Sovereignty will leave the Commons with Michael Martin

From the LPUK blog:

British Sovereignty will leave the Commons with Michael Martin. It seems that the Europhiles have another victory by removing the last vestige of sovereignty from the Commons. Subtle, smoke and mirrors, but most important.

Two days ago I questioned the motives behind the extraordinary revelations by the Telegraph, exposing the excesses of the MP's and Speaker. Yes, they needed exposing, but I questioned the timing, I questioned the real motivation. I suggested then that this was part of the bigger EU plan to destroy the Authority of Parliament (updated this morning), it seems that Brown has qualified my theory and done the work of the Europhiles with his announcements on 'reform'. Subtle, smoke and mirrors, but most important.

Michael Martin, his abysmal work done, is now expendable, as are all those who have allowed their greed to prevail over their oath, and allowed others to to steal like thieves the goodwill and vested interest of Britain and its Parliament. I have no qualms in referring to them as Traitors.

As Michael Martin leaves for the last time on June 21st, the power of his office will set firm within the executive, and his authority will be given away to a quango to oversee the MP's who file into the house to rubber stamp fresh deliveries of directives from Brussels.

One senior Conservative David Davis proclaimed that the new speaker will be 'the most powerful in history' adding: 'This is a time for the House of Commons to find a new voice and that voice may not be the voice of the existing establishment.' Mr Davis is most telling with that statement.

The role of speaker will be reduced to that of a process manager, merely there to tick the boxes, stop the children squabbling and calling the order of business for the day, pre-set by the executive's Leader of the House.

Richard North on the EU Referendum blog sums this up more succinctly than I..

Before he goes, it seems, Speaker Martin is determined to complete the task of emasculating Parliament, destroying the last vestiges of the doctrine that it is "sovereign in its own House".

Thus, according to reports, Martin is set to push through radical change before he steps down, with the Cabinet this morning set to place the House of Commons "in the hands of independent regulators rather than the House itself."

As to future Speakers, the nature of their role will change. There will no longer be a Speaker who is in charge as chief executive. He will be procedural and ceremonial.

Even in the manner of the Speaker's resignation, we see Parliament showing its weakness rather than its strength. As my co-editor observes, this has not come about at the behest of the House of Commons as it ought to. Clearly, the prime minister has told him to go.

"Thus, the House has not managed to impose its authority even over him. This was a small test and they failed. The Speaker is still the Executive's bully boy; it's just that he is no longer useful to them."

And, with his departure, we see not the House instigating its own reforms, but the Cabinet – i.e., the Executive – using its satrap to impose changes. Thus we are to see – if this travesty goes ahead - the "mother of parliaments" deemed no longer capable of running its own affairs, its management to be vested in "independent regulators" – unelected, of course, and financed by the government. Speaker Lenthall would be turning in his grave.

However, since Parliament has largely been relegated to "procedural and ceremonial" matters, it is only appropriate that the Speaker should be allocated a similar role. But a Parliament which is no longer in charge of regulating its own affairs – and thus dis-empowered - can no longer lay claim to regulating the conduct of government.

In the fullness of time, I suppose, the new body – which we could call the Parliamentary Regulatory Agency Temporary (or "Offtrough" for short) – will have to be brought under the control of the about-to-be formed European Parliamentary Regulatory Agency. Clearly, under the Single Market, different rules cannot be allowed for different national parliaments.

Then the take-over will be complete, with Speaker Martin being remembered for his scorched earth policy which finally destroyed the very idea of an independent parliament in Westminster.

I do not and will not accept the rule of Brussels.
I am not a European citizen as the EU is not a state.
I am British, a citizen of the United Kingdom.

I take the vow now that I shall seek all legal and peaceful means to retain the absolute Sovereignty of the United Kingdom as a nation state, and the sovereignty loaned from the people vested in the House of Commons, unless and until the people of the United Kingdom agree to political union with others through the ballot box.

The lines are being drawn one by one by this Government. They shall draw no more for me to cross.

We really ARE so fucked

Completely plagiarised from Raedwald:

Have you paid a parking fine recently? Got three points on your licence? Been formally warned by the council for your bin protruding on the footway? (yep, I have had the £1,000 fine threat on the last one) Been suspended from your Sunday football league for rough tackling? (yes, seriously) Congratulations! Your records could soon be added to a pan-European database of subversives. This EU Council decision of 20th January on the establishment of a pan-EU 'criminal' database includes the following 'offences' :-

• Offences related to waste
• Unintentional environmental offences
• Insult of the State, Nation or State symbols
• Insult or resistance to a representative of public authority
• Public order offences, breach of the public peace
• Revealing a secret or breaching an obligation of secrecy
• Unintentional damage or destruction of property
• Offences against migration law - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
• Offences against military obligations - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
• Unauthorised entry or residence
• Other offences an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
• Other unintentional offences
• Prohibition from frequenting some places
• Prohibition from entry to a mass event
• Placement under electronic surveillance ("fixed or mobile" - eg: home, car, mobile phone etc)
• Withdrawal of a hunting / fishing license
• Prohibition to play certain games/sports
• Prohibition from national territory
• Personal obligation - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
• "Fine" - all fines. inc minor non-criminal offences

All those of us who have ever accidentally spilled a cupful of diesel in the water when refuelling, dropped a piece of litter or called the EU circle of stars a fascist and totalitarian symbol are now, officially, criminals. Welcome to the club.

We really are completely and utterly fucked.

Update: Via the Islander, these:





Fuck off, you cunts!

Here's an Idea: Let's Learn Absolutely Nothing

From the Mises Economic blog:

Here's Lionel Robbins, from his 1934 book The Great Depression, giving us the advice that was ignored then and is being ignored now:

"The habit of intervening to prop up unsound positions and to support particular interests must cease. Nothing must be done which will encourage business men to believe that they will not be allowed to go under if they make mistakes or if the conditions of the market make necessary a contraction of their industry. Instead of being more and more an official of the State, hampered on all sides by administrative rules and regulations, the business man should be freed as far as possible to perform that function which is his main justification in a society organized, not for the benefit of the part but of the whole, namely, the assumption of risk and the planning of initiative. The same principle must underlie the treatment of private property. Property must be left to stand on its own legs. Intervention to maintain the value of existing property - i.e., to frustrate the effects of change in the conditions of demand and supply - must cease. The property owner must learn that only by continually satisfying the demands of the consumer can he hope to maintain intact its value. Only in such conditions can we hope for the emergence of a structure of industry which is stable in the sense that it can change without recurrent catastrophe."

Entering the House without a Warrant

This unelected 'public servant' blagged his way into searching Damian Green's Parliamentary offices, seizing his computers, telephones and Blackberry without a Warrant.Only on a consent form signed by the Serjeant, who was not aware of the right to refuse entry.

David Winnick MP (Labour)has called for the above 'officer' to be called to the bar of the House to explain his actions. He should do so, along with the Home Secretary.

The Police have unfortunately got used to barging their way into our homes without warrants, along with a multitude of other 'officials' thanks to this 'outraged' Parliament. The House of Commons cannot expect special priviliges, whilst denying the same to the Electorate.

The Speakers Statement that only he will sign a consent on the production of a Warrant is welcome, but what of protection for every citizen from a Police Force out of control.

From Guthrum at UKLP.

Child abuse was rarer in Victorian slums

Patrick Vessey over at the LPUK blog discusses a letter in today's Telegraph:

Sir - We seem to want to take comfort in the belief that child abuse was just as common in the past.

Child abuse to the death is many times more common where the mother was not married to the father and the present boyfriend is not the child's father. Those household arrangements are many times more common than in the past.

We need not depend on theory. The great empirical study of slum life in Victorian England was Charles Booth's survey of the East End of London. Of child abuse he wrote: "I can only speak as I have found: wholesome, pleasant family life … affectionate relationships of husbands and wives, mothers and sons, elders and children."

From 13 volumes of observations, he concluded that this "agreeable picture" applied to 98.75 per cent of the population of East End slums - chosen by him as the worst in England. The "dangerous class" accounted for 1.25 per cent, and these few "fouled the reputation of the poor".

Would that it were 1.25 per cent today. Yet Booth is often quoted as the authority on the social disorder and moral squalor that the welfare state removed.

Norman Dennis, Director of Community Studies, Civitas, London SW1

And the difference today? The destruction of family and natural community as an intentional policy by the powers that be. Such structures were crucial in providing stability and support in the past. The introduction of the 'welfare state' may have been well intentioned, but it started the inexorable slide away from such community-based support structures. This has been exacerbated by policies intentionally designed to further fracture local cohesion, such as the ban on smoking in public houses, which has turned them from centres of the community to empty, soulless places, suitable only for the lagering-up of modern youth.

As ever, the (possibly) well intentioned have wrought havoc by thinking that they know best, and can best 'look after' us all. They can't. A return to the mutual support of years gone by is necessary, and the only way to improve much of the social malaise in our nation. But that would mean a far smaller role for the state, so will be resisted at all costs by Labour and Tory alike.

Matt Davies of the Woking Libertarians raises another nanny state classic:

Daily Fail

In the latest initiative designed to make us more environmentally friendly, Government advisers are calling on businesses to appoint tea monitors to make sure staff don't overfill the kettle at work.

The quango Envirowise is also telling workers to use teapots when making rounds of hot drinks and is calling for a return of old-fashioned tea urns.

Envirowise - which gets £10million a year from taxpayers to advise businesses on being green - says the crackdown will cut greenhouse gas emissions and help beleaguered businesses save money.

Critics pointed out that in the current testing economic times, small firms had bigger problems to worry about than tea bags.

Susie Squire of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: 'This is yet another example of a taxpayer-funded quango doling out useless advice. People are sick of these quangocrats wasting our time and money.'

Envirowise - which is funded by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - estimates that more than 30billion cups of water are unnecessarily boiled each year.

Could you make this up? Oh no.

Now once again, most people paying attention will know that most of these quangos, and indeed DEFRA itself, basically report direct to our masters in Brussels.

Is is 10 million (stolen from the the taxpayer) worth it?


Is it fuck. The only people who should be funding this, IF, they want to, is the business themselves. They have to fund the energy bills and if they want to take an environmental line, that is up to them too. Robbing people to fund this kind of utter shite, is morally repugnant.

Yep the EU is the source of this shit, but they wouldn't be able to do this, if it wasn't for the traitors we have in Westminster.

1984 isn't an instruction manual. Let's hope the 1984 campaign reminds them of that tomorrow.

I'm personally not that optimistic ...

Call Me Dave and the Porkie Pies

IanPJ has this:

Mr Cameron's Conservatives are calling on the government to allow small and medium-sized enterprises to defer their VAT bills for up to six months. Thus does Mr Cameron tell us, via The Observer:

That means a typical small business with 50 employees, revenues of £5m and an annual net VAT bill of £350,000, doesn't have to find £90,000 to pay the taxman when the bank has just taken away its overdraft.

There are, however, just one or two tiny little problems with this idea. VAT is, of course, an EU tax, implemented via the VAT 6th Directive. A payment holiday on VAT would amount to a de facto reduction in the rate of tax, which is not permissible without the unanimous approval of all 27 EU member states, following a proposal to that effect from the Commission – which it not required to deliver.

That, though, might be the least of Mr Cameron's tiny little problems. Member states are required under EU law to collect VAT, a proportion of which goes to the EU coffers – known as the "own resource". Collection procedures are also defined by EU law, requiring the imposition of penalties on late payment – typically one percent per month. Changing these procedures unilaterally, guess what, is not permissible without the unanimous approval of all 27 EU member states, following a proposal to that effect from the Commission – which it not required to deliver.

Under certain circumstances, member states are entitled to adopt a simplified procedure for charging VAT, under Directive 2006/69/EC, but that does not include any provision for delaying tax payments. To the contrary, the Directive allows special provisions to enable member states to "prevent distortion of competition," which rather shows where EU priorities lie.

If these hurdles were somehow to be overcome, however, unilateral action by the UK in offering a tax holiday would certainly be considered a "distortion of competition" under Single Market rules. At the very least, Commission permission would have to be given, which will not necessarily be forthcoming.

And, since Mr Cameron's proposals affect only small and medium-sized businesses, larger firms might be moved to complain. A company like McDonalds, for instance, would have a just complaint. It regards itself as a "group of small businesses" under one banner. Fighting as it does for market share in competition with other high street outlets, it could argue that different rules on payment would most certainly distort competition.

There is also the matter of state aid. Broad-brush aid – which includes tax-breaks of any form, directed at one sector rather than applied uniformly – would most likely be considered illegal. At the very least, Commission approval would be required, which might not be forthcoming.

Then there is one other tiny little detail. Numerous studies – not least this one - have drawn attention to the danger of deferred VAT payments, making the system even more vulnerable to fraud. This is already a massive problem. Would Mr Cameron want to add to that problem?

Nevertheless, armed with his brilliant idea, that brave Mr Cameron has told Gordon Brown that he, "cannot hide from the truth." Thus adds the leader of the opposition, "In the short term, we've got to help families up and down the country with proposals to get them through the downturn."

This is stirring stuff, but with the "elephant" rampaging through the undergrowth, one wonders just who is hiding from the truth.

Hattip EU Referendum


Now Cameron has been in parliament long enough to know ALL of this, so his speech last week and his writing in The Observer are untruths. If he doesn't know all of this, then he is not bright enough to be in Parliament.

When politicians start to tell the whole truth and stop this charade and theatre about our relationship with Europe, tell the truth about the European Union competence in virtually every area of government, tell the truth about the lack of ability to act remaining in Westminster, instead telling untruths to get the quick soundbytes to win votes, then perhaps people might just believe them when they speak.

So if you run a small or medium business, no matter what Cameron is promising, you can forget about a VAT holiday, the EU wont let you.

1984 is not an instruction manual

Via Old Holborn, this:

This book cost less than a fiver

Are you prepared to spend the price of a couple of pints for your freedom ?

On November 5th 1605 Guido Fawkes, 'the only man to enter Parliament with honest intent' sought to end the repressive rule of a King from Scotland who brought repression to the Country. The rule of the Stuarts ended on the battlefield of Naseby, with Absolutism subordinate to the rule of Law and Parliament.

The United Kingdom has now become riven with Cameras, unaccountable Local Authorities losing millions in Iceland. Who is speaking up for the people of this Country, as we are plundered as taxpayers to prop up the Banks, not the MP's thats for sure.

We want to send a message to Parliament, we want 646 copies of '1984', one to be sent to each member of Parliament- make your pledge at

1984@lpuk.org

to send a copy to arrive on November 5th. You can even nominate who you would like to receive it. Jacui Smith will be receiving my "gift" as I wander around outside Parliament, dressed as Guy Fawkes himself.

The Libertarian Party with the support of other organisations will ensure that each member of the Cabinet will get a copy, with an appropriate message.

Think - If you cannot be bothered to Act, then stop whining and continue to be 'taxed unto your meat and drink'

Do something. This is designed to gently remind the 646 bastards who are currently ruining the lives of millions that they rule by our consent and it is not perpetual. Remind them with a book

Governments should be afraid of their people. People should never be afraid of their governments.

See you all on the 5th. If you can't make it in person, send a gift of one little book to whichever of the evil 646 you choose.

Whats in a name? - beware the Lawmakers

Via IanPJ:

The name of a law has little if anything to do with how it will be applied:

The Government used anti-terrorism powers to freeze an estimated £4 billion of British financial assets in Landsbanki, Icesave’s parent bank. A spokesman for the Treasury said that the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was invoked as a “precautionary measure”. (the Times)

If the law itself, in this case (s4) Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, does not say something along the lines of, “this may only be used against people or organisations reasonably suspected of terrorism, crime or acting against national security” (s4 doesn’t), it will be used against other people or organisations.

Likewise,

“We have had plenty of examples recently of local councils using existing anti-terrorist legislation for completely different purposes than the legislation was ever set up to do,” Tory peer Baroness Hanham said. (the BBC)

Promises that a law will only be used against terrorists are worthless. What matters is what the legislation itself says.

We have problems if legislators don’t understand how legislation works.

We have warned many times on this blog that the majority of the draconian anti terror and rights stripping laws enacted by this government (80% at the behest of the unelected European Commission) over the past 11 years has not really been aimed at terrorists, but have ultimately been designed to be aimed at and used on you, the public.

The examples above merely reinforce that view.

Hattip UKLiberty

Government secures councils stashed millions in Icelandic banks

Jaw-dropping stuff from IanPJ:

The BBC is reporting that The Tories and Lib Dems are urging ministers to "clear up the uncertainty" about hundreds of millions of pounds councils invested in Iceland's banks.

We can tell you that over the past 24 hours the Treasury have taken steps using Statutory Instruments to secure those funds as follows.

Yesterday, the Treasury laid the following SI (2008 No. 2644), Statutory Instrument . The Heritable Bank plc Transfer of Certain Rights and Liabilities Order 2008.). which came into force at 9.30 a.m. on 7 October 2008.

This SI made provisions to transfer certain rights and liabilities to be transferred from Heritable Bank Plc (“Heritable”) to Deposits Management (Heritable) Limited and for the operation of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in relation to the transfer.

It also stated that Deposits Management (Heritable) is wholly owned by the Treasury (or to be
regarded as wholly owned by the Treasury for the purposes of the Act).


This was followed by a new SI (2008 No. 2668), laid before parliament at 12.00 8th October 08, called the The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008.

However, it is the wording of this SI that surprised me.

The Treasury believe that action to the detriment of the United Kingdom’s economy (or part of it) has been or is likely to be taken by certain persons who are the government of or resident of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
The Treasury, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 4 and 14 of and Schedule 3 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001(a), make the following Order:

Are we really so desperate that we are using Anti Terror laws against our friendly neighbours. They do say that you have no friends where money is concerned, or is it being used so that no-one has to give any information about it.

Having read the BBC report, I am wondering why the LibDem's and Tories would be asking what is happening, they would have received this information way in advance of me being able to see it.

Secondly, it begs the question in a time of fiscal restraint, where local authorities and councils are pleading poverty, raising taxes on anything they can find that isnt screwed down, raising Council tax wherever possible, where has all this money come from, that these councils could 'invest' it in Icelandic banks, outside of the constraints of the FSA and other regulators.

Meanwhile, Reuters is reporting that Iceland's government said on Wednesday it believed there was a good chance the assets of Landsbanki, now taken under government control, would cover deposits made by savers in Britain in IceSave.

Whew, that's alright then, for a moment I thought that this was where all the government money laundering was going on.

What the fuck???? The councils have been shuffling money into Icesave??

Social Engineering: The creation of a criminal society

Via IanPJ:

The Daily Telegraph tells us today that virtually all of us are criminals, that we break the law every day, in fact it says that millions of us who consider ourselves law abiding citizens break around 7 laws per week.

The most common offences are speeding, texting or talking while driving, dropping litter, downloading music illegally or riding bicycles on the pavement. Other daily crimes include eating or drinking while driving, parking on pavements or not wearing a seatbelt.

But that surely depends on what you consider to be a crime. We all understand that Bank Robbery and Murder are crimes because they are assaults on the person or property, but do we also consider that putting to much rubbish in your bin is a crime, driving at 75mph on the motorway, or dropping an apple core is a real crime.


The Open University tries to explain Crime thus.

The Meaning of Crime.

What is a crime? Good question, but how to go about answering it? For most of us, most of the time, crime is something other people do. So why not check that against personal experience? Have a go at the questionnaire below, private and confidential we assure you. Estimate the total fines and prison sentences you might have under gone had you been caught, charged and convicted of these offences.

Table 1

	Incident	Offence	Maximum Penalty
1	Have you ever bought goods knowing or believing they may have been stolen?	Handling stolen property	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
2	Have you taken stationery or anything else from your office/work?	Theft	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
3	Have you ever used the firm's telephone for personal calls?	Dishonestly abstracting electricity	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
4	Have you ever kept money if you received too much in change?	Theft	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
5	Have you kept money found in the street?	Theft	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
6	Have you taken ‘souvenirs’ from a pub/hotel?	Theft	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
7	Have you ever left a shop without paying in full for your purchases?	Making off without payment	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
8	Have you used a television without buying a licence?	Using a television without a licence	£1,000 fine
9	Have you ever fiddled your expenses?	Theft	£5,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment
10	Have you ever been in possession of cannabis?	Misuse of drugs	£2,500 and/or 3 months imprisonment
Total			Fine =
			Prison Sentence =

(Source: Muncie and McLaughlin, 1996, p. 37)

Comment

How did you get on? It may be that you are a perfectly law-abiding citizen who has never knowingly committed a crime. Our answers indicate that at best, if convicted only a single time in each case, we would have spent a total of six years in jail and been fined up to £61,000! As you might imagine we don't consider ourselves habitual criminals or persistent offenders. Yet crime, often thought of as abnormal, minority behaviour is, according to our experience, something that is widespread, perhaps even a majority pursuit.

How can these different senses of crime be reconciled with each other? Have another look at the questionnaire. Does it assume a particular way of thinking about crime? The Maximum Penalty column is the give-away. All of the offences carry fines or the possibility of imprisonment. So there is an assumption that crimes are acts that are codified in law; in this case a law that has been created, policed and enforced by the UK state (the police, the criminal justice system, parliament, the Home Office, etc.). Crimes are acts which break the law of the land. Think of this as the legal definition of crime.

Another place to start answering a question like What is a crime? is a dictionary. And even the Oxford English Dictionary sees things in a more complex light than the legal definition of crime. The OED defines crime as:

An act punishable by law, as being forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare … An evil or injurious act; an offence, sin; esp. of a grave character.

But this definition begs a whole host of questions. Ones that come immediately to mind are: Does the law cover all acts that are injurious to public welfare? Does that include disastrous economic decisions taken by the government? Does the law forbid all the sins of this world? Is it against the law to fail to honour one's mother or father? For an orthodox Muslim consuming alcohol is a sin, but it is hardly a crime codified by UK law. Is it always against the law to take another life? What about conduct in wartime or assisting euthanasia?

The reason that the OED's definition raises more questions than it answers is that the definition combines at least two ways of thinking about crime which are often in practical conflict with each other. On the one hand, crimes can be thought of as acts which break the law – the legal definition of crime. On the other hand, crimes are acts which can offend against a set of norms like a moral code – the normative definition of crime. So, the two meanings of crime can not be reconciled because a great deal of legally-defined crime is not considered to be normatively-defined crime.

However, norms come in different forms. Potentially criminal acts can be judged against formal moral systems, like religious beliefs. Quakers and pacifists, for example, would not accept that refusal to fight in a war was a normative crime, whatever the state might say. Alternatively, some legally-defined crimes might not be unacceptable when judged against the norms, codes and conventions of socially-acceptable behaviour. Many personal telephone calls from work are routinely considered a reasonable perk of the job. Keeping money we find in the street, in small amounts, is just good luck – who's going to ask at lost property anyway? Most office cultures assume that employees service some of their private stationery needs from the office cupboard.

Looking again over the questionnaire, we wondered what someone reading it a hundred years ago might have made of it. For a start they might have wondered what a television or a telephone is. Can there be a crime of not paying your licence fee before there are televisions? Even on a narrow legal definition of crime, what is a crime varies over time. They might also have been surprised that possession of cannabis is a crime. It certainly wasn't when cannabis tincture was routinely available from Victorian pharmacies as a painkiller. It isn't a crime now in parts of the Netherlands.

So what a crime is depends on whether you view it from a legal or a normative perspective; what formal and informal normative codes and conventions you are guided by; what moment in history you are considering; and which particular society you are looking at. There is no simple, fixed, unassailable, objective definition of crime. The meaning of crime cannot be separated from the many and varied uses of the term in a particular society. Social scientists would describe this by saying the meaning of crime is a social construction.

The upshot here is that the current government whilst attempting to create a society where the rules and totally black and white, to keep the people in line totally, in its creation of over 3000 new criminal offences, have obfuscated the law, skewed what people in the UK have always seen as normative, i.e. civil law misdemeanour's, for which they are now faced with overbearing criminal law, the loss of liberty, fines and the criminal records that goes with it.

I feel that it is time to put Crime back in the box, redefine what is and is not a 'Crime', essentially an assault upon person or property, and return the smaller indiscretions back to the civil arena where they belong.

In making everything a crime, creating a nation of criminals, storing every detail on databases and making it available to anyone willing to pay for it, it is small wonder that people have little respect or regard for either the law, or those whose job it is to uphold it.

The priorities are skewed, the real crime goes unpunished in favour of meeting vacuous targets fulfilled by detecting the minor misdemeanour's, it is little wonder then that the citizen feels, and is to all intents and purposes oppressed.

Tories to backtrack on Green taxes and spending

Via IanPJ, this:

Conservative Home is putting forward what it calls an exclusive, that the Tories are flip flopping again, changing their minds and are going to tinker with the taxation system but not change anything.

They tell us:

Two weeks ago ConservativeHome exclusively revealed that the Conservatives were unlikely to renew the pledge to match Labour on spending. A senior frontbencher has now told us that, as part of an ongoing review of economic policy, higher green taxation is very unlikely to feature in the next Conservative manifesto.

Unlikely to feature. What kind of commitment is that?

They go on:

The Tory plan up had been to reduce taxation of families from the proceeds of higher green taxation. Lower taxation of families is now expected to be financed by stricter control of spending. The overall priority, however, will be a reduction in borrowing.

That in anyones books was not reducing taxation at all. That was just replacing one tax with another. Whilst the idea from the Tories of a stricter control on spending is welcomed, it undoubtedly will never go far enough.

Then there is this:

Speeches by David Cameron and George Osborne at the Birmingham Party Conference will warn of very difficult economic times ahead. The Tory leadership believes that the deterioration in the economic situation has vindicated their opposition to calls for a lower overall burden of taxation but they also fear that any moves to increase green taxation (even if offset by lower taxes elsewhere) will worsen an already precarious landscape for British business. There is a particular fear that green taxes will discourage urgently needed investment in new energy generating capacity.

This has to be the biggest load of horse s**t ever. Vindicated their opposition to calls for a lower overall burden of taxation !! What they are telling you here is that the poor schmucks at the lowest end of the taxation system will continue to pay through the nose so that a Tory government can continue to bail our failing businesses. Unbelievable.

As for a fear that green taxes will discourage urgently needed investment is disengenious, what they really fear is that the voters have seen through the Green scam and are not willing to put up with it any more, and they may lose votes over it.

They prove that point themselves by going on to say:

The "Green Shift" (higher taxation of pollution and lower taxation of families) will nonetheless be restated as a medium term goal. Canada's Conservatives have used opposition plans to raise green taxes to devastating electoral effect.

They got wiped out in other words. So the Tory shift in policy has nothing to do with common sense, nothing to do with making the lot of the poor taxpayers any better, its all about winning votes and gaining power, nothing more.

And, they are still missing the point that the man in the street is trying to get across as highlighted in this statement:

Tory economic traditionalists will be disappointed that George Osborne will continue to resist calls for a pro-growth package of tax reliefs. They have taken heart, however, from this week's warnings from the party leadership against panic re-regulation of the financial sector and against protectionist sentiment.

Tax relief packages. Lunacy at your expense.
In order to continue to control the individual, they will sit on the tax relief packages, taking taxes from the lowest paid in the workforce, administering it at a hugely disproportionate cost only to hand it back again as tax relief and benefits. What they should be doing, and what the man in the street is looking for, is getting rid of the lowest levels of taxation completely to break the cycle of dependency, but they won't.

Must control the masses. More of the same from Blue Labour.

Now that Cameron has hoovered up the worst of Tony Blair's old advisors, we can expect more and more of this tom foolery from the Tories.

But, There IS another way!

The Libertarian Party has a range of fiscal policies that would put an end to this cynical game of boom and bust where the public are the only losers, policies to cut back on wasteful Government spending to reduce the tax burden and has undertakings to put an end to the cycle of Spin and the Politics of Fear.

The Only home of Libertarian policy in the UK

Your Life, Your Country, Your Choice.

EU Barmy Rules!

Via the UKIP Blog:

Now's the time to tell the Eurocrats which if their rules we want to see abolished!

The Sun has teamed up with a German and Polish newspaper to take the pulse of the three nations. Which of the bureaucrats' barmy rules should be consigned to the dustbin of history?

Bendy bananas? Carrots are fruit? Biofuels pushing up food prices worldwide?

All worthy contenders of course but there's one much more important.

This one.

Yes, the European Communities Act 1972.

Repeal that one and we'll be free of all their crazed rules, not just one or other of them.

So, start here at The Sun.

In the first box, "European Communities Act 1972".

Second box "Because it is the reason the UK is a member of the EU" or something like that perhaps.

Third box: "If we leave the EU by repealing this Act then we are free of all their barmy bureacrats' rules, not just one." or something like that again.

Fill in the contact details and away we go!

Spread the word around, let's see if we can make our voices heard!

Kezia Dugdale warned off by millionaire's threat of a writ

As bitterly opposed as I am to her party's politics, if something is in the public domain, we all have the right to free speech and comment.

It is bad enough that her party in Government is introducing curbs on free speech, without the crop of Millionaires and their attendant lawyers joining in.

By taking out gagging orders, the converse is true it highlights the issue, not hides it.

From here.

Lehman's Collapse - EU's unexpected response

Via IanPJ:

Global financial markets were in turmoil again on Monday as Wall Street braced itself for a dramatic plunge in share prices after the collapse two major US investment banks.

On Sunday, investment bank Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America for about $50 billion in order to avert a financial crisis. Meanwhile, another top investment bank, Lehman Brothers, filed for bankruptcy protection very early on Monday after it failed to find a buyer.

The New York Times has called it "one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street's history." The Wall Street Journal has named today the "Mother of All Mondays."

Anticipating a sharp drop in share prices when Wall Street opens later on Monday, European stock markets were seeing strong falls, inspired by fears that many European financial companies are exposed to the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

By early afternoon European time, the leading European stock market indices were all between 4 and 6 percent lower. Especially financials were falling and heavily traded. Fortis lost another 12 percent; Barclays 13 percent.

NEWSFLASH - In answer to the crisis in an already over regulated financial market, the EU has come up with a totally unexpected solution.

European finance ministers, meeting at the weekend during an informal gathering in Nice, said more and better regulation was required for financial markets.

Haven't you really had enough now ! How many of you are going to end this year bankrupted because of the collusion between Governments and Banks.

But, There IS another way!

The Libertarian Party has a range of fiscal policies that would put an end to this cynical game of boom and bust where the public are the only losers, policies to cut back on wasteful Government spending to reduce the tax burden and has undertakings to put an end to the cycle of Spin and the Politics of Fear.

The Only home of Libertarian policy in the UK

Your Life, Your Country, Your Choice.

A Libertarian Case Against Non-Voting

Originally posted by Glen Whitman at Agoraphilia:

Libertarians stoutly defend the right, sometimes even the virtue, of non-voting. Some pride themselves on their non-voting; others take pleasure in tweaking the conventional wisdom (“It’s your civic duty!” “You have no right to complain if you don’t vote!”). I’ve done this many times myself. I usually invoke the public-choice analysis of voting: the marginal benefit of voting is essentially nil, since a single vote almost never decides any election, while the marginal cost includes the opportunity cost of your time, the cost of travel, the risk of getting hit by a truck on the way to the polls, etc.

But perhaps I have a mote in my eye. When I explain rational non-voting to my students, invariably someone objects that a large group of people can indeed affect the outcome of an election. True, I reply, but I don’t control a large group of people’s votes; I only control my own, and the power of that one vote is negligible – popular mythology notwithstanding. Mathematically, that’s a fact. But politically, the result of libertarians taking that fact seriously, while adherents of other ideologies embrace the myth, is the under-representation of libertarian votes in the vote total. Libertarianism becomes further marginalized by its lack of electoral clout, thereby attracting less attention and fewer future adherents. Arguably, then, holding the objectively correct belief may constitute an evolutionarily weak strategy.

Still, that’s just the way it goes, right? We cannot, like Pascal, simply adopt a false belief because of its potentially good consequences. But how about an alternative belief?

The rational non-voter’s cost-benefit calculus rests essentially on private costs and benefits, not social ones. If all libertarians incurred the personal costs of voting, all libertarians would be better off. What we have here is a collective action problem brought on by the divergence of private and social benefits – in short, a public good. And how do other public good problems get solved by private means? One route is the inculcation of moral norms enforced by social approbation and public shaming. We frown at housemates who don’t do their share of the household chores, or fellow parishioners who fail to put money in the collection plate. (I use the word “we” figuratively, since I live alone and belong to no church.) We administer guilt trips to free riders who don’t contribute to worthy causes we know they agree with. Some go so far as to send critical postcards to people with unkempt yards.

The libertarian individualist bristles at such intrusions. But remember: these are not the commands of the state – they are the alternative. And in the context of voting, they could provide libertarians with a path to political relevance. What if libertarians stopped applauding non-voting, and instead began prodding each other to go out and vote? What if we had “voting parties,” consisting of groups of people who vote together and go out for dinner afterward (at a location disclosed only to those who joined in voting)? What if every libertarian called two or three libertarian friends on election day to make sure they did their duty? Yeah, duty. You got a problem with that?

What would happen? Would we win elections? No way. Would we swing elections to one major party or the other? Possibly, if we coordinated our votes. Would we attract more attention with higher numbers? Very likely, I think.

Oops, I think I may have just convinced myself.

Required Reading Of The Day

Via Patrick Vessey at the LPUK:

A little while ago, I blogged about a (then) secret report by the EU Future Group. That report informed part of the process currently under way to roll out state surveillance and control of individuals across Europe on an unprecedented scale.

Today, statewatch.org have released a 60 page report that looks at what is going on, and what is planned, in far more detail. Tony Bunyan, the Director of Statewatch and the report's author, makes some very pertinent observations:

There is now only a slim chance that the political elites in Council of the European Union, the European Commission, national governments, the law enforcement agencies and the multinationals will change course – they have already invested too much to allow a meaningful public debate to take place.

This is because they actually believe that technology, not values and morality, should drive change. They believe they have balanced freedom and security when all with eyes and ears to see and hear know that liberties and freedoms have been made subservient to the demands of security.

The national and European states require unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone so that we can all be safe and secure from perceived “threats”. But how are we to be safe from the state itself, from its uses and abuses of the data they hold on us?

The outrageous proposal that the EU should tie itself in with the USA across the whole justice and home affairs field will place our privacy and civil liberties in great danger.

If we do not have an open and meaningful debate now we never will, because by then it will be too late.

Do go and read the whole report.

Bin Crime - Councils are the criminals

Via IanPJ:

Those of you who faithfully follow your local council's diktats wrt sorting your rubbish into various categories, or those of you who have been fined for throwing a crisp packet in with the paper may have enjoyed Monday night's Tonight programme on ITV.

Tonight revealed that we are being conned by our councils when they tell us that our rubbish is recycled.

The Tonight investigation revealed that waste, originally collected for recycling by four British local authorities, is being dumped on Indian farmland near the migration path of wild elephants.

Tonight reporter Mark Jordan travelled to the state of Tamil Nadu and found waste including British newspapers DATED FROM THIS JANUARY, food packaging from Tesco, plastic bags from Mothercare and even a St George's flag.

After digging down four feet with a JCB at one well site, Tonight discovered a hidden mountain of British waste including Walkers crisps bags, Sainsbury's apple juice, children's report cards and newspapers such as The Telegraph. It is estimated that the well could be up to 30 feet deep.

Tonight tracked down supposedly recycled mail found at one Indian dump addressed to residents living in Tendring, Wellingborough and Wakefield District Councils and Leicestershire County Council.

All four authorities collect recyclables intermingled in either one or two bins then send them to a sorting facility which will sell them on to be recycled in factories or mills.

A Tonight survey also showed that 46 local authorities HAVE NO IDEA what happens to their household collections of recyclable waste, after it is sent to their contracted sorting facilities.

Last week it said that some companies refuse to tell councils where they sell recyclable material because of commercial confidentiality. Ahh, that old chestnut.

Am I alone in feeling a tad "miffed" to discover that my council tax increases (part of which are allegedly being used for environmental purposes) and the draconian punishments handed down to "bin criminals" are in fact an elaborate cover for local authorities merely to raise more revenue and con us into thinking that we are doing something good for the environment, whilst they take a little extra slice from dodgy deals with dodgy recycling companies?

Who trusts our local councils now? Who are the real Bin Criminals?




Hattip Nanny Knows Best

NICE would be abolished under a Libertarian government

Via IanPJ

Nice 'spends £1m more on spin than evaluating drugs' - Telegraph

The National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has come under fire in recent months for the time it takes to decide which drugs can be given on the NHS and for rejecting some life extending medications as too expensive.

Official figures show that Nice spent almost £3.4 million, 10 per cent of its budget, evaluating new drugs and technologies last year.

But the organisation spent around £4.5 million, 13 per cent, on communications.

The Tories, who uncovered the figures, claimed that they showed that the body was wasting money on "spin doctors".

Judging by those figures NICE's total budget is £34 million, and NICE are complaining that the figures are wrong because testing drugs is done by the "R&D section of the Department of Health" and doesn't show up on their budget.

So what exactly does NICE do with all that dosh, especially as Scotland seems to get on quite well without NICE determining which drugs its patients can have.

It seems that the only purpose NICE has is to curtail the use of essential life saving drugs to the English NHS, whilst promoting health scares, government propaganda and the politics of fear.

But, There IS another way!

The Libertarian Party is the only party that will abolish NICE and more than 1000 other non purpose quangos, cutting back on wasteful Government spending to reduce the tax burden and has promised to put an end to the cycle of Spin and the Politics of Fear.

The Only home of Libertarian policy in the UK

Your Life, Your Country, Your Choice.

Home Secretary says police may restrict photographers

Via IanPJ:

UK HOME Secretary Jacqui Smith has told the NUJ that police are entitled to restrict the work of photographers in public places.

She was replying to a letter from General Secretary Jeremy Dear, who had written raising photographers’ concerns at the way that police in London, notably those in the Forward Intelligence Team (FIT) have been recording their activities and impeding their ability to work while covering demonstrations. Photographers say that they are regularly photographed and the images catalogued on a police database.

He wrote: “The routine and deliberate targeting of photographers and other journalists by the FIT undermines media freedom and can serve to intimidate photographers trying to carry out their lawful work.”

In reply Jacqui Smith confirmed that there are no legal restrictions on photography in public places, but added: “Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.”

She said the union’s points should therefore be raised with the Metropolitan Police.

(Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.

NUJ freelance organiser John Toner has already met officers from the FIT, together with representatives of other photographers’ organisations.

The police told them that bona fide press photographers were not being targeted and that no record of such photographers was being kept on any database. Any photographs of photographers that did get taken as “collateral damage” during demonstrations were deleted.

Jeremy Dear, the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), moved a motion at the Trade Union Congress (TUC) on Monday, live on the BBC Parliament Channel in Brighton on the issue of civil liberties and police surveillance and harassment of working journalists.

Along side this, the NUJ has released a short film called Press Freedom: "Collateral Damage" which tackles the issue of police surveillance of bona fide journalists who document political dissent.

The film is a damming account of the Orwellian techniques and methods of the Metropolitan Police Forward Intelligence Team (FIT Squad) over the last few years.

Jeremy Dear commented: “Whilst the police deny they are targeting legitimate photographers we have plenty of evidence to the contrary. This abuse must stop”.

“The use of the Terrorism Act and SOCPA increasingly criminalize not just those who protest but those deemed to be giving the oxygen of publicity to such dissent. Journalists’ material and their sources are increasingly targeted by those who wish to pull a cloak of secrecy over their actions.”

The beacon of a free and democratic society is a free press, unhindered by intimidation, surveillance and violence, if the press is no longer free to operate and document political unrest the country is no longer free or democratic.

Press Freedom: "Collateral Damage" is just a taste of an ongoing project initiated in February 2008, using four years of personal archive footage, to be finalised as a feature documentary spanning five years of international protest and police coverage - eta: Autumn 2009.

Film: Press Freedom: ‘Collateral Damage’ - Current TV.

You can watch Current TV online or enjoy it from the comfort of your couch:

• channel 366
  directv
• channel 196
  dish network
• channel 107
  comcast
• channel 189
  at&t u-verse
• check listings
  time warner
• don't see your service provider?

• channel 183
  sky
• channel 155
  virgin media

“NUJ film shows police obstruction of journalists” - National Union of Journalist.

More links to the ongoing story here:

http://www.nuj.org.uk/
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=910
http://marcvallee.wordpress.com/category/journalism/
http://jasonnparkinson.blogspot.com/2008/05/street-jour...
http://www.thejournalist.org.uk/Aug08/news_photogs.html

“Is Big Brother watching journalists?” - Press Gazette.

“Concern is rising that the police are abusing powers” - Press Gazette.

It may also be worth mentioning that despite being promoted by the National Union of Journalists, this story has received no media cover except their own internal trade magazines and blogs.

A Google search using the string 'Press Freedom: Collateral Damage' returned no MSM results.

Spyblog has also picked up on this story, and also asks some of the more legal questions around this policing policy.