The Telegraph asks an interesting question today “Who is the 'right leader' for our hard times”? Sparked by Broon’s waffle about providing the right leaderhip.
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Showing posts with label Self Determination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self Determination. Show all posts
Friday, 16 May 2008
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Can a child really be detained for being overweight in London?
I heard something disquieting on the radio. It was Friday just before 2 pm, one of those radio phone ins on LBC.
The caller Identified himself as a Metropolitan Police Officer. The discussion was centred around how much police time is taken up with paperwork – A truly staggering amount these days by the sound of it.
What concerned me was when the officer mentioned some sort of initiative called something like ‘Every Child Counts’, you wonder who thinks these ghastly titles up.
He was holding it up as something that eats up police time unnecessarily, but as he explained it, it sounded more than a little sinister. It bothered me that he was apparently quite willing to implement it with little concern for civil liberties, but only objected to it as a poor use of police resources.
The idea is apparently some draconian Nanny State version of concern for child welfare.
The scenario offered on the radio was: An officer sees a ‘child’ (presumably anyone apparently under the age of 17) they judge to be overweight out in public on their own.
Said officer Stops the child (on what grounds was not made clear). The child would be required to provide full details of name age address, parent’s details, etc. – again why on what grounds?
The officer would then feed the details into the ‘system’ for onward transmission to social services and possibly interview the parents, presumably after having taken the child home.
There may be more criteria involved, time, location, age. But from what the officer said it could as easily happen to a 12 year old child minding their own business on the way to a football match, in the park, on a Sunday afternoon.
If this is actually the case then it is absolutely outrageous. Truly an example of the burgeoning New-Labour fascist state at work.
A young person, detained, though presumably not officially arrested unless the officer is doubtful of the details given to them, prevented from going about their lawful business – apparently for the crime of being a little overweight.
It would be interesting if anyone can verify this or deny it.
The caller Identified himself as a Metropolitan Police Officer. The discussion was centred around how much police time is taken up with paperwork – A truly staggering amount these days by the sound of it.
What concerned me was when the officer mentioned some sort of initiative called something like ‘Every Child Counts’, you wonder who thinks these ghastly titles up.
He was holding it up as something that eats up police time unnecessarily, but as he explained it, it sounded more than a little sinister. It bothered me that he was apparently quite willing to implement it with little concern for civil liberties, but only objected to it as a poor use of police resources.
The idea is apparently some draconian Nanny State version of concern for child welfare.
The scenario offered on the radio was: An officer sees a ‘child’ (presumably anyone apparently under the age of 17) they judge to be overweight out in public on their own.
Said officer Stops the child (on what grounds was not made clear). The child would be required to provide full details of name age address, parent’s details, etc. – again why on what grounds?
The officer would then feed the details into the ‘system’ for onward transmission to social services and possibly interview the parents, presumably after having taken the child home.
There may be more criteria involved, time, location, age. But from what the officer said it could as easily happen to a 12 year old child minding their own business on the way to a football match, in the park, on a Sunday afternoon.
If this is actually the case then it is absolutely outrageous. Truly an example of the burgeoning New-Labour fascist state at work.
A young person, detained, though presumably not officially arrested unless the officer is doubtful of the details given to them, prevented from going about their lawful business – apparently for the crime of being a little overweight.
It would be interesting if anyone can verify this or deny it.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
New Labour Manifesto Promises are: “Not subject to Legitimate Expectation”
This has been aired elsewhere - but quite frankly can’t be drawn to the attention of the voters often enough, so I make no apology for raising it here.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
UKIP took Gordon Brown to court over his reneging on New Labour’s manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution now renamed the Lisbon Treaty.
The case was brought by former New Labour activist, Stuart Bower. He stated:
"From the papers I have been sent, it seems that the Prime Minister is denying the pledge made in his government's manifesto. Surely this is a desperate act as everybody knows the commitment was made and that is why many people gave their votes to his party.
"To me, it is a clear case of breach of contract. They made a written promise and broke it. That was a contract between the government and the people. “
Everybody does know the commitment was made - and it certainly was a factor that many of those who in the end voted New Labour took account of when they voted.
What is (hat tip to the ‘Is there more to life than shoes?’ blog) soooo worth noting though - and seems to be of such little interest to MSM, was Gordon Brown’s Barrister; who blithely informed the court that: "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation "!!
In other words, the Prime Minister’s personal representative, is saying in open court, that the electorate can’t really expect any manifesto promises to be kept.
Now we all know that it may not be possible to deliver of a manifesto promise, due to unforeseen circumstances, including the non co-operation of opposition MPs, but there is a world of difference between that and actively wriggling out of keeping them, deliberately avoiding keeping them.
Even these days, we at least expect them to make the effort.
So there you have it. You don’t just have to rely on personal observation any more - It is official.
You would have to be a mug to be swayed by the blandishments contained in any future New Labour’s manifesto - you really can not expect them to even attempt to honour them.
Gordon, the Pork Pieman, may have been reading his Machiavelli again; Perhaps: “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.”.
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
UK Government objectivity is ‘questionable’ over water flouridisation
It appears the Government are doing a ‘WMD dossier’ on water flouridisation. Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, has taken an authoritative report that shows tooth decay in children across Europe has fallen - irrespective of whether there is fluoride in the water or not - and is using selected bits of it to push the agenda for the compulsory adulteration of water supplies with fluoride.
Some studies have suggested a link between water flouridisation and increased levels of bladder cancer and hip fracture.
It seems Johnson is also pushing the agenda by bribing strategic health authorities to add fluoride with the prospect of an extra £14 million over a three year period.
He claimed: "Fluoridation is scientifically supported, it is legal, and it is our policy, but only two or three areas currently have it and we need to go much further in areas where dental health needs to be improved.”
Concerning the falling tooth decay the report’s authors state: "This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water, or the use of fluoridated salt and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps nutrition."
You have a choice as to what sort of toothpaste you use, with tap water it is Hobson's choice.
Lets hope the authors can manage to steer clear of Harrowdown Hill.
Some studies have suggested a link between water flouridisation and increased levels of bladder cancer and hip fracture.
It seems Johnson is also pushing the agenda by bribing strategic health authorities to add fluoride with the prospect of an extra £14 million over a three year period.
He claimed: "Fluoridation is scientifically supported, it is legal, and it is our policy, but only two or three areas currently have it and we need to go much further in areas where dental health needs to be improved.”
Concerning the falling tooth decay the report’s authors state: "This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water, or the use of fluoridated salt and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps nutrition."
You have a choice as to what sort of toothpaste you use, with tap water it is Hobson's choice.
Lets hope the authors can manage to steer clear of Harrowdown Hill.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
EU Directive further erodes UK’s control of it’s borders
So now we have it. The UK no longer controls who can and can’t reside within it’s borders. Not if they are Nationals of an EU member State.
A European Union Directive agreed in 2004 by Nu-Lab’s Jack Straw covering freedom of movement within the EU ensures that it is virtually impossible an EU national who has lived in the UK for 10 years or more.
Much the same way as we can’t deport our own nationals - That tells you something in it’s self.
It is interesting to note here that Gordon Brown is hoping to be able to sign away even more of parliament’s powers to the EU in October, if he can successfully avoid a referendum, when he agrees the EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’.
Then there is Nu-Labs 2000 Human Rights Act, nursemaided by the then home secretary – you guessed it Jack Straw that makes it pretty difficult to deport anyone at all.
Of course CFD does hope that mention of this does not make Learco Chindamo who murdered Philip Lawrence in 1995, feel unhappy, as it is NU-Labs pathetic failure to deport him back to his native Italy that raises the problem in the first place.
This must make one question the point of the Human Rights Act, or indeed much of the pointless and duplicating legislation Nu-Lab have foisted on the nation since they came into power.
It is time to very seriously consider revoking the Human Rights Act.
It is a classic piece of poor and pointless legislation that takes what is actually useful to the nation in it from pre existing rights and laws, then foists much that is an inconvenience, or worse, on the nation because those that drafted it never followed the ramifications of it through to their logical conclusion.
A European Union Directive agreed in 2004 by Nu-Lab’s Jack Straw covering freedom of movement within the EU ensures that it is virtually impossible an EU national who has lived in the UK for 10 years or more.
Much the same way as we can’t deport our own nationals - That tells you something in it’s self.
It is interesting to note here that Gordon Brown is hoping to be able to sign away even more of parliament’s powers to the EU in October, if he can successfully avoid a referendum, when he agrees the EU Constitutional ‘Treaty’.
Then there is Nu-Labs 2000 Human Rights Act, nursemaided by the then home secretary – you guessed it Jack Straw that makes it pretty difficult to deport anyone at all.
Of course CFD does hope that mention of this does not make Learco Chindamo who murdered Philip Lawrence in 1995, feel unhappy, as it is NU-Labs pathetic failure to deport him back to his native Italy that raises the problem in the first place.
This must make one question the point of the Human Rights Act, or indeed much of the pointless and duplicating legislation Nu-Lab have foisted on the nation since they came into power.
It is time to very seriously consider revoking the Human Rights Act.
It is a classic piece of poor and pointless legislation that takes what is actually useful to the nation in it from pre existing rights and laws, then foists much that is an inconvenience, or worse, on the nation because those that drafted it never followed the ramifications of it through to their logical conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)