You have the power.

It is important to know what you can do and what you can't. OH for example has run a couple of articles on this very point. I neither condone nor condemn Holby's suggestions for behaviour. Your rights are not conditional upon anything, written down, they are a simple statement of fact. How you use your rights is up to you.

Don't assume that people in 'authority' will always play by the spirit of the rules, if not the actual rules themselves. Whilst 'they' may not actually be breaking any rules, some people will attempt to use your ignorance of the rules to get the better of you, or by hiding things in plain sight to trip you up.

As Ambush Predator pointed out the other day:

She said: ‘We couldn't believe it and were annoyed that other people in our group got in. I would like to know what we can and can't do.

So go and find out then. No-one is going to tell you, you'll have to do some research and some reading, no biggie, just takes a little thought. It is in nobody's interests but yours, so don't expect anyone to take an interest other than you.

However it does not follow that people in authority WILL attempt to hoodwink you or bully you, but one should be aware of the potential. Always think before you act or speak, and as a general rule of thumb, if you're not sure, do and say nothing.

The Libertarian Party blog has posted up a notice from an acting police inspector about the fitwatch website. Now, I've little time for the students and their protest. Firstly because they are asking for money to be taken from people under threat of imprisonment to give them a material advantage over others. That sounds like extortion to me. Secondly, as soon as you start throwing objects at police officers any sympathy I do have vanishes.

The police often get it wrong, usually in the Senior Management suite, occasionally on the ground. I believe that when they get it wrong in the nice big leather chairs it is because they are self-serving, promotion chasing opportunists who neither understand nor care what is happening on the ground. When individual officers get it wrong on the ground it is in the main, I suspect, because there is no chance for them to keep on top of the endless parade of new legislation which makes little or no sense. To keep on top of it all would probably involve a police officer being in the classroom for a fortnight every month. There will of course be a number of people in the uniform who are completely unsuited to the job through attitude or aptitude.

However the vast majority of police officers you encounter will be trying to do their best in very trying circumstances with nowhere near the resources and support they need.

On this occasion, the police inspector has got it very wrong.

APPLICATION FOR CLOSURE OF A UK BASED DOMAIN NAME

Fitwatch.org.uk - IP 69.175.66.250

To whom it may concern at Singlehop

Op Malone

In connection with our criminal investigation into registration or use of the domain name set out in this letter, we hereby confirm that:
* The domain is being used to undertake criminal activities.
Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, contrary to Common Law
We hereby request Singlehop to de-host this website for a minimum period of 12 months. Please note that this request will be also sent to the domain name registrar for the website. You should provide the following contact phone number, email address and reference number to the registrant: 0207 230 8100 pceu@met.pnn.police.uk

REASON FOR CLOSURE 

This website are committing offences of attempting to pervert the Course of Justice under Common Law. The website is providing explicit advice to offenders following a major demonstration in Central London. The demonstration was marred by violence and several subjects have already been arrested with a major police operation underway to identify and arrest further offenders.

The person controlling these websites has posted material held to be contrary to Common Law within the UK. Therefore to prevent the domain names from being used in crime we request that the domain name is suspended for a minimum period of 12 months (or until expiry of the domain name if earlier).

This common law offence is committed where a person or persons:-
(a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct
(b) which has a tendency to, and
(c) is intended to pervert,
(d) the course of public justice.
Registrant Information for fitwatch.org.uk
Registrant : [DELETED]

All other personal details withheld

Registered on : 17-Nov-2008

Authority to close the website and IP address given by
Will Hodgeson, Acting Detective Inspector
Metropolitan Police
CO11 Public Order Branch

Many Thanks in Advance

Yours faithfully

DI Paul Hoare
Police Central e-crime Unit (Computer Crime Unit)
SCD6 Economic & Specialist Crime Command,
Metropolitan Police.
1st floor, Indigo Block, Cobalt Square
1 South Lambeth Road,
London
SW8 1SU
0207 230 8100
pceu@met.pnn.police.uk

As Guthrum points out, there is no word for any magistrate, judge or court. I'm sorry, but in this country you cannot restrict peoples' freedom of expression on the word of an acting inspector, it just doesn't work like that.


But go back and actually read what the statement says. Go on, I'll wait. . .


Did you see it?

We hereby request Singlehop to de-host this website 

Request. There is no order, no command, no obligation. A request. But if you got that letter, would you see it that way? Unlikely. It is hidden in plain sight. I said the police officer got it very wrong. Well, not wrong, he's perfectly within his rights to ask the host of this site to take it down, but without an order from the court, the host is well within their rights to decline.

Not just in situations dealing with the police, but with every authority figure you come into contact with, every contract you sign, every time you agree to something, take the opportunity to consider what is going on and what has actually been said or written.

Don't assume that people you deal with have your best interests in mind, because likely as not, they don't.

Don't think 'Oh, but they wouldn't do that.' Because they would.

Look out for yourself, because nobody else will. If you are ever uncomfortable with a situation, say so and state that you will pause the situation until such time as you find out your rights and the truth. Power companies calling at your door to get you to switch providers are a good example of this. Don't get your rights from them, don't get their 'truth', find it out for yourself. For 99% of things to happen to you, you have to consent. So withold your consent until you are absolutely sure about the consequences and recourse available to you.

If you are unsure (and it is perhaps good practice even if you are sure), politely and calmly, yet firmly, challenge the person in front of you. Who are you? Where does your authority come from? From which Act of Parliament? What sanctions are available to 'them' if you do not comply? Where is this set out?

Don't be abrasive or smug, point out that you ask because you want to know, to understand. Anyone who is on the level will explain and provide evidence and/or will not object to a delay whilst you establish the facts.

Once they try to tighten the screw, to apply pressure, to hurry proceedings along, to give a garbled or over-complicated explanation, or fail to offer any explanation at all, then it is time for your alarm bells to ring. In the instance of a private company, show them the door, in the instance of the police, say nothing and make sure you get a solicitor who can answer your questions to your satisfaction (remember, the duty brief is not free, you've paid for them via your taxes), and never ever sign anything until you've had the chance to read and digest the document, even if it is only a mobile phone contract, and if the beneficiary is hovering over you to get it done, walk away, they're up to no good.

The One That Is Back. . .

Life, both personal and work has been the order the day recently. With that and the World Cup, blogging time has been scarce.

The other problem is that we are still in the honeymoon period of this new government, the dropping of clangers sounding like a Disaster Area opening chord have been noteable by their absence. It makes facepalming blogging that much difficult. Don't worry, they'll make an arse of it before long.

Or will they?

I've just finished reading 'The Plan' by Carswell and Hannan. A fine prospectus and one that I heartily recommend. There's a few things in there that I don't agree with, but on the whole I'm of the opinion that if the suggestions contained within were implemented we'd be a damn sight better off than we are now.

A few points contained within have been introduced or announced already, perhaps Libertarian thought has more sway in the Conservatives than we've be led to believe. Time will tell. The whining from the Guardianistas is most comforting. Less so the BBC who just don't seem to understand that the election has resulted in a change of government. I was amazed yesterday (actually, I wasn't amazed, it's still nice to know I can rely on the BBC for my morning dose of 'Oh, fuck off.') to see an article on their news channel about children feeling scared because parental units might have a glass of wine of an evening. I don't have kids, but I'm betting that asking them what they did at school today would result in me drinking myself into a stupor. Today I've half caught a story about the dangers of letting a five year old ride a bike.

I digress.

I'm going to pass on my copy of The Plan to a friend of mine. This friend of mine is a lefty, but the more I speak to him, the more I get the impression that he's far from happy with what the left represent. The fact it is written by two Tories will upset him. Once the mention of Thatcher would have the veins standing out in his neck, now it is just a shaking of the head. I'm of the opinion that Carswell and Hannan are in the wrong party.

Maybe not. Perhaps they're in the right party. Perhaps they can bring around the ground shift that Blair, Brown and Smith brought about in the Labour party? Only it would be an improvement, not a destruction of what the party stands for and a betrayal of those they claim to represent.

Here's the rub, and it is explained in a far better way by Hannan and Carswell than I could ever manage, the logic is deeply, deeply flawed; Everyone accepts that X is a problem. Y is proposed as a solution. Those not agreeing with Y are lambasted as wanting X to continue, or not giving a toss about those suffering as a result of X. When what those who disagree with Y really want is Z. Solution Z is probably simpler, cheaper and quicker.

In a nutshell, Hannan and Carswell draw the following conclusions:

• We rely far too much on the opinons of 'experts' who have a vested interest in any policy.
• The State is not very good at providing for people, it is impersonal, officious, unfeeling and expensive.
• People know what is best for them, and if given responsibility for themselves will gleefully take it up, saving money for the State (which they pay for) as they see a direct connection with the taking of taxes and how those taxes are then spent.
• The centralisation of power is bad for democracy, bad for services and bad for politicians.

The fact that Carswell and Hannan are Tories does not mean they are wrong. I hope that when I pass my copy of The Plan to my friend, he will accept it in the spirit it is offered and read it with an open mind. I think he'll be surprised at what it has to say, and even more surprised at his reaction to it.

When Neil Clark, or whatever his name is, talks about restoring our freedoms and asking us about bills to be put before Parliament, there's only one that I want to see. We can fiddle around with smoking bans, hunting bans, environmental legislation as much as we like. We can hold as many referenda on the electoral system as we can shake a stick at, we can cut the number of MPs to 45. It won't make any difference. The only act that needs to be repealed in the first instance, and that is the European Communities Act 1972. If we are to bring around the changes that I believe we need in this country, then we simply cannot remain a member of the EU.

As Carswell and Hannan point out, there is a basic misunderstanding of what the EU is for, and every PM since Heath has been guilty of the misunderstanding, has ignored it, or has supported the EU's purpose. Clegg is in the latter camp, and it is duplicitous of the residents of the support camp to talk about participation on our own terms. The phrase 'Ever closer union', is no idle ideal, it is the primary driver of the EU and can only have one outcome.

The EU is set up to remove power from the electorate, as we have this annoying habit of making the 'wrong' decision as evidenced by the Irish vote on Lisbon. We need to ask a different question; not 'what is our role in the EU,' but 'do we want to be a member' and 'if not, what will our relationship be with it?'

I may be in the minority, but if I am, it is a significant minority. I don't want to ride roughshod over other's opinions, that is what the fascist EU does. Let's have a referendum on our continued membership, that is, of course, the action proposed by Clegg over the Lisbon Treaty. If people vote to stay in, then that's democracy.

Is the EU fascist? I belive so. That doesn't mean that hundreds of thousands will be transported to death camps - that isn't fascism, that's genocide. What is fascism? I'll leave you with what I think is a pretty good definition from Jonah Goldberg:

'Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore is defined as the enemy.'

That sounds like where I live now.

Once you get past the fact that facism is a hateful, unthinking removal of someone's individuality, the main problem is that the State is administered by flawed, imperfect humans like you and me. Just sitting in a office with a plaque nominating you as minister for whatever does not mean you will not make bad decisions that either wilfully or accidentally hurt others.

I just want the opportunity to make my own decisions. If I get it wrong, the number of people who get hurt will be limited to single figures. If a Statist politician gets it wrong, the hurt can number in the millions.

The One That Says 'Oh, They WILL, Will They?'. . .

Just sat here watching Sky News, the chap doing the bit to camera in Dublin about the Lisbon Treaty has just made the point that if the Irish vote 'Yes', (and how I hope the opinion polls are wrong, that people have being fibbing to the pollsters or that in the polling station they just think 'Fuck you' and vote 'No'), that the Poles and Czechs will HAVE to ratify.

Will they? As sad as it is that the Irish constitution is the only one in the Europe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to have any faith in its population's capacity for abstract thought, is it right that their decisions should influence, or force, the policy of another sovereign state?

Well, if the 'Yes' vote wins today, then get used to it, because the wishes of our national parliament and therefore (at least, on paper) the wishes of the electorates will be perpetually forced by the actions of a group immeasurably smaller than the group they hold power over. I speak not of the 3 million Irish with effective dominion over 497 million other 'EU Citizens', but of the fucktardish pen pushers, troughers and self appointed rulers sitting in Brussels.

And they will indeed hold power over us. Already Bliar is apparently a shoe-in for the job of President of the EU. Did you receive a polling card? I didn't. I didn't get the chance to vote for our commissioner, never have, believe me, there's no fucking way I'd have voted for Kinnock or Mandleson.

An apparent Republic with a population of 500 million, none of whom have had the opportunity to elect their President or those who make the laws that govern them. There's a name for a regime like that.

We've never had a say since 1975 - that's before I was born, and this was not the deal on the table. I was disgusted to hear a colleague of mine who describes himself as being 'Liberal' and a 'Democrat' describe a referendum as not democratic as people would make the wrong decisions and it is very, very complicated.

He was amazed when I called him an arrogant, patronising little weasel.

This is what we're up against. No pretence at democracy, no pretence at listening to what people want. Those on the top of the status quo want this introduced and it will be introduced.

Well, I've got news for you, you nasty little fuckers, a similar enterprise crumbled in Eastern Europe in the 90's, and if you continue to ride roughshod over us little people, your Ceacescu moment WILL come, and you won't even see it when it is right at the end of your nose.

A question. What if Lech Kaczynski and/or Vaclav Klaus turn round and say, 'You know, as Head of State, I don't want to sign this. I know what is best for my country, not you', what happens then?

God save Ireland, God save Poland, God save the Czech Republic.

God help the rest of us.

The One That Is Thankful. . .

A day of contrasts across the board.

Blears really puts the cat amongst the pigeons and stops just shy of issuing a call for a leadership challenge to Brown, Sky News reports that a group of Labour backbenchers have started an email campaign against Gordon which seems to have the support of 80 or so of the lobby fodder.

Rumours also abound that Caroline Flint and Andy 'Cosmetics' Burnham are also set to walk.

Cameron was as effective as a paper condom at PMQ's this afternoon, and in my opinion out-performed (and not for the first time) by Wossinsname Clegg from the Social Democrats.

A very interesting post by Guthrum over at the LPUK blog put forward the theory that Royal and military agents were behind the leaking of the expenses. I'm not sure if I subscribe to it, but I'm not about to dismiss it and it certainly fits the events.

Many people commented in the late winter that we were due a 'summer of rage' and that the PM was itching to use the Civil Contingencies Act to get the troops on the street, there were even reports of servicemen being surveyed to see if they would open fire on their countrymen.

All that seems a little irrelevant now, I find it impossible to see a way for Brown to survive this chain of events, the local election results on Friday could well be the knock-out punch, the European results on Sunday evening will more than likely finish him once and for all.

No tanks on the street.

Whilst I'm heartened that the media, public and latterly the ministers have turned on this Prime Minister, it is unfortunate that it has taken a corruption story to turn the tide, but then the policy scandal of the last 12 years haven't been sexy enough. Perhaps, maybe, the public will pay a little more attention to what is being done in their names beyond expenses after this.

However do not underestimate the public strength of feeling over corruption. Today marks the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, a mass protest which was against a controlling and thoroughly reprehensible government which was catalysed by corruption, the difference being that this was put down with troops and tanks.

We may be under the thumb of an overbearing and controlling institution in the EU that waters down the power of our national parliament, we may have a leader who refuses to bend to national opinion, we may have no credible opposition, but at least we have the chance to change all that and we don't have to worry about troops and tanks.

For that, I am thankful.

Things need to change, radically and with speed, but we can do it without fearing for our lives.

So when the polling stations are open tomorrow, step out and take a minute or two from your hectic schedule and vote for what you want, get connected and hold the elected representatives to account for what they have done in YOUR name.

The One That Was Genuinely Sad. . .

It's not too often I praise the BBC, but I believe that credit is due where it is due and so I will take the unusual step of saying how impressed I was with the last two episodes (I missed those that preceded them) of 'The Lost World of Communism'. The last two editions featuring the artistic, well, Bohemian and dignified disobedience of Vaclav Havel and his mates in the former Czechoslovakia and latterly the family run business of the Ceaucescus in Romania.

Something Leg Iron has posted tonight about the over 40's being 'invited' to go for a health 'MOT' prodded at a point that I found most disturbing when watching the show last night.

I fail to understand why people attach themselves to Socialism, there will always be the situation in Socialism where the rights, views and ideals of person A trumps the rights, views and ideals of person B. I do not believe that anyone's rights (and I prefer the word Liberties) can be more important than anyone else's. When one person's needs are overriding someone else's then the only outcome will be resentment, and we're seeing the consequences of that ourselves.

Socialism is not Communism, it is embryonic Communism. As far as I'm concerned, being a Socialist is akin to only being racist against Chinese people. Only a little bit racist. But that undesirable aspect is still there.

The BBC show portrayed, without amplification and without sympathy, the soul crushing misery that a collective system like Communism produces. It wasn't the imprisonment for daring to criticise or lampoon the authorities, the restrictions on travel, having your house bulldozed in front of your eyes and being moved into a freshly built hovel with no windows, doors, heating or water, it wasn't the big things that filled me with despair for the people who had to exist in those conditions, for that is what it was, an existence rather than a life. It was the little things that made me feel so very, very angry; grandparents being forced to queue for 14 hours for half a pat of butter for their grandchild, having your ID confiscated by the police because you were male and had long hair, having to hold a Christening for your child in secret, lest the Securitate find out. To subject people to such inhuman indignity is unspeakable.

Leg-Iron's tirade against the 'health MOT' reminded me of the monthly intimate inspections visited upon women of childbearing age in Communist Romania, to check they had not had an abortion. In the world of State ownership, not even a women's uterus is her own.

A 'health MOT' and an intimate monthly inspection are not the same things, but they are of the same essence. The difference between the two is the same as the difference between a burger and a filet mignon, but the similarity is that they are both beef.

Socialists and Communists in the UK would maintain that what happened in Romania could never happen here, but I think they are naive. I don't hate them, I would never embark on some McCarthyist campaign, but to look at the list, China, North Korea, USSR, Cuba, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Cambodia, good God, Cambodia, anyone who thinks that a British Socialist utopia would be different is living in a dream world.

The problem with a system where there is no accountability will always end up with one person sitting at the top imposing their own beliefs on everybody else. It is a sad fact of life that politics and especially high office, attract people who are convinced of their own infallibility, their mission from God or their quest to change the world into something in their own image. It will be done for our own good, if we disagree we are either mad or idiots, either way we are not worthy of listening to. Where this kind of person takes indefinite charge of a country, misery is the only outcome, it is human nature and a lack of recognition of human nature has always been Communism's biggest failing both in the governing and the governed.

Examine Brown's reaction to the attack on him in the Dan Hannan video, he sits there grinning away. He isn't grinning because if he doesn't he'll be scowling on the front page of every paper, he's grinning because he really, honestly thinks that most people share his thoughts during the speech. 'Jeez, listen to this guy, he's absolutely barking, he thinks I'm screwing it up! Boy is he going to look silly on the news tonight.' Brown thinks he's winning and that the moonbat will be held up as the nutter's nutter.

In the case of Communism, there must be conformity, there must be a working towards the common purpose, the easiest way to ensure conformity is to stifle and remove dissent.

When I look at what we have here in the UK, and perhaps more importantly, in the EU, I see shades of that Communism, of that obligation to conform, to do as I am told for my own good. I see a burger, but as I look down the table I see that fillet steak and realise it's made of the same stuff as the patty in front of me.

The One That Doesn't Understand The Problem . . .

Why are people so obsessed with other peoples' relationships? I remember the very earnest, and in some cases reactionary debate over 'civil partnerships.' I didn't see what all the fuss was about.

I'm straight so would never be interested in marrying a man. If two men or two women decide that they love each other and want to make a commitment to each other, well you're not hurting me, so if it makes you happy, then go ahead. I wish you the best of luck.

I was astounded that there was even a referendum on the subject in California over the subject, one which threw same sex marriages out. Why? What possible harm are they doing? If you don't agree with marrying someone of the same sex, then don't do it.

One of the problems is that marriage is seen as the preserve of the religious establishment, and the problem with the religious establishment is that God has told them what should and should not be done. It's difficult to argue with what people say God wants, that is the only response in what quickly becomes a circular argument:

Me: Why shouldn't gay people get married?
Them: Because God says so.
Me: But they're not doing any harm.
Them: Yes they are, they're upsetting God.
Me: Well how do you know this?
Them: It says so, in this book.
Me: Well how do you know this is the word of God?
Them: Because God says it is.

And you can go on like that, well, until Judgement Day. I hold the opinion that it is my soul, I'll take decisions regarding it and deal with the consequences myself.

During the debate about same sex marriages I remember a lot of politicians hiding behind the religious argument when the real issue might have been that they just didn't like gay people very much and I think this is evident by the fact that in this country, at least, gay people still can't get married, they can only have civil partnerships. Why stop short? Straight couples can get married without any religious involvement at all, so why should it be any different for gay people?

So it was with interest that I read this story on Al-Beeb today. In a nutshell, Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for Community Cohesion (don't even get me started, what in the wide, wide world of sports is that?) had decreed that cultural sensitivity has meant politicians have neglected to discuss polygamy.

She wants all religious marriages to be registered to prevent men marrying more than one woman.

Well, why? What's the problem? Where has this value judgement come from? Why should people only be allowed to marry one person? That may be the majority Christian view, but is that any reason to impose that value on everyone else?

There will be those who say with a hint of indignation that we are a Christian country and should operate as such. Fine, then have the guts to ask for what you really want, a theocracy. I understand religious observance to be complete, you either believe and follow or you don't, there's no 'I support the teachings of the Church except that bit, and that, and some of that, oh, and I don't agree with that at all'. To be faithful means you submit yourself entirely to the will of God. So let's have a theocracy then, let's ban Islam, throw out the Hindus, lock the Jews in a big old warehouse and burn it to the ground, enforce attendance at church every Sunday. Let's take a leaf out of the Saudis' book and have brigades of religious police touring the streets, sweeping anyone up they decide has broken the religious moral code, Lord knows the political police are nearly there.

Look, arseholes, doesn't matter if it's a man with women or a woman with men, there's nothing wrong with polygamy, as long all those involved are adults, aware of the situation and enter into it of their own free will. Who are they hurting? Nobody. So just keep your bloody nose out of what doesn't concern you.

We either live in a country with personal and religious freedom, or we don't. It can't be done by degrees. You can't say 'you have personal freedom unless you want to marry another man or want to live with more than one woman.' That isn't freedom, and don't pretend it is, because I understand that God really hates liars.

The One That Will NOT Comply. . .

More bollock juggling from a government department and a 'charidee'.

I'm not going to do a full fisking here. I don't have the patience, but two quotes jump out and hit me in the face.

Firstly:

children's lives in Britain have become "more difficult than in the past [...] more young people are anxious and troubled".

Well I should think so. Without getting all misty eyed and nostalgic, when I was a kid and off school, my mum wouldn't see me for hours and hours, although she would always know what I was doing, who I was with, where I was doing it and when I would be back. There was nothing uncommon or unusual about my social and recreational life as a child.

Now there are two camps. There are those whose parents couldn't give a toss about, have no direction, no aspiration and no self respect. Then there are those who aren't given space to breath by their parents who are petrified that the nonces on every street corner hiding in the bushes will screw their arses raw, or they'll have drugs forced upon them, or will have an accident from scraping a knee to breaking an arm, so are kept inside. Or (and) they are brow beaten my a government that is obsessed with measuring, charting and appraising every facet of their development, whilst telling them they are too fat/stupid/unhealthy/clever/dangerous/in danger and a whole host of other things.

Kids aren't free to be kids any more, just like rest of us they are hectored and lectured all day, every day. Kids aren't stupid and they know what's going on, they just know there's sod all they can do about it.

Then there's little nugget:

Individual freedom and self-determination bring many blessings, [. . .] But in Britain... the balance has tilted too far

No. Fuck you. The balance is not skewed by individual freedoms and self-determination it is skewed by the complete removal of any responsibility for one's self or one's children.

The report says that selfish parents are a bad thing. Well tell us something we don't know. Of course it is. But how have these parents been made selfish? Is it down to the fact they are told that they are entitled to free money, for doing nothing? Is it down to the fact that those who decide to support themselves without the asphyxiating grip of the state are punished for their decision and must work twice as hard to get that which is given to those who take the handouts? Is it down to the fact that some people are just selfish bastards and would be bad parents regardless?

The answer to all the above is 'yes.'

The One That Just Wants To Give A Gentle Reminder. . .

Posting the video on my previous post, just set my mind back to this event, for me, more powerful than the wall coming down.

The moment that an unelected leader, convinced of his own brilliance, unable to hear the truth, spinning lies and false statistics, realises that the moment the country has had enough, there's nothing he can do about it.

Just a reminder, like.

The One That Thinks It Is A Bloody Shame. . .

So the jury at the De Menezes Coroner's inquest has returned an open verdict.

They really had very little choice given that the Coroner prohibited them from returning a verdict that they may have wanted to. It appears the Coroner was under a good deal of pressure from the legal teams representing the police to disallow a verdict of unlawful killing.

I wasn't in the courtroom, I don't have all the facts, but it seems outrageous to me that an independent figure is either pressured into or makes the decision off their own back to make this ruling. It kind of makes the whole exercise a pointless one. Given the information that has come out it would seem reasonable to suggest that the jury would have returned that very verdict they were forbidden from passing.

So the list gets a little longer:

Arrest of opposition MPs
Collection of communications data for all
Entry of all citizens onto a DNA database
The right of entry without a warrant
Systematic and obtrusive surveillance
The right of long-term detention without charge
The right to arrest and detain without detailing the evidence against the individual
The right to stop and search for no apparent reason
The right to imprison those who cannot/will not provide ID on request
The removal of habeas corpus
The extradition of citizens to a third country without prima facie evidence
The removal of the right to trial by jury
The gagging of juries where they exist
The removal of the right to protest outside Parliament
The arrest of dissenters at political rallies under anti-terror laws

And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense.

The One That Doesn't Understand Why They Don't Get It. . .

Look! Look at it! This is dangerous and is causing 6% of hospital admissions, crippling the NHS.

Except it isn't.

You see a pint of beer, glass of wine, bottle of alchopop or multiples thereof no more cause hospital admissions than a badger.

It is individuals that drink bloody stupid amounts of alcohol that cause them. I know that if I drink a stupid amount of alcohol that I will start talking very loudly, tell everyone I love them and eventually will fall over, no doubt causing myself an injury requiring medical attention. I also know that if I go out and attempt to pick up a badger that I will suffer multiple bites and lose blood. Therefore I do neither of the above.

Of course our government doesn't see it that way. They don't think I am sufficiently wise to make a decision myself, so they intend to hold retailers responsible. Apparently retailers do not display enough information about alcoholic units (which are bullshit anyway) or propaganda about temperance.

What this requires is, surprise surprise, tough new laws for retailers who don't waste enough effort pointing out the bleeding obvious. This is akin to holding the motortrade accountable for road accidents for not displaying posters saying 'Hey! If you drive on the wrong side of the road, you'll probably crash' and 'Running people down really hurts them'.

If you take an average Friday night, the amount of people out drinking will be, ooooh, loads. The amount admitted to hospital will be not many.

Problem: Some people can't go out for the night without getting absolutely trolleyed, starting fights and ending up in hospital.

Solution: If these people can't behave responsibly then target those people, rather than all of us, by making them re-imburse the tax payer for their medical treatment or custody.


DON'T
START
FUCKING
BANNING
STUFF

I understand that our authoritarian government want a population of mindless dolts with no capacity to think for themselves, but the only logical end of that policy is the complete destruction of the nation, no business, no arts, no academic excellence, bankruptcy and complete reliance on a state that will have neither the skills nor the resources to look after the population.

Just look at the former Communist bloc, is that really what these people want? Believe me you arrogant little politico fucktards, you really don't have the skills or wisdom to run Utopia, you are, to be frank, shit at the job you do at the moment. You simply aren't ready for any more control.

So how about leaving me to make decisions about my life, and leaving me to deal with consequences if I make the wrong decisions? It'll be my fault then, not yours, there'll be no 'something must be done'.

In other words, just fuck off leave me alone, will you? If I came up to you and continually flicked you on the cheek, you'd ask me to stop, if I didn't quit it, you'd end up smacking me one.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

The One That Is Saying 'Oh, Do You Think?' . . .

This report from Al-Beeb:

A central database holding details of everyone's phone calls and emails could be a "step too far for the British way of life", ministers have been warned.

Oh, do you think?

Just that step, is it?

Plans to hold everybody's DNA on a database? Fine.
Plans to lock people in their houses if they commit the terrible crime of being young? Sure thing.
Plans to hand over all our personal information to foreign governments? No worries.
Ignoring the country's desire to have a say over our participation in the EU? Go for your life.

Commissioner Richard Thomas is right, but let's face it, none of the above really sit too comfortably with the history and ideals of this country do they?

The One That Says It Is None Of Their Bloody Business. . .

Here's an interesting little article from the New York Times about EU plans to hand over personal details about us to the US government, including credit card transactions, travel history and internet browsing history.

What? Excuse me? The above is absolutely nothing to do with my government, let alone the government of another fucking country.

Let us set aside the concerns about our government's absolutely God awful record of data handling and the very lax rules and slip-shod fashion about personal data in the US.

The fact is, which internet sites I visit and what I spend my cash on is absolutely nothing to do with the Seppo's. Look west and you will see the future for us in the UK and EU. American society is dog whistle politics at its very worst.

I recently had a trip to Canada and got talking to a Toronto native about their relationship with the USA. This individual was telling me about the ridiculous demands the US made of Canada in this respect and that September 11th had turned the Americans into a victim society. Her point went something like this: 'In Europe, certainly the UK, you've become used to terrorist attacks, you just get on with life. Over the border it is the end of the world and no-one else could understand what it's like, because these were attacks on Americans.'

It struck a chord, Pearl Harbour and the half-arsed attempt on the WTC previously aside, America has never had to deal with this before, the British, Spanish and French have all had terrorist problems and are well used to dealing with them, the Americans aren't. It is so startling to see the land of the free, a country prone to paranoia and isolationism at the best of times (McCarthyism, anyone?) give up their liberty so freely, never have the words of Ben Franklin rung so true.

That is a point for them though. But I cannot tolerate our anti-democratic EU commissariat just handing over my details. I'm assuming that this will only apply to people flying from the EU to the US. A shame, despite my ranting here, I enjoy visiting the USA, I like the people, New York and Boston are two of the most stimulating and exciting cities in the world, watching ice hockey at the Garden, or baseball at Fenway under floodlight and a whole host of other things make going there a real pleasure. However, my very occasional trips over the pond will be restricted to Canada, a much more civilised place.

Just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I need to walk around bollock naked. My business is mine, no-one else's.

The One That Thinks David Davis Is A Total Fucking Hero. . .

<--- This is David Davis, and he is a total fucking hero.

When he made his statement this afternoon criticising the new 42 day detention law and the government's 'slow strangulation' of our most important and basic freedoms, it was the first time I have ever sat and applauded a politician whilst watching TV, actually, it was the first time I've ever applauded a politician at all.

I am absolutely delighted that a politician, and a proper heavyweight with some substance about them, has the balls to stand up and say enough. This admiration is matched only by the horror I felt at hearing that over 60% of the population supported the 42 day law. Have things come to this that like turkeys voting for Christmas, we will support moves to curb our liberty? How far does this support go? Do the population support one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK, the most intrusive ID card scheme in the world, a database containing the DNA of millions of people who have done nothing wrong, just in case? All these issues are linked, and I would hope that the majority of people are against this, if not then perhaps it is us as Libertarians that are out of touch, rather than the illiberal authoritarian political class who hold power as and end rather than a means to an end. If it is we who are out of touch then I could weep rather than shout about the idiocy and short-sightedness of the electorate like those connected to NuLabour.

I hope beyond hope that David wins his by-election at a stroll and a clear message is sent to the leadership of all the political parties that we have simply had enough of this.

Cynics say it is a blitzkrieg against Cameron's leadership. If it is, so what? If Davis is genuine, and he certainly gave the impression of being so during his speech at Westminster today, then perhaps he is the man to save us from this disturbing and odious morass.

And David, if the Tories don't want you after this, I'm sure I can think of one party that would be happy to talk to you.

I congratulate you, Sir.