thank goodness.
Quote of the day
" We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a programme would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."Neville Chamberlain
" We will have no truce or parlay with you [Hitler], or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst -- and we will do our best."Sir Winston Churchill
Compare and contrast...
Thursday, 26 June 2008
Quote of the day
“ A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan.”Martin Luther King, Jr.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Quote of the day
“ Courage, it would seem, is nothing less than the power to overcome danger, misfortune, fear, injustice, while continuing to affirm inwardly that life with all its sorrows is good; that everything is meaningful even if in a sense beyond our understanding; and that there is always tomorrow.”Dorothy Thompson
Very Light Posting
It’s not like there are not plenty of things worth posting about right now. Mugabe’s cleptocratic dictatorship in Zimbabwe for instance with it’s threadbare democratic disguise. The erosions of our civil liberties. The EU constitution that will not die. The utter incompetence of New-Labour, who whatever their many short comings at least the saving grace of not being actively wicked and racist like Mugabe.
No. The problem is finding the time…
So posting is likely be thinner than it has been.
No. The problem is finding the time…
So posting is likely be thinner than it has been.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
New-Labour and the Westminster mindset vs Liberty and David Davis
Recently I posted on David Davis’ resignation over the 42 day issue, the erosion of traditional British liberties and civil rights in general.
I asked the question was it him or Westminster that was out of step with the country. The consensus was Westminster was ‘bog chaining’ on parade - well out of step.
Well he has set up a website here. More power to his elbow. Worth a visit.
I asked the question was it him or Westminster that was out of step with the country. The consensus was Westminster was ‘bog chaining’ on parade - well out of step.
Well he has set up a website here. More power to his elbow. Worth a visit.
UK State clampdown on employing illegals
Well New-Labour’s kakistocracy is clamping down on firms that employ those (sub text - nasty foreign spongers) illegal immigrants. They made it illegal to employ illegal immigrants, they prosecuted companies that did and now they are going to pillory the employers by ‘naming and shaming’.
The lie they tell to justify this?
Apparently it’s all to help crush major organised criminal enterprises that use international people trafficing networks to smuggle people into the UK, as a supply of illegal labour. Any way the employers deserve it. They are unscrupulously undercutting the labour market by avoiding paying taxes on wages, that are below the minimum wage anyway. Why, surely virtually stealing jobs from the honest hardworking indigenous population...
...who find they make as money on benefit doing nothing than they could from such jobs as the immegrants are doing.
That’ll help drive up the cost of food and services. Is anyone out there using more than just a single brain cell to parse these excuses?
So we take one step back from the spin and lies.
The real problem is that New-Labour have effectively lost control of the UK’s borders. For years if illegal immigrants decamped from trucks and were caught they would be given instructions to make their way to reception centres and directions, the vast majority of whom promptly vanished. Those that were not caught vanished also.
Rather than have an effective system (this is New Labour here) they persecute hapless lorry drivers and employers, trying to force them to make up for government incompetence and despite a massively ramping tax burden state under funding.
OK. Now lets take another step back. Is there one? Yes.
Why is this a problem? Why are illegal immigrants a problem? Why are they illegal in the first place for that matter?
They claim benefits from a system they never contributed perhaps? Drain the good old NHS of resources when they never paid anything into it? Jump the social housing queue? Etc. etc. etc.
The underlying reason is that in sufficient numbers immigrants are a problem for a ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state, with universal entitlement like the UK’s, designed to run in isolation. Such a system also undeniably makes the UK much more attractive to economic migrants exacerbating the ‘problem’.
Without a welfare state that is constructed in the way the UK’s is immigration would become much less popular. Immigrants would not be a drain on the public purse either. They would either contribute to the economy and stay or not. If not they would not be able to survive here and would leave. If they committed crime then, tried, imprisoned then deported.
All that would be left would be boarder security issues and any social problems left.
Maybe that’s why New-Labour are so keen on the ID card and illegal immigrants (Oh - and of course the ‘War on Terror) will be their excuse to justify it…
The lie they tell to justify this?
Apparently it’s all to help crush major organised criminal enterprises that use international people trafficing networks to smuggle people into the UK, as a supply of illegal labour. Any way the employers deserve it. They are unscrupulously undercutting the labour market by avoiding paying taxes on wages, that are below the minimum wage anyway. Why, surely virtually stealing jobs from the honest hardworking indigenous population...
...who find they make as money on benefit doing nothing than they could from such jobs as the immegrants are doing.
That’ll help drive up the cost of food and services. Is anyone out there using more than just a single brain cell to parse these excuses?
So we take one step back from the spin and lies.
The real problem is that New-Labour have effectively lost control of the UK’s borders. For years if illegal immigrants decamped from trucks and were caught they would be given instructions to make their way to reception centres and directions, the vast majority of whom promptly vanished. Those that were not caught vanished also.
Rather than have an effective system (this is New Labour here) they persecute hapless lorry drivers and employers, trying to force them to make up for government incompetence and despite a massively ramping tax burden state under funding.
OK. Now lets take another step back. Is there one? Yes.
Why is this a problem? Why are illegal immigrants a problem? Why are they illegal in the first place for that matter?
They claim benefits from a system they never contributed perhaps? Drain the good old NHS of resources when they never paid anything into it? Jump the social housing queue? Etc. etc. etc.
The underlying reason is that in sufficient numbers immigrants are a problem for a ‘cradle to grave’ welfare state, with universal entitlement like the UK’s, designed to run in isolation. Such a system also undeniably makes the UK much more attractive to economic migrants exacerbating the ‘problem’.
Without a welfare state that is constructed in the way the UK’s is immigration would become much less popular. Immigrants would not be a drain on the public purse either. They would either contribute to the economy and stay or not. If not they would not be able to survive here and would leave. If they committed crime then, tried, imprisoned then deported.
All that would be left would be boarder security issues and any social problems left.
Maybe that’s why New-Labour are so keen on the ID card and illegal immigrants (Oh - and of course the ‘War on Terror) will be their excuse to justify it…
Quote of the day
“ To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful.”Edward R. Murrow
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Quote of the day
“ The best way to compel weak-minded people to adopt our opinion, is to frighten them from all others”
" Nothing convinces persons of a weak understanding so effectually, as what they do not comprehend.”Philip Dormer Stanhope Chesterfield
Monday, 16 June 2008
Quote of the day
" You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered - but in the light of the wrong it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."Lyndon Johnson
Is David Davis out of step - or is it Westminster?
Well it seems all the MSM talking heads are following the unelected King Gordon’s line that, UK Shadow Home Secretary David Davis’ resignation in protest over the 42 day detention issue is a stunt and a risible waste of time distracting from much more important things.
Well He would say that wouldn’t he? Being a notoriously just a little shy of submitting himself to the will of the electorate, thus probably blowing the only slim chance he ever had of actually being elected Prime Minister.
Gordon is clearly desperate to prevent any other serious party standing against Davis too and Nick Clegg has obligingly followed his line, as he did in the case of the notorious Lisbon Treaty.
Still there is a former editor of that well known bastion of intelligent moderate informed comment and civil liberties, the Sun, willing to stand up for what one might be forgiven for seeing as the principle of locking dodgy ‘foreign looking’ people up indefinitely without evidence.
Of course Davis’s resignation would not make sense to the majority of New-Labour, sadly quite probably on the majority of MPs .
Based, as it was, on a matter of actual principle, they are clearly incapable of understanding it at all, not being able to easily perceive principles at all. To the MSM reporters subsumed in the Westminster hot house atmosphere it probably makes no more sense.
This may be the case with those who like to see themselves as opinion formers, but it may be, in this case, they are a little out of step with the general population, who see things slightly differently.
Agree with him or not, there is it seems, at least one MP who is an honorable gentleman, who we can actually believe - and trust to stand up for civil rights and what he believes in.
Someone who’s word and promises, unlike Gordon's or Nick's, actually are ‘subject to legitimate expectation’. More power to him.
Well He would say that wouldn’t he? Being a notoriously just a little shy of submitting himself to the will of the electorate, thus probably blowing the only slim chance he ever had of actually being elected Prime Minister.
Gordon is clearly desperate to prevent any other serious party standing against Davis too and Nick Clegg has obligingly followed his line, as he did in the case of the notorious Lisbon Treaty.
Still there is a former editor of that well known bastion of intelligent moderate informed comment and civil liberties, the Sun, willing to stand up for what one might be forgiven for seeing as the principle of locking dodgy ‘foreign looking’ people up indefinitely without evidence.
Of course Davis’s resignation would not make sense to the majority of New-Labour, sadly quite probably on the majority of MPs .
Based, as it was, on a matter of actual principle, they are clearly incapable of understanding it at all, not being able to easily perceive principles at all. To the MSM reporters subsumed in the Westminster hot house atmosphere it probably makes no more sense.
This may be the case with those who like to see themselves as opinion formers, but it may be, in this case, they are a little out of step with the general population, who see things slightly differently.
Agree with him or not, there is it seems, at least one MP who is an honorable gentleman, who we can actually believe - and trust to stand up for civil rights and what he believes in.
Someone who’s word and promises, unlike Gordon's or Nick's, actually are ‘subject to legitimate expectation’. More power to him.
Saturday, 14 June 2008
The Constitution/Treaty that refused to die
The Irish – Alone out of all the countries of the EU, were actually allowed to vote, to have a referendum by Europe’s politicians, on Lisbon treaty.
There is no plan ‘B’ Barroso said if they rejected the treaty. No, because there is no retreat. They will not abandon plan ‘A’.
All the rest of Europe’s politicians including the election promise breaking Gordon Brown were too fly to permit such a vote, knowing as they did it would almost certainly result in a rejection by the population of Europe the political elite are doing their best to shanghai.
Well the Irish voted decisively to reject the treaty, as would the British, had they been allowed their promised referendum - now the European political elite are desperately attempting to rescue the treaty cobbled together by Angela Mercal that was in turn to revive the rejected bankrupt constitution.
One rejection should theoretically have killed the treaty Gordon Brown so traitorously agreed to over New-Labour’s election broken manifesto promise to ratify it by referendum.
Right now the Political classes of Europe are mostly trying to pretend the Irish rejection just didn’t happen.
These people simply will not take no for an answer. What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand you might ask? They understand it all right. They are just not prepared to accept it. They have little care for democracy. They want to become a new ruling class of, well aristocracy.
It will be interesting to see what lies and contortions the go through to keep it alive or re package it. You can bet they will avoid any referendums if it is at all possible next time.
There is no plan ‘B’ Barroso said if they rejected the treaty. No, because there is no retreat. They will not abandon plan ‘A’.
All the rest of Europe’s politicians including the election promise breaking Gordon Brown were too fly to permit such a vote, knowing as they did it would almost certainly result in a rejection by the population of Europe the political elite are doing their best to shanghai.
Well the Irish voted decisively to reject the treaty, as would the British, had they been allowed their promised referendum - now the European political elite are desperately attempting to rescue the treaty cobbled together by Angela Mercal that was in turn to revive the rejected bankrupt constitution.
One rejection should theoretically have killed the treaty Gordon Brown so traitorously agreed to over New-Labour’s election broken manifesto promise to ratify it by referendum.
Right now the Political classes of Europe are mostly trying to pretend the Irish rejection just didn’t happen.
These people simply will not take no for an answer. What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand you might ask? They understand it all right. They are just not prepared to accept it. They have little care for democracy. They want to become a new ruling class of, well aristocracy.
It will be interesting to see what lies and contortions the go through to keep it alive or re package it. You can bet they will avoid any referendums if it is at all possible next time.
Friday, 13 June 2008
Quote of the Day
" When the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again."Edith Hamilton
" Reponsibility is the price of freedom."Elbert Hubbard
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Is the UK state just too big?
Is it too big? If you have visited this blog in the past then my opinion will be quite clear to you - Of course it is..
This article By Iain Martin in the Telegraph examines the matter intelligently and is well worth a read.
Time to roll back the state.
This article By Iain Martin in the Telegraph examines the matter intelligently and is well worth a read.
Time to roll back the state.
Quote of the day
" My best test for a libertarian so far is to ask what needs to be done to protect ancient sequoias. If you say you need to buy them, you pass."Rafal Smigrodzki
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Is it the gullible favour 42 day detention?
Democracy is all very well. But it depends to some extent on the education and intelligence of the voters for it’s success. Their enlightened self interest. How deep and well they see.
We are all capable of deciding, at a basic level, if something is good or bad for us and for society.
The problem comes much more to the fore with the more complicated stuff, the deeper things.
A classic example is New–Labour's current desire to set a precedent of locking people up for 42 days. It seems that YouGov survey found that a massive 69% of the public support Gordon Brown in this, despite doubts expressed by senior police officers and many others who should know.
One can only assume that these people who support him have been gulled by the false claims of New-Labour that they can actually provide security - if only this is agreed, if only they can have more power. Until of course it proves not to provide absolute security after all, then they will want to raise it again… because things are complicated…
Also those deluded soles who support it probably think it will never be used on them, being law abiding citizens. That it is only intended to be used on foreign terrorists anyway isn’t it?
I have news for them. If a law exists, it will, sooner or later, be used. Once the precedent is set for one person to be treated in this way it opens the door for all of us to be treated that way.
Don’t forget the huge volume of ill thought out legislation New-Labour have saddled us all with since they came to power.
If you know it, or not, it is now much harder to technically speaking be a law abiding citizen than it once was, before they came to power - and often you need to prove you are innocent now, rather than they need to prove your guilt.
New-Labour used anti terror legislation to keep out an ejected party member in his 80s heckling senior party members from their own conference. It was never intended to be used in this way – but it was used that way all the same.
An excellent example of the problem of an ill informed electorate is the sort of government that they actually elect in places like Iran.
So people. Wake up and smell that coffee - or by the time they come for you too, who will be left to speak up in your defence? The price of freedom is to brief yourselves and to actually PAY ATTENTION!!
We are all capable of deciding, at a basic level, if something is good or bad for us and for society.
The problem comes much more to the fore with the more complicated stuff, the deeper things.
A classic example is New–Labour's current desire to set a precedent of locking people up for 42 days. It seems that YouGov survey found that a massive 69% of the public support Gordon Brown in this, despite doubts expressed by senior police officers and many others who should know.
One can only assume that these people who support him have been gulled by the false claims of New-Labour that they can actually provide security - if only this is agreed, if only they can have more power. Until of course it proves not to provide absolute security after all, then they will want to raise it again… because things are complicated…
Also those deluded soles who support it probably think it will never be used on them, being law abiding citizens. That it is only intended to be used on foreign terrorists anyway isn’t it?
I have news for them. If a law exists, it will, sooner or later, be used. Once the precedent is set for one person to be treated in this way it opens the door for all of us to be treated that way.
Don’t forget the huge volume of ill thought out legislation New-Labour have saddled us all with since they came to power.
If you know it, or not, it is now much harder to technically speaking be a law abiding citizen than it once was, before they came to power - and often you need to prove you are innocent now, rather than they need to prove your guilt.
New-Labour used anti terror legislation to keep out an ejected party member in his 80s heckling senior party members from their own conference. It was never intended to be used in this way – but it was used that way all the same.
An excellent example of the problem of an ill informed electorate is the sort of government that they actually elect in places like Iran.
So people. Wake up and smell that coffee - or by the time they come for you too, who will be left to speak up in your defence? The price of freedom is to brief yourselves and to actually PAY ATTENTION!!
Quote of the day
" He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."Thomas Paine
" Liberty is the possibility of doubting, of making a mistake,... of searching and experimenting,... of saying No to any authority - literary, artistic, philosophical, religious, social, and even political."Ignazio Silone
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Quote of the day
" Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle."Helen Keller
Monday, 9 June 2008
Degenerating into a farce?
Though posting has been light recently, due to being, as they say, 'time poor' at the moment, I never-the-less feel moved to mention the latest ufortunate post by Baht At. Part of a series of quite personal attacks on Blogpower Bloggers, particularly Crushed.
Blogpower is a pretty ‘broad church’ and we mostly get along without launching vitriolic, puritanical, attacks on each other.
One wonders why, if Baht At finds membership of Blogpower so tedious, he does not simply resign and disassociate from it.
I shan’t because of time get into the issue of if drugs should, or should not be legal, what moral right the state has to prescribe them in any event, a hunt through previous posts should enlighten and increase my traffic ;-)or issues relating to holding someone’s past against them for ever and ever and ever…
Blogpower is a pretty ‘broad church’ and we mostly get along without launching vitriolic, puritanical, attacks on each other.
One wonders why, if Baht At finds membership of Blogpower so tedious, he does not simply resign and disassociate from it.
I shan’t because of time get into the issue of if drugs should, or should not be legal, what moral right the state has to prescribe them in any event, a hunt through previous posts should enlighten and increase my traffic ;-)or issues relating to holding someone’s past against them for ever and ever and ever…
Quote of the day
" Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that.”George Carlin
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Quote of the day
" If something is exceptionally well done it has embedded in it's very existence the aim of lifting the common denominator rather than catering to it.”Edward Fischer
Another New-Labour UK educational triumph - Not!
Well it looks like practically speaking New-Labour have, by fiddling the difficulty/pass marks in order to improve their figures, successfully destroyed the A-Levels, the old ‘gold standard’, as a properly functioning exam.
It is something parents and probably employers, have been quietly discussing for years. It is effectively official now.
Universities not only now need to do interviews, they need to set their own tests to see if candidates with A-Levels are actually able to manage real subjects at degree level.
How long before New-Labour set their sights on making degree courses ‘fair’ – in educational terms newspeak for; any one can get one, no actual ability or work necessary.
It is something parents and probably employers, have been quietly discussing for years. It is effectively official now.
Universities not only now need to do interviews, they need to set their own tests to see if candidates with A-Levels are actually able to manage real subjects at degree level.
How long before New-Labour set their sights on making degree courses ‘fair’ – in educational terms newspeak for; any one can get one, no actual ability or work necessary.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Just how useless are 'community support officers'?
Community Support Officers appear to be New-Labour’s cheap response to what had been the public’s demand for more police officers on the street. There may well even still be a demand, despite the police apparently targeting ordinary citizens and trivial effectively non-crimes in order to boost government targets.
These ‘Community’ (don’t you just hate this newspeak) Support Officers are a kind of pretend police officer, presumably intended to fool the public into believing there are actually police officers on the street. Well police officers used to be taught how to swim and use life saving techniques, they used to be taught CPR and first aid. They may still be, but not it seems these Community Support officers. Their Idea of supporting the community would appear to be to leave a child to drown .
Now it seems they are employing suppressors of free speech who might be interpreted as verging on the edge of being racists. Nothing new there then some of the more jaded and cynical amongst you may think. But it is. The reason police in the UK have been so successful until successive governments have begun to politicise and micro manage them was precisely because they were not. Because they were largely fair, even despite the natural tendency towards preconceived ideas we are all so often prone to - also they had and were allowed to use their discretion.
The question is why did West Midlands Police not suspend and hopefully sack this particular Community Support Officer? His behaviour went beyond the pale.
If the police are in the business of suppressing religion then surely they should be more even handed and suppress them all, or is it only some.
If it is ok for them to hate certain nationalities and treat them differently to others then maybe we need to come up with some alternative.
Or display a clear antipathy towards certain political parties, in this case the Republicans. Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals had better watch their backs.
West Midlands Police refused to apologise and fobbed off enquiries claiming the incident had been "fully investigated" They are going to offer training in understanding hate crime and communication. One fears it actually calls for a little more than that. Surely if investigated the way New Labour seem to prefer the PCSP’s behaviour could generate a number of ‘detections’ for them.
Depends on how you interpret the words "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned". In light of the whole incident.
These ‘Community’ (don’t you just hate this newspeak) Support Officers are a kind of pretend police officer, presumably intended to fool the public into believing there are actually police officers on the street. Well police officers used to be taught how to swim and use life saving techniques, they used to be taught CPR and first aid. They may still be, but not it seems these Community Support officers. Their Idea of supporting the community would appear to be to leave a child to drown .
Now it seems they are employing suppressors of free speech who might be interpreted as verging on the edge of being racists. Nothing new there then some of the more jaded and cynical amongst you may think. But it is. The reason police in the UK have been so successful until successive governments have begun to politicise and micro manage them was precisely because they were not. Because they were largely fair, even despite the natural tendency towards preconceived ideas we are all so often prone to - also they had and were allowed to use their discretion.
The question is why did West Midlands Police not suspend and hopefully sack this particular Community Support Officer? His behaviour went beyond the pale.
If the police are in the business of suppressing religion then surely they should be more even handed and suppress them all, or is it only some.
If it is ok for them to hate certain nationalities and treat them differently to others then maybe we need to come up with some alternative.
Or display a clear antipathy towards certain political parties, in this case the Republicans. Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals had better watch their backs.
West Midlands Police refused to apologise and fobbed off enquiries claiming the incident had been "fully investigated" They are going to offer training in understanding hate crime and communication. One fears it actually calls for a little more than that. Surely if investigated the way New Labour seem to prefer the PCSP’s behaviour could generate a number of ‘detections’ for them.
Depends on how you interpret the words "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned". In light of the whole incident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)