Independent Thought

Yesterday I was feeling particularly sheepish and I decided instead of studying (which I should be doing since this is revision period) I watched two documentaries instead.

One was called 'Capitalims: A love Story' - I am sure you know it, made by the now infamous film maker Michael Moore. I you want I can pass you on a link to where you can view the film online for free. Alternatively you could just google the title and get a link by yourself.

Now, secondly I watched the not equally famous film 'Religulous' by Larry Charles (the same guy who made 'Borat' actually). The Comedian Bill Maher travels to Israel, England, the Netherlands, Vatican City, and across America, speaking to people about faith and religion and takes the piss a lot. Both certainly worth seeing but be warned they are not in the high end of the documentary class and are made primarily to shock and entertain, and there is not so much an academic side to either. Now naturally they provide facts, or what they claim to be facts (I would advise anyone watching either to check the facts for themselves).

Both are very good documentaries for what they are, and they do not really ask much beyond themselves safe for the viewer to stop and ask himself what is what? Now what struck me with both movies/documentaries was how independent thought seems to have gone right out of the window. People are really so stupid nowadays that they take the majority of their interactions with life at face value, critical analysis of a statement, speech, claim, fact, book of what have you seems to be nonexistent. How on earth did that happen?

Certainly the story is different on the blogosphere where quite on the contrary, nothing is taken at face value and everything is instead analysed with a critical pair of spectacles. Perhaps that is the end result of crowd sourcing a crowd which is really very pissed of with the way their country has been dealt with over the past 3-4 decades. But the fundamental difference between bloggers and the rest of the people (this is of course a massive generalisation, there are swathes of non-bloggers who most certainly employ critical analysis on a very regular basis) is that the latter just believe anything and everything the media tells them to believe.

Now things are not going to well for the media it must be said, when people start realising that they being fed lies they act, the British unlike most other people seems to act on a retarded basis in that they do act but only in the very last minute. Apply this current Britain and you will quickly see that the majority have not acted yet, but things are a foot be quite sure. But on a more local level consider for example the Met Office which had been telling people, practically, that they were about to enter the next ice age, but that never happened and the Met Office is now the laughing stock of British society and no one takes them seriously. Much the same can be said of the Government and Parliament and pretty much the entire civil service.

We interact with them because we have to, but I think I am beginning to see more evil eyes being directed their way, than usual. That is not just in the metaphorical sense but also in real life. While we are long way of from being uniformly critical of our daily interactions with life and by extension our government, there sure as chips are far more bitter people around now. This is unfortunate for it should not be that way; people should be able to trust the people who work for them, who are paid for them, who have a job because of them but the receiving end have over the past two decades firmly decided that they are going to homogeneously screw the people - every last one of them until they are control of their money and not the other way around.

Which leaves us with a nation with bad weather and a bitter population, who feels betrayed by the army of servants whose soul purpose was to serve them, but have ended up being served by the population. This is a very very dangerous combination of events and results, but there appears to be no evidence showing that the political classes have learned a lesson. The only thing we can do thus is to not believe anything they say, ever.

Our finest hour

...was in 1689 but by God was it a fine hour indeed:

English Bill of Rights 1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary. And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, _An Act for the more effectual preserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament._ But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

Peter Davies, Doncaster

+

My Hero.

As President Lincoln reputedly said of General Grant, “Find out what he’s drinking and send a barrel of it to each of my other generals.”

(I do not agree with everything but by and large this is what a politician should be like).

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.

This is what Simon said

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on them, shame.

A short but insightful one.

Attitude reflects leadership.

Bad attitude and politics in this country spells BNP.

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

EU
Defence
Immigration

Will you?

(well all know the answer sadly)

Out of the ordinary

My normal posts are normally concerned with all matters politics and as such trying to bereft the the great vastness of the malignity that spreads like bush fire. Rather it is a more philosophical quote and I would also think quite emotive for the issue at hand should not be dealt with light heartedly nor should it be treated with scorn and contempt.

Honour is a concept which I believe has for the most part died out in society today. We think or at least one is lead to think that honour is characteristic trait often found in warriors. Warriors were once the men and women who in the olden days were sent to protect the villages from advancing warlords or bands of thieves. If they return, alive, they were put on a social pedestal from where they could be adored by society in a different manner - not in any way alleviating their status or standing but rather adding that new found respect to their personality as a result of having done a good deed. If we believe in altruism then yes one must also think that good deeds exists, some might say that soldiers of the past were forced to go to battle, I sincerely agree for the most part they truly were but who are we to deny them the right to their ends when any action taken by us, for them, would be dwarfed in comparison to their actions for us (even if it was forced).

To be continued at a later stage...