Thursday, 28 January 2010

The privatisation of RFA over at Think Defence

I had a piece of mine posted today on the excellent Think Defence website. Rather than cross posting it here, I hope you can go there instead, and hopefully you will develop a liking for the site and its authors all of whom are ridiculously knowledgeable on defence matters. Absolutely necessary reading for anyone even remotely interested in defence issues.

So please enjoy it, 'Privatising the Royal Fleet Auxiliary - Pragmatic or Problematic?'

The wit of Churchill

An aide brought Churchill the morning paper with the news that one of his Cabinet Ministers would have to resign because he had been caught having gay sex with a Grenadier Guardsman in Green Park the night before.

Churchill said: "It was cold last night was it not?"
the aide replied: "Yes Sir, only 23 degrees" (that's -5 in new money)
Churchill replied: "Makes you proud to be British"

This is true, Mr. Wadsworth deserves full cred for this little gem.

Common Law vs. Roman Law - the former utterly loose, thanks to the EU

HOUSE OF COMMONS - EARLY DAY MOTION 637, 18TH JANUARY 2010
  1. The Lisbon Treaty provides for the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor ["EPP"]. Don't confuse it with the European Peoples Party that the Conservative MEP's finally left four years after Cameron said it would take place immediately! Mr Bob Spink, the Member of Parliament [Independent; formerly UKIP and, before that, Conservative] for Castle Point, tabled Early Day Motion ["EDM"] 637 on the 18th January 2009 about the EPP. A copy of that EDM is attached; it is self-explanatory.
  2. Confirmation that the European Commission is now going ahead with the appointment of the EPP was provided in the European Parliament on the 12th January 2010 during the Committee hearing of the candidate Commissioner for the Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud portfolio, Mr Algirdas Semata [Lithuania], in response to a question by Ms Marta Andreasen MEP [UKIP]. See the video of this on http://www.martaandreasen.com/Video.html; Commissioner Questions 3.
  3. From the point of view of the European Union in further expanding its powers, the appointment of the EPP is one of the essential steps in the general adoption of Corpus Juris throughout the Union. Corpus Juris was first formally debated as long ago as 1997 and it has been "waiting in the wings" ever since. Now that the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified, Corpus Juris will go ahead. Generally, as far as continental countries in the European Union are concerned, the adoption of Corpus Juris would be consonant with their present criminal legal arrangements but for the United Kingdom [and for Ireland and Malta] it would entail a complete bouleversement of our criminal law entailing, inter alia, theabandonment of habeas corpus, of the presumption of innocence and of trial by jury - safeguards of individual freedoms that have been customary for us for centuries but are not followed in any continental country.
  4. EDM 637 is unlikely to be debated in the House; its objective on this vital legal matter is to alert the Government about the extent and depth of the opinion in the House that, hopefully, will finally be determined by the number of signatures that it attracts from supportive Members; it already has cross-party support. Parliament itself - because of the provisions of the European Treaties - is powerless to prevent the appointment of the EPP, but those provisions do provide our Government with the power either to veto the appointment or to opt-out of the Treaty provisions relating to criminal justice thereby preserving the present basis of the jurisdiction for criminal law in the United Kingdom. It would be expected, in conformity with their Oaths of Allegiance, if for no other reason, that every Member in the House would sign EDM 637. If there were overwhelming support for EDM 637, the Government would be under great pressure to use either its veto or its opt-out
  5. However, it must be borne in mind that, in practice, the present Government and previous governments have shown little inclination to safeguard Britain's legal systems from encroachment by the European Union. For example, the European Treaties provided that in many respects the European Court of Justice - clearly politically motivated in so many of its judgments - should be our final Court of Appeal. Another pertinent example indicating the present Government's approach to the adoption of European legal arrangements relates to the maintenance of "law and order". On the 18th October 2007, five countries in the European Union [Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands, and Portugal] established a European Gendarmerie Force ["EGF"] by means of the Velsen Treaty pursuant to a Declaration of Intent dated the 17th September 2004 - see the EGF official website www.eurogendfor.eu. The EGF is an armed paramilitary anti-riot force under central control and is primarily intended to support the police and civilian authorities in the individual countries in the European Union [and, in practice, elsewhere in the world] in which the EGF can be stationed and deployed with the agreement of the country concerned. However, when asked in the House last year for an assurance that the EGF would never be allowed to set foot in Britain, the Government refused to give it.
  6. That is a summary of the present position on the appointment of the EPP. What can we do? The answer is that, as a matter of urgency, as many people as possible in each Constituency should get in touch with its Member of Parliament [personally, or by email or post] and ask him/her to confirm that he/she will sign EDM 637 immediately - and, if not, why not. Also, as many letters as possible should be addressed to local newspapers and the matter of the EPP should be brought to the attention of local broadcasters and television stations. By all means, letters should be sent to national papers and broadcasters but, in the past, it has proved to be difficult to interest them in complicated European Union matters - however vital to Britain's interests - and that applies particularly to the BBC.
Good spot Fausty.

Why can't the Guardian do more of this? It is actually really good


Look at this very interesting series called; 'Disappearing Acts'

I do not know what it is with the Guardian, most of the time they come up with the most ridiculous socialist and Fabian lies and suggestions, if there ever were any, to impose on the rest of us unfortunate lot who are not deranged Lenin-lookalikes. But sometimes, though very rarely, they are almost brazenly incisive and the value of their work as journalists is worth more than all the other publications put together.

Today's most excellent quotes

"The military market for panaceas, pretentious expert-sounding jargon, decoration and redecoration of the devastatingly obvious, and rediscovery of ancient wisdom, will never decline."

-Professor Colin S Grey

“A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures, whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?”

-Marcus Tullius Cicero

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

4,289 illegal activities + Britain = 12 years of New Labour

Having a very busy day hence will leave the floor to another great blogger, Angus Dei on All Sundry;

Labour has introduced 14,300 new offences since taking office in 1997, with Gordon Brown's administration inventing crimes at a rate of more than one a day.

Thanks to Labour, it is now illegal to swim in the wreck of the Titanic or to sell game birds killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day – eventualities overlooked by previous governments.

Labour has made 4,289 activities illegal since the 1997 election, at a rate of about one a day – twice the speed with which the previous Conservative government created crimes.

Gordon Brown was the worst offender, with his government inventing 33 new crimes a month. Tony Blair's administration made 27 new offences each month.

Some of the more inventive crimes dreamt up by Labour include "disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer" and reporting the door of a merchant ship to be closed and locked when it isn't.

Labour also introduced laws against activities which would already have been covered by previous legislation – such as "causing a nuclear explosion."

There is one they have missed-it should be illegal to claim to be a government when it is obviously not.

There is one which they quickly removed when entering parliament; the treason laws. Basically as they are gearing up for election to deliver a heap load of new lies we will be working tirelessly to expose them and all the other shit that they have come out with over the years.

Monday, 25 January 2010

Blogger is funny

Now as an Englishman my attitude towards France is complex, somewhat along the lines of 'nice place, shame about the French'. - Quiet Man

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a first class Frog joke (ohh cheer up French readers, if any, you have hundreds if not thousands of jokes about the British and English). Personally I think international banter is the best, and if Nu Labour does not, all the better.

UPDATE; Dear readers one 'DAD' left this comment "I, too, thought that it was funny when I first heard it; about fifty years ago." I thought it best to add that I am much much younger than most of you, which is why you will frequently see me posting things which you were aware of long before I was even born. I ask you, please bear with me, accumulating a proper sense of humour takes a long time and I have just started.

We are not a free peoples says the EU

A recent legal paper by the European Central Bank deals with the subject: “Withdrawal and Expulsion from the EU and EMU: Some reflections”. The passage which sticks out like a 'sore thumb' concerns the idea of national sovereignty:

"The fact that EU membership is voluntary is not in itself conclusive since sovereignty is … given full expression in the right of any State to join a particular organisation, or not; but once a State decides to enter an organisation it is no longer free, and its own wishes are no longer decisive. Once a state decides to enter an organisation it is no longer free, and its own wishes are no longer decisive"

Your move Europhiles.

Thanks to Witterings From Witney. One a further note I would just like to say that I know that most of us have been posting documents like these for the better part of the past decade (well not myself, I was too young to use a computer 10 years ago), and yet no one gives a shit. Post them anyway eventually the shear volume of contradictory arguments will topple the ignorance which is daily exhumed from our current and coming governments.

You already know it but it is worth repeating

The BBC is of course funded by the EU, they are about as subtle as a gun when it comes to putting that point across. Though I am slightly fussed as to why another pro-EU media outlet was reporting on its pro-EU friend - surely they are fighting the people from the same angle?
THE BBC last night faced accusations of pro-Brussels bias as it was revealed that the corporation had taken out £141m in “soft” loans from the European Union.

The broadcaster has taken out three separate low interest loans from the EU-backed European Investment Bank (EIB) to fund the expansion of its growing commercial empire.

It also emerged that the BBC has received grants from the EU worth £1.4m over the past five years.

The Brussels deals raise awkward questions for the corporation about its coverage of European affairs and its burgeoning profit-making arm whose interests extend to property, publishing and the internet.
A friend in need is a friend indeed... oh wait.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

New Labour

Record peacetime debt.
Record peacetime deficit.
The first facist MEP elected to the European Parliament.
UK drops from 7th to 24th in international maths and literacy rankings.
100 new taxes on the middle class.
Council taxes double for the middle classes.
Council tax revaluation if Labour are voted back in.
4,300 petty new laws.
Authoritarian police state oppressing legitimate protest, photography and law abiding citizens.
Doubled the length of tax law and created a mass of new regulations.
Sold the UK's gold reserves at the bottom of the market.
Ripped up a system of financial regulation proven over 300 years; 10 years later the UK has 5 Failed banks.
Destroyed the best private pension provision in europe, taking £100bn from prudent pensioners.
Destroyed more of the UK's manufacturing sector than Thatcher.
Politicisation of the police, the civil service, education.

Falling productivity in public sector despite 48% real-terms increase in spending.
Overseen the rise of the unaccountable, unsackable, feather-bedded bureaucrat, taking control over every aspect of people's lives.
New GP contract increased average pay to £100,000.
Most GPs refuse to provide care during evenings and weekends.
Arrest of an opposition MP for doing his job.
House prices unaffordable for workers on average salaries.
Soaring knife and violent crime in our cities.
Debasement of politics, endless re-announcements of the same policy, cash for peerages, lies, spin and deceit.
200+ service personal killed.
First non-jury Crown court trials.
Abolished century old practises of Parliament; House of Lords, Life Peers, Lord Chancellor's department, Lord Chancellor deminished

3 million immigrants invited into the UK to take 81% of all new jobs created.
1 million young people unemployed.
Jacqui Smith.
Foot and mouth crisis (twice)
Farm payments
Tax credits
Afghanistan war
Iraq war
Under funded ill-equipped Forces
Privatised large parts of defence establishment for short term gain
PFI
Home Office failures
Uncontrolled immigration (am I a racist for mentioning immigration, dear me)
NHS in tatters
School standards at the lowest ever
Thousands of knee jerk badly written laws
Rampant EU fraud
EU ignoring its own people
EU referendum promise reneged
Treaty/Constitution
Northern Rock
RBS
HMRC
Lost data – child benefit and dvlc
Donorgate
Climategate
Cash for Honours
Single families
Economy in complete tatters
First time buyers taken out of market
Rich and poor divide becoming bigger
Plenty of tax rises – both direct and indirect
Uncontrolled private sector
Crime out of control
Young deaths
Guns on our streets
NO ELECTION
Quangos controlling parliament
Populist catholicism

My bet is that the Tories will make this list even longer.

Saturday, 23 January 2010

Saturday Beautiful

Now this is one for you old bangers who might not be familiar with what is "in" these days (what a lie, I am the last person to ask of what is cool at the moment). Anyway it is a nice song and I like it and so might you. Enjoy.

Friday, 22 January 2010

What is Jonathan Isaby playing at?

The tone of this article is, in some ways, representative of a damaging mindset that is widespread in Britain today. The writer seems to revel in the fact that many new Tory PPCs “did not go to university at all”, celebrating a lack of education in candidates as if such a thing was a good quality. Politicians and the press bang on about the prevalence of Eton and Oxbridge in the CVs of Conservative members, seemingly forgetting that these are some of the premier academic institutions in the world, producing some of the finest minds in the country – surely exactly who we ought to have them running the show.

British politics is at risk of becoming a council of mediocrity for the sake of diversity. Cameron has become so obsessed with the image of the party that he risks overlooking truly talented Conservatives just for the sake of a few ‘different’ faces, be they women, black, Muslim or whatever. I’m all for people from different areas and minorities entering politics, but they cannot receive positive discrimination at the expense of gifted ‘traditional’ candidates. Surely that is why the entire concept of meritocracy exists, so that the person who is most gifted is selected to do a challenging job? Look what happens when the current norm of selection is utilised - we get Gordon Brown as PM, mediocracy for the sake of inadequacy.

Mr. Isaby writes
The new intake will be less white and heterosexual too. At present there are only two Tory MPs from an ethnic minority: that should be blown out of the water with Priti Patel and Helen Grant both entering the Commons in safe seats and a host of other non-white candidates standing in top targets. Similarly, the number of openly gay MPs is likely to rise from two to hit double figures.
I for one does not give a shit if my MP is brown, blue, yellow, gay, lesbian, one-legged, blind, balled, short, fat, tall, slim, white, black, pink green or any other diversifying character. As long as they know how to get this country back on this feet then I am more than happy. But Mr. Isaby appears to think that because a person is gay he has suddenly gain an additional merit. Fishing for gay votes is one thing but doing so is putting the nation at risk when the gayest person is given a seat rather than the best person. Why does it matter if the man sleeps with another man - even to gays? Are they likelier to vote for a gay person because he is gay? What a very odd set of principles, surely one chooses a favourite based on the merits of his or her proposals not his or her sexual orientation. If the latter is true then surely this group of people should be ignored, be it gays, feminists, greens or ethnic minorities, rather than encouraged, and actively be advanced to the place of mind where on chooses people for their strengths as people not their superficial tendencies.

UK closing embassies + EU opening embassies = coincidence? No fucking way

Some "coincidences" are just too enticing to ignore. Weeks after the Lisbon Treaty saw Europe's burgeoning overseas diplomacy service finally gain legal status, it has been announced that cash-strapped Britain will be forced to close many embassies because it can no longer afford them. While that was announced it was quietly glossed over that 50 EU embassies are to open.

The Conservatives claim that the Foreign Office has drawn up a "secret list" of posts to be closed. Much of the financial shortfall is down to the fact that £ Sterling has plunged on the foreign currency exchanges over the past two years. Coincidentally, this is around the the time Foreign Secretary David Miliband abolished the Overseas Price Mechanism, which made up for budget shortfalls due to currency fluctuations.

A Labour peer revealed yesterday that anti-extremist activity in Pakistan was being wound down thanks to the budget shortfall. The government says that it will make up the shortfall thanks to the crucial priority the Afghan-Pakistan border region has for British security; the future of our many embassies is less clear, yet more obvious: The EU's Foreign Affairs will rush in where Britons can no longer afford to tread.

As usual with these events, once we get used to living without embassies in unglamorous nations and political backwaters, the closure of British missions will become more and more widespread, with the ever-eager EU taking up the slack. We might even make a few quid selling off our abandoned premises to Brussels. Before long, our independent diplomatic service will consist of a couple of "cultural centres" in Paris, Washington and Beijing.

The Conservatives of course are having great fun at the misfortunes of their Labour stunt doubles. Yet David Cameron and George Osborne promise an even harsher age of austerity than that Labour threatens.

Can we have a commitment from the Conservatives to keep our embassies open, however the Pound Sterling performs?

No? Didn't think so.


What will happen eventually is that the UK is going to be broken up and Scotland, NI and Wales will go their separate ways. Upon which England will finally leave the EU and stand alone once again on the world stage. It is a sad future but regrettably the only realistic one we face. Hence we will leave, I do not doubt this, but it will be at the price of the union. To Scottish nationalists I can only say this; it is all very well when you gained independence of your own accord, it gives semblance to a patriotic notion of consciousness. But having it served on a plate from a foreign interlocutor is just not very noble. Though you may gain independence, as will we, you will not have done it on your own and that, I must say, I find less than honourable (no doubt I will receive a lot of criticism from scots who disagree with my harsh future - fine, that is what discussion is all about).

Finally, I find it a bit sad that EU Referendum has not written anything about this yet. Mr. North and Co. are usually very up to date on issues pertaining or relating to the mischievous footnotes of the "democratically negotiated" EU treaties. But, alas, it has yet to materialise.

Note to the reader: I try to keep the cursing to a minimum on this blog for I do not find it a respectable activity to partake in, nor does it convey the message one tries to put forth without a semblance of sensationalism. This time however I have employed the f-word in the title of the post, for I cannot believe what set of low-life and treacherous morals a man bears when he happily sells of his country to the highest bidder. For make no mistake none of the politicians who voted through the Lisbon Treaty in parliament did so on the strength of it actually helping Britain. No, I have read it, so have most people vaguely interest in the EU, and it was clear for all to see what precisely would happen to nation states when passed. This was Judecca-politics of the most disgusting kind. I have not doubt however that they will all get what they deserve in the end.

Update: Victory! EU Referendum has now mentioned it. And defeat on my part for it turns out that they indeed have written about it, lots of times. I should have known... The student remains the student and the master remains the master.

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

Oh dear, Spectator writer thinks Islam is a race


I see that UKIP thinks it a good idea to ban Muslim women from wearing the veil in the public. The burka and “other face covering veils” should be outlawed, Farage pronounced today. His reasons given are that full veils are socially divisive and symbolic of the subordination of women. What a low and filthy attempt to suck up a few more right wing votes. To pass a law legislating what people can wear and what they can’t. Except not “people”, but Muslims – that is the only section of the population to whom this stricture applies. So it is quintessentially racist – much as is our demands for the prosecution of Muslim protestors and our banning of radical, if ludicrous and offensive Muslims groups. There is no other explanation for it that I can see, and speaking as a “tedious racist” (© Diane Abbott, The Guardian, Roy Greenslade and many others) myself, I know of what I speak, presumably.

I don’t for a moment doubt that the veil is symbolic of the subjugation of women: what we should do is counter the ideology behind the veil, not the right of people to wear whatever the hell they like. We will end up giving so much away, out of our fear of Islam - all the things that matter.

Odd, that such a respected newspaper cannot distinguish between a religion and an ethnical denomination.

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

Law

The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is a completely different matter. I do not understand the current state of things, I really do not. I am straining my mind hard to try to encompass the necessity of what today passes for civilised society in terms of law. The theory of the law goes that the state administers a law that should avenge those it has been unable to protect; it is a system of quid pro quo. If you commit a crime, the state will exercise a vengeance on you, on behalf of the victim. You are the perpetrator and by that vice you have a victim by definition. But here comes the pickle, we all become perpetrators sooner or later due to the sheer volume of things which the state deems unlawful - and by the same token, what we deem unlawful by virtue of our representative democracy. But it appears that more things have become illegal at an accelerated pace over the last few years - naturally, I will not insult your intelligence by explaining why this is, I am sure we all know.

The state rules with a love for order combined with sheer ignorance of mankind. The modus operandi of the western human being appears to be the following:

Get an education, Get a job, Get a wife, Get a house, Get a few kids, work for the about 40 years, Get your pension, trot around doing nothing for 10-15 years, Die.

It seems harsh when put plainly in those words, but that, sadly, is the aspiration of many but they do not know it. Eventually though, most will end up there due to it being the equilibrium solution of the western lifestyle. This is said with no attachments of benefits or drawback, it is an observation, that is all. Now, the above 'life', if you will, is defined by the laws in which scene of operation it exposes itself. Think of it as a funnel.

It used to be that in Britain you met the state, as it were, only twice in your life at the turn of the century; at birth and and at death. That was the way life was then; you chose it defined rather by what class you were in rather than what laws were administered, of course each social class had its own unwritten laws attached to it. The hypothetical judicial funnel back in 1900 was tiny by todays comparison; the slope of the funnel walls was tiny. In fact they were almost flat and most things spilled out rather than pass through the funnel, at which end you would find your life path laid out before you in a similar fashion to that described above.

Today however, the slope of those funnel walls are very different. They have a very large gradient, are viciously guarded so that nothing, god forbid, should spill out and give scent to a notion of nonconformity on the horizon. Today by comparison nonconformity, lawful or not, is bad by definition for one has then spilled out of the funnel. If the funnel spills that means that it is badly designed which means that, it in turn, needs to be improved. It is improved by increasing the gradient, which means, if you did not follow the symmetry and symbolism; more laws. The state today does not administer a law for the benefit of its citizens, good or bad, it simply administers it for the purpose of displaying an authority which sits high up on a pedestal looking down at the unfortunate cretins who happen to be on a lower echelon than the law itself.

New Labour has created more than 3,000 new offences since it came to power in 1997, that is almost one per day. Of all the laws made in the UK somewhere between 75-85% come from the EU. This means that not only is Parliament making laws to stifle the very semblance of meaningful life so too is the EU - our real government.

Are we really that dangerous? Have we evolved from relatively benign creatures, in the social sense, to murderous, 24/7-revolutionary, guerilla fighters? If that were so then perhaps then there would be a justifiable argument to extend state legislature to such a degree. But... we are not reincarnations of Stalin, Che or Nicolae Ceauşescu we are just normal people who want to be left alone.

We all know the official reasons for creating all these laws but an ulterior motive might be to halt the possible inception of a new Lenin - or a person who is independent minded enough to stand up to the dogma and actually bring and end to the destruction from within, which seems to be the only creative exercise going on in this country today. But do they not see, what they are doing is defeating the object of their ulterior; not only are they not preventing the inception of people of that particular pedigree, they are actively accelerating its come-about because they are making each and every one of us so apoplectic with rage, whenever we are reminded by their mere existance.

Monday, 18 January 2010

Flog what is left of the UK, never mind the bollocks


New Labour are supposed to represent socialist ideas as epitomised by the Fabian society. They were frantically upset back in the 80's when Thatcher and her Tories went around selling all the public companies of the United Kingdom including such prominent features as the National Engineering Laboratory (we sure could need that now when we when there is hole of 20,000 engineers missing in the British industry sector). There is a common misconception that New Labour have been better and that they have not been vigorously trying to forward their own personal agendas, by that account I mean of course feeding their on psyche by getting richer and richer all the time completely disregarding the ideals of socialism. To date what have these hypocrites sold of since they came to power in 1997 (this is an ongoing article which I cannot possibly compose in one go since there are so many national industries that have been disposed of since 1997).

DERA (Defence Evaluation Research Agency)
Royal Mail (soon to go)
London Underground
British Energy
Council Housing
Schools
UKAEA
British Nuclear Fuels
British Nuclear Group
33% Atomic Weapons Establishment
Royal Mint (This has not actually been sold, yet, but they are planning to. Which again highlights the economic/financial brilliance of New Labour: Who in their right mind would sell anything in these times?)
DSDA (NEW!)

(The picture accompanying this piece allures to what kind of people you will end up with if more and more of his daily services become more expensive by the day, suffice to say the government will need more than their largely defunct (in the sense of public appreciation of) police service to stop a hoard of him).

Gordon Brown what a Clown

'Arrrrhhh, maties, lets go and clobber them bankers and burn their pin striped suits!'

'On second thought chaps, lets have some tea. Do try these scones, I baked them myself with Mandie in Nr10 - are they not marvellous?'



Sunday, 17 January 2010

Funny Sunday

Picasso was once asked if he ever borrowed ideas from other artists. He replied disdainfully: Only amateurs borrow - professionals steal.

Alas, I stole this piece from RantinRab.


The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588 when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards". They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Americans meanwhile and as usual are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their allies, just in case.

And in the southern hemisphere...

New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". Due to continuing defense cutbacks (the air force being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "I hope Australia will come and rescue us".

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!', "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

Saturday, 16 January 2010

UKIP to ban Burqas

Here is today's leader from the Times. They seem to have gotten their stance on the issue, at least on the internet, spectacularly wrong. Very few comments agree with the Times and instead support UKIP in their endeavour to ban the burqa. Myself I find this issue a bit hypocritical. The Labour party has banged on about multiculturalism for the past 12 years and pandered to the needs of the minorities be they religious or ethnic. As Lord Tebbit said, a society is defined by its culture. Therefore it is an oxymoron to say that a society is multicultural. The same applies here. For voters to turn around now and say that they do not want people dressed a Darth Vader or mobile tents, is a tad hypocritical. If they did not like the agenda set forth by the Labour party then why on earth did they give them three consecutive terms?

There are inherently two sides to this. One is that motorcyclists have to take of their helmets when entering a bank e.g. or a high security establishment - burqa clad women do not. Neither do burqa clad robbers, of which there have been many of late . Further the burqa is a cultural attire and is not inimical to the practise of Islam. The Times chastise Mr. Farage about his supposed lack of knowledge about the Qur'an "UKIP argues further that the burka has no place in Islam and that the religion does not require it. The Times had not hitherto realised that Nigel Farage was an authority on such matters, or that the party leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was visited by God when on the operating table in 1977, thereby gained not only his Christian faith but also a mastery of the Koran." In my reply to the Times on this; you do not have to be an authority on the Qur'an (yes, it is actually the Qur'an not the 'Koran' - speaks volumes about the Times' religious authority), like a mullah, to know that the burqa is not required by the religion. I should know I have read the book, which I daresay few people at the Times have. You do not believe me? Well, read this very insightful piece by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

On the other hand however to ban the Burqa like Islam4UK goes against the very essence of the British modus operandi. The Labour party has successfully destroyed pretty much everything we once used to be proud of in this country, there is not even a reason for me to do a 'including..' for all you need to do is look around you. Is it cold? Yes? How much are you paying your privatised gas/electricity company for keeping you cold? More than in France I guess seeing as EDF subsidise their French customers in favour of their British. But I digress. Do not let the Labour party take away this final virtue of this once great island. The Times cannot really put their finger on what exactly this British value is, that they are defending, and they put their reasoning in the words of a chav "picking on people quietly going about their business in religious garb of their own choice and banning it" (well a lot of them as said are not going about their own business, and what is more they have not chosen it - if you know anything about Islam it is that it is a hierarchical system or a male dominated oligopoly, the majority have not chosen anything but their husbands and close male relatives have). No, this virtue is better explained by understanding that tolerance is at stake here. One of my lecturers once asked us what we most liked about the UK, he said he particularly liked its tolerance. Unlike most European countries we will stand for a lot - good and bad. Mostly good, which rejuvenates society and makes it a lot more interesting than the homogenous grey that is Switzerland for example. This is a defence of liberty itself and that the shackling of one form of freedom, the burqa, will inevitably lead to far more sinister bans, which a respectable society could not properly defend.

Friday, 15 January 2010

SERCO

Concerts and Weddings in Parliament a la Speaker Shitcow

  1. The first gig -ever- has been held in parliament, Yes, in the Palace of Westminster.
  2. Parliament will apparently host a gay wedding before the election.
It is a fucking parliament not a bloody concert venue, it has been a parliament for the best part of the past 800 years until this speaker showed up.

It is a fucking parliament not a bloody church (yes it has a chapel and what not but that is not its primary function). I have nothing against gays but as I said it is a fucking parliament and not a church and should hence be treated as such. Not as some 'neo-cool' place of funk as the current speaker appears to be turning it into.

I think the following picture quite accurately illustrate the values which our current speaker holds dearer than gold (thanks to the ever so good Archbishop Cranmer).

Thursday, 14 January 2010

British Manufacturing -pretty kick ass (we are even better than the French)

Having studied all day, I could not see anything but red when looking at my books which is why I decided to do some random procrastination on the internet. It turns out that we are actually pretty good (still) at this manufacturing business. You might wonder why I am having a go at the French? I shall oblige, because their beloved leader, midget-boy, described Britain as a place “with no industry at all.”

What was Sarkozy going on about?

When the president said that the "English have no industry", he was doubtless referring to our dearth of national champions and the heavy involvement of foreign manufacturers in the UK. Thus, where the British car industry is dominated by Honda, Toyota, Nissan and GM, France still has Renault, Peugeot and Citroën. Yet despite Sarkozy's disparaging tone, international investment has been of huge benefit to British industry. In recent years, it has received more foreign direct investment in manufacturing than any other EU country. In 2006 it got £26bn; Germany just £3bn. Since Mercozy couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery do not expect anything good to come from this revelation either.


1. USA
2. Japan
3. China
4. Germany
5. United Kingdom
6. Brazil
7. Italy
8. France
9. Mexico
10. Canada

Why is this not given more prominence you might wonder? Well we have outlets such as the Daily Scarygraph which keep on whinging about the decline in our manufacturing base and yes it is shrinking but relatively speaking it is growing. First of all note, we will never be able to compete with the East is just is not possible with their almost unlimited pool of cheap labour and the fact that they are emerging consumer economies. Britain is a leading producer of chemicals, green technologies, and electrical and optical equipment, and home to two of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups, GlaxoSmithKline and Astra-Zeneca. The UK aerospace industry is the largest in the world outside the US, employing 125,000 people. But since most firms are hi-tech and relatively few British companies make globally branded consumer goods, we tend to overlook this. The sector is now a tapestry of foreign companies, some huge, with UK plants; British firms that often assemble their products overseas; and thousands of smaller firms making unglamorous, technically-advanced goods like fuel cells and plastic electronics.

As you can see from the above list We are the 5th largest manufacturing nation in the world, behind Italy, but ahead of France (bonjour, M. Sarkozy). True, manufacturing makes up a much larger chunk of the economy in Japan and Germany (about 20 per cent) but that is unusual; at 13 per cent, the share of the economy devoted to manufacturing in the UK is actually higher than in France or the US (both 12 per cent). As for its relative efficiency, the productivity of British manufacturing has improved 280 per cent between 1980-2007, compared to 240 per cent in France over the same period and 190 per cent in Germany.

This is rather important because it leaves and awfully bad taste in the mouth when national icons like the Queen Marry II are built in France and not by Harland & Wolff in Belfast. When things like that pass you might think that, yes, perhaps, our industry certainly is going to the dogs but only because projects like ships, are in essence pissing-contest show-off pieces whose soul function is to gain public attention. Naturally when it is lost to a foreign bidder one cannot help but feeling let down by Cunnard - a supposedly British company. Of course this completely goes against the principle competition and so on. My point being that even though most show-off pieces are lost to competitors from overseas, we still do make a lot of things. I for one would like it if we made more and replace the 75% service based industry (77% for France). I cannot see that happening under the Tories but perhaps the next government. Why is this unlikely under the Tories you ask? Name one engineer in the shadow cabinet. The ruling echelon of China, the Politburo, consists of 8 people all of whom are engineers. There might be a correlation in there somewhere...

Now of course it should be heavily emphasised regarding the automotive industry for example, that all major brands that are being globally traded including; Vauxhall, Bentley, Mini, Rolls-Royce, Daimler, Jaguar, Land Rover, MG, Lotus, Leyland - are all foreign owned. The situation would probably be very different if not the communist/socialist demagogues hadn't privatised the entire automotive industry. Anyway the brands are owned by foreign companies, because they were acquired since they were doing their jobs very well i.e. by selling a lot of cars. Now the fact that they are all owned by foreign companies has more to do with extremely lax British competition laws which make it possible for pretty much anyone to come in and take over anything. With that dull news however there is light in the tunnel. There is something known as minor automotive manufacturing groups and the UK has hell of a lot of those. No less than 17 minor car manufacturers spread out across the UK, of which we can expect that at least one will grow big. France by comparison does not have any companies filed under that category (well it probably does in reality but Wikipedia told me otherwise).

Quick note on LPUK

They will never gain any power, they are simply too honest and as a result they will be massacred in the Inferno that is British politics. I regret this since they appear to be very principled and honourable people, the kind which should be in Parliament.

For my own remembrance; 'Principle of Legality' by Lord Hoffman = HRA, prior to 2000. Definitely being a long piece about that one. Also Lord Halisham's famous "Elected Dictatorship".

Thought of the Day

The Conservatives do not deserve an overwhelming majority at this time. Politicians will have to learn what the majority want in the UK. They have got to stop the micromanagement and the central planning.

Maybe a few hung parliaments will help the process otherwise there may well be a few hung parliamentarians in the future.

1959 Conservative Party Manifesto


I ripped this piece from here and I ask you to consider which policy areas we have no control over as it stands today due to various international bodies' vice like grip on Britain (not mentioning any names). Compare this manifesto to the supine piece of drivel that today passes for the 2010 Tory Party Manifesto. I have only to say, in the time honoured fashion of the internet geek; 'LoL'

With cajones the size of peanuts guess who will be on the agenda very soon ... again.


1959 Conservative Party General Election Manifesto

The Next Five Years

Foreword

As Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party I submit this Manifesto to the judgment of my fellow countrymen and women.

This constructive programme-indeed its very title-will show you that we do not intend to rest in the next five years upon the achievements of the past. We must both de fend and develop the great gains that we have made. Our policy can be simply stated:

Prosperity and Peace.

I do not remember any period in my lifetime when the economy has been so sound and the prosperity of our people at home so widely spread; but we must also do what we can to extend a generous helping hand to the Commonwealth family and others overseas.

As for peace, it is of course the supreme purpose of all policy. I have lived through two wars and all my efforts are directed to prevent a third. Events of the last few months give me hope that we may be moving into a more constructive period. Vital international negotiations lie ahead and I ask you to continue to entrust them to a Conservative Government.

Harold Macmillan

The Conservative Record

Eight years ago was a turning point in British history. The Labour Government had failed in grappling with the problems of the post-war world. Under Conservative leadership this country set out upon a new path. It is leading to prosperity and opportunity for all.

The British economy is sounder today than at any time since the first world war. Sterling has been reestablished as a strong and respected currency. Under Conservative government we have earned abroad £1,600 million more than we have spent. Our exports have reached the highest peak ever. Overseas, mostly in the Commonwealth, we are investing nearly double what we could manage eight years ago. Capital investment at home, to build for the future, is over half as large again. To match this, and make it possible, people are saving more than ever before.

The paraphernalia of controls have been swept away. The call-up is being abolished. We have cut taxes in seven Budgets, whilst continuing to develop the social services. We have provided over two million new homes and almost two million new school places, a better health service and a modern pensions plan. We have now stabilised the cost of living while maintaining full employment. We have shown that Conservative freedom works. Life is better with the Conservatives.

In the international field, thanks to the initiative of the Conservative Government, the diplomatic deadlock between East and West has now been broken. The Prime Minister's visit to Russia in February began a sequence of events which has led to the present easing of tension. The proposed exchange of visits between President Eisenhower and Mr. Khrushchev is the most recent proof of this. It is our determination to see that this process continues and to make a success of the important negotiations which we trust will follow.

The main issues at this election are therefore simple: (1) Do you want to go ahead on the lines which have brought prosperity at home? (2} Do you want your present leaders to represent you abroad?

Sharing Prosperity

Conservative policy is to double the British standard of living in this generation and ensure that all sections of society share in the expansion of wealth.

While we have been in charge of the nation's affairs, many more of the good things of life have been enjoyed by families large and small, and so long as we remain in charge they will be able to fulfil many more of their hopes and ambitions. But this is not enough. Conservatism is more than successful administration. It is a way of life. It stands for integrity as well as for efficiency, for moral values as well as for material advancement, for service and not merely self-seeking. We believe that in this spirit and as a contribution to world peace, we British must make a big and sustained effort to help others, particularly within the Commonwealth, climb nearer to our own high level of prosperity.

By raising living standards and by social reform we are succeeding in creating One Nation at home. We must now carry this policy into the wider world where the gap between the industrialised and the underdeveloped nations is still so great. This can be done by individual service, by increased trade and by investment, public and private.

Under Conservatism annual investment overseas has been more than one per cent of the national income. We want to do better than this, but to do better require.' more than a warm heart; we must earn a bigger surplus on our trade overseas.

So at the very forefront of our programme for the next five years we place these three essential conditions of success-a strong pound, expanding trade and national unity.

1. The Pound

Sterling is the currency in which nearly half the world's trade is done. Our paramount aim will be to maintain international confidence in it as a sound and stable medium of exchange.

We shall use flexible monetary and other measures to achieve the right balance in the home economy, to keep the cost of living as steady as possible in the interests of the house wife, and to ensure that our goods and services are available at prices the world will pay.

2. Trade Opportunities

We shall concentrate on the further promotion of the export trade.

Half our trade is with the Commonwealth, and the new Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council will provide further opportunities for expansion. We shall continue to take steps to increase the flow of trade with America in which for the first time in a century our exports have exceeded our imports. We are about to join an economic association of Seven European countries; our aim remains an industrial free market embracing all Western Europe. The recent trade agreement we made with Soviet Russia is already leading to more orders for British machinery and other goods.

3. Unity

Prosperity depends on the combined efforts of the nation as a whole. None of us can afford outmoded approaches to the problems of today, and we intend to invite the representatives of employers and trades unions to consider afresh with us the human and industrial problems that the next five years will bring.

Employment and Economic Change

So long as Conservative policies of sound currency and expanding trade are continued, and unity at home maintained, full employment is safe. But patches of local unemployment can be created by swift changes in markets, methods and machines. Our policy is to welcome technical progress, which can lead to dramatic increases in prosperity and leisure, but at the same time to deal with the problems it brings.

Our first major Bill in the next Parliament will be one to remodel and strengthen our powers for coping with local unemployment. This will be done in three ways-by ensuring that we can act anywhere in Britain where high local unemployment shows up; by adding to the places where we can now offer help, those where there is a clear and imminent threat of unemployment; and by offering capital grants to encourage the building of new factories where they are most needed, as an addition to subsidising the rent of Government-built factories. This policy will also feature the clearing of sites to make a district attractive to new industry.

These measures will be of particular help to Scotland and Wales. We shall continue to help the Government of Northern Ireland to deal with the special problem there.

Many individual industries have to adjust themselves to new conditions. The Government will play its part in assisting the aircraft industry to increase its sales, and will help in fostering research and development. Shipping and shipbuilding depend on expanding world trade which our policies are directed to encourage. We shall do all we can to assist them in their problems, and also intend to support the replacement of the Queen liners.

Reorganisation and re-equipment of the Lancashire cotton industry has got away to a good start. With the help of the Act we have passed it can have a prosperous future. It is a condition of grants under this Act that compensation is paid to displaced operatives.

As part of our policy of easing general mobility of labour, measures will be taken to encourage re-training. Part of the capacity of the Government Training Centres will be used to make a direct contribution towards the provision of adequate opportunities for apprenticeship. We shall also continue our support of the Industrial Training Council which we took the initiative in setting up.

Many educational, industrial and official bodies have made provision since the war for management courses. We should welcome the creation of an Advanced Business School at one of the universities.

Policy For Progress

We are determined to keep Britain a great and go-ahead country, leading the world in important branches of technology, and translating its technological advance into productive capacity with a high and rising rate of investment.

This is how we shall set about this task in the next five years.

1. Technical Advance

One Cabinet Minister will be given the task of promoting scientific and technological development. Whilst it would be wrong to concentrate all Government scientific work into a single Ministry, this Minister for Science will have responsibility for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils and the Nature Conservancy, the atomic energy programme, and the United Kingdom contribution to space research.

The development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes will be pressed ahead. A conference will be called of those concerned in industry and education to forward the spread and understanding of automation. We shall encourage new inventions and the development of new techniques.

Under the railway programme over 3,000 new diesels will be delivered into service by 1965, 8,000 miles of track re-laid, and electric traction increased by 60 per cent. We shall go ahead with a 'round-the-world' telephone cable in co-operation with the Commonwealth, and maintain our lead in telecommunications by building a new large cable-laying ship.

2. Modern Roads

The rising volume of traffic, a yardstick of rising prosperity, must be matched by an intensive drive to build better and safer roads. Our road programme is already the biggest we have ever had in this country. Over the next five years it will be twice as big as over the last five years.

Our first priority in England and Wales will be to complete the five major schemes and motorways, which with their urban links and through routes will provide the framework of a new road system. In Scotland we mean to complete the Forth Road Bridge, the two Clyde Tunnels and the reconstruction of the Carlisle-Glasgow-Stirling trunk road, and to speed up the programme of Highland road development.

At the same time there will be a country-wide drive to improve the existing road net work and new schemes to relieve congestion in the towns. Severn and Tay Bridges will both be started.

3. The Land

Farming in Britain today is efficient and prosperous. Great progress has been made possible by our system of long-term price guarantees and the payment of grants for modern buildings, equipment and techniques. This policy will be developed so as to ensure stability to farmer and farm worker.

We give a pledge that the long-term assurances to agriculture contained in our 1957 Act will continue for the life-time of the next Parliament. In the light of experience, we shall consider, in close consultation with the leaders of the industry, any improvements and developments in agricultural policy including the small farmers scheme.

We shall continue to promote the well-being of the British fishing industry.

We confirm that horticulture must have support comparable with that given to agriculture generally. We shall continue to use the tariff as the main instrument of protection. Legislation will be passed to provide improvement grants of £7l/2 million and to help reform horticultural marketing, including a streamlining of the operation of the central London markets.

In the next five years, 300,000 acres will be planted by the Forestry Commission. Encouragement will continue to be given to private woodland owners. We attach importance to the prosperity of this industry, which would be further assured by the establishment of an effective marketing organisation.

There will be continued improvement in amenities for families who live on the land a further extension of water, sewerage and electricity supplies, and better housing and schools. We have set up a Committee to help us solve the problem of public transport in the country side.

4. Nationalised Industries

We are utterly opposed to any extension of nationalisation, by whatever means. We shall do everything possible to ensure improved commercial standards of operation and less centralisation in those industries already nationalised. In addition, we shall review the situation in civil aviation, and set up a new licensing authority to bring a greater measure of freedom to nationally and privately owned airlines.

To further the development of the Post Office as a modern business, we propose to separate its current finances from the Exchequer. Direct Ministerial responsibility to Parliament and the status of Post Office employees as Civil Servants will be retained.

5. Public Administration

In addition to our proposals regarding the Minister for Science, we shall from time to time make such changes in the functions of Ministers as are necessary to suit modern needs.

We shall maintain our policy of giving special regard to the distinctive rights and problems of Scotland and Wales. Transfer of administrative work from London will be carried further as opportunity allows.

We look forward to reforming and strengthening the structure of local democracy, in the light of reports from the Local Government Commissions for England and Wales.

The whole administrative system of town and country planning will be reviewed afresh with the aim of simplifying procedure, achieving improvements and reducing delays.

Opportunity and Security

Conservatives want everybody to have a fuller opportunity to earn more and to own more - and to create a better life for themselves and their children.

We shall proceed in the next Parliament with our policy of reducing whenever possible the burden of taxation.

We shall encourage facilities for the small investor to have a stake in British industry.

1. Education

During the next five years we shall concentrate on producing a massive enlargement of educational opportunity at every level. The necessary work is already in hand. Four programmes, each the biggest of its kind ever undertaken in Britain, are gathering momentum.

Training colleges for teachers, which will now provide a three-year course, are being expanded by nearly two-thirds so as to get rid of over-large classes; the number of students at universities is to be further increased by at least one-third; new technical college buildings are opening at the rate of one a week; and we shall spend some £400 million by 1965 to improve the quality of our school buildings.

We shall defend the grammar schools against doctrinaire Socialist attack, and see that they are further developed. We shall bring the modern schools up to the same high standard. Then the choice of schooling for children can be more flexible and less worrying for parents. This is the right way to deal with the problem of the 'eleven-plus'. Already, up and down the country, hundreds of new modern schools are showing the shape of things to come. Our programme will open up the opportunities that they provide for further education and better careers to every boy and girl; and by 1965 we expect that at least 40 per cent will be staying on after fifteen.

We have appointed a Committee to review the system of awards to students from public funds, including the present 'means test', and improvements will be made when it has reported.

2. Good Housing

Our housing policy, so successful in the past, will be pressed ahead with vigour in the future so as to deal with up-to-date priorities These are the clearance of the slums, the relief of overcrowding, and the needs of the old. By 1965 we intend to re-house at least another million people from the slums.

The local authorities will continue to play a big part along with private enterprise in meeting housing needs; but we reject as costly and bureaucratic nonsense the Socialist plan to take into council ownership millions of privately rented houses.

In the next Parliament we shall take no further action to decontrol rents. More houses must be built and recent rent legislation given time to have its full beneficial effect in increasing house-room.

In the last eight years, 750,000 families have bought their own new homes, and we want to see the process go on. Also, up to £100 million will be advanced by the Government to building societies for loans on older houses-and we shall consider increasing this figure if need be.

3. Good Health

As part of a major policy to promote good health, we shall not only clear the slums, but also wage war on smog by effective use of the Clean Air Act, and tackle the pollution of rivers and estuaries. We shall offer vaccination against polio to everyone up to the age of forty and to all specially vulnerable groups. Prevention of accidents on roads and in the home will be subjects of sustained campaigns.

On the curative side there will be a big programme of hospital building. We already have sixteen new general or mental hospitals and some fifty major extension schemes under way; over the next five years our target is to double the present capital programme.

The level of doctors' and dentists' pay in the health services will be considered as soon as the Royal Commission has reported. We shall also be ready to consider with representatives of the professions their status in the health services.

Local authorities will be encouraged to develop their health and welfare services. We shall set up a National Council for Social Work Training to help recruit and train the extra social workers who will be needed.

4. Security and Retirement

The rates of retirement pensions, which we have increased three times, have now a real buying power over ten shillings higher than in 1951. We pledge ourselves to ensure that pensioners continue to share in the good things which a steadily expanding economy will bring.

Our new pensions scheme will put national insurance on a sound financial footing, concentrate Exchequer help on those with the lowest earnings, and enable men and women with higher earnings to make increased provision for old age. At the same time, we are encouraging the growth of sound occupational pension schemes.

The weekly amount that can be earned without deduction of pension, by those who have retired or by widowed mothers, will be further increased.

We shall continue the preferential treatment which our recent legislation has provided for widows and their children.

Those disabled in the service of their country will remain the subject of our special care. Particular attention will be given to providing more suitable vehicles for the badly disabled.

We shall continue to ensure that those dependent on national assistance have a share in the country's increasing prosperity.

Not only will our housing programme cater more and more for the needs of the old, but we shall also try to make it easier for them to go on living at home. For example, better provision will be made for a 'meals on wheels service for the old and infirm. The extension of the home help service and the provision of holiday rest homes will be encouraged.

5. The use of Leisure

Two out of three families in the country now own TV, one in three has a car or motor-cycle, twice as many are taking holidays away from home-these are welcome signs of the increasing enjoyment of leisure. They are the fruits of our policies.

But at the same time all this represents a challenge to make the growth of leisure more purposeful and creative, especially for young people.

Our policy of opportunity will therefore be extended. In particular, we propose to reorganise and expand the Youth Service. Measures will be taken to encourage Youth Leadership and the provision of attractive youth clubs, more playing fields and better facilities for sport. We shall do more to support the arts including the living theatre. Improvements will be made in museums and galleries and in the public library service. Particular attention will be given to the needs of provincial centres.

6. Liberty Under the Law

We believe that it is by emphasis on the home, enlargement of educational opportunity, development of services for youth and a spread of the responsibilities of property that national character can be strengthened and moral standards upheld. In addition, we shall revise some of our social laws, for example those relating to betting and gaming and to clubs and licensing, which are at present full of anomalies and lead to abuse and even corruption.

It will continue to be our policy to protect the citizens, irrespective of creed or colour, against lawlessness.

We intend to review the system of criminal justice and to undertake penal reforms which will lead offenders to abandon a life of crime. A scheme for compensating the victims of violent crime for personal injuries will be considered.

The Legal Aid and Advice Acts will be extended to remaining courts and to certain tribunals, and the present income and capital limits will be reviewed to ensure that help is not denied to anyone who needs it.

We shall appoint a Committee to review the working of the Companies Act in the light of present conditions. Action will be taken to protect the public against the sale of sub-standard goods and to amend the law on weights and measures.

We mean to make quite sure that the Press have proper facilities for reporting the proceedings of local authorities.

In all these matters we shall act to strengthen Britain's traditional way of life, centred upon the dignity and liberty of the individual.

Our Duty Overseas

Whilst one hundred million people in Europe alone have, since the war, been forcibly absorbed into the Communist bloc and system, six times that number have been helped to nationhood within the British Commonwealth. It is our duty to ourselves and to the cause of freedom everywhere to see that the facts are known, and that misrepresentation about British 'colonialism' does not go unchallenged. Progressive expansion of overseas information services will remain our policy.

The Conservative Government will continue to work out in the Commonwealth the pattern of a community of free and sovereign nations. Next year Nigeria, and before long the West Indies, will acquire independence.

We shall discuss with our partners in the Commonwealth plans to deal with the status of members too small to be fully self-supporting and self-governing.

An advisory Commission, under Lord Monckton's chairmanship, is being set up in preparation for the review of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland which is to take place in 1960. Our central aim in multi-racial countries is to build communities which protect minority rights and are free of all discrimination on grounds of race or colour. If democracy is to be secured, education must underpin the franchise; and the rapid expansion of education is the Commonwealth's most pressing need. We therefore undertake to increase training facilities for teachers and to make more English books available; and we will play a leading part in financing the new Commonwealth scheme of exchange scholar ships and fellowships.

We emphasise the part that individual service can play. The need for teachers, doctors and technicians of every kind is almost unlimited, and an appeal to the adventurous spirit of youth must be made. We shall encourage the professions and industry to help those willing to do so to serve for a few years in the overseas Commonwealth without prejudice to their careers at home.

Further British capital will be made available through loans and grants for sound Commonwealth development. The Colombo Plan and other schemes of technical co operation will be assisted to the full. We shall back the proposal for a new International Development Association. The Conservative Government will continue to support the United Nations' agencies in relieving poverty and combating disease, and will substantially increase the British contribution to the United Nations' Special Fund for economic development.

Policy For Peace

The next few years and even months will be critical and perhaps decisive. As a result of our policies the great powers of the world have closer contacts both personal and official than for a long time. Provided we use flexibility of method without abandoning firmness of principle, a great opportunity lies before us. Peace with justice is our aim.

1. United Nations

Peace cannot finally be secure until there is a world instrument with the power and the will to deal with aggression and ensure that international agreements are carried out. In view of the deep divisions between East and West, this is necessarily a long-term aim. We shall continue trying to build up the United Nations' strength and influence, but recognise that progress in improving East-West relations is an essential preliminary. Meanwhile, we shall give all our support to the work of conciliation and mediation which the United Nations machinery is well fitted to carry out.

2. Relations with Russia

We are opposed to the Communist system as being wholly contrary to the basic principles of our freedom and religious faith. We believe that if peace can be preserved these principles will not only survive in our own part of the world but spread. Owing to the destructiveness of modern warfare both sides have in common a greater interest in peace than ever before. If humanity is to survive both must therefore learn to live together. With this aim we have worked for a steady improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union. The steps we have taken to expand trade, promote personal contacts and discussions and improve means of communication will be pursued.

3. Our Alliances

Meanwhile it remains vitally important to maintain our defensive alliances throughout the world. In Europe while we will work for the inspection and reduction of armaments in areas to be agreed, we are opposed to plans which would alter the military balance and so weaken N.A.T.O.

We have sought to keep the alliance united on matters of principle and flexible in its diplomacy. For example, over Berlin we are resolved that the two and a quarter million West Berliners shall preserve their freedom to choose their way of life. Subject to that, we are ready to work Out new arrangements to improve the existing situation.

4. The Armed Forces

Our armed forces are being reorganised on a voluntary basis and extensively re-equipped to suit them to the needs of the present day. The pay and living conditions of the Services have been vastly improved and we intend to keep them in line with standards in civilian life.

5. Disarmament

The power of modern weapons is appalling; but the fact that a nuclear war would mean mutual destruction is the most powerful deterrent against war. It is, however, war itself, not a particular weapon, which is the true enemy. Our aim, therefore, is to move forward by balanced stages towards the abolition of all nuclear weapons and the reduction of the other weapons and armed forces to a level which will rule out the possibility of an aggressive war. In doing this we must stick to the principle that disarmament can be effective only if it is subject to a proper system of international inspection and control. To. this end, we have just reached agreement with the Soviet Union on a new body to consider disarmament and report to the United Nations. We shall place before it our comprehensive proposals.

6. Nuclear Tests

On British initiative the Conference of experts met last year and reached agreement on some aspects of controlling the suspension of nuclear tests. This was followed by the present Geneva Conference and no nuclear weapon tests have taken place since the Russian tests in November 1958. At the Conference, effective systems have been worked out for supervising a ban on nuclear tests in the air and under water, though more work is still to be done on supervising a ban on tests underground.

We have three objectives, achievement of each of which would be a great prize:

(i) The end of atmospheric tests and all that that implies. Since agreement in principle has been reached about the feasibility of controlling a ban on atmospheric tests, we see no reason why any such tests need ever be undertaken again by the nuclear powers. It was in this hope that we suspended our tests.

(ii) The establishment of the first experiment in a system of international control, which may lead to effective measures of disarmament, both nuclear and conventional.

(iii) The abolition under effective control of tests of all kinds.

This is a realistic and constructive approach. It maintains British influence in world affairs unimpaired and paves the way for wider agreements in the future.

The Alternative

Vital issues of defence and foreign policy divide the Socialists in Opposition and would continue to divide them if returned to power.

Remember their record at home! What have they to offer today that was not tried and found wanting when they last held office?

The country is disillusioned with nationalisation; but a Labour Government would extend it. People are glad to be free of controls; but a Labour Government would clamp them on again. Everyone welcomes stable prices and lower taxes; but a return to Socialism is bound to mean a return to inflation and higher taxes. Britain lives by her trade; but Socialism would disrupt business at home and undermine confidence abroad.

The Socialists have learnt nothing in their period of Opposition save new ways to gloss over their true intentions. Their policies are old-fashioned and have no relevance to the problems of the modern world.

Our policies look to the future and offer the best hope of prosperity and peace with justice.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Fun in the Sun

Whilst studying it is completely meaningless to write anything meaningful about anything meaningful, like politics. Alas, I will continue my little tirade where I whine about studying and finish it of with a joke.

Poster: "Breakfast in London. Dinner in new York." British Airways.

Graffiti: "Luggage in South Africa."

Epic. Do you know what is not epic? A musical (no really) about Barack Fucking Obama... (you know the guy who got the Nobel Peace Price for doing: ______________ [insert personal favourite deed which renders Barack Obama worthy of the Nobel Peace Price])

One law for us...


Uni work pissing me off so here is a funny picture.


Tuesday, 12 January 2010

Universities in the UK and Labour - the latter were too stupid to attend the former

I know that I post a lot of generally bad things on this site and I do apologise for this. But if you want to reign in ignorance and care little for the malice that rules this country I suggest you go to something a bit more jolly, such as Funny Dogs. In the meantime I going to cross post a thing I found on the Guardian which again demonstrate why needs to evacuate Parliament of this fuckstick government. This issue pertains to education and more specifically, Universities which I am currently attending why this issue really angers me.

It has taken more than 800 years to create one of the world's greatest education systems and it looks like it will take just six months to bring it to its knees. Britain's higher education system is superb – second only to the US, with 18 of our universities in the world's top 100 – and recognised across the globe as a gold standard.

But our gold standard system could be replaced with one of silver, bronze or worse, under swingeing cuts to the funding of higher education and science recently announced by the government. Exactly how much will be slashed and where the axe will fall is unclear, although it has been put at up to £2.5bn.

Such huge cuts in university budgets would have a devastating effect not only on students and staff, but also on Britain's international competitiveness, economy and ability to recover from recession. Research-intensive universities have been given some consolation; we certainly welcome the relative protection for research announced in December and the pronouncement that the needs of world-class institutions must be prioritised. But we are deeply concerned that cuts of this magnitude in overall funding will erode the sustainability of our research and affect even the most outstanding universities.

When Gordon Brown was asked if there was still money to spend on Labour priorities despite the public- sector deficit, he replied: "Of course there is." Perhaps the PM should consider what his international counterparts regard as priorities. Nicolas Sarkozy has just announced aninvestment of €11bn in higher education in France, stating he wants "the best universities in the world". Germany pumped a total of €18bn into promoting world-class research alongside university education, whileBarack Obama ploughed an additional $21bn into federal science spending.

Universities are not immune from this recession. But there seems to be a greater focus on cutting higher education funding than almost anything else. The health service, police and schools are all currently "protected", presumably due to their perceived importance at the ballot box. Not so, it seems, HE.

Some £600m of cuts to HE were identified in the pre-budget report, on top of £180m "efficiency savings" announced by the Higher Education Funding Council for England over 2009 and 2010. In December the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills announced a further cut of £135m for 2010/11.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that additional cuts of 12.3% over 2011 and 2012 are needed if the government is to achieve its target of halving the national debt by 2013. This would mean another £1.6bn of cuts for the science and higher education budgets, bringing the grand total to £2.5bn – equivalent to a third of the current annual spend on higher education.

Conservative policy is unclear, but the party has indicated an intention to reduce the national debt more rapidly, which raises the spectre of even harder, faster and deeper cuts.

It is a mystery why we are being subjected to this. Students leave university equipped with skills that are an essential part of a successful knowledge economy. The UK is the world's second-most popular destination for international students, generating £2.9bn annually for universities, as well as off-campus expenditure estimated at £2.3bn.

With just 1% of the global population, we produce 7.9% of the world's research publications and 12% of all citations. The total contribution of higher education to the economy in 2007/8 was £33.4bn – equivalent to 2.3% of GDP. Our gross output exceeds that of either the pharmaceutical or the aerospace industry. Sadly, the UK can no longer claim to be world-leading in many fields of endeavour. What a great shame it would be to undermine one of the few spheres, namely our universities, in which we do actually still excel.

Some expect Lord Browne's review of higher education funding to solve the entire problem. This review was supposed to happen against a background of stable government funding. Browne's mission has become even more challenging and urgent against the background of the current proposed cuts. He needs to produce a rigorous assessment of how much each beneficiary of higher education – the graduate, employer and society as a whole – should contribute to the costs of this vital service to the nation.

Our politicians must take a responsible approach to the funding of higher education and recognise that it is one of the jewels in the country's crown, worthy of protection because of the extraordinary value that it brings to our society, international competitiveness and economy. We call on the government to state clearly that higher education will not be cut further and to seriously consider reversing cuts already proposed.

Steve Smith, the president of Universities UK, has warned that institutions face having to close hundreds of courses, with fewer academic staff and bigger classes. Reports suggest that as many as 30 universities may not survive in their current form if even minimal funding cuts are introduced.

We would go further than Smith's bleak assessment. We live in a world where ideas, innovation and entrepreneurialism are key to prosperity and wellbeing. Our universities are critical to supporting this agenda for the next 800 years. This is a defining moment. If politicians don't act now, they will be faced with meltdown in a sector that is vital to our national prosperity. They have been warned.

So much for English Common Law ... as usual the EU is not mentioned once

The divergence of Britain from the Continent can be traced to Bonaparte's greatest victory 200 years ago. In Book III of "War and Peace" that Tolstoy memorably describes the Battle of Austerlitz — "the battle of the three emperors." This was the greatest victory of Napoleon Bonaparte's career. At the time, it seemed far more important than his navy's defeat at Trafalgar two months before. By routing the combined armies of Austria and Russia, Austerlitz enabled Napoleon literally to redraw the map of Europe, conjuring up a new Confederation of the Rhine from the Baltic to the Alps.

Moreover, by obliging the Austrian Emperor Francis to renounce the title of Holy Roman Emperor, Napoleon snuffed out an institution that had been at the heart of Europe for more than a millennium.

Napoleon's idea of Europe was double-edged. On the one hand, he overthrew decadent dynasties such as the Bourbons of Naples and established what was to become the model for Continental legal systems, the Code Napoléon. Later, in exile, he claimed that he had "wished to found a European system, a European code of laws, a European judiciary" so that "there would be one people in Europe." Yet, at the same time, Napoleonic Europe was without question an authoritarian empire.

What finally killed Napoleon's Europe was the fatal combination of the English Channel and the Russian winter. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to restore the old pre-Napoleonic Europe.

Napoleon fell; Bonapartism lived on, with the civil code and economic dirigisme as perhaps its most enduring legacies. Now it is back in the UK backed and imposed by the EU as usual (that is one of the 'minor' consequences, one of the footnotes, of signing the Lisbon Treaty), and as usual not a word is being said about this in the newspaper. Not a single 'EU' is mentioned in relation to uprooting of English Common Law. What to say? It is again one of those where you are completely at loss for words. Think back at the greatest men of our history and ponder what they might have replied on stumbling upon this revelation; that the corner stone of England is being chucked out just like that. It should be said that I strongly disagree with Mr. Berlins who wrote this post on the issue over at the Guardian. I will echo instead what Fausty said on the subject.

An illustration of the difference between Common Law and the Code can be seen in the understanding of "Rights." In the Anglosphere, there are a core set that pre-date the existence of the civil power and cannot be diminished by it (Jefferson's "Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness.") The Code acknowledges no rights save those spelled out in the Code itself. Rights are thus a creature of the Code and therefore malleable by whoever has the power to amend the Code.

In Common Law you are assumed innocent until the state proves you guilty. In the Code you are presumed guilty until you have proven otherwise.

Ask yourself this; what is more important £6 million or a man's freedom? They are of course claiming that this is done to save money, their primary argument - to have the audacity to even suggest that money is an issue it outrageous. It is the responsibility of the state to prove that one or more of its subjects have acted outsides the confines of the law and failing to do so the subjects must be set free. Furthermore if the confines of the law are not adequate then the laws are changed for better implementation by elected representatives of the people, not the practise of law. You know of course where this will lead, more cases will use the Code under the guise of "cost savings" and hey presto our freedoms are set in stone - that in itself is a contradiction, an oxymoron of colossal importance. Freedom is a liberty, we are born free, if you write down that it is a freedom to be born free then it is not a freedom anymore. You have defined what the concept means, you are introducing guidelines and rules for the implementation of the word and then you make it into a law and a law is a rule which prevents freedom. The more laws the less justice, and the primary purpose of the Code is to ensnare and trap our freedom.