“ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”Joseph Goebbels
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Quote of the day
What’s the point of petitioning the UK PM?
The state was petitioned to withdraw from the European Union (EU) on the grounds that it is of no benefit to the UK any longer, being a gross waste of money that should not be funded by the taxpayer any longer. That it was an unelected, bureaucratic bloc constantly infringing national sovereignty. It attracted several thousand signatures and is by no means the only petition making similar points.
The State’s response demonstrates a certain contempt for the signatory’s ability to detect bullshit. They say:
“Membership of the European Union has brought significant benefits to the UK, in terms of wealth, jobs, peace and security.”
But fail to actually back this claim with any facts whatsoever.
Security - We are expected to believe that it was the presence of the EU and not, to pluck a random example out of thin air, say... N.A.T.O. that has guaranteed the peace in Western Europe since WWII? Very amusing…
They go on:
”Through the EU, we belong to the world's biggest trading bloc. Over half of British trade is with Europe. An estimated three and a half million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU,
They fail to mention that prior to this through the Commonwealth we belonged to the world’s biggest trading bloc. Much of our trade was with its members and staggeringly huge numbers of British jobs were linked to exports to it. As were countless jobs throughout the Commonwealth. We shall not dwell on the detrimental impact the effective dismantling of much of this trade had, or how much persists to this day
They witter on…
“..and our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe and to receive free medical care if we fall sick on holiday.”
Of course Brits were never allowed to travel to Europe or live there before this – Not.
Curiously enough many British people went to live and work in other commonwealth countries and similarly nationals of those countries did as well, Brits to Canada and the antipodes, Aussies to the UK, Canada, etc. etc.
As for free medical care if you do travel to Europe you would be a fool not to have travel insurance - including medical cover.
They continue ”Improved maternity pay, strengthening of rights to paid holidays and now the reduction in mobile phone calls when abroad are just some of the practical benefits the EU has helped deliver. And as part of the EU, the UK is better able to deal with global issues like environment and world trade, and tackle problems like crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.”
Phone calls! Get real… Maternity right, paid holidays.. Get real. The fact is being in the EC massively limits our options to improve things because either we gave up the power or it would be trading on euro toes.
Finally the stench of bovine faeces becomes almost overwhelming…”T he question of whether we should remain in the (then) EEC was put to a referendum in 1975, which passed convincingly. The government sees no case for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU today.”
They fail to point out that this was spun at the time as a trading partnership and noting more. No Superstate ruled by unelected commissioners were mentioned then, not EU ambassadors or embassies. That vote was on something else, the British public were conned with false information.. It is a probability approaching certainty that if they had so much of an inkling of what they were actually voting for at the time they would have rejected utterly.
”It is clear that by working together with other European countries, we can achieve much more in terms of promoting peace and stability, economic prosperity, environmental protection and a range of other important issues than we could achieve by ourselves.” an entirely unsupported set of claims here…
They go on to inform us disingenuously that: ”Successive opinion polls show that public support for a total withdrawal from the EU is relatively low. An ICM poll in August showed that - showed that approximately 21% of respondents favoured a total withdrawal from the EU.”
They fail to point out that the vast majority wish to halt any further integration and claw thing back to pre EU, EEC levels.
They also fail to mention that New-Labour are currently badly governing the UK on the basis of the support of a mere 22% of the British electorate at the 2005 general Election. Based upon the results of the recent local elections we may suppose it is now considerably more precarious than that…
On that basis it is easy to argue that public support for New-Labour is little greater than it is for total withdrawal from the EU
So is there a point to the government’s petition website? Or bothering to post, or sign the petitions? Not much by the look of it…
The State’s response demonstrates a certain contempt for the signatory’s ability to detect bullshit. They say:
“Membership of the European Union has brought significant benefits to the UK, in terms of wealth, jobs, peace and security.”
But fail to actually back this claim with any facts whatsoever.
Security - We are expected to believe that it was the presence of the EU and not, to pluck a random example out of thin air, say... N.A.T.O. that has guaranteed the peace in Western Europe since WWII? Very amusing…
They go on:
”Through the EU, we belong to the world's biggest trading bloc. Over half of British trade is with Europe. An estimated three and a half million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU,
They fail to mention that prior to this through the Commonwealth we belonged to the world’s biggest trading bloc. Much of our trade was with its members and staggeringly huge numbers of British jobs were linked to exports to it. As were countless jobs throughout the Commonwealth. We shall not dwell on the detrimental impact the effective dismantling of much of this trade had, or how much persists to this day
They witter on…
“..and our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe and to receive free medical care if we fall sick on holiday.”
Of course Brits were never allowed to travel to Europe or live there before this – Not.
Curiously enough many British people went to live and work in other commonwealth countries and similarly nationals of those countries did as well, Brits to Canada and the antipodes, Aussies to the UK, Canada, etc. etc.
As for free medical care if you do travel to Europe you would be a fool not to have travel insurance - including medical cover.
They continue ”Improved maternity pay, strengthening of rights to paid holidays and now the reduction in mobile phone calls when abroad are just some of the practical benefits the EU has helped deliver. And as part of the EU, the UK is better able to deal with global issues like environment and world trade, and tackle problems like crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.”
Phone calls! Get real… Maternity right, paid holidays.. Get real. The fact is being in the EC massively limits our options to improve things because either we gave up the power or it would be trading on euro toes.
Finally the stench of bovine faeces becomes almost overwhelming…”T he question of whether we should remain in the (then) EEC was put to a referendum in 1975, which passed convincingly. The government sees no case for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU today.”
They fail to point out that this was spun at the time as a trading partnership and noting more. No Superstate ruled by unelected commissioners were mentioned then, not EU ambassadors or embassies. That vote was on something else, the British public were conned with false information.. It is a probability approaching certainty that if they had so much of an inkling of what they were actually voting for at the time they would have rejected utterly.
”It is clear that by working together with other European countries, we can achieve much more in terms of promoting peace and stability, economic prosperity, environmental protection and a range of other important issues than we could achieve by ourselves.” an entirely unsupported set of claims here…
They go on to inform us disingenuously that: ”Successive opinion polls show that public support for a total withdrawal from the EU is relatively low. An ICM poll in August showed that - showed that approximately 21% of respondents favoured a total withdrawal from the EU.”
They fail to point out that the vast majority wish to halt any further integration and claw thing back to pre EU, EEC levels.
They also fail to mention that New-Labour are currently badly governing the UK on the basis of the support of a mere 22% of the British electorate at the 2005 general Election. Based upon the results of the recent local elections we may suppose it is now considerably more precarious than that…
On that basis it is easy to argue that public support for New-Labour is little greater than it is for total withdrawal from the EU
So is there a point to the government’s petition website? Or bothering to post, or sign the petitions? Not much by the look of it…
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?”Bill Hicks
Just how illegal should cannabis be?
Cannabis is illegal. You might not think so from general observation, but it is.
The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.
One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,
Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.
One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…
The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.
One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,
Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.
One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Quote of the day
“ The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”Ronald Reagan
What’s wrong with New-Labour
I was listening to some of the spin and damage limitation over New-Labour’s pretty disastrous showings in the local and London mayoral elections on Sky News this morning.
They were speaking to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, (she of being afraid to walk the streets after dark fame).
She was articulating all the excuses New-Labour seem to be developing while Gordon gets up the courage to show his face in public again and avoids the initial heat. Need to take the lesson on board and listen to the electorate, etc.
Any way she said something cut out of later repeats and I paraphrase as best I recall, about providing the leadership the electorate needed. It struck me as a bit of a Freudian slip. That’s just it – we don’t want to be told what to do by them we want to be left to live our lives in peace the way we wish to.
That is part of the whole problem with New-Labour and their natural bedfellows who seem to populate social services, education and local government, some of the upper echelons of the medical profession, etc. They seem so convinced that they know best and they will damned well force us to follow their will for our own good and we will all be grateful in the end really…
They want to control and regulate us keep record about everything and force us to prove who we are. Watch us all the time, tell us how to raise our children, what we can eat, drink and do in public and private. Make every thing illegal unless they have given specific permission, preferably controlled by expensive permit or licence that we have to pay for.
These are many of the reasons New-Labour did so badly, do they see it? Hell no! It seems the beast will never change.
They were speaking to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, (she of being afraid to walk the streets after dark fame).
She was articulating all the excuses New-Labour seem to be developing while Gordon gets up the courage to show his face in public again and avoids the initial heat. Need to take the lesson on board and listen to the electorate, etc.
Any way she said something cut out of later repeats and I paraphrase as best I recall, about providing the leadership the electorate needed. It struck me as a bit of a Freudian slip. That’s just it – we don’t want to be told what to do by them we want to be left to live our lives in peace the way we wish to.
That is part of the whole problem with New-Labour and their natural bedfellows who seem to populate social services, education and local government, some of the upper echelons of the medical profession, etc. They seem so convinced that they know best and they will damned well force us to follow their will for our own good and we will all be grateful in the end really…
They want to control and regulate us keep record about everything and force us to prove who we are. Watch us all the time, tell us how to raise our children, what we can eat, drink and do in public and private. Make every thing illegal unless they have given specific permission, preferably controlled by expensive permit or licence that we have to pay for.
These are many of the reasons New-Labour did so badly, do they see it? Hell no! It seems the beast will never change.
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Gordon’s stealth tax raid on the pensions of the poor
More of the ramifications of Gordon Brown’s infamous final budget slowly sink in. This time it’s the pensions of the less well off that take a pounding.
One wonders why these things only seem to really dawn on people once they are actually happening to them, it would appear that people just don’t have the sense to get out from under a falling piano when they see one. Or simply don’t recognise what they are seeing until it is actually affecting them.
The government is always banging on about the ‘pensions hole’ after Gordon brown personally helped create it with his infamous £5billion-a-year state stealth raid on pensions in 1997 where he abolished tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds.
This lead to the collapse of hundreds of final salary pension schemes and resulted in huge numbers of workers being worst off. It means unless everyone now has to make a bigger contribution or there would be rather less in the pension pot than had been expected - and the state was worried about having to support this, after having caused it.
A bit like spending the rent money on gin and then worrying about the landlord’s knock on the door.
All of this would not be so much of a problem if the state ran an honest pension scheme, with real money in it, that the contributions were actually invested in - but no they have a system where those who pay taxes have to cover the cost of pension contributions out of their taxes, less workforce, less tax.
When Gordon brown combined the bands that applied to the lowest paid, the lowest tax bands from 10% and 22% both to 20% it affected the amount of tax relief on low paid pensions in some cases dropping it This means that any of the poor who actually gained anything out of the change to 20% who was investing say £200 a month now has to cough up almost £50 a year more (£48) just to avoid loosing ground on their pension pot.
So if Gordon Brown, or any of his NL cronies wants to shake your hand on the run up to the Local elections, keep your other hand on your wallet and check you still have your watch afterwards and if they tell you they care about the poor and lower paid remember pension contributions and the abolition of the 10% rate that has not gone away, despite the spin.
One wonders why these things only seem to really dawn on people once they are actually happening to them, it would appear that people just don’t have the sense to get out from under a falling piano when they see one. Or simply don’t recognise what they are seeing until it is actually affecting them.
The government is always banging on about the ‘pensions hole’ after Gordon brown personally helped create it with his infamous £5billion-a-year state stealth raid on pensions in 1997 where he abolished tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds.
This lead to the collapse of hundreds of final salary pension schemes and resulted in huge numbers of workers being worst off. It means unless everyone now has to make a bigger contribution or there would be rather less in the pension pot than had been expected - and the state was worried about having to support this, after having caused it.
A bit like spending the rent money on gin and then worrying about the landlord’s knock on the door.
All of this would not be so much of a problem if the state ran an honest pension scheme, with real money in it, that the contributions were actually invested in - but no they have a system where those who pay taxes have to cover the cost of pension contributions out of their taxes, less workforce, less tax.
When Gordon brown combined the bands that applied to the lowest paid, the lowest tax bands from 10% and 22% both to 20% it affected the amount of tax relief on low paid pensions in some cases dropping it This means that any of the poor who actually gained anything out of the change to 20% who was investing say £200 a month now has to cough up almost £50 a year more (£48) just to avoid loosing ground on their pension pot.
So if Gordon Brown, or any of his NL cronies wants to shake your hand on the run up to the Local elections, keep your other hand on your wallet and check you still have your watch afterwards and if they tell you they care about the poor and lower paid remember pension contributions and the abolition of the 10% rate that has not gone away, despite the spin.
Monday, 28 April 2008
UK Tabloid Titillation EXPOSED!!
It is interesting to note that lower end of the UK MSM are at it again.
Not content with secretly filming, distorting and ‘exposing’ the private life of Formula One boss, Max Mosley, they now have their hooks into Lord Laidlaw.
Billed as “A TOP TORY PAYMASTER!” they seem particularly fascinated by the involvement of an allegedly “TRI-LINGUAL BISEXUAL!”, giving the vague impression that being “TRI-LINGUAL!” is some sort of sexual practice, or preference ;-), rather than a sign of intelligence.
In the case of Mosley it seems they distorted the details and falsely reported them to talking heads, who then foolishly give them outraged quotes in return.
In the case of Laidlaw they conveniently tuck the fact that he has also funded inner city academies and youth projects for disadvantaged children way down the story, after the presumably politically motivated, “TORY PAYMASTER!” stuff.
He certainly is a significant donor to the Conservative party, but what has this got to do with the price of fish?
Is it really the business of the Tabloids what someone does in private? As far as I am aware he, like Mosley, has committed no crimes. On the contrary he actually appears to genuinely want to do good. One suspects the press may have sailed far closer to the wind in that respect in their efforts at privacy invasion.
Apart from the fact that unconventional sex was involved Laidlaw has done nothing more than arranging a venue and some professional entertainment. One can see, in this case it might concern his wife, depending on her views of life, but not the rest of us.
Why is it acceptable for the press to trumpet people’s sexual preferences to the world when they are doing no harm? Would they do the same if they had pictures of someone famous on the WC? Quite possibly, one begins to suspect.
These were consenting adults who were presumably enjoying themselves drinking champagne, good wines and in some cases providing a service they were being paid for. Honest value given for honest value received.
Not content with secretly filming, distorting and ‘exposing’ the private life of Formula One boss, Max Mosley, they now have their hooks into Lord Laidlaw.
Billed as “A TOP TORY PAYMASTER!” they seem particularly fascinated by the involvement of an allegedly “TRI-LINGUAL BISEXUAL!”, giving the vague impression that being “TRI-LINGUAL!” is some sort of sexual practice, or preference ;-), rather than a sign of intelligence.
In the case of Mosley it seems they distorted the details and falsely reported them to talking heads, who then foolishly give them outraged quotes in return.
In the case of Laidlaw they conveniently tuck the fact that he has also funded inner city academies and youth projects for disadvantaged children way down the story, after the presumably politically motivated, “TORY PAYMASTER!” stuff.
He certainly is a significant donor to the Conservative party, but what has this got to do with the price of fish?
Is it really the business of the Tabloids what someone does in private? As far as I am aware he, like Mosley, has committed no crimes. On the contrary he actually appears to genuinely want to do good. One suspects the press may have sailed far closer to the wind in that respect in their efforts at privacy invasion.
Apart from the fact that unconventional sex was involved Laidlaw has done nothing more than arranging a venue and some professional entertainment. One can see, in this case it might concern his wife, depending on her views of life, but not the rest of us.
Why is it acceptable for the press to trumpet people’s sexual preferences to the world when they are doing no harm? Would they do the same if they had pictures of someone famous on the WC? Quite possibly, one begins to suspect.
These were consenting adults who were presumably enjoying themselves drinking champagne, good wines and in some cases providing a service they were being paid for. Honest value given for honest value received.
Eating chocolate for science
It’s a dirty job – but somebody’s got to do it and it is for science.
A team at the University of East Anglia are searching for 150 women to each chocolate for a whole year! The team are trying to establish if compounds present in chocolate can reduce the risk of heart disease. The women will have to eat specially formulated Belgian chocolate.
A team at the University of East Anglia are searching for 150 women to each chocolate for a whole year! The team are trying to establish if compounds present in chocolate can reduce the risk of heart disease. The women will have to eat specially formulated Belgian chocolate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)