100,000 voices

Yours truly does apologise for his unseemly long absences from this blog. University is taking its toll particularly since this blogger is attending a real university and doing a real course (which his arrogance never falters to mention). Exams are due after Christmas holidays so this post in itself is an outlier. But nonetheless things need to be said and since our pointless MSM continues to be just that, we have to say it ourselves, we the people.

100,000 voices will be required to get motions debated in parliament. A lot of people do not like this, one of my favourite bloggers Mr. North at EU Referendum does not like it either. Yet one of my favourite politicians Mr. Hannan likes it so it would appear we are having a good old bout of difference of opinion. I like it not because I am naive enough to think that it will actually improve democracy in this country but because it is a very useful tool for politicians to shot themselves in the foot with. And since our ruling class is monumentally stupid as it is, you can be quite sure that given the opportunity to shot themselves in their feet; they will.

Politicians nowadays despise the electorate, our current ruling class is a testament to this fact. No one voted for the coalition yet the coalition now votes for us. That is not democracy and certainly not representative democracy where they are supposed to represent us, instead they represent themselves since under the aegis of 'coalition' they threw out their election manifestos, wrote a new one and forced it onto the people under the guise of 'compromise'. We were stupid enough, as always, to swallow that, line, hook and sinker.

Thankfully the public will always outshine private politicians. We have the benefit of 60 million minds and they only have 646 of our kind, not even our best kind, a rather mediocre staple they come from. With few scholars, officers and entrepreneurs. They are by and large sheep and followers, not leaders. Hence it is not a surprise at all that they now think this gimmick of a measure is going to help shore up their popularity (read 'the LibDems popularity').

What will happen is this: we will suggest loads of things we want debated and changed by our "sovereign" parliament. We will submit the HRA for expulsion from the legislature, we will demand that immigration is significantly reduced, we will demand a referendum on the EU, we will enforce very convincingly our commitment to the Armed Forces, we will demand the termination of the Human Rights Commission and we will most likely demand that a number of services such rail traffic and postal services are returned to the public sector. And many others.

They will of course ignore every single one of our requests, when we come, cap in hand, and beg that our masters listen to us.

But what they do not seem to have factored into this ploy is that there will be a lot of these 'citizen's initiatives' - because we, as a whole, despise our politicians and what they have done to this country. When the hoi polloi start to realise that their vox populi is being ignored en masse, even they will realise that their politicians are not serving their best interests.

Hence it will follow; motion after motion will be rejected because it is truly what the people want, people's disillusionment with the ruling class will only grow and grow, the ruling class will become more and more aware of their disillusionment until they one day feel compelled to act on one of the requests.

Alas, this act is a pointless play to the galleries for is should not be needed, politicians should by definition hold the executive to account. They should by definition have balls and a firm spine. But what this act will do is to force the public balls and spine onto our politicians, and there is not a single thing they can do about it.

Unfortunately we are a nation which is going nowhere.

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.

We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.

Well we are here now again the tranquility before the storm, the Irish referendum. I know what I was doing this time last year, reading Dracula by Bram Stoker. Quite a fabulous book I must say, and what is more very appropriate for the time being. I hope you saw what I did there; drew a parallel between vampires trying to establish a new base in England but currently only having a place in Transylvania. Enough of these childish thoughts though, the EU is here and the best we can really do is to make fun out of them and marvel at the many contradictions that mire the entire project. And we shall.

We must ask what precisely do our masters in Brussels think will happen once the Irish vote 'yes' today and when they have beaten every other remaining nation in the EU into submission. They have the passerelle clause of course (A Passerelle Clause also known as an Escalator Clause is a clause within treaties of the European Union that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas) which the House of Lords once called the "gangplank clause" there is still some bloodymindedness left in old Westminster I will give her that. They will never have to ask of our opinion again but that does not imply that we are incapable of forming one, that we need a nanny parliament to "represent" our wishes in Brussels. No, if anything this will produce the first true majority of EU rebels.

History always produces its blocks and they come and go like anything else; nothing lasts for ever there are no perpetual states of being. There cannot be any perpetual political states for it violates the second law of thermodynamics which forbids it completely. Perpetuum mobile is naught it cannot happen. We had three different reiches and a Weimar republic in the middle. British, German, French Empire and even a Japanese one. These symbols of power never last because they violate not only laws of nature but laws of man. When the powers themselves eventually realise this they try all sorts of things to extend their state of being, like curtailing human rights, imposing curfews, violently distorting facts even more so than now - and so on. But you cannot stop vox populi.

What are the British thoughts on the EU then you might ask? Well it looks like a very moribund project at grassroots level, but naturally that is not where the power lies until at the very end. All the data from the following polls except the last one can be found here at Democracy Movement (my emphasis).

• Nov 06 - Power 100 Poll, Times:

81% of UK businesses believed that Britain should not reconsider membership of the Euro.

• Harris Poll for the Financial Times, Jun 07:

A referendum on the new treaty is wanted by 69% of Britons, 75% of Spaniards, 71% of Germans, 68% of Italians, and 64% of French

• Populous for Global Vision 8-10 June 07:

83% wanted a referendum before the constitutional treaty becomes law;

14% were against.

• Ipsos Mori poll, 11/8/07:

81% of British people want a referendum on the new EU treaty. Only 17% agreed with Gordon Brown that Parliament should decide.

• ICM Poll for Global Vision, Nov 9-11, 07

73% wanted a Referendum on the EU Treaty,

18% did not.

23% wanted to leave the EU;

47% wanted a looser arrangement with the EU, based on free trade;

24% wanted us to remain a full member

• You-Gov Poll for Open Europe, June 08

Only 29% of Britons support full EU membership

In a YouGov poll commissioned by Open Europe, 24% said "the UK should leave the EU altogether" while a further 38% said that "The UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the other political elements of the EU", making a total of 62% opposed to membership of the EU as it stands.

• Survey for Radio 4's The World at One. Jan 09:

71% against adopting the Euro, 15% in favour

• ICM Poll for the Taxpayers Alliance, 22 May 09

69% want the Government to start ignoring EU rules

60% say that fines for disobedience to our Brussels masters should be ignored

75% want a referendum before any more powers are given to the EU

57% want to take back powers already given to the EU

• Com Res Poll for BBC Daily Politics, 19 Mar 09

55% wanted to leave the EU but maintain close trading links

84% said that voters should decide whether any further powers should be transferred to the EU

51% did not think there was any benefit in trade or jobs from EU membership

• Conservative Home poll of Conservative Parliamentary candidates, Aug 09

84% want Cameron to hold a referendum on Lisbon, even if it has already been ratified

60% want a complete renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the EU

Only 6% want to be "at the heart of Europe"

• YouGov poll for the Telegraph, 14 September 2009

43% said the EU should leave the UK altogether

57% of those questioned believe that a future Conservative government should offer a referendum on the ratified treaty, with only 15 percent saying there should be no such vote.

These polls show a growing sector of the electorate who are exceedingly unhappy with the EU and want to withdraw altogether. At the same time, of course, voting turnout in European Elections have been falling steadily over the years.

Only 34.7% of eligible voters even bothered to turnout this year compared to 38.5% in 2004. Why is this then, well it simply does not matter who we elect for parliament they cannot propose laws anyway, they have no real power and cannot possibly express the wishes of the electorate without it. They can express the wishes of the British electorate even less because most of us do not want the UK in the EU at all. UKIP could get all the British MEPs but they still would not hold the power to withdraw the UK from the EU. That powers lies ultimately with Westminster, well at least until the Irish vote 'yes' then the EU has to be consulted if a nation wants to withdraw, a process which will take at least two years during which time of course the EU will do all in its power to reverse that decision, like they have done in Ireland and did in Denmark with the Maastricht Treaty. In the words of the timeless Václav Klaus who called whole system to be abolished. "It's pointless to have European elections," he said. "That's like holding semi-elections." Quite.

I was always told to end my 'essays' with a quote, something which would really ram in the message which I was trying to convey. And I will do this not because I was told to but because there are so many quotes that survive on this issue and it is beyond me why we always ignore ancient immortal wisdom, this has happened before and it will happen again yet we always turn a blind eye. 'Hate' is not mankind's foulest trait, 'ignorance' has that blessing.

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed." - Barry Goldwater

Liberal...

Yippiee kay fucking yay I am

Created by LPUK

Who gives a shit?

Our Legacy

Being in a very criminal mood today I have decided to steal another entry from another blogger-shock and horror-be he named Calling England. I think it is hilarious because all of it is so true and those are the best jokes, because inside we die a little every time someone confirms the fiendishness that holds this country's throat with an iron grip. The more we loose our being the more ignorant we become, and we all know that ignorance is bliss.





Nelson: 'Order the signal, Hardy.'
Hardy: 'Aye, aye sir.'
Nelson: 'Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning of this?'
Hardy: 'Sorry sir?'
Nelson (reading aloud): 'England expects every person to do his or her duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion, age or disability" What gobbledegook is this?'
Hardy: 'Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an Equal Opportunities employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist.'
Nelson: 'Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.'
Hardy: 'Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free working environments.'
Nelson: 'In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main-brace to steel the men before battle.'
Hardy: 'The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. It's part of the Government's policy on binge drinking.'
Nelson: 'Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it ... full speed ahead.'
Hardy: 'I think you'll find that there's a 4-knot speed limit in this stretch of water.'
Nelson: 'Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest please.'
Hardy: 'That won't be possible, sir.'
Nelson: 'What?'
Hardy: 'Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir - no harness. And they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected.'
Nelson: 'Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy.'
Hardy: 'He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck, Admiral.'
Nelson: 'Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd.'
Hardy: 'Health and Safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently-abled.'
Nelson: 'Differently-abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of Admiral by playing the disability card.'
Hardy: 'Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.'
Nelson: 'Whatever next? Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy.'
Hardy: 'The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral. They're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.'
Nelson: 'Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?'
Hardy: 'Actually, sir, we're not.'
Nelson: 'We're not?'
Hardy: 'No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation.'
Nelson: 'But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil?'
Hardy: 'I wouldn't let the ship's Diversity Co-Ordinator hear you saying that, Sir. You'll be up on a disciplinary report.'
Nelson: 'You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your King.'
Hardy: 'Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest - it's the rules. It could save your life.'
Nelson: 'Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?'
Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu. And there's a ban on corporal punishment.'
Nelson: 'What about sodomy?'
Hardy: 'I believe that is now legal, sir.'
Nelson: 'In that case..... kiss me, Hardy.'

Bonfire on Databases

I am not too sure what I am to write about today. It seems as if most things have been exhausted e.g. there is so preciously little we appear to be able to do about the malaise that infest our daily lives. When freedom and justice has died in the heart of man how are we, who still cultivate this belief, going to raise it from the dead like Jesus did Lazarus?

Why is it that no one cares anymore? Why is it permissible for the Independent Safeguarding Authority to even be set up - which sole purpose it is to check and see if people wanting to work with children are pedophiles or not. You might scream 'child protection' yet for all that we stand for, no other nation in the world has gone this overboard with databases. In Sweden your name appears, on average, on 300 databases ranging from private to public. Are we even to dare to estimate that number for the UK, I certainly would not like to know. It is one of these areas where ignorance truly is bliss where one is happier not knowing how many people know about my first failed exam - ever. Yet do you honestly think we will be safer if we are registered on 2000 databases or even 10,000 databases? Even if our name appeared on every single institutions' databases, that we came in contact with, that is not going to stop a wicked mind from being wicked. How could it?

What is wrong with us? Why is not Dave mentioning this when he is doing very well in making the easy choices, the superficial ones that will amount to a difference for you and me to the tune of naught. Yet the soon-to-be eradicated Labour Government have so much British blood on their hands it is almost difficult not to damn them for every act they have passed since coming into power. People make the argument that we elected them and as such have to stand by our choice. We made that choice on the premise that the people we elected were honest and descent, that is what it previously meant to be publicly elected. Yet we get a government that now is actively indulging in social engineering and is not ashamed of it, take Carol Ann Duffy's poem, 'Education for Leisure'. The exam board AQA has removed the poem from its GCSE anthology, and has asked schools to destroy old copies containing the poem, because it supposedly glorified knife crime.

What is poetry? There are as many definitions of poetry as there are poets. Wordsworth defined poetry as "the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings;" Emily Dickinson said, "If I read a book and it makes my body so cold no fire ever can warm me, I know that is poetry;" and Dylan Thomas defined poetry this way: "Poetry is what makes me laugh or cry or yawn, what makes my toenails twinkle, what makes me want to do this or that or nothing." Poetry is a lot of things to a lot of people. Poetry is what our heart tells us the words mean together, in their glorious, doomed escapade trying to explain and alleviate life in the eye of the beholder. Even if the message of a poem is so blindingly obvious - that in itself is a contradiction for being obvious is not a necessity of a poem nor is beauty only understanding. But understanding is also a personal concept, like meaning it cannot be thrust upon the stronger minds who seek to question the power lurking behind the cloak of words. That power however is now contained by the government which tells us, through decrees, what we can and cannot read. Recall that most films about autocracy always feature a 'blacklist' were artifacts of culture are hidden away from the public away because they are 'dangerous' and can corrupt feeble minds.

A cull on quangos indeed, all 1,162 of them. But what about these?

ContactPoint: To hold name, address, gender, date of birth, school and health provider of every child in England

National DNA database: Of 4.5m people whose genetic fingerprints are on the database, more than 500,000 are innocent, including 39,000 children

Communications database: Plan to centralise details of calls and websites visited from phone companies and internet providers, open to 510 public authorities

Onset: A profiling tool which examines a child's behaviour and social background to identify potential child offenders

Detailed Care Record: When rolled out, will allow hospitals, GPs nurses and social workers to update patient's records with unmonitored "wikipedia-style" entries

>>>>PROPOSED<<<<

Communications database Would bring together details of emails, telephone calls and web use

National Identity Register Will store biographical information and biometric data linked to ID cards

The NHS Detailed Care Record Will hold GP and hospital records

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, pointed to significant legal and practical problems with a further 29 databases, including the national childhood obesity one and the planned NHS summary care record system...

It goes without mentioning that the ones we "share" with the EU are not exactly libertarian either.

What is wrong with us? Perhaps that is the key question, perhaps that is the Magnus Opus feat of this government, this seemingly Herculean question, not so much the question itself but the very fact that we are now so desperately in need for guidance that the only people who cannot escape from the disaster, unlike this government and its immasculated purpose, who are responsible - we are those people. Their victory lies in us having to ask ourselves that question instead of those whom we elected.

Degeneration

This is not an accident; this is not a combination of a few pieces of bad luck or misfortune in the national life. Westminster awash with rumours about Brown, rumours about the General, rumours about the Chancellor and rumours ostensibly about Britain. Politicians used to put the higher vested interests in the nation above their own petty party politics. It is not an accident that our government now looks more like a Britney Spears album; a work of pure fiction, produced only to make money and not even the slightest trace of any heart or soul.

This is the result of the very careful grooming of the UK and also the other West European states, that was given direction when the USSR and its fellow-traveller leftist sister parties throughout Europe formed a plan in the mid 1980s. Remember that is was Gorbachev who likened the EU to the USSR. This may all be superficial stuff, for in truth we do not really know what goes on behind the curtains, be quite sure though that it is not for our benefit.

The plan was a reaction against the free markets and philosophy of personal choice of Thatcherism, with the intention of undermining the national identity, moral certainties, will and confidence of nations. One conspiracy theory goes that Thatcher was told by the Bilderberg group to disestablish Britain's sovereignty but she supposedly refused. A conspiracy theory as said but seems that Major and Blair carried on where she left of.

The purpose is to get the nations of Europe, including and particularly the UK, to accept an un-democratic super state with institutions modeled closely on those of the USSR. Blair inadvertently gave it away when, in commenting on the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland, he said to his colleagues who did not entirely see the subtlety "its the process, stupid". 'Project' or 'Process' it is a horrendously strong force which can topple governments. Look at Cowen's government in Ireland - it has the lowest approval ratings in Irish history, well since 1915. Look at Brown's government same story there. Both are kaput, both will be raped by the electorate come the election but that is the fine detail of the scheme; once the election is held in the respective country they wont need to bother for they "democratically" signed the constitution and that is the final piece of engrenage - the gears will kick into over drive once that is signed.

In other words, keep pushing a degenerative agenda. Because as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.

The more ridiculous and untenable positions you force on the populace in every sphere - in wars abroad - in multiculturalism - in economic madness where debit is wealth?! - in hospitals where patients are killed - in local government where people are spied on and children of decent families are abducted by the state - in policing where you can be arrested for your opinions and killed during a demonstration - then the more you tie people up in chasing their tails, in trying to reconcile impossible inconsistencies and in trying to make sense of a society that seems to have gone mad and dysfunctional. This interestingly enough fits well into the list of aims of the Frankfurt school of Marxism:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Throw in bread and circuses -that is, bribe the people with their own wealth and the mortgaged futures of their children and 'deliver' (a rotten New Labour use of the word) the Olympics or whatever -and we the people are sleep-walking like shell-shocked zombies into the grim, "post-democratic" nightmare in which the Westminster parliament will be irrelevant, British institutions of worth will be reduced to pastiche, trashed and we will no longer be a free people.

As for civil society, there will not be one, not in their gulags. The most brilliant part in the scheme is that all of this, all that you have just read, will be derided as common conspiracy nuttery and will be treated as such with due respect. It really is a brilliant move. It would be interesting to see how many ministers and MPs know they are being pulled by the leg, who know that they are the "useful idiots" as Khrushchev said.

Its all deliberate. This kind of reduction of a nation does not happen by accident. If it had happened "back in the day" people would have done something about it. One rather famous adage about the British people is that 'we do not do revolutions' it is not our thing. It is not our thing because on the whole, over the past 300 years, we have been comparatively happy with our existence as a prosperous Island nation. We even managed to stick an Empire in there. Somewhere along the line it all went terribly wrong, somewhere someone got the idea that it would be better if us little islanders were bereft of our standing in the world, which by comparison, was huge. Somewhere, someone for some reason - it is all very ambiguous for it completely nonsensical for a Briton to commit such a huge act of treason. Well, today it is not of course, today a politician would sell whatever part of Britain was desired by a foreign state, for a loaf of bread. But before all of this began such behaviour was unheard of.

The three main parties have stated their common position - one of treason against the native peoples of these islands - by refusing a referendum on the European super state.

However this is the basic law of nature; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. They would do well in remembering that.

I stole this from Old Holborn

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of BMA science and ethics, said: "The BMA is not
anti-alcohol. As doctors our focus is to ensure that individuals drink sensibly so they do not put their health and lives in danger."

For which there is no more succinct reply that to quote from the Daily Mash:

Emma Bishop, a marketing executive from Twickenham, added: "How's about this? As an adult, I think a reasonable daily limit is me drinking as much as I fucking want.

"If it affects my work I'll get sacked. If it affects my relationships I'll be all lonely and sad.

"And as for my health, following a quick glance at my tax bill I've decided that the NHS will treat me and the government can keep its fucking opinions to itself."

With regards to this story over at Old Holdborn, highly recommended reading.

Animus - pure and petrid ire

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Decline and Fall of Britain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passarelle clauses, Prerogative writs and history - the erosion thereof

Nelson Mandela, that ever glowing beacon of light of human altruism (it is hush-hush to mention that Nelson Mandela was the leader for the ANC's armed faction the MK or the Spear of the Nation), said in his opening speech of his trial in April 1964 that he was a great admirer of the parliamentary system of western governments. He went on to expose his even greater admiration for some of the British milestone documents upon which most western democracies' freedoms are derived from: "The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British political institutions and for the country's system of justice."

Poor old Mandela, I fancy that he does not know that the majority of "British political institutions" ceased to deliver anything even remotely democratic a long time ago. But lets not dwell on the present we must go back to the beginning for a tad of freedom (this is paradox in itself but I am sure you spotted that one).

The first pivotal document that came into being was introduced in 1215 and it is, as you all know, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms). In 1215, king John, faced with the possibility of revolt and civil war, agreed to the demands of his Barons and granted the Magna Carta. It was re-issued in 1216, 1217, and again in 1225 with certain revisions. The Magna Carta was the first document of its kind in that it bound not only the king's subjects, but the king and all of his heirs as well, to the laws of the land. Thus, making no man above the law. Most notably though was that the Magna Carta enshrined the writ of habeas corpus - allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. You can be quite sure than Brown and his cretins have made it their goal the unlearn any Latin word they ever stumbled upon (which technically involves large chunks of the English language so they should really not have such a hard time to coming to grips with this writ.)

"Aha" you may think, "now all our human rights have been fulfilled" - far from it. It would take another 434 years before another landmark document was broadcasted by the folks on this tiny spec of land.

The Death Warrant of Charles I was published in 1649. We will have to quick forward a bit to get to the juicy parts (well, 'part' is more correct): the beheading.Civil war broke out in 1642. At first, Charles's Royalist forces had the upper hand, with further promise of support from the Irish Catholic Confederation, which was fighting Parliamentarian forces in Ireland. But then the shit hit then fan and at the battles of Naseby and Langport in June and July 1645, the first showing of the Parliamentarian New Model Army under Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, the Royalists suffered major losses. Charles I's surrender in May 1646 concluded the first phase of the civil war, though he rejected all proposals intended to bring a peace. However, he did reach a secret agreement with the Scots regarding Presbyterianism in England, which incensed the English Parliament.

The sequel is a bit of a bitch though for poor old Charles you see the Civil War reached the end of its next phase with Charles's trial. The charges against him were noted in a special Act of Parliament, namely that he "had a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation", and that he had "levied and maintained a civil war in the land." The latter was the equivalent of treason and of it went chop-chop-chop. No head no more. What is interesting though is that New Labour has been waging a civil war as well, not with weapons, but with acts of parliaments and laws - designed to protect us but are now used against us under aegis of "national security". Brown and Blair should start doing their history for if there is one thing about history it is that it infallibly, invariably and consistently repeats itself.

How about it then, did Chuckle Cromwell the Dashing give us all we need to dive headlong into the 21st century as the Computer age dawned before our eyes? No. The wankers had us wait another 40 years before they came up with something that us, the plebeian, could use for our daily undertaking.

The Bill of Rights. The Act described the abuses of power of King James II that led to his departure, and defined the agreement between Parliament and William of Orange if he was to be king. When William and his wife Mary were crowned in 1689, they took an oath to rule according to the "statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same." Previous coronation oaths had merely said that the new king would adhere to the laws and customs of earlier kings. This is very important, wording.

The EU for example loves wording, they love it so much that they have invented new words to hide the underlying message of their documents. For example they have a clause know as a Passerelle Clause or a Escalator Clause that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas. Well that democratic, innit? But back to the past.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic tenets for, at the time, all Englishmen. These rights continue to apply today, not only in England, but in each of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth realms as well. The people, embodied in the parliament, are granted immutable civil and political rights through the act, including:

* Freedom from royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
* Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.
* Freedom to petition the monarch.
* Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace. The agreement of parliament became necessary before the army could be moved against the populace when not at war.
* Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.
* Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
* Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. This means that freedom of speech for all, and the proceedings of parliament can not be questioned in a court of law or any other body outside of parliament itself; this forms the basis of modern parliamentary privilege [1688 Commonwealth Bill of Rights ].
* Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive bail.
* Freedom from fine and forfeiture without a trial.

Certain acts of James II were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of Rights, while James' flight from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution was also declared to be an abdication of the throne.

/Wikipedia

But surely now we must be able to go to court and not get screwed over by the judges in their fancy wigs? Well, maybe, possibly, perhaps but no. There is a fairly boring act called the Articles of Union, 1707, it basically said that 1+1 = 1. Where the two '1's are England and Scotland. It is a landmark document in itself but it is really quite boring so if you are really interested google it. I shall focus on the last act which is much more interesting.

The Reform Act of 1832

“We must get the suffrage, we must get votes, that we may send the men to Parliament who will do our work for us; …and we must have the country divided so that the little kings of the counties can't do as they like, but must be shaken up in one bag with us.”
said a working class reformist in George Eliot’s novel Felix Holt: the Radical. That is pretty damn well what happened. The quote stated above is an almost criminal simplification of what happened (but that should suit New Labour taste quite well) as a result of the Great Reform Act, it is quite much more detailed.

The critical point is, this is where the final piece of the democracy puzzle is laid, almost anyway. It is not a nice puzzle, it is full of scratches and minor gaps, but if you stand back, not too far away but not too close either, you can see the whole picture quite vividly - it is beautiful picture quite spectacular indeed.

600 years until suffrage was granted (another 100 years or so before universal suffrage was granted), 600 years for liberty, democracy and human rights to get a proper foot hold - you would have thought that our great leaders of Britain today would have some respect for this astonishing history and engulf the time span.

One would have thought...

Blair and Brown have repaid in kind to English, Scottish, Welsh and British history by introducing 60 new powers contained in more than 25 Acts of Parliament. That have whittled away freedoms and broken pledges set out in the Human Rights Act and Magna Carta, according to a an audit of laws introduced since New Labour came to power in 1997.

Three cheers for the anti-British-grooms, they live; hipp-hipp hurray, hipp-hipp hurray, hipp-hipp hurray! May their acts and legacy never be forgotten.

Them vs. Us

I will not provide any links or any sources of any sort in this post, well possibly a few we shall see. Rather ponder on the philosophical aspect of the current place in the political space that is apparent in our minds and certainly on the telly. This government must be the worst government Britain has ever had I cannot think of any previous government that was worse. You might say 'well, hey hang on a minute Thatcher did a lot to screw Britain over did she not?' and I concede she did a lot to screw us over. But one has to consider the fashion, manner and purpose of the economical rape she performed upon us back in the 80s. She did it with the belief that Britain would be better of because of it, she even took on the EU and had them hand money back to the UK for having initially overcharged us but refused to give the cash back. Well, she got it back. The difference between BlairBrown's government is that they do not give two hoots about what happens to the people of this country once they are gone.

It is not an issue for them that they have chronically massacred British society in every way possible it seems. It does not seem to be an issue that they slashed troop numbers by 50,000 since 1997 but are now fighting two wars on a peace time budget. It does not seem to bother them at all when selling of public property to greedy corporations who have nothing in mind, people and liberty the last at least, but to make more and more money - even in these times. They don't seem to care that 14,000 laws have been created since they entered office but 10,000 have come from the EU not the UK. I can go on and on and on but I think you are beginning to get the overall trend here; the best interests of the nation is not at their bequest and I am struggling to think what really is. Is it finance? status? power? massive pension? a paragraph in a history book (suffice to say BB and Co. will be remembered as arch traitors not arch saviours as they seem so keen on branding themselves)?

What drives men to so completely abandon their entire people and engorge in utter political madness? This is a tough question that I am not to sure that I can answer. But even more, to add a sub clause, why the hell is Whitehall joining in on the circus? It is if they are trying to make fools out themselves. Whom with their balls in the right place and marbles as well, would even jokingly suggest removing British history from the National Curriculum and in its place insert Wikipedia and Twitter studies? I cannot possibly comprehend anyone so magnificently stupid, yet clearly before my eyes I read that a very senior civil servant has done just that - the fellow has even got a knighthood, not that these mean much these days and we can thank New Labour for that one as well.

Even the MoD, the once so proud institution, is fleeing the battle field and leaving our few soldiers to do their bidding best they can with the shitty equipment they are handed. It is a good thing, at least, that they have more courage and valour in their index than white hall officials have in their entire bodies. Even if your leadership is a Labourite debauchee retard does not mean that you, as a member of the British civil service, have to abandon your good common sense when it stands between you and delivering the orders of Labour HQ. There was a time when good sense prevailed but when military procurement has reached such a ridiculous level of politification I cannot help but think 'where will this lead?' - will our tanks and planes have the next goverment's logo tattoed upon their armour? Or even worse, the logo of the corporation who is currently leasing us their tanks...

Is it really such a surprise that people are looking to the BNP to sooth their anguish, heal their sorrows and for once not have salt poured into their wounds as seems to be the normal response by Labour whenever something goes wrong; they mess it up even further. This may be a cliche lost upon most but it cannot be over stated, the kind of cross roads we are heading for, if Westminster does not shape up its act (and you can be as sure as night follows days that Cameron will be the next Blair, so not much luck there) then they truly will have civil unrest at their hands and what is worse some people want civil unrest, they surely even crave it for anything is better, currently, than a 'democratically' lead nation under 'one' law where we can be 'free' and 'happy' and despair not for we know that the state will put our best interest before any of their own.

Everyone should watch this

Anyone and everyone who stands for truth, dignity, liberty, justice and the end to non-accountability should watch this. It is Gordon's greatest day for he finally got to hear what everyone was thinking (what everyone was thinking was probably a lot harsher but we must be cordial, even if it means being cordial to a political asinine).

I just had to add this

Now I know this is very late out, most people have already talked and blogged about it but I still find it so very funny.

My response to Mrs. Blears is this: Try and stop us.

The Tories should be worried, very worried and so should we

CONFERENCE DE PRESSE LIBERTAS - DECLAN GANLEY
Uploaded by Libertas2009-fr