Remember The Awe

Recall the familiar, if not yet proverbial, tune of Rule Britannia by James Thompson with music by Thomas Arne.

The lyrics of the chorus to the sung version ('Rule, Britannia' is a poem originally), please let me draw your attention to the part in italic...

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Never, never, never shall Britons be slaves, quite patriotic it is and the tunes of which have reverberated long into this century. It has touched hearts and minds, it has even permeated the darkest depths of political thought for who could well forget Margaret Thatcher's famous "No! No! No!" - speech?

As you might have guessed there is darker tone, a more deleterious background and an altogether lost sense of what the song was written for of what it was supposed to represent.

If we roll back the clock to the time of the Magna Carta Libertatum, signed by King John of England in the year 1215 (actually there is no evidence that King John could write but it did bear his seal). I will again give the readers of this account the benefit of the doubt and assume them scholarly knowledgeable of the Great Charter. Non-believers of this charter seem to think that even though it has been amended through the ages (quite a few times actually) and that it initially only applied to aristocracy and large landowners, makes it defunct today for all swathes of society even aristocracy and large landowners (I hope you can spot the stupidity of this argument even though Lord Mandelson likes to sport himself part of the 21st century aristocracy...) This is the view held by the EU apologist Nosemonkey.

Lets address this shall we?

The most famous of its sixty-three clauses said that no free man could be imprisoned, outlawed or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land, and that justice could not be sold, delayed or denied. It also contained clauses relating to the treatment of heirs and widows and to the payment of debts. It provided for uniform measures of wine, ale, corn and cloth throughout the realm. It confirmed the liberties of the Church and of all cities and towns and it sought to regulate the conduct of all local officials such as sheriffs, bailiffs and constables and ensure that they knew and observed the law.

The most significant part of this transfigured into what we today know as habeas corpus - directly from clauses 36, 38, 39, and 40 of the 1215 Magna Carta.

Did you know that habeas corpus only applied to aristocracy and large landowners? /sarcasm.

We have now come some way in constructing what to many is the best legal system ever to have seen the light of the sun, but we are not quite there yet.

The 1689 Bill of Rights is what is most important and significant for the whole purpose of this post. The official name of the act is

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the
Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.

Fancy you might think and I would quite agree. What it did in a massive slap-in-the-face-of-history summary was to establish that Parliament was the ruling power of England and subsequently Great Britain which was formed in 1707. We will not go into detail of the document the entirety which can be found here. There is however one very important clause which must be discussed, repeated and proclaimed over and over again...

“No foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm”

Before going into what this in turn has to do with Thomas and Arne let me again rub my heal into the balls of the EU apologetics who claim the Bill of Rights is obsolete because King William III, a Dutchman, passed it into law. Upon which they also add that a quarter of a century later the crown passed to a German King George I, who spoke no English (why they add this bit I do not know).

• Charles I of England (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649) had Scotish and Danish parents - what does that make him? To the apologetics he certainly is not English. He was even born in Fife well before the UK came into being.
• Edward III of England (13 November 1312 – 21 June 1377) had a French mother and a English father - what on earth does that make him, he is of course not English with the apologetics.
  
• Stephen of England (c. 1096 – 25 October 1154) this poor fellow was born in France, had a french mother AND a french father he was really really really not English even though he was king - according to the apologetics.
  

As you can see their little argument that because a king happens to not be of a nationality, that was not even properly defined back then (they did not have fancy biometric passports like we do today), he can thus not sign a treaty and hence the treaty itself is not valid. Logic?

But here is what it really burns down to because of what was said in the Bill of Rights the EU is by virtue illegal. I do not have enough judicial or constitutional knowledge to know by what authority our parliament has signed away our liberties through the following treaties and accessions, all I know is that they have:

1. European Convention of Human Rights (Human rights should always be upheld as the highest virtue of a nation but it should be arbitrated by the state itself).
   
2. European Communities Act (1972)
3. Treaty of Maastricht (1992)
   
4. Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
5. Treaty of Nice (2002)
6. Treaty of Lisbon (20??)
   

Alas I recall the famous lines of Rule Britannia; 'Britons never, never, never shall be slaves' this was true for centuries upon centuries and Britain, though not infalliable not at all, had created the finest form of democracy the world has ever known and probably will ever know again. At the end of the line, as we turn of the lights and enter the world of Hypnos, remember the awe and remember the days when we were free for it will be a long long time until we are again.

With this I take my leave for a couple of weeks during which blogging will be quite sparse.

I hope Cambridge, Imperial and LSE follow

Oxford University moves towards going private I hope the rest G5 universities follow. When you have a government which has taken upon itself to perform social engineering on the student body then you are truly doomed. Recall how Gordon Brown along with Tony Blair forced Oxbridge to increase its state intake from 52% to 67% because Laura Spence, a bright state educated girl, was rejected from Oxford - of course the ignominious bastard forgot that thousands upon thousands of brilliant youngsters get rejected each year.

Applying to university should be a meritocratic process through and through. Why the initial target of 52% existed I do not know but you were sure that Labour would contradict itself when it said it would "tare down all class boundaries" instead they promoted them. How very Nu Labour. I suppose the 52% can be accredited to history.

As is fasionable when Labour has done anything its repercussions are soon felt. Now the brightest of British youth are heading over to America where they are allowed to be just that: bright. Lo and behold they are even encouraged, horror!

No, the sooner the best universties remove the claws of the state the better. Then they can truly choose brilliance over quotas.

You might say that the brilliant poor wont be able to go to best universities when they have gone private for they will increase the fee, I have one word for you: Grants. It works perfectly well in America, there is not reason why we cannot mimic their system instead of having retarded government after another promoting "eqaulity" little realising that academia is not about eqaulity and fairness - it is a brutishly harsh world where only the brightest, smartest most hard working individuals will get a shot at fame and glory.

Observer says the Government has "retreated over the Post Office and ID cards" - this is a myth

Andrew Rawnsley has written an article about Labour and power not very dissimilar from my prediction that Labour are fucked but the Tories are not much better.

I am not going to dig too deep into the article, after all, you can read yourselves. But rather refute two claims that have been made in it which clearly the displays the lacking in this "journalist" who cannot even comprehend the workings of laws and bills. It is even sadder when you consider that the whole blogosphere as a collective seem to have understood the maliciousness in Labour's claims.

"Those Labour MPs who continue to invest some hope in Gordon Brown's powers of recovery have yet to see any reward for keeping the faith after the devastating local and Euro elections last month. Number 10 has made a clumsy botch of announcing an inquiry into the Iraq war and been badly embarrassed over the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It has raggedly retreated over the Post Office and ID cards. The attempt to relaunch public service reform has sunk under the weight of its timidity. What is the message? Where is the strategy Why is there never any follow through? I only put the questions that I hear muttered by despondent members of the cabinet, the very people who ought to be supplying some of the answers."

Lets consider the Post Office claim.

Now although the Business (Buffoon) Secretary Lord Mandelson said the Postal Services Bill, which has already passed through the House of Lords and was awaiting debate in the Commons, was being put on hold until "market conditions" improved.

He also said "There is no prospect in current circumstances of achieving the objectives of the Postal Services Bill. When market conditions change, we will return to the issue."

All is jolly golly good then you might think, well not really.

Lord Mandelson, the likely next leader of Labour, will sell it anyway once the economy recovers which apparently is only months away.

Alas, they have not backed down.

Now for the ID cards claim.

ID cards will no longer be compulsory, but anyone applying for a British passport will be added to the national identity card database. The really shitty part about the whole ID cards debacle is the database and that is still to go ahead, it will the thrashed by Tories once in power but never mind.

These are not so much "U-turns" as the MSM likes to fashion they are more E-turns - in that they are just circumventing vox populi and making it seem that they have ditched the highly unpopular main route. When all that they have done is to chose another one, but this of course is rarely mentioned by the media for it is more sensationalist to write about "U-turns".

More BS from David

Sorry Lord Kitchener but Britain has run out of honour. Please try elsewhere.

Found this in my mailbox this morning

"There's been a tragic loss of life in our armed forces over the last two weeks. I think they have reminded all of us that over three thousand miles away from our daily lives, several thousand men and women are putting their lives on the line to help keep this country safe.

The very least we can do here at home is make sure everything is done to give them what they need to fulfil their dangerous mission, and to reduce the risks as much as we can. That's why I have been saying for three years that our forces in Helmand desperately need more helicopters.

When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown cut the helicopter budget by £1.4billion - a bad mistake. The result is that after eight years in Afghanistan our troops have fewer than 30 helicopters in Helmand. This compares to over 100 helicopters that the Americans have for the same number of troops. It's a scandal that the Government has not dealt with this shortage.

It's also important that we remember that the dangers our troops face don't disappear when they leave the battlefield - the battlefield can leave mental as well as physical scars. That's why we held a conference this week to highlight the severe mental health problems that some veterans have."

What is the problem with this? Well the Tories are going to cut the defence budget this is why this mail is wholly and fully meaningless drivel, from HM opposition.

But just to make fun of the Tories have a look at this story over at ConservativeHome and the comment left by Mr. Michael Mcgough:

"It must be tough to be white, male and heterosexual in the Tory party today".

Quite.

Animus - pure and petrid ire

I had to trawl through the voluminous pages of a thesaurus to find words which adequately mimicked my feelings towards the government and the "establishment" with regards to this story highlighted by the ever so pertinacious Christopher Booker. The noun anger just did not tick the emotional box this time.

God forbid, this might sound strange, if a sufficient number of British bloggers became ministers in the future. They would literally, toe by toe and tooth by tooth, rip the foes of society to pieces. I say god forbid for there would be violence such is the anger contained in society today.

Again New Labour is to blame for the ills which now seemingly rain down upon us, day by day, as if they were inconsequential - a daily ritual of the British way of life where families are destroyed, crime is soaring, social services work for their own good, the government and the opposition, parliament, the establishment as created by Labour has been so indiscriminately uprooted so that society itself has become narcissistic and selfish to the core. The police, they are not the friendly Bobbies of old. They are now Left-trained thugs who see ordinary people as the enemy. A 'philanthropist' what is a philanthropist? Does anyone even know anymore?

You might have thought that I was going to analyse the story for myself to see if I could get anything sensible out of it - truth be told I am exhausted, not physically, but mentally. Every day there are more and more records, not evidence, that go to show how wrong the government of the past 12 years has been wrong in everything! There are no bright sparks to alleviate the pain either - and if one, somehow, managed to pass through the social constructs that now permit even the slightest sheds of progress or happiness to brighten up your day, you can be quite sure that if you were to dig a little deeper that bright spark was just another placebo.

The bitterness contained in this mind is to some degree long overdue, composure should be upheld at least for the good of the language ostensibly the only thing the government has not tinkered with. Scared one becomes when looking at blogs, reading comments on news sections, but most of all when talking to normal people. The next government will not be any better be quite sure of that for they are just that as well, a placebo, 'a substance having no pharmacological effect but given merely to satisfy a patient who supposes it to be a medicine'.

Britain is the patient, we are the patients, but the Conservatives are not the medicine nor are Labour. Sadly when this general election has passed and Labour are terminated and when the next general election has passed and the Conservatives dispensed, then we will see a medicine but there wont be anymore elections, for that is the essence of what shall come and it will be far more sinister than the Labour imposed hell-hole they insist on calling 'Britain'.

Funny stuff really

This is getting ridiculous, are Labour hell bent on total annihilation at the next general election?

Russian flights, Argentinian aggression, Northern Ireland still volatile, Iran with "the bomb", North Korea and Winky, Pakistan crumbling to pieces and one big fucking screw-up in Afghanistan.

Get the picture?

(if not here is the gist; maybe, and bear with me on this, now is not the best time to scale down the armed forces...)

To round of this post I shall repeat my underlying paradigm and philosophy: The only thing a prospective government political party needs to do to win the next general election is to reverse every single decision ever taken by New Labour. Here are some to start with:

Protection from Harassment Act (1997),
the Crime and Disorder Act (1998),
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000),
the Terrorism Act (2000),
the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001),
the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001),
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002),
the Criminal Justice Act (2003),
the Extradition Act (2003),
the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003),
the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004),
the Civil Contingencies Act (2004),
the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005),
the Inquiries Act (2005),
the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005)

And while at it why not reconsider our very one-sided "special relationship" ? I imagine me along with the current blogosphere will be long gone and dead by the time a British PM gives a Love Actually Hugh Grant speech (and do not act like you do not know what I am talking about, you have seen the film might as well admit it).

If we were truly tyrants, like the EU, and in a bit of a playful mood this is what should be done: Conservatives win the general election and pass the Prevention of New Labour Act (2010).

Just to pour salt in their wounds

Ahh New Labour, They are truly the arithmetic political force; they add trouble, subtract pleasure, divide attention, and multiply ignorance.

So to exemplify their mathematical abilities I thought I would highlight this "graph" that I stole from Subrosa.


Now lets all pray together that the rank and file do not make the connection of EU+Uncontrolled Immigration+New Labour+Red Tape etcetera and unemployment. That would be a sad day indeed.

(Yes, I know the recession has a part to play in this as well but where would we be today without the burdens mentioned above?)

Tony Bliar

Blasted bloody Bliar. It is vehemently annoying that the Daily Mail has written a good article, for once, on a matter political. Find it here..

"Now we've heard it all. The lying warmonger who has done more than anyone to corrupt our public life is the Government's official choice to be the first president of the European Union."

Really I think all that can be added to this story is that Tony Bliar and the EU deserve one another. Words of wisedom perhaps but not really it is The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth.

(Usually I am very cordial towards the people I write of applying the usual formalities required such as "sir" and "Mr" or "Mrs". I reserve my right to withdraw Tony Blair from any such formalities for I rank him below Stalin even Ribbentrop. These men, evil though they were, at least acted in good faith: they were trying to create a better nation for their people, never mind the deluded methods they chose. Blair sold his country, honesty and everything else a long time ago. He is a fake who never once stood up for Britain - I have nothing but pure contempt for such creatures).

Constitutional Vandalism

Remember the The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the one dubbed "Constitutional Vandalism", by well everyone, except New Labour of course.

This is what it did (Wikipedia of course).

• Abolition of the office of "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", generally known as the Lord Chancellor.
• Setting up of a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and moving the Law Lords out of the House of Lords to this new court.
• Other measures relating to the judiciary, including changes to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and changes to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee.

Why was this done?

"The reform was motivated by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not be in conformance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer, having legislative or executive power, is likely not to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial."

I will let the humble reader be the judge (notice the pun, aren't I funny?) as to why this system was to be changed when it delivered justice adequately for a good 800 years.

More and more pictures are starting to arrive from the MSM showing images of the courtrooms of the new Supreme court. Interestingly though they seem to have told the Queen to go and stuff herself with the creation of this new abomination at the price of 56 million pounds. Seems odd to scrap a system that is the envy of the rest of the world in favour of integration and conformity. The odd thing is that I think New Labour thinks (odd sentence) that when they are thrown out of office next year there wont be any consequences of their destruction of the UK.

Anyhow here is the emblem approved by the queen for the new Supreme Court (notice the St. Edwards Crown).This is what is actually found in the building...

Notice the distinct absence of anything even reminiscent of the monarchy (for the less attentive readers, what is missing from the emblem is the St. Edwards crown - the symbol of Crown Immunity, Liberty and Authority). For more pictures go here.

So much for Crown Prerogative.

What I find truly fascinating about this whole business is not the constant disestablishment of Britain under New Labours conductance but the naivety of its ministers. In years to come when we start to unravel the New Labour bombshell years they will have to face the nation in a court of law - be it the Supreme Court or the House of Lords. It has barely been a month since Jacqui Smith resigned from Gordon's cabinet and she is already being prosecuted. How long before Gordon is charged?

Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Miliband et al. you will not get away with what you have done. You cannot stop justice being done, let alone a nation which is quite frankly pissed off at the lot of you for behaving so maliciously towards your own people who you are supposed to serve and protect.

As the current Home Secretary Alan Johnson said "I am not loosing sleep over rising immigration numbers." Trust me dear Mr. Johnson when you are truly out and gone of office, and the nation starts to recover from your disastrous time at its helm, you will loose sleep.

Addendum: Turns out this whole issue was rather more serious than I initially thought. I have mailed the relevant ministers of the government and in the shadow cabinet to see what they will do about it, or what is more likely to tell them that they actually have a Supreme Court now - I wonder if they even knew. Will post relevant replies from ministers when received.

The farce continues

Appeasement - doublespeak for 'Caitiff'

Spot the difference between this image and the one below, apparently they are the same according to the BBC. Splendid then.

Remember the charming chaps featured in the image above? You know the ones who were within in an inch of being lynched by a mob before the valiant police stepped in and saved them from the people, who were there for entirely different reasons; to support the troops.

Before diving into the chronic-failure policy that is appeasement let me just display the spin put on this story by the BBC. The BBC called these protesters "anti-war protesters" even though nearly every other MSM outlet managed to label the protests accurately; namely as muslim protesters. Take a look here for example (even the Guardian managed to implore reason for once).

There is, and please read this very carefully any potential BBC staff, a profound difference between "anti-war" protesters and the despicable lot that managed to upset the town of Luton including its normal muslim population, who are very supportive of the armed forces in general. Akbar Dad Khan, a local community leader, said: "They are about 10 to 15 hotheads. The best thing to do is just to ignore them. I agree with Mr. Khan entirely though just to make issue completely crystal...

These are anti-war protesters:

Turns out though that the government has done a policy U-turn again, lo and behold! Police around the country have been told that they are to "take it easy on muslim extremists" lest they become more militant as a result. This defies all logic but so does New Labour. Remember in 2005 when Mr. Blair, then PM, called for an "overhaul of the criminal justice system to root out and prosecute extremists."

Tory MP David Davies said: "This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law". Quite.

What has history taught us about the policy of appeasement then? The most famous case can of course be ascribed to former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. In 1938 the Nazis in the Sudetenland (formed under the Versailles Treaty) became really chafed and figured they would called for autonomy. However this could lead to war since the Germans might intervene and help them something which could not be tolerated by the British. So, things really got heated upon which Mr. Chamberlain hopped on a prop and flew to Berchtesgaden to negotiate directly with Hitler.

Hitler, as you know, was a bit strange and he wanted pretty much everything he could get his hands on. Whenever there was an objection he threatened war. In conjunction what happened was that the British and French told their ally, the Czechs, to give away huge chunks of its population and territory to the Germans (what the Czechs really should do as an honest retribution is to sign the Lisbon Treaty and then send a memorandum to Mr. Cameron reading "ha ha, up yours wanker") this all resulted in the Munich Agreement where effectively Czechoslovakia ceased to exist and was chopped up into four pieces and then handed to Germany, Hungary, Poland, and an independent Slovakia.

Smashing!

Well not really, in March 1939 Chamberlain assured the Poles that Britain would support them if their independence was threatened (remember how we said that Hitler was a rather quirky character). On 1 September Hitler invaded Poland and on 3 September Britain declared war on Germany. The rest is history as they say.

What we should take from this example is that appeasement is a crappy policy at best and downright perilous at worst. Why? Because the recipients of the appeasement think that they can do whatever they want as their adversary, clearly, does not have any balls.

Or why not take a more recent example of appeasement failure. Newt Gingrich said that he was wrong to put the racist label on Justice Sotomayer.

Aha? That is odd.

Justice Sotomayer ruled against white firemen in New Haven, Connetticut, who said city officials violated their rights when it threw out the results of a promotions test on which few minorities scored well. The minorities in question were African-Americans. To you or me that is blatant racism staring you right in the face, according to Sotomayer it is not. Anyhow the ruling has been overturned by the Supreme Court to which Justice Sotomayer is set to become a full time member of in the not to distant future. That does not bode well.

To burn or not to burn, that is the question...

Do you remember when the Danish upheld their principle of free speech and the freedom of the press, when they claimed that the right for a publisher to publish whatever he wants within the law, was a sacrosanct exercise in the West and in Denmark. We remember of course what happened to Danish embassies and Danish products abroad as Muslims reacted to this attrocious enactment of civil liberties. For those of you who are not familiar with this story, here is what happened in a short recap.

"The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship." (I do not do "copy-paste" and then announce it as my own work so here is the link to Wikipedia from whence the above summary was taken).

Neither do I bow to the wishes of those who would rather I did, alas here is one of the cartoons as published by Jyllands Posten just to put the whole issue into perspective. Admittedly it is not a very nice depiction of Mr. Muhammad but it is a depiction and that is what caused the uproar down yonder.

But as the title of this post suggest the content of this exegesis is not that of Islam bashing - plenty of people do that a lot more satisfactory than myself. No, it is about the curious article of flag desecration.



As has been noted, Muslims around the world really got their knickers in a twist because of something as petty as a picture of their prophet - never mind the other thousands of contradictions in the Koran, lets focus on the non-issue of non-publishing of Mr. Muhammad's face and ignore say, the one about not translating the Koran which to me seems like a much more pressing issue not to say insulting to Mr. Allah. But I suppose we will just have to live with hypocrisy. Moving on, consider this image which was captured somewhere in one of the countries where ignorance clearly outweighed modesty.

Consider this; they are burning the Danish flag thus assuming that the "accountability" lay with the Danish sovereign and not the newspaper in question who saw it fit to muddle in religion (something which always ends bad for anyone who tries - see Richard Dawkins' The root of all evil?) . Would it not have been more appropriate to burn a manikin of the Danish PM Mr. Fogh Rasmussen or why not a copy of the Danish constitution where the freedoms to publish these pictures are enshrined? Or why not stoop so low as to burn a manikin of the cartoonist himself or to be a bit more academic about the whole issue; why not burn a marionette of the Editor of Jyllands Posten, thus making a very learned but gentile protest befitting of "moderate" muslims (the spell checker wants me to put 'muslims' with a capital M. I am not going to honour their actions with this execution as I find the non-moderate population a bit rude).

Continuing, Wikipedia reckons (and thus a portion of the internet who saw fit to edit the page about "Flag Desecration") that the reasons for burning the national flag are as follows:

1. As a protest against a country's foreign policy.
2. To distance oneself from the foreign or domestic policies of one's home country.
3. As a protest at the very laws prohibiting the actions in question.
4. As a protest against nationalism.
5. As a protest against the government in power in the country, or against the country's form of government.
6. A symbolic insult to the people of that country.
7. To demonstrate one's rights.

I would also add "shear ignorance" to this list but if I were to do this someone would undoubtedly remove it from Wikipedia for it does not fall within the remits of equitability. Going back, Wikipedia is spot on in two of the cases namely Nr. 3 and Nr. 6.

Burning a flag could be a very personal issue depending on the reciprocation of the audience. The people in the audience are either very patriotic or modestly or just not at all. The first group will take great offense as a result of this act - my prejudices tell me that many Americans fall into this group. The second group will most likely take offense if this sort of behaviour continues for an extended period of time - I can see the British and French being in this cohort. Finally we have the last group that argues that it is the Muslim's right to exercise their freedom to burn a foreign flag. This is the option we will discuss with regards to Nr. 3 and Nr.6.

Option Nr. 3 finds that desecrating a flag is justified because it is seen as a protest at the very laws prohibiting the actions in question. Now consider also this t-shirt which is on sale at Ban T-shirts. Many Brits would not think twice before slinging this beauty on to their beer-bellies and within the confines of Nr. 3 they are fully entitled to since a majority despise this continental calumniator. Under Nr. 3 then yes, they were perfectly within their right to burn the Danish flag because it is seen as a symbol which represents the actions taken by the paper who according to their beliefs desecrated the holy word of Allah. Whereas most people in the west would go "ehrm, dudes it is only a couple of pictures. It is not like they are chaining muslims and feeding them pork" - quite right it is not. If someone in the UK were to burn the EU they would without question have a EAW thrown at them from either Germany or France for reasons unknown.

It comes down to this Nr. 3 is a double-edged sword. Offense would be taken in the west, at least I think, at some level were someone to burn their national flag. No matter how much the lefties (Of socialism must be said this "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery" - Churchill)in your school proclaimed that they were "a citizen of the world" and similar BS their is always a certain sentimentality towards one's country be it a Sunday Roast or Warm Ale or just cheering for the UK or Denmark in the Olympics - that is after all one of the core purposes of the games to promote national rivalry in sports rather than in arms. But we must consider the point of view as well, for it is very important. The antagonists of this story burned the Danish flags from a religious point of view. That is to say they attacked the state of Denmark for having insulted their religion. Burning the EU flag in Britain would be of different nature; it would be a protest against the ever growing powers of the continental leviathan and a message which simply reads "we want our country back". As V from V for Vendetta said

"A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world." I will leave the reader to extrapolate this quote to flags.

Is either stance more justifiable if conversation were to be kept cordial? If we take the American approach they would most likely argue no. "Flag burning" amendments to the Constitution have been proposed several times with the most recent one on June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states. However with Bush out of the picture this amendment will most likely never bear fruit, but it does go to show just how sensitive the issue is in the USA.

What about Nr. 6 then? Well when the Mr. Muhammad Cartoon roller-coaster got started most people thought the Danes were being too tolerant towards the Muslim world who were having Denmark-bonfires at least twice a day. Quite an insult some would say but the Danes refrained from pinching it in the bud and did not honour their existence with an apology-statement from the PM. This inevitabily precipitated the crumbling mood of the muslims since they do like attention (see Mr. Ahmadinejad, "democratically" elected president of Iran) but were not getting it from the main player, who normally is the USA, but this time little Denmark had to play that role.

Like Hamlet's soliloquy states (in our context), to burn or not to burn, that is the question. I dare say I have not provided an adequate response to the issue. Is burning a flag really the ultimate political insult as delivered by the proletariat (the vox populi it is not for that would assume that the entireity of the Muslim world are tossers which is not true) or is it merely a futile attempt to get attention to one's lost cause? (It should be noted that the countries in which the Danish flag was burned, the flag desecration was not condemned by the leaders of the nations in question - food for thought perhaps).

Just so you know

For all of you who are (I hope) as diligent as myself in following the latest developments of the Lisbon Treaty might I recommend this excellent site which captures the majority of MSM writings on this issue.

You can find it here.

The People

If dissatisfaction is turned into action proper democracy rules the land for it means at worst protests.

If anger is turned into action democracy rules the land for it might mean manageable riots.

If rage is turned into action democracy falters and the government has only itself to blame for being brought down by its people who it was supposed to serve.

This must be said again and again though, we are British we do not do forceful displays of public opinion for it does not become us to protest that loudly lest it were to offend someone. Having said this, having just read the entirety of the daily round up of today's news, the country's mood is slowly moving from angry to rage. Will there be a general election before climax is reached? For Gordon's sake I truly hope so - he is already universally reckognised as the worst Prime Minister the UK has ever had or ever seen. It would be a terrible blow to his psyche (but extremely beneficial for Britain) if he was also to be thrown out of his post by the very people he was supposed to represent, serve and protect.

Summum ius summa inuria

The more Latin learned people amongst ye vast crowds out there who are looking to satisfy your perpetual need for knowledge might know what the title of this post means. It is quite accurately translated as 'the more law, the less justice' - a Latin proverb of unknown origin.

If you look at the post that was published just before this one you will notice that the notion of the "The United Kingdom" will be pretty much, 100%, undermined once the Lisbon Treaty has been passed then we will not just have 80% of our laws written in Brussels but more like 97% to chose an arbitrary figure close to a 100%.

With this is mind one must but ask; how many laws do they pass, without assigning a time span to that question before knowing the answer we can most likely get a more accurate picture of the insanity that is currently infiltrating the political classes in Whitehall and in Brussels.

First though, to give you a rough idea how a law is made:

1) An election manifesto promise
2) A government department after an election has been won
3) The influence of pressure groups
4) The influence of experts within their field
5) In response to an EU directive

These in turn can either be (as considered by Parliament):

1) Government Bills
2) Private Members’ Bill
3) Private Bills
4) Hybrid Bills
5) Statutory Instruments

All of these are rather self explanatory to anyone with an ounce of knowledge of British politics, ergo lets move on.

Statutory Instruments make up the bulk of all UK legislation, with an average of around 3,500 passed every year for much of the last two decades. In 2008, 3,389 Statutory Instruments were passed, while the UK Statute Law Database lists 2,414 results for the same year.

I know I said ergo, but screw it, I am going to explain briefly what an statutory instrument actually is:

"By-law, order, ordinance, or regulation issued by a government or its agencies for the enactment or enforcement of a specific statute. Statutory instruments detail the measures that must be taken by the entities to whom they are addressed. Also called statutory rule."

All in all, governments make shit loads of rules to the point where it is now becoming a bit ridiculous. Why governments keep on pledging to "cut red tape" (In the 17th and 18th century, the English typically bound legal documents and official papers with red tape. To this day most barristers' briefs are tied in a pink coloured ribbon known as red tape. Traditionally, official Vatican documents were also bound in red cloth tape.) though as you might have heard governments, particularly this one preceded over by New Labour, are awfully bad a keeping their promises - most likely why this government is the most unpopular since statistics begun.

So, what about EU law then? Now here is an interesting one: The lefties reckon that about 10-20% of British law originates in Brussels - they would wouldn't they? Daniel Hannan reckons it is about 84% Hmm, now here is a really tough one; Leftist Eurocrats vs. a Member of the European Parliament who albeit hates the EU is a very clever man which cannot be said of, well come to think of it, any current minister of HMS government. For some numbers then, we all like to number crunch so here we go, actually just go to this blog post over at Open Europe which the entire blogosphere has copycatted including Nosemonkey's EUtopia and and Liberal Conspiracy - very bad sportsmanship chaps, very bad. But to get a number on it, from admittedly, a biased source (I hate the EU as much as anyone but I must admit that UKIP are a bit biased at times, this said though they if anyone have correctly identified the real danger that is the EU so there research is probably more correct than any other) we have it as 8 laws a day.

There you go folks, go figure, I hear there is a talk of a "deregulation minister" from the Tories - pah, that wont happen as with most things the MAIN THREE promise. Words into to action seems to be an unwholly impossible task for the governments of today (spanning from roughly 1950 - before that they actually managed to do a fair bit).

And we have the whole Sharia "law" issue.. (notice my euphemistic emphasis on the quotation marks, meaning that I think the whole concept of religious law is a complete and utter joke).

Almost done

Pretty much done with the new layout, before I start firing away if anyone has any pointers as to what could be improved please say so - I might be hard to stop once I dig into the EU's new Stockholm Programme. Excuse the mail link, but regardless who tells it this is extremely dangerous and I think we can all safely say that the EU did long ago drift in to waters of megalomania and grandeur. They have to be stopped.

A breakdown of who really controls us

Courtesy of Nirj Deva MEP

New Template soon... Update: Here it is (simple)

This old bourgeois style blog layout will, within short, be changed to something more befitting of our times and my Sandinista temperament. Stay tuned...

(I know the FSLN are socialist and I know we do not really like them but they must be given some kudos for they are a very very angry political party. Whilst not condoning any form of violence for furtherance of ends one has to respect the passion and means for which the ends are supported).

A thought: The government after the incoming Tory government could possibly win the election by simply asserting that they will not create any legislation or quangos. All they will do is to roll back the previous years including the incoming Tories' screw-ups.

I think it is a winner.

Addendum: Turns out changing the bloody template requires a whole lot of work and as a result I messed it up and all the "Recommended Reading" has disappeared. FFS.

Implosion

It is not easy, not easy at all, to watch as a bystander your country implode before your very eyes knowing full well that there is not a single thing that you can do about it. The anger that is felt and directed towards the hordes of people who have been complicit in disassembling the UK cannot be described. And for what reasons? What motives could possibly be strong enough to illicit someone to commit such greats acts of treachery towards ones country where, bit by bit, the electorate was to be convinced that the power removed from Westminster would be better served elsewhere (see box to the right) - even though it did a masterful job in serving the UK properly for a good 300 years.

Remember what Gladstone said in his speech at Hastings 17th of March 1891

‘No violence, no tyranny, whether of experiments or of such methods as are likely to be made in this country, could ever for a moment have a chance of prevailing against the energies of that great Assembly (The House of Commons),

“No; if these powers of the House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by tacit and insidious methods, and therefore I say that public attention should be called to this.”’

Public attention was never called of course for obvious reasons. Imagine the public out cry if they found out what was being perpetrated. Yes, British Empire was over Pax Britannia was over and Pax Americana had taken it place. No empire is perfect certainly not, the British one had many faults but the American one to follow was as worthy as any other contender.

What if they had found out though? What if the hoi polloi gained the knowledge that an active campaign to disestablish British sovereignity had been launched shortly after WW2. What of vox populi, would it speak of war or would it just not care? In my ignorance I hope they would care maybe it would even make it onto the third of fourth page of the SUN - well maybe that is asking a bit too much.

Why this dismal approach you may wonder? Well, whenever Britain was attacked, throughout history, we fought back in one way or another through force or by cunning. When the Argentinians attacked us with Exocet missiles during the Falklands Campaign our response was not to deploy counter measures but to buy entire global supply of French Exocet missiles. But now with the EU we have taken the most oddious approach conceivable; rather than to expell that malaise we joined it! This is quite frankly remarkable and yet today, when substantial majority of the British people want out or just revert back to EEC or EFTA the government still insists on the benefits eventhough it is clear to everyone that Great Britain exists only in name, the nation which long befored filled that empty void is now long gone what remains is a but a shadow. A shadow which for all intents and purposes serves only as a reminder of how we, the people of the UK, lost the battle for our sovereignty.

You might want to call me a sensationalist reactionary twat. Fine, I shall allow it for now but you come back to me in one years time when the Lisbon Treaty has been passed and repeat your insult. Not before long the rest will follow...

UK "joins" the Euro
Scotland leaves the UK
Wales leaves the UK
NI joins Ireland
England remains as a region of the EU.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Action

Whilst this government is doing what it does best namely: nothing, the real world is rolling on ad infinitum and the likes of the EU and immigration will not go away.

Gordon Brown has relaunched his ridiculous dead-walking party with a rather interesting policy to give preferance to locals rather immigrants for housing. As with everything Brownite this is a poltroonite disaster waiting to happen "British Houses for British people" whilst not an entirely ridiculous policy in itself because of what New Labour have created as a legal backdrop it will not work.

Before going to the finer parts of this, one has to defend onself in these times for mentioning the word "immigration" for doing such a thing will automatically assume that you are a racist. Now in this correspondents opinion giving housing to local people before immigrants is not such a bad idea in itself because it is just basics. A person who migrates to another country does so on the premise of work and a better life - not milk the system (if this is the reason then clearly they should not be let in lest they are serious asylum seekers). This is the current problem with Labours immigration policy they let everyone in and then claim "economic benefits" as their reason eventhough, and it must be well over a hundred NGOs and governmental departments including the House of Lords by now, have emperically emphasized that mass immigration brings no economic benefit at all. What it does bring is BNP MEPs and with all certainty MPs. In short it brings racial tension.

Why give housing to locals, simple; it may or may not stave of some tension lying in the air over immigration. Most likely not because it does not adress the main problem (big surprise there: it is a New Labour policy - that said I do not envisage a future where the Tories will bring about any massive cuts in immigration numbers. Now of course they say they will but in 5 years time you can be quite sure that little has changed).

But back to the legal back drop of this policy. New Labour has played their cards so badly that the entire policy might in fact be illegal. According to the EHRC the policy is not legal and furthermore you can be as sure as day follows night that this will not go down well with the ECHR in Brussels (not the EU the other one...). So a quango and a continental entity is now dictating British government policy - wow. This is not that bad if you consider the fact that celebrities now control government immigration policy along with the EU (see Joanna Lumley and Gurkhas).

The latter part I suppose the Tories have to be blamed for after all they did elect Heath and he brought us into this perpetual mess. The former, well, a weak leader of a weak party has no problem in backtracking policy for celebrities after all they do know best do they not? Or consider this fascinating snippet from none other than Lily Allen, she thought that Gordon was "a nice man". Nice man indeed who destroyed your country Ms Allen, but never mind shall we, as long as the cash keeps flowing your way I daresay you will take any active interest in your home.

(I do apologise for any spell errors, don't have spell checker on this computer).

That was the sinister part of the message the important one is this; If immigration policy is not adjusted and we sit idlelly by whilst BNP MP/MEP after BNP MP/MEP gets elected then we have no one but ourselves to blame. Most of the people who vote BNP are descent people but who had enough of this government and the main parties for not giving two hoots about their concerns. If the electorate says something they damn bloody well will listen, this is such a fundamental basic of the state that it is beyond belief that they insist on ignoring it. There is a Canadian historian called Macmillan who I had the misfortune to read and hear where she argued for over 4 hours how the Treaty of Versailles was not one of the core reasons or even a reason at all for the rise of Nazism. Maybe (and I truly hope not) in years to come similar deluded historians will argue that immigration policy was not the reason for the rise of the BNP.

All sinister and dangerous parties always have a fall (see Max Hasting's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) the problem is that they always take people, literally, down with them. If there is one thing that history has taught us is that it ALWAYS repeats it self - dark motives and the quest for power wont go away just because every household now has 3 plasma screen TVs and 4 computers as ulta capitalist Friedmanite economists would have us believe.

The New Labour Legacy

Now during the past two weeks that I have been gone it turns out that people are actually reading my blog and I am utterly flattered by this truly awesome outcome. I was under the impression that my, in my opinion, intelligent rants struck dead stone and deaf ears.

Thanks

The political stratosphere of today has left me utterly dumbstruck and fundamentally mad as everything is going to the dogs; a government which is failing in its governance, an opposition which is the government all but in colour and a third party which does not have an opinion on anything and finally a resurgent party who, if that battle is not won, will win the war of British governance and by god are we screwed if they do (BNP).

But I would like to this magnus opus thought of the the day:

Under Blair and Brown Great Britain has become just Britain, before long Britain will become just England. Finally we will be one great big island with a smorgasbord of discontent and dividence, this will lead to conflicts - again.

We've had the IRA are now to have the WRA, SRA and the ERA? (The BNP does not mention it very often but they want to remove the monarchy and create a republic). Twats.

(WRA, Welsh Republican Army, SRA, Scottish Republican Army and ERA the English Republican Army).

On this note I would like to leave you with a book tip The Rise and Fall of Communism by Archie Brown. There is a fucking reason why socialism does not work, there is a reason why the worst states today emply some kind of socalism to further its ends - it is an abhorent system for supposedly creating equality between individuals by doing just that; supposing that we are all equal. If the millions and millions of people that have died in the name of socialism has not shown this to be false I do not know what will.

The Communist Manifesto by Marx was a political theory sadly Lenin et al. did not have the foreseight to envisage the havoc it would create around the world, the reverberance it exhuberates and compounds and the deathly hallows it comports through its being the most dangerous theory ever proposed.

Animals do not suppose themselves equals why does Homo Sapien insist on doing it when it is not a natural behaviour? - This is a PhD question not just for one student but for several from different departments from sociology to biology and it will be long before we find out why we are to conform to what "society" tells us to conform to, the stereotypical picture of man with no chinks or qualities at all just a robot. Interestingly the EU's maxim is "United in Diversity" yet they are doing everything in their power to create a homogenous people with a uniform culture (there is a reason why 85% of laws originate from Brussels and why generations and generations of politicians have let it happen).