Another brick in the wall

Here is yet another truly sinister piece of proposed UK legislation and it goes to show that it is not just Labour who has little concern for citizens rights.

Tory Lord Moynihan has drawn up a draft Bill to give the police powers to search for performance enhancing drugs.

His ostensible reason, he claims, is to help prevent Olympic athletes cheating with performance enhancing drugs come the 2012 Olympics.

This sounds almost acceptable - if you are the sort of person who does not bother to to think to closely about these things.

The first thing to consider about any legislation is how it might go wrong because it has been poorly drafted.

It is unlikely the bill will be able to distinguish between ordinary citizens and athletes, let alone Olympians.

Also this relates not to so-called illegal drugs whatever you consider the merits or otherwise of prohibition. This relates to drugs which it may be perfectly legal to posess, may even be medically necessary for some conditions, but that also may enhance athletic performance.

My elderly mother is on steroids of some sort. She is therefore certainly in possession of what might be considered “performance enhancing drugs”.

The second thing is to ignore the claimed reason for it and consider what powers it will actually give to the state and it’s increasingly politicised police ‘service’.

You can be absolutely certain, whatever the ostensible reason for the additional powers, the police, or anyone else given them, will be using them to the fullest extent that is possible.

If you doubt this you only have to look at the lawful, but effectively misuse, of legislation that has resulted in the police harassing innocent photographers.

Or the violent ejection of an elderly Labour Party conference attendee from Conference when he made the mistake of criticising the Government.

Or the hundreds of incidences of local councils misusing anti terrorist legislation to spy on people’s refuse bin use, or where they live.

So what will this proposed piece of authoritarian legislation do? Apparently it will allow the police to raid a place of residence, for no better reason than to seize perfectly legal (if performance enhancing) drugs.

Another significant chunk of your and my right to live unmolested by an increasingly authoritarian state being gradually and stealthily stolen away while you don’t notice - and it is just too much bother to make a fuss over such a small thing.

Why this time? For the truly world shattering and absolute necessity to make it a little bit more difficult to cheat at sports. Even if it were instead supposed to save lives it might be a price too high to pay

You should be concerned. Don’t just sit there. Take 5 minutes to actually do something. Complain to your MP. It is easy and completely free, just go to the ‘They work for you’ site. Enter your post code plus a few details and the site will forward your note to your MP.

If you can’t think of how to put your objection then just paste this in:

Dear Sir/Madam/etc.,

I am writing to you as my MP, my representative in Parliament to make you aware of my strong objections to Lord Moynihan’s draft bill that proposes to give the police powers to search residences for, otherwise legal drugs, that enhance athletic performance in time for the 2012 London Olympics.

Even with safeguards this legislation poses a great risk to our rights and liberties. It is a case of the proverbial hammer being used to crack the nut. All in the name of sports.

Many people require these so-called “performance enhancing” drugs on a daily basis for their health. Such legislation could theoretically mean police would have the power to search the homes of many people who have nothing to do with the Olympics.

We have seen a number of recent instances where other supposedly laudable, but draconian, legislation has effectively been trivially misused in ways we were assured would never occur when the legislation was passed, take the matter of councils spying in on household refuse for but one instance. I am sure like the rest of us you must be well aware of others.

If these powers are granted they will inevitably be used and more.

Can you please advise me, in clear language, weather you intend to represent me, my views and oppose this legislation, or not.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your reply.

yours faithfully

#your name here#

RoSPA warns of "health and safety" threat to freedom

It seems that even those with a vested interest in the Health and Safety industry are realising things may have gone just a little too far.

The chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) Tom Mullarkey warned safety experts they will be accused of constructing a nanny state and damaging freedom if they continue to meddle unnecessarily in people's private lives.

He pointed out the obvious fact that "absolute safety" is an unattainable goal in any case.

Clearly it is insane to mindlessly persue absolute saftey beyond the point where the persuit of it is a greater threat to public well being and quality of life than the original risk.

Unfortunately one fears things may have already gone too far to be recoverable.

Whilst Mr Mullarkey may have a real interest in safety it is difficult to credit that many of those behind the burgeoning compensation culture do not have their eye at least as much on the money to be had at the expense of the taxpayer and consumer - that and their lucrative jobs.

This in turn terrifies the likes of teachers, volunteers and local councils that they will be sued. Those that are still willing to take the chance they may arbirarily be accused of being a paedophile if they so much as pat a child on the head and are willing to undergo the bother and expense of often multiple criminal records checks.

Could it be about time there were much stiffer costs for bringing some of the more dubious cases for compensation to court, for both the party that brings the case and their attournies. Also it might be good if a much greater weight were given to their not having taken reasonable precautions, or if they are partly responsible.

More more rational limits on amounts awarded might also be a good thing.
It begins to look as if greed for un justified and undeserved compensation payments is gnawing away at some of the underpinings of a healthy society.

Good times to bury unwanted stories

Hasn’t it been a really good time to bury bad news recently…

The political equivalent of building a new overpass with lots of concrete.

Amid all the blanket reporting of the problems with the banking system and stock markets globally the MSM have had such a problem paying attention to things like the New Labour State’s obsessive desire to control and spy on it’s own Citizens.

Even 24hr news channels only seem able to find room for one or two story lines, repeated endlessly, or they cut to an empty podium and talk rubbish waiting for a speech. God forbid they should actually report a wider variety of news.

So the leopard does not change it’s spots. New Labour does not trust the citizen. It apparently does not believe the average citizen is capable enough adult enough to run their own lives and affairs.

They cannot be trusted, they need to be kept safe from the malice of others and their own stupidity. They even need to be told what they can eat and drink.

They need a patrician socialist class to govern every aspect of their lives… And if they object then doesn’t that show how foolish and irresponsible they are?

The silly citizen has a foolish traditional belief in their hard one ancient rights and liberties, but these just get in the way of shiny new legislation that the state needs to protect itself and it’s interests the public.

There is little that can be does to amend this pernicious attitude. New Labour need to be removed from power for a generation to contemplate the error of their thinking and the ripe contempt they apparently hold the citizen in. It would appear that this sort of medicine can work, ask David Cameron…

Another day, another New Labour Governemnt Database

The Nanny state, apparently deeply concerned that it is leaving us any privacy at all, is now turning it’s attention to the creation of a newsuper database to record when we make phone calls, or send emails and who to, oh and all the web sites we visit.

Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.

A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.

Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.

So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.

The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.

And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.

...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.

Threat of yet more laws and another huge UK State database

New-Labour’s developing fascist state moves a little closer as it’s Ministers consider plans for a vast and intrusive database of electronic information. A real move in the direction of a sinister total surveillance society.

Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.

Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.

A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.

Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.

In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.

The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.

Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.

Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.

Every bond you break

This week I shall mostly be posting little, or nothing, as the opportunities will be few and far between. In any event one begins to wonder what the point is anyway - I am having a ‘Clegg’ moment on the futility of attempting to impede the unstoppable New Labour Fascist-Lite TM juggernaut, though unlike Clegg I am not inclined to actually assist them.

I was watching a music channel the other night with Mrs CFD when who should come on but The Police - no not the protest song the police have coined to remind the reluctant to venture out after dark Jacqui Smith of the fact that New Labour have decided to ignore the system that sets their pay because it is inconvienient for them.

I am talking about Sting (Gordon Sumner), Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland, The Police. They were playing Every breath you take and I had a little epiphany - don’t worry I cleaned up after myself ;-).

Sting said of it; “The tune itself is generic, an aggregate of hundreds of others, but the words are interesting. It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realise at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.”

But the thing that occurred to me is that it almost perfectly encapsulates what politicians are to the voter - and the ‘relationship’ the voter should have with the politician. They really should represent and in a sense belong to the voter, as should parliament.

It works very well as a song for the voter to sing, as a model of how the voter should relate to the politician (watch them like a hawk), with the possible exception of the four lines beginning “Since you've gone…”.

So here is a version for the voter to take to their heart, without those lines. I have changed them, but if you think you can do better - comments, baby, baby, please…

So let’s call it, a:

Quote of the Day

Every breath you take.
Every move you make.
Every bond you break.
Every step you take.
I'll be watching you.

Every single day.
Every word you say.
Every game you play.
Every night you stay.
I'll be watching you.

Oh can't you see, you belong to me?
How my poor heart aches, with every step you take.

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.

If it’s gone my liberty is lost without a trace.
It’s a loss, that I just don’t care to face.
It’s one thing that you really can’t replace.
So I try, to make sure that it’s not the case…….

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.......

New Labour Back bencher threat to agency staff

One wonders if the MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, New Labour's Andrew Miller, is actually intent on damaging the UK economy, or if it is only a side effect of his attempt to grab more influence for the unions.

Supported (of course) by the trade unions he has tabled a private members bill to force the same rights/benefits as full time employees receive on agency staff, such a sick pay.

The union said there should be a "level playing field" with permanently employed people.

I have often heard full time employees express slightly jealous amazement when they find out what agency staff are paid by comparison.

The fact is that agency staff usually get a higher pay scale than permanent staff. This generally makes up at least the financial difference for sick pay and annual leave, etc. that they don’t get.

They usually also get a premium to make up for the lack of job security, as they generally fill posts where full time employees are off long term sick, having children, or the post is unable to be filled. They are also used when capacity suddenly and temporarily needs to be expanded for a project.

These people tend to be independent and avoid union membership. They also tend to take far less sick leave; so can spend that portion of their wage as they choose.

If they had the same rights and conditions as full time employees they would no longer be competitive, or of any use to an employer, in the capacity they are generally used in. It would not be economical to pay them the same rates as they get now.

If these rights were introduced then this sector would become much less competitive and be markedly reduced. The knock on is that all the businesses that make use of them to fill in would be less efficient and less cost effective.

This would in turn force them to look for redundancies more often and make full time employees positions a little less secure. It would of course strengthen the union’s position.

Tesco willing to work with the UK State (thus logically against it’s customers) on banning 'cheap' alcohol

It is interesting to note that Tesco appear to be cravenly responding to New Labour’s, authoritarian, patrician, health fascist line, that supermarkets are selling alcohol to the proletariat too cheaply.

At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.

It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.

This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.

Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."

Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.

It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.

A permit to allow you to do lawful things the ruling political elite disapprove of

It is arguable that Professor Julian le Grand a lecturer in social policy at the London School of Economics, is a very scary person.

Why? Because of some of the more sinister methods of state control of the individual that he advocates, coupled with the fact that, as a former aid to Tony Blair and chairman of Health England, a ministerial advisory board, he has the ear of those in power, so wealds undue influence.

He is advocating the introduction of licences to permit people to purchase perfectly legal goods.

He proposes that the licences should be made as difficult as possible to obtain, with complicated forms to fill out and that they should cost between £10 and up to £200 (presumably to penalise the better off) and be renewable annually.

You know it must be something to concern citizens of every political stripe when both the Telegraph and the Guardian have commented on it detrimentally.

He is talking about smoking in this case and the permit would be to purchase tobacco products – but the principle is dangerously easily applicable to anything the state, as the tool of the ruling political elite 'disapproves' of.

But hey! The money would all go to the good old NHS, so that’s OK then – Right?

Once the principle is accepted and applied to a limited hate group, who many non smokers will not worry about, it can be rolled out further.

Alcohol? All those binge drinkers disrupting society, it would keep underage kids away from the stuff right? Stop those middle class wine lovers inadvertantly drinking themselves to death right? Probably not…

‘Unhealthy’, ‘fattening’, food and drinks like burgers, or even tea? Apparently drinking bottled water is ‘immoral’ now. How about that?

A petrol/diesel permit?

What about certain activities like taking a cheap flight, or maybe taking a foreign holiday?

This is actually pretty scary stuff - and by no means beyond the realms of possibility.

In a truly bizarre piece of convoluted newspeak he attempts to brand this classic example of fascist thinking as “libertarian paternalism". An oxymoreon if ever there was one.

It is certainly a fine example of the Political Patrician classes mental processes at work. Showcasing the patrician view of the lower orders he feels and possibly intends this to impact more on poor and less well educated, justifying it on the grounds that it should contribute to a reduction in 'health inequalities'.

It clearly about as diametrically opposed to actual Libertarian thinking as it is possible to get.

One wonders if this may be deliberate on his part, in an attepmpt at black propaganda, targeted at the political ‘meat and two veg brigade’, to put them off realising what Libertarian ideas are really about, given that those ideas are such a threat to his way of thinking.

Democracy – Is it always necessarily a good thing?

All my life it had been one on my underlying and - unquestioned assumptions that it is. So much so that I didn’t realise it was, or question it in any way.

But is it really? There is much talk of the will of the people and the wisdom of crowds, but is this always a good thing, does it always produce a positive result.

Democracy depends on a rational, sensible, responsible and interested and reasonably educated electorate. It further requires that they actually pay attention to what they are voting for and deciding upon.

That they consider what it might be like to be actually subject themselves to the policies, laws and rule by the politicians they are keen on.

What it might be like if they were not in charge, but on the receiving end.

That they actually think through the likely consequences of policies and dogma to their logical conclusions and not simply rely on simpleminded wrote. Parliament please take note of the last.

Democratic processes don’t always produce desirable results. Hitler rose to power through the democratic process, as did the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Surely no voter in their right mind would want such to rule over them?

Democracy isn’t necessarily guaranteed to provide, or protect the rights, liberty, safety and the wellbeing of the citizen - We assume it is so, but it is not necessarily so.

A case in point is Pakistan. What will the democratic process, if it is allowed to continue, throw up there? Many of the elements that have so destabilised Iran are present to some extent there.

It is not simply a matter of academic interest, or even one of humanitarian interest. Pakistan possesses atomic weaponry. If it Pakistan becomes a detsabilised failed state then that is likely to fall into the hands of Islamicist terrorists. There are elements there who would like nothing better.

Are democracy and the universal suffrage that the West have placed such blind faith in promoting there sure to produce a positive result? Or is it possible Pervez Musharraf may be a better protector of the rights and the liberty of the Pakistani citizen than he is given credit for.

I am not willing to abandon democracy, but realistically - it seems that sometimes turkeys will vote for Christmas after all…

Quote of the day

“ Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.”

Mahatma Gandhi

Quote of the day

“ The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing”

Thomas Aquinas

EU moves to tighten controls on movement and the internet

Franco Frattini, the EU Justice Commissar Commissioner has a plan, a cunning plan.


It involves ’tough new anti terror proposals’ – and we all know that’s good, don’t we?


Especially the, highly trained, crack BBC old lady interviewee squad. Who will generally enthusiastically approve anything, up to and including, summary executions on street corners, on the grounds that ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’.

It seems one of the things they are looking at is based on the practice of gathering Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, adopted by the US post 9/11.

Frattini wants to make it obligatory for all EU states to collect 19 pieces of personal information about people flying to or from member states and store it for up to 13 years. Including a phone number, e-mail address and payment details.

The plan apparently also pays special attention to the internet…

Even some EU legislators have voiced privacy concerns over the proposals, but the steely Fratelli said: "There is no room for complacency - for letting our guard down,"

Some EU parliamentarians questioned the EUs enthusiasm for yet more and more anti-terror measures, when the effectiveness of those put in place following the Madrid and London have not even been properly evaluated yet.

They also pointed out that some of them, such as the restrictive rules limiting liquids allowed on EU-bound flights show no indication at all of having any positive impact on security.

Martine Roure, MEP for South East France, argued “We should look at the efficiency of the EU legislation in this area. Some extremely restrictive measures have been adopted. Some haven't had the results expected, and some might even lend a false sense of security."

Gordon Brown ‘Concerned’ about Liberty

It seems that Gordon Brown has become sufficiently concerned that the public has finally noticed Nu-Lab’s Big Brother/Fascist-Lite tendencies, to try a little spin to cover them up.

He is apparently concerned about Liberty – One suspects more normally Taking Liberties, in the literal sense.

Of course he would also like to distract the sheeple from such things as: His shilly shallying around over and election and then pathetically trying to claim it was not because he thought he might come off badly that he bottled it. His broken promises over the EU Constitution that is taking another step towards making parliament an irrelevance. Dave and ‘the party formerly known as the Conservatives’ overtaking him in the polls.

Of course he is trying to suggest it was all down to that nasty Blair person’s Government, that was nothing to do with him and things will be different now he is in charge. Trusssst in meeeee Mowglie…..

He of course justifies much of his move towards a total surveillance society, identity cards, DNA testing, etc. on the need to keep us all safe from terrorists. Leaving aside the question of what by the time he has finished will be left of the relatively free society we once enjoyed. The terrorists are winning, even when they fail, by changing or way of life and making our society more like their societies.

Showing rather more of his true colours he insisted he would not compromise the security of the nation. There would be tougher counter-terrorism laws before Christmas. Thanks! Just what we always wanted :-(

He is even threatening us with a debate about a British Bill of Rights and the possibility of a written constitution.

The direction they have been going in one fears that any Constitution Nu-Lab had a hand in writing would be a fascists charter. Still he could always call it something else and argue it wasn’t really a constitution after all ;-) The fact is that any British constitution may be about as relevant as a Town Council’s policies, being subservient to the real EU “Not a Constitution, honest Guv’”.

He also seems to have conveniently forgotten that we already have a perfectly good Bill of Rights - and have done since 16 December 1689 when it became statutory law. But maybe it contains ;-) the wrong sort of rights, by Gordon’s standards…

Maybe he also forgets that Constitutions and Bills of rights are not normally graciously handed down to the citizens by the likes of him and almost certainly wouldn’t be worth the paper they were written of in they were.

Mind you – If he is interested in Constitutions and Bills of Rights then there is plenty of discussion out there on the subject.

Senior UK appeal court judge advocates compulsory national DNA Database

According to the BBC a senior appeal court judge Lord Justice Stephen Sedley is advocating compulsory registration for all on Nu-Labs police DNA database. This would even include visitors to the country.

He conceded it was an authoritarian measure, but said he felt that the only way to go was to expand the database to cover the whole population and all visitors to the UK.

"Going forwards has very serious but manageable implications. It means that everybody, guilty or innocent, should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention."

Good of him to acknowledge that it was authoritarian.

Frankly the question that now needs answering is that of his fitness to be a judge.

He went on to try to justify such a totalitarian move, because as things are: "It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database.”

So his solution is that everyone should have to be on it.

How are disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities getting onto the database? Because they are being arrested in disproportionate numbers. What's more, if the whole population were forced to give samples, they would still be being arrested in disproportionate numbers - it would just be less visible. Very Nu-Lab.

This can surely not have been lost on the Judge and leads one to wonder why he felt it would be a good idea to disingenuously raise the issue of race to attempt to justify his authoritarianism.

He went on to complain "It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free.".

The enlightened view would be “So what?” Some prices are too heavy to pay.

Good old Judge Sedley is clearly not a close follower of the English Jurist William Blackstone, who said; “Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. Judge Sedley is apparently perfectly happy for the whole population to suffer the loss of one more liberty to ensure one or two less guilty persons escape.

The same arguments could probably have been used to attempt to attempt to justify compulsory fingerprinting of the entire population - but wasn’t was it?

Budding Stalins didn’t particularly complain about that. If system worked acceptably with finger prints, why can the same system with the same checks and balances not be used with DNA – including the removal from the system of innocent parties and those mistakenly, or wrongfully arrested.

Homeowner arrested after burglar falls to his death

A 56 year old homeowner in Manchester woke up to find a 43 year old intruder in his 4th floor flat, after some sort of confrontation the intruder fell 40 feet from a window. He suffered severe head injuries and later died in hospital. An occupational hazard you might be forgiven for thinking.

Needless to say the police arrested the householder and have now released him on bail, no doubt after fingerprinting him and taking a DNA sample. He could now face questioning on suspicion of murder.

The CPS (Criminal Protection Service Crown Prosecution Service) and ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have said that any householder can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime.

Why was it necessary to arrest the householder? The police could hardly claim they didn’t know where he lived and one would have thought the aggrieved householder would have been willing enough to make a statement, or they would have within most people’s memory…

It used to be that the police had some care about arresting apparently law abiding citizens attempting to thwart a crime.

It used to be that the police made some attempt to catch burglars and prevent burglaries themselves. Sadly, since they have had to jump through hoops to meet ridiculous ill conceived state targets and political initiatives, it begins to seem as if they find it so much easier to find reasons to arrest the non criminal ‘community’ and improve Nu-Lab’s dubious crime statistics and inflate the DNA database.

A local voiced what many people will be wondering:

"If the guy who fell out of the window was breaking into the property then why was the homeowner arrested?"

Why indeed…

Our privacy is not in the governments gift

I was going to do a piece on the Labour State’s ever expanding DNA database, presumably, whatever lies they come out with, eventually destined, if only by political ‘gravity’, to contain a record of all UK citizen’s DNA.

However I came upon this excellent commentary on it by Sam Leith in the daily Telegraph entitled “Our privacy belongs to us not the Government”, so include the link here - it is well worth a read.

Here is another excellent piece, this time in the Guardian, by Henry Porter on the subject.

You know you really need to worry when both the Telegraph and the Guardian are worried about something…

UK Government considering imposing an age limit on drivers

Apparently the UK Government is considering imposing an upper age limit for drivers.

This in it’s self is clearly unfair, unjust and ageist, as whatever age limit chosen there are bound to be people below it who are too infirm for various reasons to drive safely and people above it perfectly able to drive safely.

Why they feel this ageist restriction may be needed is not clear. Under existing rules anyone over 70 must pass a medical check every three years, in order to retain their licence. If these are conducted properly this should be sufficient.

That the suggestion has been raised at all, speaks volumes about the arbitrary and authoritarian underlying nature of this Government.

UK Chief Medical Officer pushing for social conditioning through higher taxes

Not content with driving through an authoritarian attack on smokers, Sir Liam Donaldson, the UK Chief Medical Officer, is now targeting alcohol and food consumption. How is he planning to do this?

Through typical Nu-Lab Government social conditioning and large increases in taxation.

He apparently plans to try to make drinking alcohol generally too expensive to drink much of through high taxation. "I would certainly strongly commend increased taxation, the evidence is quite strong that putting the price up helps. Prices of alcohol have fallen relative to the cost of living.", he said.

He is also planning to get a ban drinks companies sponsoring sporting events.

He supports the plan for a "fat tax" (applying vat in line with EU policy) on what he classifies ‘unhealthy’ food. He apparently feels this would also deal with the fact that currently ‘unhealthy’ food is "often cheaper".

"We just need to keep plugging away. Often big behavioural changes in health take time."

No - you just need to treat the citizens of this country as adults, not children and leave them alone to manage their own lives and keep your. We are not your serfs Sir Liam and it is not your patrician right to ‘manage’ us as you see fit.

You are here to advise what you think is good for us so we can decide - not give us no choice and force us to do what you think is good for us.

UK Doctors call for organ harvesting on death unless prior objections registered

Sir Liam Donaldson the UK Nu-Lab Government’s Chief Medical Officer is calling for a change in the law so only those who actually register their objections will be exempt from organ harvesting on death, for the ‘common good’.

If you have to specifically opt out it is certainly no longer donation. Something Joyce Robins, of Patient Concern was obviously thinking of when she stated: "Organ donation is a generous gift, not an obligation. It is, of course, less trouble to take the easy way and make assumed consent the norm.”

Predictably the BMA are fully on board. The Chairman of their medical ethics committee Dr Tony Calland said: "The BMA fully supports an opt-out system for organ donation. We must increase the number of donors available and the BMA believes that a system of presumed consent with safeguards, will help to achieve this.”

He does seem to be aware that they will need to brainwash‘educate’ the public before introducing any change ”it is essential that a public information campaign is launched”

A spokesman for UK Transplant stated: "There is no evidence that introducing a system of presumed consent would, on its own, increase transplant figures.” Observing that an opt-out system could in fact damage public confidence in the transplant programme.

Sir Liam is apparently concerned that the shortage of spare parts is fuelling "transplant tourism" where UK patients travel abroad often paying for a donor organ, which according to Sir Liam, puts them at unnecessary risk.

One has every sympathy with those who need transplants and are unable to find suitable donors, but this is not a comfortable or proper direction to go in. What would be next on their list if they got their way and that did not do the trick compulsion, a sort of organ death tax? The opt-out is the start of a slippery slope.

An individual’s right to control their own body should not be compromised, or stampeded.

You wouldn’t expect it from interacting with your average GP, but what is it about the medical profession that it appears to attract so many patrician, collectivist, authoritarians, especially it would appear to it’s upper echelons?

People who seem to believe (the non ruling classes) most of us should be treated as some sort of wards and regulated by the state, in as many aspects as possible of our lives, from cradle to grave? They seem to see nothing amiss in promoting fascist controls at the drop of a hat.

In fact they often seem to reach for these sorts of solutions to problems almost before considering anything else. It is like some sort of sinister, creeping, menace.