Monday, 21 December 2009

Merry Christian Christmas Everyone!

Merry Christmas ladies and gentlemen! Blogging will be very sparse over the coming weeks what with the seasonal festivities related to this joyous occasion celebrating the birth of Christ. Summarily we hold a mas, a mas for Christ which becomes Christmas - where it got its name.

I urge you all to have a proper non-PC Christmas with all that that entails, go to Church, sing the carols have the dinner and maybe even a Christmas story. This is one of the most profound occasions when we as a people tell the Labour government that they can take their ideology and shove it up their arses.

Merry Christmas!

13th Spitfire

Saturday, 19 December 2009

Up yours Delors, CU EU (finally some good news)

The excellent Gerald Warner has more on this here.
"The first blow has been struck against the encroaching tyranny of the European Union and it is a significant one. In fact, one member state has defiantly drawn a line in the sand and signalled that it will not tolerate erosion of its sovereignty. Although it attracted little attention when it was published last month, now that commentators have had an opportunity to analyse Sentenza N. 311 by the Italian Constitutional Court, its monumental significance in rolling back the Lisbon Treaty is now being appreciated. (Hat tip, as they say, to Dr Piero Tozzi.)"
He finishes of with these excellent lines
"Can we rely on our own New Labour-designed Supreme Court to take an equally robust stance in defence of the British Constitution? Ay, there’s the rub. An incoming Tory government (if we had a Tory party) should be committed to abolishing this alien tribunal and restoring jurisdiction to the House of Lords."
I have argued here and here and here and here and here and here, the same points about the Supreme Court bollocks. It is one of the Raison d'ĂȘtre for this blog. I think eventually the bollocks will be removed mainly because Parliament is slowly but surely being filled with proper Albions - the kind Churchill would have been proud to call his friends (or so at least I think). If ‘democracy’ means anything, it means not having to agree with apologists of the naked pursuit of power.

On a completely different note (and more a reminder to myself in the future), here is a very interesting post on human rights over a ConservativeHome. I strongly advise you to read it.

Socialism in Scotland - oh dear....

Scotland depends on the state increasing. Scotland is poised to become the third most state-dependent country inthe world, with only Cuba and Iraq spending more on public services, according to economic forecasters. At least so Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent, tells us.

By 2012, public spending is expected to rise to 67 per cent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). The communist regime in Cuba spends just over 80 per cent of its GDP on public services, while in Baghdad the figure is 87 per cent.

A report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research claims the Scottish figures are putting an "unfair burden" on English taxpayers and warns that the growing public sector north of the border is unsustainable.

Should Scotland decide to gain independence from the Ex-UK we might be free of socialism. That said I am all in favour of keeping the Union, in fact I am fervent supporter of the Union. But there certainly is a very different way of thinking up north which really does not correspond to English and Welsh ways. They use the Roman/Napoelonic code of law as opposed to English Common Law - any punters care to venture a guess if this has anything to do with their strange love for socialism?

Friday, 18 December 2009

70% of the UK population take more from the state than they contribute

Well, this is not really a bloody surprise now is it? But here are some numbers to make you weep. These are also numbers which our politicians will ignore and ignore and ignore. Why? Because they are party sensitive, highly important for the nation but you see our political parties do not work for the country anymore and by extension nor for the voters, they work for themselves.

The top 1% of earners contribute what percentage of the annual income tax collected?


The top 10% of earners pay over 50% of the entire income tax collected.

The bottom 50% of earners pay just over 11% of tax collected.

The Beeb (surprisingly...) has more on it.

Does the reader comprehend these numbers? I myself need to lie down. Suddenly banker bashing should leave a very bad taste in the mouthes of socialists but as usual it wont.

Here is a quickie on flat-tax which the UK has (not sincerely though) been flirting with.

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Is there a public appetite for a referendum on the EU - this graph will help

I am sitting here listening to something so heathen (in these politically correct times) as Christmas Carols from King's College Choir, which undoubtedly will be censored any time soon for being too unicultural (UPDATE: When I wrote this line about carol censorship, I did not actually believe it myself but seems we are not too far off). Moving on, there seems to be a lot of confusion in the EU referendum camp with regards to public attitude a referendum on the European Union. Basically the three dividing camps are:
  • EU withdrawalists who believe that if an in/out referendum were held the people would vote in favour of leaving.
  • Eurosceptics who believe that a public majority would not yet vote in favour of leaving the EU if a vote was given.
  • Eurocrats who believe that if a vote was given then the people would massively vote in favour of staying in the EU.
As you thus see this is a bit of a conundrum which needs addressing, which is why I decided to compile a graph which will be regularly updated on this blog with the name of 'Should we stay or should we go' - a homage to the Clash. The data will be retrieved from here, the Democracy Movement website which lists recent polls where the question was not too fudged to be able to discern a reasonable data set. But basically if the question posed in the poll is appropriate enough is up to my own discretion and if you have complaints as to my data mining methods please contact me, I assure you I wont hide my data from you. Thus as it currently stands there seems to be a bit of a Bellum omnium contra omnes going on concerning EU policy in the Tory Camp (i.e. the next government), simply because the Conservative Party exploits Eurosceptic sentiment, but lacks the courage to deliver on its rhetoric. It may not even be courage, few can decipher the ongoings of Mr. Cameron's mind suffice to say that they are firmly entrenched in the proverbial 'ever closer union' where the orthodoxy of the latter has the country with a vice like grip.

Just so there is no misunderstanding this graph displays responses where there is a clean cut answer of either IN or OUT, no fudges just simple truths. All the polls had multiple options but we only list the ones where the option was given for in/out and in particular those answers.

Data Set Used:

Pollster Stay Leave

ICM Poll for Global Vision, Nov 2007 11-07 24% 23%
ICM Poll for Global Vision, Feb 2008 2-08 21% 24%
YouGov Poll for Open Europe, June 2008 6-08 38% 24%
ITV Tonight Programme, Oct 2008 10-08 35% 54%
YouGov Survey for TPA, Jan 2009 1-09 22% 16%
Channel 4 YouGob Poll June 2009 6-09 38% 61%

Please feel free to use this graph and if you happen to see the chaps over at CRU then please invite them to this blog so that I can give them a demonstration in data mining. Also if you know of other polls which ask the same question please give me the link and I will add them in the above graph. As for the conclusions which can be drawn from the graph, well, I will leave that deduction to the reader.

#280: Albert Einstein - would he be a Telegraph reader?

—Albert Einstein

So it turns out that this internet thing is all the rage now in terms of media. Care to take a shot at why that might be? Well, perhaps it is because on the internet you get the kind of journalism you expect when you a buy a broadsheet the main difference is that from the latter you are far more likely to get a full page on the latest woman who claims to have shagged Mr. Tiger Woods while at the same time our "leaders" are pledging our tax money to a £100 billion climate change fund in Copenhagen. You will excuse us then dear main stream media for being utterly fed-up with your non-journalism.

Which is why it is my greatest pleasure to reveal that the UK Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) are showing a steady decline for newspaper circulation in the UK. If they are not reporting anything what on earth is the point in buying them?

At the height of the decline in September and October of 2008, sales showed a 6.2 percent decline from a year earlier. This figure has dropped slightly every month and sits at a current decline of 5 percent. Popular newspapers have made the biggest improvement in recent months, registering a 4.6 percent year-on-year decline. The daily popular newspapers are faring better than Sunday papers, with a 1.9 percent decline against 7.1 percent.

Price plays a major factor in circulation levels. The Sun, sold for 30p, has pushed its readership base back up over three million, with just a 0.9 percent decline in year to year statistics and is once again the most read newspaper in the world. The 45p Daily mirror in contrast has had a 9.7 percent decline, Media Guardian reported.

The quality newspapers are showing similar levels of decline as the red tops, with a 4.5 percent drop. However, in this sector it is the dailies that are struggling the most with a 6 percent decline while Sunday editions have had only a 3 percent drop. The Sunday Times registered a 2.8 percent readership growth, according to ABC figures, why I cannot fathom.

The midmarket has struggled the most of all newspaper sectors with a decline of 6.2 percent. This comes on the back of poor performances by the Mail papers, with the Daily Mail dropping 6.3 percent and the Sunday Mail 7.5 percent. The Mail had more than 27,000 daily and 16,000 Sunday copies cut from its airline distribution deal between February and March. If I were on a plane I would rip out a good book, that way you will seem more sophisticated in front of all the other prats who are desperately struggling to heave out their think-tank volume books.

And finally what makes me the happiest is that the FT's circulation is down a whopping %14. They sell more copies of the rubbish in the US and Europe and that is not combined. I suppose that is what you get for taking an overwhelmingly anti-electorate stance on pretty much every issue. Try taking the angle of the readers and you might actually start selling again. It is not rocket science you know.

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

If we hadn't joined the EU in 1972 would we not inevitably have done so later anyway?

This has been prodding my mind for quite sometime now; the arch nemesis of the British state Mr. Heath took Britain into the EU in 1972 by signing the European Communities Act. However what I have been wondering is that even if we had managed to stay out in 1972 would not eventually some socialist fender bender come along and shove us in there eventually?

Consider that Attlee's government were considering joining the European Coal and Steel Community after WWII, but they had the foresight to see that it was "a blueprint for a federal state". Now this is not to say that Heath knew less, he knew more, he knew exactly what was going to become of the UK in the EU why he put on the charade of lies masquerading as the truth in front of the gullible British public. Mind you, those were the days when there was actually something as political integrity so I suppose the electorate could have been forgiven for being naive enough to believe someone as odious as PM Mr. Heath. But they swallowed the bait all right.

But if Heath had not succeeded in entering the UK in 1972 is it not then highly likely that some future government would have pushed for it equally vigorously? People often cite Norway as a good example of a state who managed to fend of the EU hegemony. When it was proposed that Norway should join the EU the Fisheries Minister resigned in protest because he knew what it would do to her waters if it was opened up to foreign fleets, that which has happened to ours completely and utterly destroyed, where waste and rampant mothballing of entire fishing fleets are a daily occurrence - while the continentals are pulling in the big bucks. Well, I suppose it does not really matter in Spain's case when your national debt is well about your GDP. But that aside, this area along with all the others is a very one sided coin which always faces towards Europe. I am not going to go over yet again why we should leave, it has been done far too many times.

But as a final remark let me say this I think our entry in the EU was inevitable as is our exit because this simply cannot continue. There was always going to be some politician who was audacious enough to gamble away 1,000 years of sovereign history on the strength of 'harmonisation' - that word, which I am sure, leaves as a bad a taste in your mouth as it does mine.

Monday, 14 December 2009

Free speech? Which one...

This sad little tale epitomises the problem of free speech in a supposedly free society. We are all allowed to express our opinions, and encouraged to tell the truth as we understand it - unless it's inconvenient for any reason.

By all means say what you think about foreign affairs. Oh, but wait a minute! For goodness' sake don't criticize our fine government, or show disrespect to our brave lads, or risk "giving comfort to the enemy".

Certainly give your free and open views about business and the economy. Oh, but we are facing a recession and huge government debt - so be sure not to "talk Britain down"!

Please of please engage in politics it is for the best of our society. But when talking about what most concerns people, immigration one is screamed down for being a dissenting racist scum.

There's always a reason to avoid upsetting people, implying criticism of the great or the good, or lowering public morale. And that can be used as a pretext to prevent the uttering of vital facts and figures.

I prefer the healthy attitude of the American Major General Carl Schurz: "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." To respect your enemy is the first step to victory. How could you possibly win against an adversary which you thought inferior to yourself? Every military campaign in the history of military campaigns has stumbled on this lapse of megalomania; Napoleon, Hitler, Vietnam, Stalin, White's vs. Red's and so on and on...

Thursday, 10 December 2009

THIS is how you do science

  • A false hypothesis remains false no matter how many people say it is true.
  • An unproven hypothesis remains unproven no matter how many people claim it is proven.

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Gandhi Wrote to Hitler

Well, there is something I did not know; Gandhi wrote to Hitler to complain about the British. Never judge a book by its cover I think we can learn from this.

Mahatma Gandhi's admirers are not in the habit of confronting embarrassing facts about their favourite saint. His critics, by contrast, gleefully keep on reminding us of a few facts concerning the Mahatma which seem to undermine his aura of wisdom and ethical superiority. One of the decisive proofs of Gandhi's silly lack of realism, cited by both his Leftist and his Hindutva detractors, is his attempted correspondence with Adolf Hitler, undertaken with a view to persuading Germany's dictator of the value of non-violence

Still though, I like Gandhi.

Hail freedom of Speech and, lo and behold, Christianity for once won

I just wanted to make a quick remark on this story. Where a district judge questioned the character of a Muslim convert as he dismissed the case against husband and wife Christian hoteliers who she claimed had deeply offended her new-found religion. However it is the very last part of the article I take question with, it said (my emphasis)
"There has so far been little evidence that Mrs Tazi’s experience has echoed within the wider Muslim communities, especially across the northern conurbations. But a group of young female Muslim students, who attended the trial, said this may now only be a matter of time.

One 18-year-old medical student at Liverpool University, who asked not to be named, said: “People are shocked and angry. This decision is going to make them even more upset.

“Mrs Tazi just comes down for breakfast wearing a head scarf and they start racially abusing her. They have just dismissed it as if it is nothing.”"
I must thus wonder what hope in hell does this little ignorant minx have of growing up as a normal person when she thinks that the above was a RACIAL crime. Maybe she should learn what race actually means before she throws the word around with regards to RELGION. Stupid little witch.

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Brothers in Arms

Apologies for very sparse blogging over the past few days, this trend will unfortunately continue until the next week as the university has decided to give all students on my course a "nice christmas present" - bastards...

Any who, the thought of the day is this; why is it only the Telegraph and the Spectator who are even remotely willing to look at the other wise of the Climate Change debate. They are the only two papers willing to speculate and consider the repercussions of the Climategate scandal while the rest of the media are publishing articles of scientists screaming down the dissenters, calling them heretics and 'flat-earth-deniers'. Mr. Columbus ought to give them a run for their money. Incidentally it was Gordon who called sceptics "flat-earth-deniers" which is akin to a overweight person calling an obese person 'fat'. Oh, the irony.

Monday, 7 December 2009

Are Polls really useful? Here is what my maths showed me...

We all know that parties and the MSM go up in arms if a poll diverges from the common orthodoxy in voting intention, depending on the hysteria of media platform in question. The right now the settled view is that the Conservatives should be at least 10% ahead in the polls and when something else is up on offer the world will go under, or so at least goes the media logic. Last week there was talk of a hung parliament because the difference in voting intention between Labour and Tory was a mere 6% which is not that large. But what does it actually mean then? Well, to find out lets consider the numbers for the European Elections. Now, before I do this I would just like to acknowledge that I too am aware that voting intention shifts during EU and UK elections but this is not about party affiliation it is about voting intention.

The European Parliamentary Election, which by the by means fuck all for democracy, took place in the UK on the 4th of June this year, 2009. The last poll which was taken before the election had the

Tories on 26% (24%, 37%)
Labour on 16% (16%, 29%)
UKIP on 18% (6%, 19%)
LibDem on 15% (12%, 22%)
Greens on 10% (1%, 15%)
BNP on 5% (1%, 7%)

However you will also note that I have added the extreme values taken from UK Polling Report in brackets after each party above, this is for possible correlation purposes or just goes to show that polls say absolutely nothing about election performance. Simply because the electorate are reactionary human beings and do not vote strategically, like people on the internet, but with their heart.

Once the election was over the actual tally stood as follows

Tories on 27.7%
Labour on 15.7%
UKIP on 16.5%
LibDem on 13.7%
Greens on 8.6%
BNP on 6.2%

This means that the Tories did very badly because they scored in their lower echelon. Labour did bloody awful since they got their lowest possible predicted outcome. UKIP did fairly well scoring in its upper predicted echelon. Libdem pretty crap as well scoring in their lower predicted sector. Greens did average being in the middle of the prediction range and the BNP did very well scoring in the upper part of its predicted sector. Now you will notice that I have but the parties which did 'well' in bold and I follow with the question, could a similar thing happen in the general election; that the main parties do relatively badly and the smaller parties do pretty well - relatively speaking?

Sunday, 6 December 2009

This is British Politics Today

These subtle few lines encapsulate what it means (mostly) to be a Political party in today's 'Modern Britain'

We Have Principles, vote for us! If you do not like them we have others!

But hey at least we have our beer.

Thursday, 3 December 2009

I do not conquer Daniel Hannan, though I like your fighting spirit

Daniel Hannan, whatever you might think of him, is a masterly orator and writer as this piece shows over at his blog.

I am quoting the last paragraph with my emphasis:
"Seven million Swiss, relying on a series of bilateral free trade agreements, have done precisely this and have become, in consequence, the wealthiest people in Europe (see here). Couldn’t 60 million Britons do something similar? We are a nation of seamen and explorers, of merchants and traders, of adventurers and colonists. We are linked to every corner of the world by our language and laws. And, for what it’s worth, we are running a trade surplus with every continent on Earth except Europe. The City must think globally. If we tie London to a shrinking, over-regulated, ageing and sclerotic regional bloc, we are finished."
Are we really that anymore Mr. Hannan? I of course would love for us to be but I think that the Labourities have masterfully succeeded in destroying the majority of the next generation.

-For every Explorer there are a 10,000 quangocrats
-For every Merchant and Trader there are 1,000 civil servants whose soul function used to be just that but now merely work to introduce more and more red-tape; British and EU.
-For every Adventurer there are a 100 lobbyists

These are not honourable people, not anymore, one could make the case that quangoinistas and the civil servants did join their respective agency with clear heart and open mind, to serve their country. One could have made that case, but not anymore since both have been politicised. They are naturally biased towards people with political favouritism - critically setting them apart from their functions as a means to the government's end, not part of the means to that end as they have become.

DId you know it? We are more xenophobic and anti-immigrant than the rest of Europe

Now who made all this up then you might wonder? Well not so hard to guess now is it? It is our good old friend the Guardian on one of their blogs. They have it that the poll
"suggests the British are more anti-immigrant and xenophobic than the rest of western Europe – preferring a Fortress UK policy, blaming immigrants for unemployment, and split over whether to grant them equal social benefits."
That is quite a mouthful to blame on a peoples that are genuinely worried about the current net-immigration of 165,000 a year. That is a lot of people for such a small island country as England, and it is not helped by this sort of stuff. But hey it was a proper survey did you not know? So by that virtue whatever it says must be true, what is says completely and wholly describes the national character of Britain proper. Well, except the tiny little detail that when you click on the accompanying link to that article, which should lead to the German Marshal-Fund think you get a "404" message. Very embarrassing for the Guardian, not only are they smearing the rightly very worried British electorate but they have nothing, nicht, nil to back that smear up. Look at the government, at least they make a half-hearted attempt to have peer-reviewed smear.

But to raise the bigger issue, while it is all very well of accusing the people of being xenophobic, perhaps the Guardian should ask instead why the people are so worried if we are go with their claims? But of course that would actually entail proper journalism and the Guardian only does that very very occasionally.

My Good Friend Subrosa has been exposed

Sorrow - Bad Religion, A Tribute to Subrosa

'Exposed' is probably one of the scariest word for bloggers today. Why? Simple, we propagate our very strong views on the internet and very many people read our words (well not mine of course, but people like Guido, Iain Dale, ConservativeHome, Devil's Kitchen etcetera - you know, the big ones). What is even worse, what we say think and do is political and politics, as you know, is reserved for the elite we are merely the people - or sheeople for them.

Them, they, those, they have all but become inanimate objects to us, the are now the enemy, the one which our demos anger will eventually strike down in a fit of fury befitting a god like Thor. I pale in comparison to the writings of Subrosa, she left many witty and thought provoking comments on this blog which you probably know, is not frequented by many people. I am very thankful that she took the time to read my thoughts on the world as it is currently going from bad to worse, seemingly on a daily basis, with our "leaders" (I never elected Gordon, nor Van Roumpey, I never chose to join the EU, nor Ashton, nor the EU Commission and so on and on). The world needs people like Subrosa and what is even more the UK needs people like Subrosa who can effectively rip to pieces everything and everyone the government puts forth as 'representative'.

In her own words
"My identity has been exposed. Not only do the person(s) know my name they also know my full address .. why would any person .. go to the trouble of finding out my name and address for any other reason than malicious intent?

"[the person] is well known to be a great supporter of certain Scottish unionist bloggers or ex-bloggers"
I can of course offer the required verbal abuse which this person ought to receive and the physical which he should receive. But nay, neither will beseech him for he is undoubtedly part of the 'establishment' and can thus not be touched, sacked, fired or prosecuted - much like our political friends in Westminster. I am sure that if Subrosa found out that this grave injustice had been done upon one of her fellow bloggers she would have been up in arms swiftly and savagely - nothing less is befitting of vermin. If you want some proper verbal abuse of the person, I am not the one to offer it but another; Constantly Furious.

I did not always agree with Subrosa for I believe in the 'U' in 'United Kingdom' and I gravely think devolved powers will soon only leave an English Kingdom for us miserable people to dwell in. The difference is that with Subrosa, a proper discussion was had and one was not called xenophobic, racist, bigoted, condescending or any of the other standard phrases which the media use whenever they disagree with someone not to mention our government when they do - but the latter has another trick up their sleeve; they can make laws against people they do not like, and they do but since they are so magnanimously incompetent it matters little.

I would love to be able to splash my name around the internet with my political views attached to it like miniature balloons if you will, but I cannot for that would stop me from doing what I do now, protesting and exposing the infestation that has Britain in a vice like grip and shows no sign of yielding anytime soon. One day though, perhaps, I can make a post with my name as the title but that probably wont be until at least a few more decades of further misery imposed on us from above.

In the end though I can only offer my sincerest grief to hear that my good principled friend Subrosa is no more. Maybe she will come back in the future, we can but watch and hope. Which leads to my final question, do you think they can stop us all? Where Subrosa left off others will pick up and carry on what she tried to do; 175,000 new blogs are created everyday and you can be quite sure that a fraction of those are political and in the UK. If they will not listen to the people when they are discussing, they will listen to the people when they are screaming loud and clear with a vengeance.

Ohh the EU the EU the EU....

Good spot by Calling England...

"We are now being told the British people are not capable of judging this issue – the government knows best; the top people are the only people who can understand it; it is too difficult for the rest. This is the classic argument of every tyranny in history. It begins as a refined intellectual argument, and it moves into a one-man dictatorship; 'We know best'
becomes 'I know best'."

-Hugh Todd Naylor Gaitskell

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

How to Destroy a proud country

I stole this from, Fausty who reproduced it from John Ward.

Twelve NHS hospitals have been named and shamed, but the enquiry has no weapons of mass retribution.

The Scots are heading towards a referendum that will break up the Union.
An enquiry has shown that the Iraq War was illegal, aimed at the wrong enemy, and justified with a series of outright lies.

The Government is vetting half the population as a means of finding paedophiles, who remain as predatory and active as ever.

The Government wants everyone to have an ID card (and is about to start monitoring every communication we make) to catch Islamic nutters who will not be stopped by either move.

By Christmas, it may be illegal in Britain to publicly criticise homosexuals.
The police no longer care about real crime; there’s no money to charge criminals, and nowhere to put them if found guilty.

A quarter of all our schools are anything from ‘failing to useless’ according to Ofsted.

The IMF declares only one developed country to be in a more parlous financial situation than us: Argentina.

Britain’s financial services reputation lies in tatters. Our currency is falling in value, but our exports remain static. We are ‘coming out of’ recession more slowly than any other EU State.

That same EU State has just removed every member-country’s sovereignty without a single nation being asked properly whether they wanted it. The British people weren’t asked at all – despite both major Parties promising they would be.

The President and Foreign Secretary of the EU are unelected. So too are Britain’s Prime Minister and First Secretary.

Britain is now officially the most monitored and secretive State in the EU. Judges can split up families, send people to jail and ban the media from reportage – all without reference to anyone. We have the longest detention-without-trial period in Europe.

The internet and multiple retailing are steadily killing off every community outside the major conurbations.

Welfare will have to be cut, and taxes increased massively, in order to pay for an unprecedented fit of banking insanity. Not one perpetrator has gone to jail as a result of it.

The UK stock market is so over-bought at present, sooner rather than later another adjustment must come.

0% interest rates and QE have done little to stimulate the economy. The first has created an asset bubble, the second is inflationary.

Disparities in wealth have never been greater in the UK.

The break-up of family life and parental discipline has put 100,000 British kids into foster care, and many more in danger of neglect and abuse.

This is the New Labour project’s achievement – and all in just twelve years. Some £12billion a year is spent denying any of it is happening. Some £13 billion a year is about to be invested in GCHQ making sure nobody gets too upset about it.

David Cameron’s achievement as Conservative leader has been a failure to convince the majority that he could do better. Nick Clegg’s has been to make little or no impression on anyone.

In almost exactly thirty years, we have gone – at gigantic financial and social cost – in one big and extremely vicious circle.

I humbly suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that we need to ban the sport – not change the team.

Oopps - peed of the French, I think

13th Spitfire thinks he accidentally pissed of a few French people today when he went into an overdrive rant about this and accidentally called President Sarkozy a "f**king bastard c**t". Embarrassingly a few French people were in the vicinity of 13th Spitfire which he was not aware of.

The French aside though, what on earth did the Government think was going to happen?

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

What what? British Law supreme to ECHR rulings, apparently

At least if we are to believe Dominic Grieve, the same man who said he would resign if Britain pulled out of the 1955 European Convention on Human Rights, fully implemented into British Common Law in 2000, as introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998. But now according to Mr. Grieve something else is a foot...
Mr Grieve said in a speech that the current Human Rights Act had been “interpreted as requiring a degree of deference to Strasbourg that I believe was and should be neither required nor intended”.
Instead, he said, a new Bill of Rights - which would replace the Human Rights Act - would make clear that British courts could allow for UK common law to take precedence over decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Most likely completely useless since it does remove the Convention which has been paramount to the destruction of the British Judicial system after the flaming act came into force in 2000. What I find even more astonishing is how he intends to go about this business since on my time we became fully fledged EU citizens 16 minutes ago, at the writing of this entry, and from then on EU law, where the ECHR is incorporated, is supreme to UK law.

Maybe this is part of cast-iron-dave's eurosceptic agenda? What a joke.

Monday, 30 November 2009

The Guardian needs to be taken down a notch or two - red, black and white are Nazi colours apparently

Basically I have qualms about the entire article for it just non-sensical and goes against the whole principle of local democracy. But in particular I would like to focus on this part (my emphasis)
The Swiss People's party has tried the trick before, thriving in the 2007 federal election on the back of an even more explicit poster showing three white sheep, standing on the red background of the Swiss flag, kicking out a fourth black one, above the slogan "for more security". No one, in the context of the far right, should mistake the provocative nature of a campaign fought in the Nazi colours of red, black and white.
WTF? Since when did red, black and white in conjunction become "Nazi Colours"?! The Guardian must have seen this one coming though, surely. Anyhow I am going to indulge in this little exercise anyway, letting the stupid little socialist mouthpiece get away with everything is not good sportsmanship in my book. Hence, here we go:

According to the Guardian the following countries are Nazis going by the colour codes used on their sovereign-state flags:



Papua New Guinea


Trinidad and Tobago


If you read anything today let it be this

Here it is
, that is all I can say. It makes me too sad to even ponder the details.
"Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Latin for "you may hold the body subject to examination". This undeniable right protects one from the state. Whilst it is in place, no-one can lock you away without having solid lawful reasons to do so. Today, if you believe that you have been incarcerated and no evidence supports that incarceration, you can demand a Writ of Habeas Corpus from the court. The court will then examine evidence that you should be gaoled, remanded, or sectioned. You might also be interested to learn that once habeas corpus is gone you can be incarcerated for up to eight months without charge. This item will be stolen just after midnight on Monday 30th November 2009."
Thanks to Captain Ranty for providing me with this. As of tomorrow we are not allowed to criticise the EU according to this excerpt. That scares the living daylight out of me which is why I intend to treble my efforts to expose the fiendish debauchee which thinks it is safe in its little palace over in Brussels. Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to chain me to a tree before you can restrain me from my keyboard.

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Quick Two Cents on UKIP

The Tories love saying that voting UKIP is a vote for New Labour and Gordon because of the FPTP system. But that is not our fault dear Conservatives that is your fault for not providing satisfactory policies on issues which matter to the people; Immigration, Defence, EU etcetera. I suppose after years of being taught it, lots of Britons think that self-sacrifice for the sake of an important principle is a trait of the lunatic. Shame upon us all for thinking that the do-nothing approach is always the right way, which is to say the middle way not the high way - the one which is so intricate you are sure to loose your way after just a few miles and you didn't bring a map.

This is of course is not to say that UKIP will get more than a handful of MPs (maybe not any at all) but even so the blame lies with the Tories and not the electorate. Stop demonising and ostracising the people for taking a stand which does not fit in with your GE strategy. Those voters stand in the tradition of the Attlee Government, which refused to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was “the blueprint for a federal state” which “the Durham miners would never wear”. In that tradition, Gaitskell rejected European federalism as “the end of a thousand years of history” and liable to destroy the Commonwealth. Odd where we are now "innit"?

If New Labour are re-elected you only have yourselves to blame (tip: tell cast-iron-Dave). What is even worse, if you seek to discredit and destroy UKIP, and succeed, you will have forced a far more dangerous option upon the British people; the BNP. You will remember what your dear Leader, cast-iron-dave said; "UKIP is sort of a bunch of ... fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly". While I personally wouldn't condone anything Mr. Cast-Iron-Dave said, even with a bargepole a my bequest, surely they are better than the full monty (BNP)? Even though he is categorically wrong since the BNP is a racist party the former is not.

In the end what I think lingers beneath the tranquil exterior of many a voter's conscience (perhaps I give them too much credit) is the slightly unnerving possibility that Cameron is starting to look like Blair and UKIP are starting to look like the Conservatives. What of 13th Spitfire I hear you asking, what will I vote? Certainly the EU issue is much closer to my heart than your average voter, mainly because I am an insatiable libertarian who believes in representative democracy where the representatives are actually elected. But I can see the other side of the argument as well, Labour must be cast out before they truly destroy the country. When you read things like this then you understand why the current government must be removed. I have not made up my mind yet, on the one hand it seems pointless to vote anything but UKIP for ultimately we are controlled by Brussels. But if the Tories are kept out from power the path to sovereign destruction will be all the more accelerated.

Pointless People in British Politics

The Independent
The Liberal Democrats

Why? Because they never ever take a stand they are in the "centre" which is completely useless for everyone.

Friday, 27 November 2009

Challenge not the Speaker - why not?

There is much talk of the new UKIP leader Lord Pearson and what his predecessor intends to do to the current speaker namely, shock and horror, challenge the "convention" and stand in his constituency.

Some Tories feel this is wrong, some Labourites feel this is wrong, some other people who's party simple has no function at all (LibDems) think this is wrong and some other people also think it is wrong. They say that tradition and procedure dictates that the Speaker should not be challenged in his own constituency. Really?

Labour challenged Speaker Bernard Wetherill in 1987.

But what is more it has somehow become an unspeakable dogma to question the incumbent Speaker, who flipped homes as much as anyone else and indulged in all the little privileges bestowed upon MPs at our expense. Sure they need freebies to do their job, but the Expenses scandal was too much and they know it was wrong and so do we.

The current Speaker John Bercow was elected because Labour made it so, yet again they put party before country in order to damage the Tories. I am as usual lost for words when it comes to describing my contempt for the Labour party - I simply cannot find them. Suffice to say that a man who has been elected speaker on the back of a Tory Opposition ploy conducted by Labour, deserves not to hold that esteemed position for he has not earned the trust and respect which is bestowed upon the post by his fellow Rt. Hon. Members.

Speaker Bercow is not the victim, the Tories are not the victims, we are the victims.

One for Calling England

Listen particularly to the bagpipe - awesome.

James Delingpole speaks Conservative sense

Here are some of the things I think any prospective Tory candidate should believe in:

1. A commitment to lower taxes, both corporate and personal.

2. An immediate repeal of the Climate Change Act of 2008

3. Cancellation of all alternative energy projects – most especially of wind farms, because of the damage they will do to the British landscape – and an accelerated nuclear programme.

4. Tougher stance on immigration.

5. Tougher stance on Islamist extremism, particularly on Foreign Office collaboration with extremist groups.

6. A real bonfire of the Quangos – as in, actually destroying them, rather than simply replacing favoured Nu Lav apparatchiks with favoured Nu Tory ones.

7. A radical rethink of the NHS (as opposed to Dave’s current we’ll-spend-the-same-as-if-not-more-than-Labour-but-we’ll-be-a-bit-more-efficient non policy)

8. Withdrawal from the European Union (except as part of a trading bloc)

9. Repeal of all PC or nannying social legislation such as the Human Rights Act and the Independent Safeguarding Authorities “all adults are paedophiles”

10. Repeal of the ban on foxhunting.

Special Relationship? My butt (F-35, plane in vain)

You know we are buying all those sweet F-35s for the new carriers? Well, when we added our dough to the pot it was done on the understanding that we would be able to run the things ourselves without any American intervention. Remarkably it was the Blair and Bush administration that sorted this little caboodle but not anymore as Obama has now reneged on that issue - do we get our money back the? Now I do not want to say too much on this issue and leave it to be properly analysed by real defence blogs such as Defence of the Realm and Think Defence - they actually know what they are talking about. But you can find the full story over at the Spectator here.

I also just have to add that I thought my title 'plane in vain' was very clever. You might not, but I do not care. This is my blog and I like puns.

Nightjack's most useful post

I've put up Nightjacks most useful post, just like lots of other folk.

A Survival Guide for Decent Folk

Paul has posted a number of lengthy replies on the “Modest Proposal" thread. In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

Make a counter allegation
Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis, allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out.

Never explain to the Police
If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

Admit Nothing
To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.

Keep your mouth shut
Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts
A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

Always always always have a solicitor
Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

Actively complain about every officer and everything they do
Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it
You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Au Contraire we can do something

Have you ever stopped for a second and started being really un-PC? Well I do not think I was ever properly PC at all, certainly my friends seem to squirm when I even mention the word 'immigration' my family, similar, I explain that I am not a racist that I have read far more reports on immigration pros and cons than they, I spent a few hours reading a particular House of Lords report on the subject making my own red notes, and finally I devise my conclusions that arch echelon of Political Correctness, immigration, is too high and I spent the last 15 minutes explaining why. Yet, even by logical deduction...

-small country
-most densely packed country on planet
-fuel truly dangerous parties NF or the BNP
-null economic benefit

I am still being regarded by strange eyes which seem to ask through their blurring stupidity why am I diverging from my box of conformity? Do I not know that I must hold the line? That talking about immigration is a kin to blasphemy? I know all of that which is precisely what I do. Luckily enough I know how to back up my arguments and have written extensively on the subject here on this blog and elsewhere so I know what I am talking about. Yet... I am still a racist in their eyes. You have to give it to the powers that be that they have certainly done a fine job when it comes to conformity of the masses.

The funny thing is though, if you as a person have adopted that quintessentially un-PC stance which is to say an anti-government stance on every issue: anti-EU, cap on immigration, anti-surveillance state and so on you will quite often find, so I have at least, that people readily hop on that bandwagon, for they do agree, they are just too afraid of breaking cover and actually unleashing their bottled up feelings of the derelict state of society and the nation at large. I cannot imagine what they think might happen? We do not yet have an equivalent of STASI in the UK, they are sure to come, but not yet, the cameras only actually work if you are wearing your address on your t-shirt when you commit that unsocial act. They only aid the police in 1 of 1000 instances. They are shit, useless and completely unnecessary but exist primarily for you to know that you are being watched. That they cannot actually do anything with it matters little.

Why I ask, can we make a difference, those us who bereave the government of all its honour day-by-day online and expose its darkest secrets, find the patterns they wish to be hidden and generally being a massive thorn in their side, like France. Honestly, I think not, those of us who write are generally more socially aware than the rest of the population who consider X-factor the prime happening of the week and not the state of democracy in the UK. You cannot really blame them however, it is not really their fault, if the state wants you to be dumb you will be dumb. Thankfully it does not extend across the board. But are to we to say once peaceful revolution has been hampered and violent revolution is just around the corner, that 'we told you so?'. I hope it will never come to that and if it does, rather than gloating about our foresight we can act as a candle in the wind when things really turn nasty and be quite sure they will; Peter Mandelson, an unelected Politician seized total control of the Internet in the UK, an unelected man has become "President" of half a billion people in Europe and a scheme to actually steal unimaginable amounts of money from the next three generations of the worlds people has been made public. All of this was just last week. Pessimism is not a populism it is a realism when enemies of the state are running it.

You are never alone when you take a stand - remember that.

Utterly Frightening

This is an extremely good piece written by the PJC Journal and it is reproduced in full here below.

The Euro Federalists are in a hurry. They are seeing the disquiet and anger building in the UK at the lack of democracy, with leader after leader denying them a say on our future with the EU. As the anger mounts amongst the public, the Euro Federalists are moving ever quicker to ensure that the Britain we know and love can never escape the clutches of the new empire.

From those big names in Brussels, Barroso, Van Rompuy and the like you would expect this, but let us look at someone you would not expect this from. Dan Hannan.

Dan has promoted himself along with Douglas Carswell as Libertarians inside the Conservative Party. They put out a book, The Plan, They appear to be at loggerheads with the party leadership, a thorn in Cameron's side, but are they? Or are they working to the same plan as Cameron.

In a series of articles in the Telegraph this week, Hannan's true colours are coming through, and the truth is that Hannan is as much a 'progressive' communitarian as Cameron.

Let me try and put this into perspective. Last month I wrote about the legal base that Cameron will inherit once Lisbon comes into force on 1st Dec 2009. In the comments of that article, I also wrote about the Committee of the Regions.

The Committee of the Regions is made up of appointees, not necessarily anyone who holds an elected position. It is this EU Committee that will ultimately hold regional power, not National governments.

When John Prescott first mooted the idea in the UK of Regional Assemblies, the public rejected it. That was the last time the public was asked to participate.

His then department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) went into overdrive, and diverted billions of taxpayers money into setting up regional government by stealth, recruiting and training personnel to run it all in the background using the subversive and secretive training company Common Purpose, which operates on a Europe wide scale invoking the Chatham House rules to ensure secrecy. Offering Common Purpose graduates the biggest networking opportunity of their lifetime, many have gotten very rich on the back of setting up this secret second government structure. But, it was all done on the basis that the public must never know until Lisbon was in place, and too late to do anything about it.

The end result is 12 Regional Development Agencies, 9 Regional Assemblies in England, The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly, reorganisation of Regional TV & Radio, 12 Regional Emergency Services, 12 Regional NHS organisations, reorganisation of the Army with 12 primary Regiments, reorganisation of local government to fit into the EU 2 tier model, all of this coordinated by The Committee of the Regions in Brussels.

The Committee of the Regions was initially set up as a consultation body, but it has with each Treaty gained more influence and more power, taken control of more of the shared competencies. In place since 1994, this EU organisation has been making local UK policy, not British politicians (that why they look so dumb sitting on the front bench, nothing original)

Set up by the Maastricht Treaty, its first meeting was in March 1994. Initially five areas of obligatory consultation (economic and social cohesion; trans-European networks in the field of transport, energy and telecommunications; public health; education and youth; culture).

Amsterdam Treaty (1999) added a further five (employment, social policy, environment, vocational training, transport).

The latest treaty Lisbon, gives it total control over all shared competencies. It consists of 344 members and 344 alternate members appointed for 4 years by the Council, having been nominated by member states.

Put bluntly the EU now mirrors the old Soviet Union almost completely.

The Office of the President of the Council of Europe and the Council itself mirrors the USSR president and the Soviet Praesidium. (unelected)
The European Commission mirors the Politburo. (unelected)

The European Parliament mirrors the Soviet Duma or the Hall of the Peoples Representatives. (elected, although in USSR choice of 1 candidate, a rubber stamp parliament in both cases)

The Committee of the Regions mirrors the Great Hall of the Peoples, the Regional Heads. (in EU unelected, in USSR elected, although only choice of 1 candidate)

Laws in the UK are implemented on the basis of directives from the European Commission, which are then presented as Bills/Acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments for those areas of exclusive EU competence.

Policy on shared competency is created by the Committee of the Regions and implemented by Political parties in National Governments and Local Authorities, and by Regional Development Agencies, Regional Assemblies and Regional Grand Committees (The regional alternative to Westminster).

And has been since 1994. That is why I consider Westminster a theatre, PR men like Cameron and Clegg pretending that power still lies in Westminster. That is why I want it all back until the people decide whether this is what they want and wish to continue this unaccountable relationship with Brussels. The primary aim of the Albion Alliance by making MP's personally responsible to their electorate.

The Committee of the Regions has a subgroup called the Lisbon Monitoring Platform (LMP). It is comprised entirely of members from the Committee, and some of its goals are as follows:

- Involve local and regional authorities in the Lisbon governance process for a better implementation of policies linked to Lisbon goals.
-Examine the evolving relationship between the Lisbon Strategy and the Cohesion Policy (e.g. earmarking)
- Monitor the involvement of the local and regional level in the governance process
- Identify the obstacles encountered by local and regional authorities in implementing the Lisbon Strategy.

Lisbon Monitoring Platform (LMP) annual Report (oh, they've moved it) on the implementation of the strategy reads as follows:

In 2008, every LMP member is running policy programmes in one or several Lisbon-related policy fields, as was the case in the previous years. In particular:

− more than 90% of them have programmes ongoing in the fields of innovation, the environment, the business environment;
− 85% are active in the field of human capital policy;
− around 75% of them are running programmes for industrial promotion and employment;
− the sole exception is the internal market field, in which the number of active LMP members in 2008 fell to around 25%, less then half than in 2007.

(Seems that they have moved this LMP report document so you cannot see it any longer, the usual practice when exposure of their documents come to light). No matter, I have attached it at the bottom of this post

Ok, So what has all this to do with Dan Hannan?

As I read and re-read Hannan & Carswell’s The Plan I can now see that it is a ‘democratic’ plan not for the UK, but for an EU consisting only of Regions, post National parliaments. A plan for a deeply entrenched Communitarian empire offering a faux democracy only at the local level is something reminiscent of the Soviet form of ‘democracy’.

As it is a plan to reform localism within regions of the EU, (but as Hannan himself has now admitted it cannot happen as the EU is not open to reform from within), what purpose is being served by these ‘progressives’ such as Hannan and Carswell other than to distract and to keep dissenting views within the Tory camp.

Whilst The Plan has many good elements they are only valid if they are introduced for the right reasons, unless it is unequivocally aimed at a UK outside of the EU, Dan’s motives will always remain suspect. So I think Dan must climb down off the fence and declare himself.

In my original article I said:

Remember that the objective overall is the elimination of Nation States. The European Commission has long stated that given the opportunity they will push for QMV on all matters. Barosso is on record as saying that they will work swiftly to remove all legal barriers.

Therefore is is most likely that in that 5 month period The Passerelle clause will be invoked to allow QMV on ALL areas of competency whilst there are still National leaders who are able to be pushed around.

The flexibility clause will also be used to acquire powers to ensure that if national leaders do not play ball, under the framework to attain its objectives, it will simply take them. If they have no intention of using these powers, why put them in the treaty.

Originally I though it would happen over a number of years, as the Council of the Regions gains influence and power transfers in Brussels over the Council of Ministers.

It will be the Council of the Regions who will call for the closing of National Parliaments, citing interference in regional affairs. In our case, that call would probably come from either the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.

As if to reinforce my view, Dan Hannan put out another article today, calling for the vote on Scottish and Welsh independence.

It has become clear for me that Dan Hannan is not the saviour and spokesman of Liberty that many assume him to be. His writing tells me that he is working for ever closer integration of the EU, not for the best interests of those he represents in Britain, and whilst I admit he is trying to put a nicer face on it, his Federalist credential are becoming clearer by the day.

And before campaigns such as Albion Alliance really take hold and start having an impact, the Federalists are in a hurry to complete the split, the breakup of the UK into 'self governing' regions so that there will no longer be a UK to effect a withdrawal.

I daresay that a lot of what it says above in the piece is not true or just has not been implemented yet, and that is what scares the living daylight out of me. But further it leads me to question, yet again, the Tory way of campaigning. They exhibit an air of malcontent towards their prospective voters and it seems threaten them with 'voting anything other than Tory means five more years of Labour'. When so much of our sovereignty is fixed in Brussels then why does it matter who we vote for? As the article outlines, we do not make the decisions neither does Westminster but Brussels. Remember how Tony let slip that creating Holyrood was part of the "process" quite what that meant back then few could envisage but we all know now. The think tanks bang on about devolution being such a success yet the normal man on the street asks 'why the fuck did they do that'? The elite, dear boy, the elite they know what is best for us. Dave has furthermore explicitly stated (on the Andrew Marr show) that he will not hold an in-out-referendum so I am still left wondering why are we to vote for the tories? A bit of cosmetics here and there to ensure that the masses thing that something substantial has actually happened in our relationship with the EU, but that will be the full extent of it.

Also here is the very chilling item PJC speaks of "Item 13, Achieving the Lisbon Goals though coordinated and integrated territorial policymaking" written by our very own government in Brussels. Jolly good we have them watching over us, god knows what we might do otherwise.

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

I emailed Chris Grayling and this is what he replied

Dear Mr. Grayling,

My correspondence to you is with regards to the logo of the Home Office. You are with all certainty going to take office next year and as such you will be in control of the Home Office. You recall that Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary removed the Royal Crest from the Home Office at a price tag of £30,000. This has not only created all manners of confusion but it was also a direct insult to HM the Queen and our constitutional monarchy. As for the confusion, all posters etcetera at airports and ports still bear the old logo but the letters sent from the Home Office all have the new ghastly one which simply reads "Home Office" with no hint of Royal Prerogative. Go to the Home Office website and there is a mix of new and old logos being used here and there around the website. Reinstating the old logo should be a trivial matter (and cheap) since the majority of Home Office material still use it.

Will you under a Conservative government reinstate the old Home Office logo and end New Labour's attack on the Monarchy?

Yours Sincerely

13th Spitfire

This is what Mr. Grayling, Shadow Home Secretary, replied :

Dear Mr. Spitfire

Thank you for your message. I’m certainly not taking anything for granted at the moment – but if we are successful at the election, this is an issue we will look at. I can certainly think of many better ways in which the original £30,000 could have been spent.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling

(obviously I did not use the name '13th Spitfire')

Monday, 23 November 2009

EU Democracy 'innit'? (EU Democracy = 0.008% of electoral vote)

Thanks to Mrs. Synon for this one. For all the American's fault they at least elected their poodle.

Furthermore over at Open Europe we have it that Mr. Brown has yet again sold Britain down the river (yet another reason for reinstating treason to the statute book with compulsory firing squad). You might wonder why we are not all up in arms about this great betrayal? Seriously, who gives a shit anymore we know the man is comprehensively incapable of running his own life let alone this country and he is without a doubt the worst PM the UK has ever seen and by the looks of things, probably the last PM with any real power as Mr. Cameron will takeover the reigns with barely 10% of legislation not tied up in EU directives. People say that we should not mock him for his e.g. bad eye - why? He has destroyed the lives for millions of people, not just in this country but also in others. He is personally responsible for the death of thousands of British and foreign nationals, yet we are not allowed to mock him because that is somehow impolite, that we would stoop to his level? Never, Dante's inferno has Mr. Brown along with Mr. Blair firmly entrenched, and probably drowning (fingers crossed), in the Cocytus at the 9th circle. Should we be so lucky...

More importantly though why is not the blogosphere a bit more upset that EU will now destroy the city of London and give its function to Paris. Well, first I think we all knew it would happen. Secondly, we have stopped being surprised anymore at the ubiquitous and eye-watering destruction of this country. But thirdly and this is why I am not particularly fussed, as the city starts to wither away, the EU will have pissed of yet another group of people adding to the very long list already who are converted eurosceptics; doctors, farmers, fishers, employers etcetera. I will just sit back over the coming years, with a cup of tea in my hand and watch the 'EU Referendum' camp grow stronger and larger by the day. What is more though, pissing of the people who generate 10% of this country's wealth is well, hmm, not a clever idea mostly because these people are a lot more powerful than you average farmer who, quite rightly, is fuming with anger and the CAP, has preciously few resources to go with that venom. A banker on the other hand... If he finds that an entity will harm his ability to generate a profit he will do something about it. He has the 'dough' as it were.

In the end though I am no Douglas Carswell nor a Redwood or a Hannan. I know not the most intricate details of statesmanship nor the simplest of SW1 slang. I say few things which are actually worth listening to but speak more of what my common sense tells me; power should be grasped and held firmly by the people, like a mother holds her child. It should be defended at all costs from people who think they are acting as from a higher cause with that ignominious "hand of history" around and touching every political shoulder. A cause is not even worth the cognitive energy required to produce it, if it is simply an exercise in reversed enfranchisement.

Kings and Queens

This is a quite good, very dumbed down, description of the Kings and Queens of England and Great Britain to date.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

This EU President Business and his sidekick

Well, pushed by Blair, promoted by Brown, a career politician who never worked a 'real' job, helped sell our souls to the Lisbon treaty and married to a pollster. Would you like to meet her? Cathy Ashton (apparently she is a baroness but I only use that epithet when the person in question deserves it). Not fit to represent me, us or Great Britain. Yet somehow she is now our 'Foreign Minister' but of course the EU calls her High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

I would have been better if Tony Blair became EU president if we are to have one, at least he has some 'chutzpah'. Also for the fact that he would have greatly aided the eurosceptic campaign but I am sure Mr. EU-Wide-Tax wont disappoint either. Coincidentally, what rhymes with 'Herman', the new EU President, well of course 'German'. Fret not for I jest, of course the Germans had nothing to do with this did they? Xenophobia my arse, this is not xenophobia, it is just the plain, bare, deplorable dishonesty which is standing right in front of us, spitting down our throats while holding a shotgun to our balls. They could have been from bloody Mauritania for all I care, the very sincere disgust would have equivalent.

However these two will have to do, since they will aid the UK's final 10 years left in the EU - the countdown has begun. If the elite thinks otherwise there is little we can do for they command far greater resources than we do. But, we will sure as hell give them a run for their money, at the very least.

How and Why?

Why do we exist and does what we do make any significant or material difference to the world we are fortunate (well...) to be part of? Is the pen (keyboard) really mightier than the sword when the enemy (New Labour and the government) command nothing less than a small legion of forces with which it can swiftly and quickly deny or block a story altogether. Are those forces in turn completely demented or are they just that corrupted that they do anything for money? How is it that 27 people are to decide the potentially mightiest politician in the EU and they say nothing? How can it be conceivable that a newspaper calls its reader idiots after they refuse the global warming shenanigans? Surely that is the newspaper's fault for not doing enough brainwashing to get its message across?

These questions have all terribly simple answers to normal people who still have a sense of duty and moral conviction that something is terribly wrong with this country. When grave stones are being consecrated by the authorities for they have become a health and safety hazard. I am trying to put myself into that person's clothes, how do you think when you have been tasked with such a mission to kick over graves... 'I am about to tip over these century old graves because my council says so - Jolly Good Then!' It is that last part of the person's hypothetical mind waves that have become and issue in this country; the blind acceptance and conformity where before there was a moral objection to something so monumentally stupid as tipping over a grave stone. This of course is something of an extreme example and I expect it wont be long before we hear heads rolling on this one, I know that I would be all the rage if someone (if that 'someone' turned out to be employed by my council there would be hell to pay, sure this is the internet and empty threats are ubiquitous but this is not one of them) kicked over my grandfather's grave stone. You would see nothing short of ballistic blitzkrieg on my behalf and I am a fairly sensible person - imagine someone who is a bit off the hook. Murder she wrote.

What we write now, this and many posts before it and what people like Mr. North, Guido and Iain Dale or Leg Iron, write - does it make a difference and does it matter? Perhaps, the fundamental difference between the MSM and bloggers is that we retain our common sense where the rest have fundamentally lost it. The Guardian yesterday ran a completely non-story about the M0D helping out Top Gear, where their twist was that they had spent taxpayer money and soldiering hours (which simply was not true and it was a downright lie). We know that this is complete BS, not because it is the Guardian, they sometimes have very incisive cover on the most fascinating of issues even though they are Labourites, and so it appears do most comments. Which is why we must consider what makes the media abandon its common sense when it is writing the simplest of issues and why don't they huff-and-puff more when something really paradoxically cockeyed has taken place. They instead insist that because they are a media outlet they must remain impartial. But we all know this is complete crap as well, it is ridiculously easy to put a political label of media outlets today, whereas they are pretending that 'bias' is like French to them - c'est quoi monsieur?

Why the charade? Be honest for once in your miserable lives.