Monday, 21 December 2009

Merry Christian Christmas Everyone!

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

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

Merry Christmas!

13th Spitfire

Saturday, 19 December 2009

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

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

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

Socialism in Scotland - oh dear....

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

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

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

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

Friday, 18 December 2009

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, 17 December 2009

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

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

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

Data Set Used:

Pollster Stay Leave

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

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

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

—Albert Einstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, 14 December 2009

Free speech? Which one...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, 10 December 2009

THIS is how you do science

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

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Gandhi Wrote to Hitler

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

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

Still though, I like Gandhi.

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Brothers in Arms

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

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

Monday, 7 December 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Once the election was over the actual tally stood as follows

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

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

Sunday, 6 December 2009

This is British Politics Today

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

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

But hey at least we have our beer.

Thursday, 3 December 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Good Friend Subrosa has been exposed

Sorrow - Bad Religion, A Tribute to Subrosa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohh the EU the EU the EU....

Good spot by Calling England...

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

-Hugh Todd Naylor Gaitskell

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

How to Destroy a proud country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disparities in wealth have never been greater in the UK.

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

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

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

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

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

Oopps - peed of the French, I think

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

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

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

What what? British Law supreme to ECHR rulings, apparently

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

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