Sunday, 31 May 2009

Useful idiots

In political jargon, the term "useful idiot" was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and being cynically used.

There is no question in doubt that this is the stance taken by EU apparatchiks towards its useful idiots in the UK who sympathise with their every single move, policy, suggestion, book, speech and anything else which derives its origin from the bosom of Brussels.

They are useful idiots because they see no further than their own self interest with their regard to the project. They comprehend not the dire consequences membership of this "club" has upon Britain - they hear no evil, speak no evil and definitely wont see any evil. They are in their own little world. We hear the EU is good for the British trade, it is good for keeping peace and so on and so on. Give me or anyone else who actually have any profound knowledge about the EU, 10 minutes and I shall change your opinion like that.

The EU is very very dangerous.

Not only because of what it has become and what it eventually will become (when will anti-EU MEPs be thrown out of the parliament I wonder) but because things like this; why are they actively seeking to indirectly kill people?

The useful idiots in Britain are of the most dangerous kind, not because of the sponsorship they get from Brussels to promote its agenda (The EU's propaganda budget stands at €2,4 billion) but because they believe in what they hear.

Friday, 29 May 2009

The Decline and Fall of Britain

“There is something terribly wrong with this country; Cruelty, injustice, intolerance and oppression.” … ” How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the” government.

One might think it odd that this article is introduced with a quote from a mainstream comic book turned motion picture. Perhaps it might have been more appropriate to inaugurate it with a grandiose statement from a professional political correspondent unlike yours truly. There is a certain reason why this simplistic approach was denounced: The three pillars of power were formerly ascribed to the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the mainstream media. The latter were the ones who were supposed to scrutinise every move that our politicians made on our behalf. Yet as V, from V for Vendetta, so compendiously proclaims you only need to look into a mirror to find the guilty of the surveillance state we now live in. While the media have miserably failed in their dissection of all matters politics you have spectacularly failed in fulfilling your duty as a professional citizen and by that virtue expressing your opinion whenever you feel that than an err has been committed on your behalf. Apathy cannot, must not, reign supreme in a country where the interaction of the people is so fundamental for the continued path of democracy. Evidently that interaction was left lingering in the 20th century.

Possibly the greatest symbol and tool of surveillance is the omnipotent and omnipresent CCTV. True surveillance started in 1913 with the photography of imprisoned suffragettes. However it was not until 1994 that ‘surveillance’ and the sense in which we now know the word took its true form, with the publishing of CCTV: Looking out for you by the Home Office under Conservative Prime Minister John Major – Mr. Major was a bit concerned of its publication, but not terribly so “I have no doubt we will hear some protest about a threat to civil liberties. Well, I have no sympathy whatsoever for so-called liberties of that kind.” It is duly understood that Mr. Major was a politician who held the sacrosanct view ‘if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear’ thus apparently giving him and the Conservatives the carte blanche to blitzkrieg the private lives of ordinary citizens. One man’s secret is another man’s revelation and as much one would like to believe that our fellow citizens are true altruists there is still the infinitesimal possibility that CCTV be abused by the higher powers. Yet some might say that it is in fact an aid for London’s finest and its friends. There is one CCTV camera for every fourteenth person and it does certainly act as a deterrent in some places but while CCTV is a valuable tool for investigating crime, footage rarely secures a conviction on its own e.g. only 8% of incidents caught on camera in Midlothian led to arrest. Over the past four years Scotland alone has spent £42 million on CCTV cameras. For the same money 350 full-time police officers could have been hired. Which begs the question is this effective enough to justify the trade off of a less free society, certainly Britain is the only country which appears to believe so having the highest density of CCTV cameras in the world (do remember that countries like China, North Korea and Burma exist).

As technology has become the new autocracy shotgun of the state, the revelation that the United Kingdom National DNA Database (NDNAD) is the largest in the world (Stalin would have been proud) should come as no surprise. The NDNAD traces its roots back to 1994 when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) was passed in Parliament (introduced by the then Home Secretary Michael Howard with the PM being, you guessed it, John Major). The police could now take samples without assistance from a doctor, gather mouth scrapes and hair roots all this by force if necessary. Furthermore the CJPOA gave the police new powers to search the database for matches between DNA profiles. If a person was subsequently found guilty, their information could be stored on the database and their sample kept indefinitely. However if the suspect was not charged or was acquitted the DNA samples had to be destroyed. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 amended the CJPOA which enabled the NDNAD to retain samples indefinitely taken from volunteers participating in mass screenings, on the stipulation that they had given their consent. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allowed DNA profiles, fingerprints and “other” information to be taken without consent from anyone arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence. The new legislation also allows the police to keep this information indefinitely, even if the person arrested is never charged i.e. a significant change to the initial CJPOA. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 extended the uses of the NDNAD to include the identification of dead people or their limbs. Finally, as if the previous three amendments were not enough, The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (CTA) extended police powers to allow DNA and fingerprints to be taken from people subject to control orders. Samples are to be gathered during any authorised surveillance by the intelligence services and of course retained indefinitely. As with most acts which are to be as ambiguous as legally possible the CTA added that the samples were to be used only “in the interest of national security.” The latter amendments were all done in the name of the War on Terror, though who exactly the terrorists are remains open for interpretation. They certainly are not conforming to the stereotypical view; Turban + Kalashnikov + Beard = Terrorist. Naturally though, it has all gone sensationally wrong. In 2008 the Home Office revealed that 2,324,879 recorded criminals, or 40%, in England and Wales did not have their DNA sample stored on the NDNAD. In concert, the Home Office reported that 857,366 innocent individuals’ profiles were currently held on the NDNAD. Labour & Conservatives vs. Lady Liberty: 1 – 0.

Whilst dwelling on the cunning of the state consider further the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000 – known in Whitehall as the RIPA. The government grants itself the right, through RIPA, to access a person's electronic communications in a highly unrestricted manner, thus infringing in the privacy of their correspondence in a way intolerable regarding their postal communications, naturally all is done under the dubious aegis of natural security. In 2003 several addendums were added to the bill, the intelligence service can now also collect data from job centres and local councils. Initially nine organisations could invoke the RIPA but as always when power is shed out the required control to keep that power within its limits is not, alas, today 792 government organisations are allowed to appeal to the act. They must have a hard time keeping all those terrorists in check seeing as 474 councils now have the same power as MI5 with regards to the “snooper’s charter” as it has been christened by civil rights groups. It is a curious coincidence that the notorious Stasi, the East German secret police, also invoked national security in their quest for ‘safety’ and in doing so they eventually had an informer for every seventh citizen. Hence we must ask, in the rhetorical sense, what great means of safety has the act provided thus far. The Dorset council put a family under surveillance to check that they lived in the school catchment area; the same council put local fishermen under surveillance looking for illegal fishing. An investigation by the Guardian showed that several thousand of these kinds of petty misdemeanours are being targeted as threats to national security – every month. If you consider this to be paramount for the continued safety of the nation then certainly the act has been a triumph, the Gestapo could not have done it better them selves.

As anyone would know with an ounce of respect for history Hitler was, amongst other things famed for persecuting Jews, Poles, Roma, Jehovah’s witnesses, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, Catholic clergy and other people he did not like. On the first of January 1939 Hitler announced that all Jews must carry Identification cards. In November 2008 Jacqui Smith, British Home Secretary, announced that all foreigners living in Britain must carry Identification Cards. Mrs. Smith further announced that British Nationals would start carrying ID cards in 2009. Perhaps it is deemed too harsh or downright insulting to draw parallels between the symbolism of the persecution and the British ID cards, possibly, but then again that might just be what is required to reignite public awareness of what Britain is turning into: We concede to being monitored 300 times a day, we concede to having our human rights curtailed and we say nothing - life goes on as usual. Why must we also concede to, on top of all this, to have our personal data stored in a register, stored neatly in a little plastic card? This is a rhetorical question which does not deserve an answer for it is so fundamentally obvious that it would be insulting to produce one. Unfortunately the scheme took legal form with the Identity Cards Act 2006 and it is substantially more than just a card. The proposed National Identity Management System: The National Identity Register (NIR), personal details to be registered and updated with the government, biometrics registration, the card itself (and other documents made equivalent to an ID card), persons to be numbered and checked, a extensive scanner and computer terminal network connected to a central database, prevalent use of compulsory identity verification and data-sharing between organisations on an unprecedented scale and finally the truly breathtaking part: you have to pay for it yourself, not in the form of taxes, in the form of an ‘ID-card fee’. To even begin addressing all the faults in this scheme, both practical and ethical, would be a monumental task so we shall only consider the most obvious ones. To begin with, what the government does not seem to comprehend, in spite of the multitude of brilliant civil servants at its bequest; less liberty does not imply greater security. It is basic logic. If they were truly stuck they should have consulted the Mathematics department. Logic, at times, can be quite tricky especially if your helmsmen are Blair & Brown. Further, Dame Stella Rimington said that most documents could be forged and this would render ID cards "useless" Dame Rimington was an ex Director-General of the MI5. If an ex Director-General says that they do not need the card and furthermore that it will be to their detriment, it is in your best interest to listen. But then again this is New Labour’s government so you should never be surprised by the stupidity of their decisions or their replies, Downing Street’s reply to Dame Rimington’s remark “Dame Stella is a private individual who was [sic] entitled to her views.”
The cards in conjunction with the database will hold so much private data (50+ categories which could be added to) that if they were lost you would loose your life, for once the cards are properly introduced you will need one to get around (recent statistics show that almost 17,000 civil service passes have been lost or stolen over the past two years. Around two thirds of the misplaced cards have been misplaced by staff at the Ministry of Defence). How precisely the government intends to tackle this problem remains unknown since they are statistically loosing at least one government computer a week, only last year the MoD lost 600,000 personal records of servicemen and women – this is only the tip of the iceberg. Finally we have the ever so amusing particulars of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. The ID cards will be available for all from 2012 "I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don't want to wait that long.” to which Phil Booth, national coordinator of the No2ID campaign, replied "She must be ignoring twice the number of people who are coming up to her and saying I don't want my details on any database whatsoever." On the Home Office’s website we find one of the reasons for introducing the scheme “ID cards will: help protect people from identity fraud and theft” Last year four people were arrested after the BBC bought a driving licence and utility bills in the name of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of the internet. As a representative of the government Mrs. Smith is nothing short of a pontificating, ambivalent debauchee who lacks the common decency to understand the criticism bestowed upon her by her fellow Argonauts – this being the only explanation imaginable which would elucidate her behaviour in the face of the tidal waves of critique she has received (and done nothing about) and undoubtedly will receive until the end of her Home Secretary mandate. Mrs. Smith, ‘1984’ was a novel not a manual.

Nearly 60 new powers contained in more than 25 Acts of Parliament have stymied our freedoms and broken pledges set out in the Magna Carta (1215) and Bill of Rights (1689), thanks to New Labour. Whilst our indigenous political parties are doing a formidable job in eating away our freedom, there is also another player on the stage; the white elephant (which incidentally also has a healthy appetite), the one the media rarely refers to with a preference for populist sensationalism and for lack of audacity, namely the EU. As with the so many obvious flaws with the ID card scheme there are even more with the supposedly democratic legitimacy of the EU and its civil liberties record. All laws that arrogate civil liberties are important but a complete exegesis of them all is not possible due to the sheer amount of laws being created. To begin with lets cement our gaze on the EU Data Retention Directive (2006). The directive aims to harmonise member states' provisions relating to the retention of communications data. The data, which can identify the caller, the time and the means of communication, is available for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime and terrorism. Telecommunications companies have to store this information for at least six months. We make hundreds even thousands of calls each year the details of which, not contents, are stored. Further the directive also covers Internet access, Internet email and Internet telephony. 42 human rights and civil liberties organisations banded together to oppose the directive in the European Court of Justice (where they eventually lost) “No research has been conducted anywhere in Europe that supports the need and necessity of creating such a large-scale database containing such sensitive data for the purpose of fighting crime and terrorism.” said a representative of the group. This is all good and well but here is the irony, a European Parliament report found that it had "sizeable doubts concerning the choice of legal basis and proportionality of the measures" and was concerned it placed "enormous burdens" on the telecommunications industry.
Brussels thus imposed a highly unpopular law which would damage the people, the industry and not in the least the credibility of themselves. Effectively this leaves the security services cherry picking as to which law they shall use to violate our fundamental human right to privacy. This directive can be linked with another long held desire of the EU’s: to regulate bloggs. The ambition is enshrined in fancy document called “Draft Report, on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union” (2004) which is probably the finest euphemism around for ‘censorship’. On the European Parliament’s website we find an article with the actual title “User-generated content and weblogs – a new challenge” the report was drafted by Estonian Socialist Marianne Mikko. Asked if she considered bloggers to be "a threat", she replied "we do not see the bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace". Apparently voicing your opinion is now ‘polluting’ in EU circles, quite a re-labelling of freedom of speech. We can safely assume however that the bloggs written by EU officials however are neither ‘misinformation’ nor ‘malicious’. The European Parliament is particularly keen to strike down bloggers with "malicious intent" or "hidden agenda" which again cannot apply to their own staff since they are not even bloggers but promoters of an official organization that, most definitely, has an agenda, though hidden it is not. The EU for example is going to spend €1.8 million on propaganda in Ireland to force them, in their second referendum on the same question, to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. After the first rejection a leaked document from the European Commission read “The internet has allowed increased communication between citizen groups away from Government and traditional media dominated sources.” –Horror– the Irish are thinking for themselves. The report went on to say “Because of the many different sources of No campaigners on the internet, classic rebuttals is made impossible.” Thus the No campaigners are the villains for using the blogosphere, where the Yes campaigners cannot instigate an effective counter offensive where they do not control the battle field (In 2008 alone, the EU spent more than €2.4 billion on propaganda, which is more than Coca Cola’s entire global advertising budget). Since they are incapable of creating good arguments for the EU online they are compelled to regulate the opposition, much like ‘President’ Lukashenko in Belarus, apparently ‘unregulated’ is synonymous with ‘illegal’. One cannot but think that good sportsmanship is a fairly alien concept to the EU apparatchiks. Then again Mikko does have a degree in journalism from the Soviet Union and rather ominously she graduated in 1984.

With the insightful knowledge that the EU wishes to censor the internet lets consider some other jolly clauses in the impending Lisbon Treaty. Enter the European Union criminal intelligence agency, Europol: Article 69G(2) of the Lisbon Treaty says "The European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure [i.e. majority voting] shall determine Europol's structure, operation, field of action and tasks." A fine piece of literature indeed, however what is fails to mention is that Europol's officers have long had broad immunity from criminal prosecution for acts performed in the course of their "official functions". Europol is unaccountable to the European Parliament (power in the EU lies with another institution: the European Commission. They are the executive branch of the Union and they are unelected, but this is a minor detail) as well as national parliaments, as such they are immune to prosecution. Power, unchecked, spells disaster, in the UK MI5 & Friends are still accountable to parliament regardless of what mischief they get up to but Europol is not and has supranational authority and in 2010 they are set to become a full agency. That said the moral high ground is neither held by the law enforcement agencies in this country. Recall for example that the only person hitherto to be arrested in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes by the Metropolitan Police is a television journalist who revealed the police blunders leading up to the shooting and furthermore the attempted cover up by the Met with regard to the implementation of Menezes arrest. The Europol in conjunction with the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) creates are very malign tool for claiming power and furthermore enforcing it. The warrant is a judicial judgment by a court of the member state for the arrest or surrender of a requested person that is in another member state. It is designed to meet the needs of justice, liberty and security within a single region. It strips the British Government of action to stop European officers from coming into the country and taking whomsoever they want away for incarceration. It is fairly easy to spot the flaw in this law. A judicial conundrum is created if a person were to be extradited for a crime that was not an offence in his or her home country. This happened in 2008 when Frederick Toben was arrested at Heathrow for denying the Holocaust. The German government, who had initiated the EAW, eventually backed down when Britain refused to hand him over as denial of the holocaust is not a crime here. Andrew Symeou, 19, did not have the same luck; he was shipped of to Greece (where the judicial system is at best lacking) on manslaughter allegations. All that is required for the deportation of a suspect under an EAW is basic information about their identity and the alleged offence. They do not need to possess the warrant. There does not even need to be a warrant. But perhaps the most astonishing part is that the EAW was designed to fast track terrorists from one state to another in the EU, not 19-year old teenagers. One must ask why not a single MP nor a representative of the judiciary said anything? Possibly because the Advocate-General of the ECJ, European Court of Justice, gave a legal opinion (ref. case C-274/99) that criticism of the EU was akin to blasphemy, punishing someone for allegedly criticising the EU, whether such allegations were proven or not, were (he said) not an infringement of free speech. The nation that insists on drawing a broad line of demarcation between justice and law is liable to find its laws being written by fools and its judicial practise done by cowards.

This is the New Labour, Conservative and EU created leviathan that today is Britain: A realm where freedom of speech is delivered a blow day after day, where democracy and liberty are shackled, tortured and are screaming in their closed confinements that once was the birth of a proud democracy, the Palace of Westminster. Has “Oderint dum metuant” (“Let them hate as long as they fear” – Caligula, Roman Emperor) suddenly become the new state maxim of the UK? The indifference shown by this country in the face of previous and current governments’ war on basic human rights has clearly displayed the true spirit of a people that has forgotten its history and “A nation which forgets its past has no future” – Sir Winston S. Churchill. If we do not care about our civil liberties then we do not deserve our freedom.

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

A tribute to Brown

The only time in his life he ever put up a serious fight is when we asked him for his resignation.

That will be the only thing people will remember of Brown - that and how he, with the unequivocal help, of Mr. Blair fundamentally destroyed Britain to her very core.

Sunday, 24 May 2009

The sheer stupidity

This might be a well structured highly planned operation planned by the likes of BNP, Greens or why not UKIP. They are bombarding the newspapers with stories that tell us voters that we should not vote either of them because this and that reason.

By doing this they are reverting back to basic human instincts beaten into us over the years;

if you are told to do one thing you almost automatically do the opposite.

Perhaps this may not be a shadow scheme of any sorts at all, perhaps the newspapers really are that stupid; they keep on printing stories about how we should not elect any of the fringe parties because they are evil or not as good as the main parties.

I am going to go with the latter option. I think the newspapers are just being (big surprise there) sensationalist and jumping on the bandwagon like everyone else.

"Don't vote BNP they are racist" racist maybe but are they stealing taxpayer money? No they are not. If they really had anything to say about the BNP they just need to look at their ridiculous policies on most things - that is enough to break them but since the media is fundamentally retarded it will not do this.

People will go on to think "BNP=racist, well we do have a lot of immigration which the main parties have done nothing about, lets see if they can do anything different."

Wednesday, 20 May 2009

So, this is what I asked the minister....

Dear Sir,

I was wondering if a future Conservative government had any plans or ideas for what was once DERA - the Defence Evaluation Research Agency? There were a lot of things which went wrong with the sell of in my opinion, not in least the sell of itself - why on earth would anyone sell such a strategic asset?
Do you intend to leave the status quo as it is or will attempts be made to claw back this rather precarious industry which QinetiQ has done a good job of completely marauding.

It seems like a paradox to be fighting two (well one I should say now) major conflicts yet not having the research to back it up, instead relying on the free market principle with regards to defence research. Would it furthermore be possible to know which Conservative party members voted for the proposal (I cannot seem to find this on the Internet) and which voted against, and the reasons put forth for proceeding in either manner?

Yours Sincerely

13th Spitfire


Dear Sir

You e-mailed the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox MP, on 1st May regarding the privatisation of DERA.

As the Shadow Minister for Defence Procurement I have been asked by Dr Fox to respond to you. As the headquarters of DERA was in my Aldershot constituency I am very familiar with the process and opposed the privatisation at the time. Indeed, as a member of the Defence Select Committee and with a background in International Banking, I led the examination which we held into the way in which the Government undertook the privatisation. The issue has been widely covered in the business press over the years and I have nothing really to add to that at this stage.

If we are returned to Office in the next 12 months, we have no plans to change the status of QinetiQ, but we are giving consideration as to whether further steps may need to be taken to ensure that the Government is in a position to be an "intelligent customer" and whether DSTL can continue to provide that role. There will all be matters which will be subject to consideration under the terms of the defence review which we plan to undertake immediately on assuming Office.

Finally, there was no vote on the privatisation of DERA, but the proceedings of the Defence Select Committee at the time are available on line and I am sure that you will be able to see from the reports of the evidence sessions what I said at the time.

I hope that this is helpful.

Best wishes

Sunday, 17 May 2009


"Senior British diplomats are also concerned by the Tories' commitment to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty if it is has not been ratified by all other 26 member states by the time they come to power. They have warned the Tories that a "no" vote would provoke a crisis in the EU and inevitably lead to calls for the UK to leave the community altogether."

If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is strong; but he really punishes me because his argument is weak. - William Godwin

Who Dares Wins

Former SAS-Major John Wick has been revealed to be one of the responsible for the leaking of MP's expenses.

Cash for honours? No, sleaze (a.k.a. public service) for honours.

Give the man a knighthood. He may have weakened parliament, he may have set back the parliamentary process by years but they must know that we do not serve them; they serve us. As long as they are chosen to represent us they will always be vulnerable to our prying eyes - as they should be for we 'still' live in a democracy-ish.

(Someone is bound to say "well he did sell the files so he is really a first-class crook", remember what happened to the dude who exposed the Damian Green affair - got fired. Might as well make a few bucks of the rotting parliament on its way down before its phoenix like rebirth, which will come once all the scum is removed).

Thursday, 14 May 2009

The Revolution

How can power be devolved from Westminster to the people when Westminster has so little? When 85% of the laws affecting the UK originate directly from Brussels - which in reality means an unelected set of left-leaning anti-British bureaucrats (the EU Commission) - in what sense is Britain still a self-governing sovereign democracy? Why are we surprised that the current generation of politicians are such pygmies - there is comparatively little they can do to affect the way Britain is governed. Not surprisingly the "best" politician we seem to have, inhabits the European Parliament not the British one and he seems intent on staying. It is only rational for Dan Hannan to stay, he knows where the power is and from whence it was derived.

Our foreign, trade, industrial, agricultural, fisheries, energy, financial, regulatory, environmental and social policies are all dictated by Brussels. Brussels is encroaching on criminal justice, defence and taxation. As a result, none of these areas of policy will be debated at the next election, because no domestic politician can do anything about them. To compound this, the executive has even farmed out swathes of what remained of its executive discretion and administrative power to unelected, invisible quangos (there are hundreds of these).

The electorate is pretty rational. Increasing numbers recognize that the identity of the majority party in the Commons matters less and less. The BNP (as Tebbit put it, racist socialists), the SNP, Plaid Cymru and others benefit from the same basic issue, which is that none of the main parties address these fundamental issues of the distribution of political power in modern Britain. The expenses scandal, the low calibre of "careerist" MPs, the rise of minor and extremist parties, the disengagement with conventional politics combined with an explosion of interest in single-interest protest groups all have the same root cause; Westminster has ceased to be the place from which Britain is governed.

Leaving the EU - or perhaps better, becoming a semi-detached member who only accepts its rules on a negotiated, voluntary basis - would be a massive undertaking with considerable risks, but is the only way of achieving the revolution we seek.

Then again will any of this happen? No, because we are British we do not "do" forceful displays of public opinion i.e. revolutions. Apologies, being rather cynical this afternoon.

This is what Simon said

"I am old enough to have voted in the EU referendum. At the time nobody told me that the project came in two parts (1) a trading area (disclosed) and (2) the creation of a super state with massive transfers of sovereignty (secret). Had I known about (2) I would have voted against. I have never had the chance to vote on (2). The EU super state project lacks democratic legitimacy.

In the UK there is now only one division in society that counts. The peasant voters are ruled by a small political and media elite (PME), supported by academia and the higher echelons on the public sector, which shares a well defined set of common values. The BBC shines as a beacon of the PME cause which crosses all parties. One of the interesting trends of the last 20 years is the way that the PME has marginalised dissenters in the political process. The tragedy is that the PME governs peasant voters whose values they despise and distrust. For the PME things get worse the further you go north and west of the M25.

The PME is committed to the EU super-state although it well knows that the ignorant peasant voters loathe both the EU project and the arrogant Brussels elite which runs it. The PME cannot risk a referendum on any aspect of the EU because the wretched peasant voters would be guaranteed to vote the “wrong way.”

Part of the frustration of the peasant voters is that, whichever way they vote, the PME always ends up in government. Forget the class war. The PME has triumphed. The PME will inevitably ensure that the European project proceeds in the “correct” direction and there is precious little the peasant voters can do about it. PME 10. Peasant voters 0. Brussels for ever!"

There you have it, along with MI5 meddling with the vote (yes they did, see the cabinet papers which were released in 2000 with regards to the EEC election held in 1972) - the referendum in 1972 held by Heath's government was a gross conduct of deceit and treachery.

Never before did so few decide so much for so many in such a monstrously undemocratic manner. Lying, coercing and deceiving about the contents of a referendum is nothing short of a puppet regime and certainly not better than a dictatorship - an autocracy which puts the good of itself before the welfare of the country.

Shame on them, shame.

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

The EU Social chapter

This is just a list for people who, like myself, were not entirely sure as to what precisely the Social Chapter of the EU amounted to. But please read below and you will find your swathes of knowledge increase like the bellies of the fat cats.

Thatchers government negotiated an opt-out from the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, since European employment directives damaged the flexibility of the UK labour market.

After their election victory in May 1997, Labour signed up to the Chapter with a transitional phase before the main laws of worker’s rights are full introduced into Britain.

One change to British law is the Working Hours Directive (first introduced by the EU in 1993). This guarantees workers the right to paid holidays; unpaid maternity and paternity leave; rest-breaks between shifts and a maximum working week of 48 hours.

But this is the juicy stuff:
  • Protection of rights of workers who move within the EU
  • Fair pay for employment
  • Improvement of conditions of employment (including working hours)
  • Social Security provision for low income groups and unemployed
  • Freedom of association and right to collective bargaining
  • Vocational training
  • Equal treatment for men and women
  • Health and safety at work
  • Employment opportunities for young people, the disabled and people over the age of compulsory retirement.
And that is the social chapter they "keep banging on about". Yeah, it seems lika a good place to start rolling back EU law.


Look at me I have a Union Jack as a backdrop hence by my logic I am a good person. Sickening.

I am starting to get slightly worried I have yet again read an article by a mainstream-dick head (read "politician") who is trying to convince the electorate not to vote BNP. Aside from all the hypocrisy in this article written by the loathsome Denis Macshane, the scarry thing is that there is yet again not a single comment that is agreeing with his position. They all hate him and "love" the BNP. Frightening times ahead.

My maxim, wow it REALLY became relevant

Consider what good old Aesop said:

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.


Greek slave & fable author (620 BC - 560 BC)

Rather amazingly 2569 years later it is still relevant. Scum are eternal.

Monday, 11 May 2009

The Government will be afraid of its People

I did not intend to write a blog entry today, I am in the middle revision for my exams (Yes, sadly I am student at the height of my career as a professional student and by that virtue exams exams and some more exams). I should say something about the digusting behaviour that has been displayed over the past day at the mother of all parliaments, I should and I could, but I would rather not for it has been reiteraded better elsewhere notably by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan.

Slightly populist to mention these two politicians but there are few other that I care to honour with a mention in this blog. Simply because most of them make me so disappointed and sad (very emotional this stuff) makes me wonder why Cromwell even bothered to say

“we study the glory of god, and the honour and liberty of parliament, for which we unaminously fight, without seeking our own interests....i profess i could never satisfy myself on the justness of this war, but from the authority of the parliament to maintain itself in its rights; and in this cause i hope to prove myself an honest man and single-hearted.”

When today most of his work is being overturned, reversed, backtracked and simply deleted by that loathesome class of people that dare to put "MP" behind their name but challenge other professions, such as engineers, to have their title alleviated to a higher foundation - at least they have earned their title, what have politicians, with notable exceptions, done to earn their "MP"?

Consider for example military officers. They go through very hard training to become what they are; forceful leaders who can, in the heat of battle, stay cool and deliver orders to fufil a victory for their country and men. As a soldier you must recognise this in the form of a salute. It is not some old form of dusty gesture, invented by the likes of Napoleon or Caesar, it is an honour that shows them that you, as an officer, deserve to have that special distinction because of who you are not what you are. You are an officer but with that creed comes great integrity not to say honesty. But the most important thing is that you should never ever expect a salute you have to earn it from your men. Yes, they must by military code salute you when walked past but they do not have to mean it. Soliders are told to call Officers and Warrant Officers "sir" but only a handful of them truly attach any form of significance to their utterances.

Which leads us to the politicians. There are some truly vile people out their who brandish "MP" behind their name, whom I wish nothing short of death for, but being a democrat, I could never stoop that deep as to truly wish my enemy the sword. But it is not my intentions that matter it is my opinion of said man or woman that matters.

We still abode in one of the finest countries on the planet, we still have a parliament which is open and wanting for some real practitioners. Lady Westminster is currently like a burned out old truck, lying ditched by the road side, inhabited by rats and vermin, frogs and leeches - all the unfortunate creatures who did not have the fortune of mother Nature to be blessed with the beauty of the Eagle or the dashing of Pelican. Trucks can be fixed, there are some mighty skilled Mechanics out there despite the shameful shape of our manufacturing industry, who would be more than happy to take this truck, tow it to the garage and with time doing her up again and making her just as new as when she first rolled out of the factory all those years ago. In fact, I hear, some restored vehicles are even better than when they were first introduced to the world. There is not reason why we cannot perform this kind of mechanical miracle upon Lady Westminster ourselves.

But before anything, before we buy the new paint the new wheels and of course the hub caps - we have to flambé the truck, everything that is in it, so that nothing is left but the bare metallic skeleton and from this we shall make the new truck, with the old drawings of course, and she will be grand truly grand. Believe me.

Gordon Schmordon same shit different name

(This man is actually -horror-in charge of the UK)

Do not be left in the cross fire, help out with the arrangements for Gordon's Great escape!


Surprise Surprise

What can it be, what can it be?

(Click on the link my underlings).

Sneak a Peak...

Keith Hill (Streatham) (Lab): Is the right hon. Lady aware of the note from the Library that reveals that a maximum of 10 per cent. of the statutory instruments considered by the House originate in Europe? Can she offer the House the evidence she has for her assertion that 60 to 70 per cent. of our legislation originates in Europe?

Mrs. May: I am tempted to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am happy to offer supporting evidence, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will also be happy to provide it.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The 50 per cent. estimate is an underestimate. It is more like 80 per cent.—at least, that was the conclusion of the Bundestag committee that examined this issue. It is not only statutory instruments that implement EU legislation: all EU regulations are implemented directly, without any implementing legislation, although that is done under the authority of this House. If we take into account the totality of statute and regulation, the figure is nearly 80 per cent., and my right hon. Friend was being characteristically modest and cautious in her estimate.
On another much funnier note.

Have a look at this from the Independent. We have the non-partisan party, the LibDems, and their leader Nick Clegg saying "Tories will 'turn Britain into safe-house for criminals', warns Clegg" by adopting an EU sceptic stance. Here is the funny part there is not one single comment that agrees with Clegg. What is more this always seems to happen when some dick head politician tries to demonise a party for being Eurosceptic they get the boot from the public.
Do not hope for a mandate Mr. Clegg.

Saturday, 9 May 2009

A short but insightful one.

Attitude reflects leadership.

Bad attitude and politics in this country spells BNP.

So come on guys give us ONE good reason why we should vote for you. Will you give us our country back? Will you stop destroying every little ounce of history this country has left or will you tackle the triangle issues:


Will you?

(well all know the answer sadly)

Friday, 8 May 2009

Cameron in London?! WITH A BEER?! CAN IT BE?!

I just saw David Cameron, that jolly old fellow, drinking beer and having a good old time at Bistrot 190 - A Polish Restaurant which is very nice.

Maybe he is trying to get the late night dwellers of London to vote for him?

PC gone so overboard it is sinking

The Queen’s Trinity Cross honour deemed unlawful by Privy Council. Why? Because Muslims and Hindus complained that its Christian name and cross insignia were offensive.

FFS! - For you who do not know what this acronym means, look it up in the Urban dictionary. Suffice to say this humble person wishes we could scroll back to the early 20th century when you were allowed to have things without conformity.

Without making this too much about 'them' and 'us' it cannot be passed by. First and foremost Britain is still a Christian nation; the population at large identify with this religion the most. It is still as far as I am aware the state religion of the UK. But you can be quite sure that the PC brigade will have their way in the coming years. The Privy Council in London has ruled that the decoration is unconstitutional because it discriminates against non-Christians. Aha. Are we to abolish the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force because they kill people? Surely that must be unconstitutional, no? Or maybe we should remove the 'Royal' from each service as it might offend the British republicans.

Stream line everything and society will just become one big bore with no particulars to make it interesting or rather fascinating. Britain is still a very interesting island but much is being done to erode this over inflated sense of achievement - as the Labourites would have you think. After all the British Empire did nothing but evil in the world of the leftists liberals. But for now they are gaining ground it must be said.

* The Law Lords are to be abolished because the Labour government misinterpreted a ECHS court ruling which they should not have given two hoots about anyway. They do not give a shit about what they say with regards to DNA retention but when it comes to altering 800 years of history they are all ears. Hypocrisy at its best ladies and gentlemen.

* Jack Straw initiated a review of the judiciary which resulted in the judges, barristers and other judicial functions loosing their couture and wigs. These may not be the height of vox vogue but it did create a 'hey that is kinda neat' feeling whenever the British judiciary was reviewed by an outsider. The judges et al. loved their costumes but Mr. Straw saw it fit to deprive the particulars of men and women who belittled his supposed intelligence.

* Recall how the Lord Chancellor now as a much more diminished role again we can thank Labour for this one. In their infinite wisdom they screwed up everything in their Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Now Speaker Martin (oh dear) is being trusted to handle some of the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor.

* The Queen no longer appoints judges on the advice of the Lord High Chancellor. The Judicial Appointments Commission has been given this task. Great ANOTHER commission.

These are just some judicial details which have been given the boot by the Labour government, keen as always to remove any notion of Great Britain as a sovereign nation. Think of all the other social aspects that have shot-down by Labour - it would make you cry. How's that EU rebate coming along Blair? Ohh yes of course I forgot you gave away what Mrs. Thatcher fought so hard to obtain. Good work, good work.

But going back to the ridiculous ruling by the Privy Council (whose chamber is set to move from No. 10 to the new British Supreme Court of Justice). Do we EVER say anything when something the religionistas do happens to offend us? No, rarely because we are so blissfully reserved and have long since replaced our spine with, well, nothing.

If I was to criticise the current process whereby an Indian man is seeking to overturn the nearly century old ban on setting yourself to flames -outside- (I am obviously referring to open-air cremation) I would be called a xenophobic, racist, bigoted, chauvinistic BNP supporter. But without even mentioning the word 'race' (yes, I alluded to his religion is that not allowed?) all I contend is I do not want pieces of cremated people flying around everywhere. What if there are children around? How are you to explain to them, that they might have accidentally inhaled a dead person? Presumably why the ban was put in place in the beginning; because it is a health hazard. Surely the health-and-safety freaks in Whitehall can understand this?

My guess is this: taunting the British now is most likely like playing with fire. There is a lot of bottled up anger kicking about and you would not want to eject all of that at once. This is what happened in Germany 1933 and that ended very badly for everyone. Pray that our next government has the foresight to recuperate the situation and expel the BNP mob to the back corners of the world - where they belong.

People must be allowed to offend one another. If we create a society without any constructive criticism we create a society without fear. This might seem like a good thing but without fear you cannot appreciate happiness nor bravery. They are not mutually exclusive. They both occur at the same time and they must occur at the same time. Otherwise you create a situation where like some parliaments, notably the EU, you have no official opposition and then, in effect, you have an autocracy.

Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Royal Mail, another turn

I did not write this but a kindly fellow over at ConHome did. It needs to reiterated again and again and again...

Other companies DO compete with Royal Mail - that's what the EU's "liberalisation", Directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC, is about:

"The development and improvement of the quality of Community postal services"

There are now 25 licensed postal operators in the UK:

and guess how many of them have the obligation to provide a universal service?

That's right: just one postal operator, Royal Mail, has that written into the terms of its licence.

And guess how many of them have their prices fixed by an external regulator?

That's right: just one again, Royal Mail.

And guess how many of them are required to sort and deliver mail on behalf of competitors, for a charge which barely covers the cost, or is below cost?

That's right: just one again, Royal Mail.

So if we're going to have free competition, shouldn't that also be fair competition?

That is, with all 25 of the licensed postal operators having the same terms in their licences.

Rather than having 24 operators who can adjust their own prices, while the 25th can't; and who are free from a costly social obligation which is imposed solely on the 25th; and who are even allowed to parasitise the (publicly owned) facilities of the 25th for their (private) profit.

And if the EU doesn't like this, tell them to push off and stop interfering with every last thing in our country:

But they'll only be happy when they've wrecked all the national postal services across the EU and replaced them with a Federal European Post Office - which like as not will be owned by the state, ie by the EU state.

Which is, of course, why a eurofanatic Business Secretary, and a eurofanatic Shadow Business Secretary, both want to see an end to Royal Mail.

Sunday, 3 May 2009

They have got to be f****** joking

When you thought that there would be more important things to contest or whine about, like the erosion of democracy and freedom á la New Labour + Tories or why not the constant hammer pounding upon the armed forces not only from the Talibans but also from HM own government.

But alas, the truly mind boggling depths of human ineptitude seems to have sunk even lower. We are told from the Guardian (do recall that since it is the Guardian they are with all certainty pushing spin and over hyping to new far-reaching horizons) that the MoD is ignoring women and ethnic minorities in its new attempt to promote the armed forces; with toy dolls.

Before surgically removing the backbone of this story let us first contemplate why they should be complaining at all. Why would you want your profession to be turned into a media gimmick by a government department, so that they can remove focus from its incompetence and focus instead the beam-of-truth on dolls. Before ranting and complaining please, oh please I beg you, consider why and what you are complaining about and do not just jump at every opportunity at some spotlight shine.

Further for the MoD, they currently have a £2 billion shortfall in their budget yet instead of spending their money on more equipment for the sorely needing fields of Afghanistan they are spending it on dolls. Yes I concur these figures might not have cost that much to produce but consider that soldiers are having to suffer at the incompetence of this government and its ministries at every single bloody turn. Did you know that they have just withdrawn the Vector from service (after introducing it only in 2007) after having paid £487,000 per deathmachine-capable-of-anything-but-its-main-purpose and they bought 200 of them giving a total bill of £974,000,00.

Giving that this is the kind of mental capacity we can expect from the MoD, saving money should be a priority for them, since you can be as sure as an "amen" in a church, that they will mess up the next big contract as well. Every penny counts as they say. The MoD should really have as their maxim 'Every solider counts' but we all know that spending money on kit, be it whatever, is better than spending money on gear which actually will blow the turban of the Talibans. For really you have got to give it to the insurgents in Afghanistan (there are more than just Talibans; ranging from foreign fighters from Europe to disillusioned Pakistanis): They are facing the full military brunt of the modern world and they are still coming out on top, as they did with the Soviets and the British before them and even Genghis Khan before them...

But lets deal with that article shall we now.

"the 25cm all-male models - including commandos, infantry, pilots, divers and parachutists - were criticised last night for insulting the 17,900 women in the armed forces. The MoD was also accused of racism after 25 images of the toy figures posted on a website promoting the range were all white-skinned."

While no-one is denying the excellent work carried out by female soldiers in HM Armed forces, not at all, you must look at the bigger picture. There are 425,500 personnel in the stated above of which females constitute a tiny tiny fraction of just 4%. Furthermore this is a gimmick aimed at boys (boys-with-toys suddenly got a whole new dimension of relevance), with all likelihood; young boys. Young boys at this age are just that, young, so young in fact that they play with action figures or to use the more common sobriquet 'dolls'. The MoD is also planning to make a buck or two on these dolls so why would young girls buy action figures when we all know that they like barbies? And if there are any of you same-sex-PC-fanatics out there who wish to take me up on this; then please be my guests. If you can find a toddler out there (female of course) who would rather play with an action packed MoD top-of-the-brass commando and the like instead of a Barbie, then please tell me. While you do that the rest of us who are, quite frankly, tired and sick of your PC bollocks will return to the real world where girls are girls and boys are boys, where the former enjoys pink and dresses and the latter mud and action-figures.

Girls, the MoD is not trying to discriminate against you (hell, if the past years of positive-discrimination does not show that I do not know what will) they are just facing up to the real world for once. Even though this is a remarkably retarded way to spend defence money they are at least being honest about it, so please do not get your knickers in a twist (I know that is slightly sexist but I could not stop myself, truly).

As for the discrimination against ethnic minorities, lets look at the figures again. Barely 10% of the armed forces are ethnic minorities. This leaves us with (assuming that no ethnic minorities are women) 86% white male personnel and people are jumping up and down, wondering why no minorities were made. If the answer has not knocked you in the head by now, like a mad football skinhead hooligan with a bad hangover, then I am afraid you live in cucko-land and only Gordon Brown can help you now for, lo and behold, he lives on the same planet.

Question is why does it have to be replicated, lied about and reflected in a product which is to put the armed forces in a good light for the toddlers of tomorrow? Why must reality be so skewed as to make a representation which is not true? Would it have been better if half the soldiers where ethnic minorities and women? Must we copy the sorry state of census-tinkering they love doing down at the BBC where half of their on-camera staff appears to be Asian even though this is not a real reflection of the Asian population in Britain (of there entire British population 12% are immigrants - not 50% if we were to believe the BBC). Even the ethnic minorities themselves have started to complain to the BBC about this, clearly something must be wrong? No, if you are going to spend your tax-payer defence cash on stupidities like these then at least make it an honest stupefaction.