Pastor Martin Niemoller

They came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

You do not, and I repeat, you do not remove a political candidate from a venue just because you happen to disagree with his beliefs. That is not democracy. Remember what Orwell said you pathetic autocratic scum; if freedom of speech means anything it means telling people what they don't want to hear. You may not agree with the BNP but this is a slippery slope towards fascism when people are being ostracised for what they believe in, I don't support them either but like Voltaire never said I will defend their right to say it until death.

For the police to use a Nuremberg defence to justify their actions is beyond reproach, that is nothing but despicable. This country is loosing the plot quicker than under New Labour.

Not a revolutionary prospect but close

You read it here first, a long time ago actually, but the next election will be the election of the so called "fringe". Only difference of course is that the fringe is not longer the perpetrators of the right or the left, they will be the flag-bearers of the left and the right. Why? Because no other political parties do; they have no colours to nail to the mast and no defining streak which sets them apart from the other in the majestic political landscape (notice the sarcastic hyperbole), they are to all intents and purposes 'centre'. Not 'centre-right' or 'centre-left' but bang, slap, middle of the bar, is where most mainstream political parties have set up camp today, and guess what, I reckon that voters will realise this too a much larger extent once the next election creeps closer. Consider why:

Have we had reduced immigration? No

Have we repatriated power from Brussels? No

Is the defence budget being slashed in the middle of a war? Yes

Can gypsies still set up camp wherever they want? Yes

Is the Human Rights Act going away? No

Is health and safety madness still prevalent? Yes

Is political correctness madness still prevalent? Yes

Are the trains and bus-services still too expensive? Yes

Is Britain still being sold off; lock stock and barrel? Yes

Are the pubs still dying? Yes

Is religious insensitivity to every single fucking thing, still clogging the news? Yes

Is there still too much red-tape? Yes

Are the righteous still preaching 24-7 how we should live our lives? Yes

.

.

.

Now consider why nothing has happened with these rather large issues, it has to with political ideology or maybe it just has to do with vested interests - personally I think it has to with principles or lack thereof rather:

New Labour: Centre-left

Conservatives: Centre-right

Liberal Democrats: Centre-left

The Green Party: useless and pointless

BNP: Left

UKIP: Right

SNP: Centre-left

Now this is what I think is going to happen come the next election. People who at this election were on the verge of not voting for either LibDems, the Tories or Labour wont be on that note again. This time it is abundantly clear that all of their parties have moved away from their traditional ground and into the centre where, as this post so fragrantly demonstrates, everyone hates them particularly those us with a very firm set of principles, and that pretty much entails the entire blogosphere.

The Tories will most likely loose a lot of votes to UKIP because after 13 years in opposition and perhaps two or three in government it is as clear as daylight that they do not espouse right-wing policies. A lot of working class voters will probably shift to the BNP because of 13 years in government they were completely ignored and their two or three in opposition was an abject failure and a complete waste of everyone's time, because they are trying to defend the most abysmal mandate period in British political history. They have not yet succeeded in that goal and if anything it will turn into a pyrrhic victory if they do, but then the party at large will probably disappear as well. Here comes the interesting part; a lot of LibDem voters wont know what to do with themselves. They are at face value left leaning people who were not completely convinced by Labour but they have also come to realise that neither their party nor their most obvious successor, Labour, are going to serve as a reasonable substitute for their vote. Who they go for instead is anyone's guess but probably some really weird party like Socialist Alternative or Trade Unionist & Socialist.

And such is my thesis (and has been for about 1.5 years now, remember you read it here first); The election that really counts was not the one past, but the one we are about to have sometime in the next 4 years.

Immature immigration numeration

I intend to take the lead on this new approach to debating which I fully intend to adopt after this post. The approach rests upon the assumption that I myself am hopefully clever enough and knowledgeable to rip apart an attack upon my person. An attack based on a legitimate view I hold with regard to government policy.

In polite circles everyone who even mentions the BNP in a comment piece is supposed to preface it with a condemnation of the party (Microsoft Word should create a programme for journalists that automatically types out “of course I loathe the odious BNP and everything they stand for…”). No one is obliged to write the same things when discussing the Socialist Workers Party or other similarly odious entities who have a very small support section.

This preamble is dangerous because it removes responsibility from the BNP and onto the person writing the comment piece. They never have to defend their polices because anyone who comments upon them is automatically supposed to say "bla bla bla, immigration is too high and I think we should reduce it BUT the BNP are racist scum". Enough already, we know that they are racist but for heavens sake focus on their polices; play the ball not the man.

If you start a supposedly probing piece on the BNP with the word "these crazy racists thugs" people will automatically assume that you are having a rant about the BNP and not the actual policies which compose the party. This has lead to the BNP being labelled a right-wing party when everyone knows, who has read their policies, that they are in fact a left-wing party. And this is the gist of the argument; few if any people have read their polices, they only know that a rather large man with a funny eye does not like immigrants and neither do his followers. Nothing is said about the increase in the state sector that would come with their highly unlikely government nor that they intend to give back Gibraltar if they win the election. Only the fact that they do not like immigration, which is why the media has (I reckon with some help from the current left-wing government) labelled them right-wing to distance the government and in particular the Labour party, from any embarrassing ideological connections with the BNP.

This is what it comes down to; drop all the prefaces and drop all the PC as well, everyone else is doing it privately and probably thinking the same things as you: lets control our borders sensibly. If you do not play into the media and government hand they will essentially be powerless since it will be very difficult to label the internet and more specifically the blogosphere, 'racist' even though, I am sure, they would very much like to.

New Labour's approach on immigration can be summed up as thus: A volcano in Iceland has done more to stop immigration in one week than the New Labour government has done in 13 years.

UPDATE: Word of the day 'lackadaisical.'

Question time, commenting on it like everyone else-but shortly

Rarely have I found myself feeling sorry for Mr. Griffin for I do not support his very strange views nor his party's policies. It was quite clearly shown that the BNP's views are at best 'odd' but the whole Question Time arrangement was a complete farce. Regardless of what you think of the man, he was outnumbered by the entire audience including the host and the rest of the panel. Is that a way to hold an impartial and unbiased debate on politics?

No, I truly felt sorry for Mr. Griffin tonight not as a BNP spokesman, not as a racist but simply for the ubiquitous gang-up he received from every angle, where there was not even an attempt made by the BBC to conceal the whole orchestrated charade that tonight passed for 'debate'.

Laugh then Cry

One cannot but first laugh at this story but then one has to try. We first laugh because as the EU seeks to denigrate British immigration policy it is playing right into the hands of the Eurosceptics which already have a massive majority in the UK. They are in fact creating the UK's exit from the EU. We thought that we would have to do that but there is not a single day that goes by when the scales tip in favour of the highly eurosceptic parties in the UK. The latest story that all asylum seekers should be let into the country according to the EU's Justice Commissioner makes you wonder if this guy is truly aware of his employers popularity in the UK. I beg to differ.

Now of course it would be political suicide for any party to actually abide by these rules since if they did they would alienate pretty much the entire electorate whom they thought would vote for them in the first instance. That is never a good thing for a political party. The Justice Commissioner could play it safe of course and get this over with before the Labour government is terminated both as government and political party. If I were a French Justice Commisioner that is what I would do.

However now we have to cry. Just as this will play into the hands of UKIP it will also, unfortunately, play into the hands of the BNP. That is the tragic moral of this story. A moral which will continue I fret lest the Tories i.e. the incoming government gets its act together. You have to listen to the people no matter the content. You are here to serve us not yourselves. Now I do not think this will happen but I am a die hard cynic as well. Since I propose that whenever this country has changed over the past 20 years it has always been for the worse.

The BNP will clock up electoral success after sucess until they form somewhat of a majority in the political establishment UK. This is impossible you say? I thought so to but people are truly desperate. The main three offer nothing but platitudes and rhetoric on matters essential to the public. Take this simple immigration policy from the Conservative home page:

"Immigration can be a real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.

Our approach will ensure that we admit both the right people for our economy and also the right number of people. For economic migrants from outside the EU, we propose a two-stage process:

• The first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy
• The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services

A Conservative Government would also apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU entrants.

To enforce such controls, and to prevent illegal immigration and combat criminals who compromise our security, we need a new, integrated approach to managing our borders.

So we will introduce a dedicated Border Police Force to bring together all the agencies responsible for border control.

Unlike Labour’s Border Agency, which does not even include the police, our force will have the power to stop, search, detain and prosecute the terrorists, traffickers and illegal immigrants who currently slip through the net. Only then will we be able to start making Britain safer."

Ambiguous to the bone at a time when the electorate's main concern is immigration and the economy (which Boris has a good take on) - two concepts which are inextricably interlinked. If it seen that the few jobs which are now available are going exclusively to immigrants prepare for another winter of discontent. Further I intend to spearhead the campagin whereby it becomes 'legal' again to speak of immigration without being pounded by the r-word. However if you are still trapped in that little New Labour world whereby any criticism of immigration or asylum seeker policy is a tabu, I tell you: grow up. This is politics, you cannot outlaw ideas and thoughts.

It has begun

I am always ever so quick to point out my thesis about the future political life in Britain, I am allowed to do this because I am center-right person who is unaffiliated and unbiased /sarcasm.

For the thesis:

Less than 10 months from now the Tories will seize power but in 4-5 years time when the next general election is to come people will have realized that they were as shit as Labour were. In fact they are New Labour just a different cover. People will then vote neither Tories nor Labour - the New Labour ghost from the past 12 years will haunt the Labour party for at least two decades. What will happen next is anyone's guess.

It has begun though be so sure of it. Rows over the NHS, Cameron has decided to push up the price on drinks, when 50 pubs are closing a week. It is a way to raise money surely, but not the right way. What is more they seem to care little that they have an ongoing campagin called 'Save the Great British Pub' - quite how the above story fits into this picture one can but wonder.

In essence the people of Britain, the normal people, 'get it' whenever politicians seem to be doing something good, the backlash is always felt by the people who it was unintended for. Never mind the Quangos and the EU who cost us billions, never mind the extraordinary waste within military procurement, never mind our subservience to the United States-we are still poodles- and never mind that MPs get a six figure salary. No, savings are to be at the expense of the people.

An interesting analogy to make is that of Saudi Arabia. Whenever the Sheik is to appear to be more conservative than he already is, that is to say to become even more fundamentalist (do not confuse 'terrorist' and 'fundamentalist' they are completely different things) the women are the first to 'get it'. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot even drive a car, whenever reform comes to Saudi Arabia it is at their expense and to their detriment. They are not even allowed to go outside alone.

We are not so very different from Saudi Arabia, we have some form of "democracy" but who could honestly claim that Parliament cares what we think? How many laws have been passed over the past 20 years at our expense to make us more dependent on the state. How many CCTV cameras are there today in the UK? The number '42' suddenly takes on a whole new dimension in the UK. You see we are not so different; whenever they attempt reform the women get it, whenever we attempt reform we get it.

Addendum: I am not sure what socialist purpose this horse shit could serve but it is the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, who knows? (apparently pubs are not closing at all, it is a lie)

Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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.

The sheer stupidity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

Worried

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

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

PC gone so overboard it is sinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

But here is an even better petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign.

Submitted by Kalvis Jansons of http://kalvis.com – Deadline to sign up by: 22 October 2009 – Signatures: 4,611 (as of 25th of April 1:17 AM)

Sign here

Much obliged, and while we are posting links to this and that I might as well post the link to this article which is a remarkably unbiased article on the BNP. If the more astute of my readers have drawn the same conclusion as myself, that the BNP cannot be ignored any longer, then do read the article. It is not your average Guardian article - suffice to say.

Ad hominem article backfire badly

An ad hominem arguments consists of appealing to the character of the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. This trend can be seen very clearly in British media with regards to the BNP-though still vile racist pigs-the media cannot attack their policies for they are wildly popular amongst the electorate or are at least growing exponentially in popularity. We read that the BNP has the most popular political website in the UK. That is a cause for concern. The BNP are growing up. Since they are rising to fame rather quickly one cannot respond with old dead-beat adages about the BNP or their characters, it does not work, it is not popular and quite frankly you look like a right dick when you, a supposedly respected British news paper, cannot come up with anything better than this kind of bollocks for a BNP-blitzkrieg. I do not support the BNP but that is just ridiculous.

If you want to make a grown up attack on the BNP attack their policies and have them defend them. Simple. Crash and Burn is the most likely outcome.

But the issue is not the BNP, it is the Times' foray on the BNP which is quite frankly not acceptable in the manner it is presented and for its journalistic bias - words which are mutually exclusive.

1. The Times refer to a "war book" that was leaked and-horror-internal. The little booklet is freely available to download on the BNP website.
2. Would this kind of journalism ever touch the sacrosanct main parties, would they ever comment upon body parts of the government? Highly unlikely. Jim Diggory of Worcestershire, in the comment section points out that:

It is interesting to compare the thinly veiled hostility towards the BNP enshrined within this article with its uncritical reference to Searchlight, a Marxist organisation having criminal connections both past and present, closely associated with the Labour Party.

3. The more spotlight they get the more attention the get and the more clicks they get... This is clearly brain dead and biased bollocks. They do not seem to comprehend that the more negative criticism they bestow upon the BNP the more angry people are going to get about their journalism for being so utterly and completely partial. At the time of writing there were 19 comments posted on the article. I have read one which was appreciative of its contents.

The BNP are open, even wanting, for criticism and the best a professional news outlet could produce was an article about skinhead-hiding. Pathetic.