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.
Friday, 26 October 2007
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Site Stats
I have been looking at the CFG’s stats. Here are some of them:
Language Groups: 92% English, 2% Welsh.
Continents: 53% North America, 40% Europe, 5% Asia.
Countries: 47% US, 38% UK, 6% Canada.
Browsers: 53% Firefox, 24% IE6, 17% IE7, 4% Safari.
I have left out any categories showing 1%.
It is curious that there are more visits from North America than Europe. I note use of Firefox browsers is the same percentage as North American visitors, though I doubt all the former are from the latter. It is interesting to note the Firefox users are in the majority of visitors at the moment.
Language Groups: 92% English, 2% Welsh.
Continents: 53% North America, 40% Europe, 5% Asia.
Countries: 47% US, 38% UK, 6% Canada.
Browsers: 53% Firefox, 24% IE6, 17% IE7, 4% Safari.
I have left out any categories showing 1%.
It is curious that there are more visits from North America than Europe. I note use of Firefox browsers is the same percentage as North American visitors, though I doubt all the former are from the latter. It is interesting to note the Firefox users are in the majority of visitors at the moment.
Soil Association - Organic means what we say it means
When is organic not organic? When the Soil association says so.
The soil association, one suspects having been ‘got at’ by environ-mentalists has arbitrarily decided that they will no longer count foreign organically grown produce as ‘organic’ if it is imported air freighted – unless it passes their new ‘ethical’ standards.
They have been gradually working towards this for some time.
If one didn’t know better one would assume the policy was deliberately designed to harm poorer countries. Their policy director Peter Melchett freely admits that some (poorer) overseas (Africa?) producers would find it impossible to meet the new standards they had set . Very few overseas producers meet the planned new standards at the moment and the policy was expected to reduce the use of air freight.
So it’s all in the name of attacking the environ-mentalists CO2 bête noire, air travel/freight. One wonders how else these produces can get their products to the shops before they spoil.
The chairwoman of the Soil Association's standards board, Anna Bradley, stated: "It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognise that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time." They plan to bring the new measures in from January 2009.
How coldly patronising can you get? They sound like colonial administrators. We all have to make sacrifices for the good of Gaia. The soil Association are willing to make the sacrifice of having to do without African ‘organic’ produce, the African farmer will just have to do without his livelihood.
Executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Centre (ITC), Patricia Francis, warned that: ”African companies and cooperatives want to trade internationally.
To get value-added organic foods on to retail shelves, they have an overwhelming amount of standards to meet.
Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers, which is just the opposite of what British consumers want.”
Why should the Soil Association be allowed to co-opt and distort the meaning of a word that ’belongs’ to us all. We are not French speakers, to have the meanings of our words imposed upon us by an elite cognoscenti. We are speaking of English words, that even now, in the newspeak UK, are still not quite so amenable to imposition by fiat - or should that be Nu-Speak ;-)
No matter what the Soil association says - if the food is produced organically, it will be just as pesticide and chemical free as it was before. It will still actually be organic in the normal sense of the word. Are they just getting a little too big for their boots?
The soil association, one suspects having been ‘got at’ by environ-mentalists has arbitrarily decided that they will no longer count foreign organically grown produce as ‘organic’ if it is imported air freighted – unless it passes their new ‘ethical’ standards.
They have been gradually working towards this for some time.
If one didn’t know better one would assume the policy was deliberately designed to harm poorer countries. Their policy director Peter Melchett freely admits that some (poorer) overseas (Africa?) producers would find it impossible to meet the new standards they had set . Very few overseas producers meet the planned new standards at the moment and the policy was expected to reduce the use of air freight.
So it’s all in the name of attacking the environ-mentalists CO2 bête noire, air travel/freight. One wonders how else these produces can get their products to the shops before they spoil.
The chairwoman of the Soil Association's standards board, Anna Bradley, stated: "It is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight but we recognise that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports will take time." They plan to bring the new measures in from January 2009.
How coldly patronising can you get? They sound like colonial administrators. We all have to make sacrifices for the good of Gaia. The soil Association are willing to make the sacrifice of having to do without African ‘organic’ produce, the African farmer will just have to do without his livelihood.
Executive director of the Geneva-based International Trade Centre (ITC), Patricia Francis, warned that: ”African companies and cooperatives want to trade internationally.
To get value-added organic foods on to retail shelves, they have an overwhelming amount of standards to meet.
Meeting these standards costs money - laboratories, audits and more. Too many standards will hurt African farmers, which is just the opposite of what British consumers want.”
Why should the Soil Association be allowed to co-opt and distort the meaning of a word that ’belongs’ to us all. We are not French speakers, to have the meanings of our words imposed upon us by an elite cognoscenti. We are speaking of English words, that even now, in the newspeak UK, are still not quite so amenable to imposition by fiat - or should that be Nu-Speak ;-)
No matter what the Soil association says - if the food is produced organically, it will be just as pesticide and chemical free as it was before. It will still actually be organic in the normal sense of the word. Are they just getting a little too big for their boots?
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
How strong is Cameron’s commitment to a Referendum?
Is Dave the Chameleon 'soft at the edges' on the EU Constitutional treaty referendum issue?
It almost looks like one of those conspiracy theories. You know – where the newly sworn in president is informed we were taken over by aliens in 1963 and although everything looks like business as usual, there are certain things he is not allowed to do…
I am just trying to come up with one for the ‘European Project’ that forces any politicians to back the European Project, or be pushed out of power by those who have already been taken over. I wonder if Dave got a visit from some MIBs recently…
Note to tin foil hat wearers and best selling authors: Try something involving the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, descendants of Jesus, obscure sects and secret societies. Don't forget the hat tip.
It seems he came under some pressure at the first of his alternative press conferences to Broon’s Breeks Briefings, to give a clear indication that an incoming 'Conservative' government would ensure the voters were allowed a referendum. Curiously he avoided doing so saying that now was the time for a referendum on what is the old EU constitution in all but name.
True enough, he does have a point in that it is far better done now and in fact should have already been done. However it might ramp the pressure up to promise (a real promise as opposed to a NU-Lab manifesto type promise) one.
He is probably conscious of what a political can of worms it would open, if in two years time a referendum produced a no result – that, plus he doesn’t want to suffer the same fate as Maggie, or more significantly JFK…
It almost looks like one of those conspiracy theories. You know – where the newly sworn in president is informed we were taken over by aliens in 1963 and although everything looks like business as usual, there are certain things he is not allowed to do…
I am just trying to come up with one for the ‘European Project’ that forces any politicians to back the European Project, or be pushed out of power by those who have already been taken over. I wonder if Dave got a visit from some MIBs recently…
Note to tin foil hat wearers and best selling authors: Try something involving the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, descendants of Jesus, obscure sects and secret societies. Don't forget the hat tip.
It seems he came under some pressure at the first of his alternative press conferences to Broon’s Breeks Briefings, to give a clear indication that an incoming 'Conservative' government would ensure the voters were allowed a referendum. Curiously he avoided doing so saying that now was the time for a referendum on what is the old EU constitution in all but name.
True enough, he does have a point in that it is far better done now and in fact should have already been done. However it might ramp the pressure up to promise (a real promise as opposed to a NU-Lab manifesto type promise) one.
He is probably conscious of what a political can of worms it would open, if in two years time a referendum produced a no result – that, plus he doesn’t want to suffer the same fate as Maggie, or more significantly JFK…
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Nuclear Power, Good for the Economy, Good for the environment, Good for the UK
So if everyone is so concerned about reducing the UK’s carbon footprint - then how come close to half of the UK’s Nuclear power stations are out of action on the run up to winter? Apparently a lack of funding...
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Monday, 22 October 2007
Miliband condemns them as the refuge of dictators – Referenda. It means what we say it means
Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, speaking about the clamour for a referendum on the recently rubberstamped ‘treaty’ attempted to claim they were the “refuge of dictators and demagogues ”, as has been much noted in the blogsphere.
He went on: “We have a parliamentary democracy. We elect MPs every four of five years, the people elect us to do a job. If they like it they re-elect us if they don’t kick us out,”
What he carefully failed to mention was that his party, presumably being comprised of, in his view, dictators and demagogues had promised a referendum on the EU Constitution.
Well if the cap fits…
The people indeed elected Nu-Lab to do a job – that included ensuring that the people had the opportunity to express their will in a referendum. To ensure that no more of Parliament’s privileges and power were given away to Brussels without the people having a specific say in the matter.
The vote may have gone a different way, had they known in advance that the likes of Brown and Miliband would renege on their manifesto promise using the pathetically thin excuse that it was no longer a referendum because a tiny proportion of the words in the treaty had been changed.
Milliband and Brown are presumably still quite happy to claim that they were the actual people who were elected, given how many of the cells in their bodies have died and been replaced since that election. They can’t so easily claim to have a mandate.
The ‘treaty’ probably contains no less a proportion of the original constitution than they do of the physical matter that they were made of when elected.
He went on: “We have a parliamentary democracy. We elect MPs every four of five years, the people elect us to do a job. If they like it they re-elect us if they don’t kick us out,”
What he carefully failed to mention was that his party, presumably being comprised of, in his view, dictators and demagogues had promised a referendum on the EU Constitution.
Well if the cap fits…
The people indeed elected Nu-Lab to do a job – that included ensuring that the people had the opportunity to express their will in a referendum. To ensure that no more of Parliament’s privileges and power were given away to Brussels without the people having a specific say in the matter.
The vote may have gone a different way, had they known in advance that the likes of Brown and Miliband would renege on their manifesto promise using the pathetically thin excuse that it was no longer a referendum because a tiny proportion of the words in the treaty had been changed.
Milliband and Brown are presumably still quite happy to claim that they were the actual people who were elected, given how many of the cells in their bodies have died and been replaced since that election. They can’t so easily claim to have a mandate.
The ‘treaty’ probably contains no less a proportion of the original constitution than they do of the physical matter that they were made of when elected.
Free prescriptions in Scotland Paid for by English taxpayers.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Nationalist Government’s health minister, said she wanted to erase ‘inequality’ in the NHS.
But it seems that some, are more equal than others, because her solution is to massively increase inequality in the NHS. She is planning on using English Taxpayers to subsidise the abolition of all prescription charges north of the border by 2011, within the lifetime of the current Scottish Parliament.
This is in addition to the free eye care and dental check ups already provided.
This is about as an extreme version of the so-called postcode lottery as you can find. Made all the more galling by the fact that due to inequalities in the tax distribution system English tax payers are being milked by Scottish politicians to fund a first class service for the Scots they do not get themselves.
It also leaves entirely aside that Scottish students will be able to avoid the burden of student dept and get a free university education, at the expense of English students having to subsidise them when that start work, whilst servicing their own debts.
One wouldn’t mind so much if it were a matter of ensuring everyone in the UK enjoyed the same standards in thinks like health care. It is understandable that for various reasons it may be more expensive to provide an identical standard in different geographical locations.
It is an entirely different thing when votes are being bought by politicians who are unaccountable to the those being taxed, buying votes from their own electorate with a two tier service.
What was that phrase? ‘No taxation without representation’?
It may be entirely coincidental that Nu-Lab’s, Gordon Brown, his glove puppet Chancellor, Alistair Darling, Des Brown, the Defence secretary and Douglas Alexander, International Development, to name but a few, all hold parliamentary seats north of the border.
The cost to the South East will only get worse when the government’ssecret council tax re evaluation for England finally takes place, as it is likely to bite hardest there. The re evaluation was supposedly postponed in 2005, but the process has continued in secret.
Since it was ‘postponed’ the government have ploughed in £3.2 million to develop a new revaluation database incorporating every home in England. So far despite the so-called ‘postponement’ the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) have gathered details of millions of homes, cataloguing things like how many WCs, bathrooms properties have and if they have conservatories or greenhouses.
Documents indicate they will also be looking at things like how ‘nice’ the area is, what parking spaces are available - Basically anything that can possible be stretched to justify ramping up the tax and punish anyone who wants to better their lives, or the environment they live in.
But it seems that some, are more equal than others, because her solution is to massively increase inequality in the NHS. She is planning on using English Taxpayers to subsidise the abolition of all prescription charges north of the border by 2011, within the lifetime of the current Scottish Parliament.
This is in addition to the free eye care and dental check ups already provided.
This is about as an extreme version of the so-called postcode lottery as you can find. Made all the more galling by the fact that due to inequalities in the tax distribution system English tax payers are being milked by Scottish politicians to fund a first class service for the Scots they do not get themselves.
It also leaves entirely aside that Scottish students will be able to avoid the burden of student dept and get a free university education, at the expense of English students having to subsidise them when that start work, whilst servicing their own debts.
One wouldn’t mind so much if it were a matter of ensuring everyone in the UK enjoyed the same standards in thinks like health care. It is understandable that for various reasons it may be more expensive to provide an identical standard in different geographical locations.
It is an entirely different thing when votes are being bought by politicians who are unaccountable to the those being taxed, buying votes from their own electorate with a two tier service.
What was that phrase? ‘No taxation without representation’?
It may be entirely coincidental that Nu-Lab’s, Gordon Brown, his glove puppet Chancellor, Alistair Darling, Des Brown, the Defence secretary and Douglas Alexander, International Development, to name but a few, all hold parliamentary seats north of the border.
The cost to the South East will only get worse when the government’ssecret council tax re evaluation for England finally takes place, as it is likely to bite hardest there. The re evaluation was supposedly postponed in 2005, but the process has continued in secret.
Since it was ‘postponed’ the government have ploughed in £3.2 million to develop a new revaluation database incorporating every home in England. So far despite the so-called ‘postponement’ the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) have gathered details of millions of homes, cataloguing things like how many WCs, bathrooms properties have and if they have conservatories or greenhouses.
Documents indicate they will also be looking at things like how ‘nice’ the area is, what parking spaces are available - Basically anything that can possible be stretched to justify ramping up the tax and punish anyone who wants to better their lives, or the environment they live in.
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Another pledge on Europe from Brown no one will believe.
Following his rubber-stamping the EU constitutional Treaty Gordon Brown is claiming he will has ‘pledged’ to block any further extension of Europe’s power for at least a decade.
What is truly amazing about this is that he has bothered to say it - Surely he does not expect anyone to actually believe anything he promises, after he has been so assiduous in avoiding honouring his party’s election manifesto pledge.
It is clear he does not think a referendum would support the so-called ‘treaty’ - So he has to have rubber stamped the thing whilst clearly believing he was doing so, against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
He must have a very curious concept of the concept of ‘representing the electorate’ and as an MP and PM is he not elected specifically to represent our interests and concerns?
He gives every appearance of seeking to subvert the UK democratic process on behalf of the European Project.
No matter your views on Europe, if you care about democracy - and the legitimacy of the ‘treaty’, then many will want to express their opinion in a referendum. Only parliament, if it has the stomach for it, can demand one now.
You can contact your MP quickly and easily through the website Write To Them it only takes a few minutes and they monitor how good your MP is at replying. You can cut and paste from the example below, modify it if you like. The example is copyright free.
Why not write asking them to demand a referendum in parliament. No matter Brown’s wriggling on the hook one was promised.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear,
I write to inform you that I wish to have the opportunity to express my views on the ‘Treaty’ that the Prime Minister has just rubber-stamped.
It is in my view, effectively a direct replacement for the constitution that we were promised a referendum on by the government in their manifesto.
Gordon Brown appears to be intent on denying me the right to express my opinion in a referendum, apparently because he believes it will be rejected. That being the case he is acting against the will of the electorate and he knows it.
He is signing away among other things the right to make treaties to Europe that will bind Parliament.
As my representative in parliament I ask that you demand a referendum and support anyone else that does likewise.
Yours faithfully
What is truly amazing about this is that he has bothered to say it - Surely he does not expect anyone to actually believe anything he promises, after he has been so assiduous in avoiding honouring his party’s election manifesto pledge.
It is clear he does not think a referendum would support the so-called ‘treaty’ - So he has to have rubber stamped the thing whilst clearly believing he was doing so, against the wishes of the majority of the electorate.
He must have a very curious concept of the concept of ‘representing the electorate’ and as an MP and PM is he not elected specifically to represent our interests and concerns?
He gives every appearance of seeking to subvert the UK democratic process on behalf of the European Project.
No matter your views on Europe, if you care about democracy - and the legitimacy of the ‘treaty’, then many will want to express their opinion in a referendum. Only parliament, if it has the stomach for it, can demand one now.
You can contact your MP quickly and easily through the website Write To Them it only takes a few minutes and they monitor how good your MP is at replying. You can cut and paste from the example below, modify it if you like. The example is copyright free.
Why not write asking them to demand a referendum in parliament. No matter Brown’s wriggling on the hook one was promised.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear,
I write to inform you that I wish to have the opportunity to express my views on the ‘Treaty’ that the Prime Minister has just rubber-stamped.
It is in my view, effectively a direct replacement for the constitution that we were promised a referendum on by the government in their manifesto.
Gordon Brown appears to be intent on denying me the right to express my opinion in a referendum, apparently because he believes it will be rejected. That being the case he is acting against the will of the electorate and he knows it.
He is signing away among other things the right to make treaties to Europe that will bind Parliament.
As my representative in parliament I ask that you demand a referendum and support anyone else that does likewise.
Yours faithfully
Friday, 19 October 2007
Gordon Brown betrays Electorate
Gordon Brown today betrayed parliamentary democracy and those who elected him, proving no one can ever trust a Nu-Lab manifesto ‘promise’ again.
He seems to be set to get away with it, as the opposition parties appear too weak to prevent him from doing so and he has ignored a petition for a referendum signed by thousands.
EU leaders in Lisbon emerged, not long after midnight, full of self congratulation, hugging and slapping each other on the back. Barroso crowed what a "great achievement" the Constitutional treaty was.
It seems only Ireland has the courage of it’s convictions. Brown is clearly desperate to avoid any sort of encounter at all with the will of the electorate.
Brown is lying if he says this does not hand parliaments right to the EU – The ‘treaty’ gives the EU power to sign international treaties on it’s own. Being members this can effectively bind Parliament and Britain in treaties they have not been able to debate or decide upon. That is relinquishing power that Brown does not have the right to give away.
It’s like lending someone your car and finding they have sold it.
If those entrusted with power by the electorate can not be trusted to guard that power and use it as intended, then they no longer have any moral right to it and should hand it back.
He seems to be set to get away with it, as the opposition parties appear too weak to prevent him from doing so and he has ignored a petition for a referendum signed by thousands.
EU leaders in Lisbon emerged, not long after midnight, full of self congratulation, hugging and slapping each other on the back. Barroso crowed what a "great achievement" the Constitutional treaty was.
It seems only Ireland has the courage of it’s convictions. Brown is clearly desperate to avoid any sort of encounter at all with the will of the electorate.
Brown is lying if he says this does not hand parliaments right to the EU – The ‘treaty’ gives the EU power to sign international treaties on it’s own. Being members this can effectively bind Parliament and Britain in treaties they have not been able to debate or decide upon. That is relinquishing power that Brown does not have the right to give away.
It’s like lending someone your car and finding they have sold it.
If those entrusted with power by the electorate can not be trusted to guard that power and use it as intended, then they no longer have any moral right to it and should hand it back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)