No! No! No!

Will these people never learn?

When, and only when, the House of Commons repeals the European Communities Act 1972 will MPs then deserve a pay increase.

Then, and only then, will they start to actually earn a salary!

And So The Count Continues To Rise

With the announcement yesterday of the death of five servicemen, comes yet another announcement today.

Like many may have done and will do, my condolences to the family.

Can we please leave Afghanistan?

Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is a Reincarnation of the Former Soviet Union

An article by Hans Vogel, printed in Pravda, and reproduced below:

Now that the Czech Republic has announced it will ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will be even closer yet to becoming a unified monster state, with more than half a billion inhabitants. Inhabitants is the correct term, since “citizens” would indicate a set of political rights. The people living in the EU should rather be called “subjects,” since they have no influence whatsoever on the constitution of the centralized European government, the “European Commission.” The Europeans are allowed to vote for members of the European Parliament, but this body has about as much political power as the ineffectual German parliament meeting at Frankfurt in 1848. Political power in the EU is firmly in the hands of the European Commission, which is set to obtain even more power under the Lisbon Treaty. This infamous treaty does not hold the peoples of Europe in high regard. As a matter of fact, it is only halfway through the treaty (originally presented as a “Constitution”) that one finds the first references to the people.

The first impression one gets while reading through Chapter III of the Lisbon Treaty (the so-called reader-friendly text), is a rather favorable one. This so-called Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union “ places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice.” That really sounds grand and reassuring, does it not? Reading on, one clause seems even more impressive than the other.

For instance, article 1 is wonderful: “Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.” So is article 3:1: “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.” What about article 6: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.” And look at article 8:1 “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.” Or what did you think of article 11: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

The list goes on and on. The Lisbon Treaty obviously is an effort to put together the most enlightened elements of all existing European constitutions. Therefore, as far as these “fundamental civil rights” are concerned, the Lisbon Treaty may be regarded as having taken effect already, at least in most of the EU.

It is quite enlightening to take a look at the way the lofty articles cited above are being put into practice. Take “human dignity,” for instance. As a result of the benefits Neoliberal Capitalism has been showering on Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall, by day the streets of most European cities have become a living room for increasing numbers of homeless. At night these streets are transformed into open-air bedrooms, with the homeless making themselves comfortable on mattresses made out of flattened cardboard boxes. The streets seamlessly convert into dining rooms whenever the homeless are hungry. Then they go about scavenging for leftovers among the rubbish in dustbins and garbage containers.

And what about the CIA rendition flights to secret torture centers in EU member states Poland and Romania, with most other EU member states giving clearance for these flights through their sovereign airspace? So far, some 80.000 individuals are believed to have been abducted in this way, many of these with the full collaboration of the EU and its member states.

Clearly in the EU, “human dignity” is not inviolable, nor is it being respected or protected. The treatment meted out to EU citizens suspected of terrorism is a violation of articles 3:1 and 6. Their physical and mental integrity is not respected in any way, and their right to liberty and security of person is trampled on, courtesy of all 27 EU member states.

All talk about human dignity, physical and mental integrity, and liberty and security of person is empty. It is empty because the security of the state (the EU and its member states) is deemed to have priority. You can find proof in the Lisbon Treaty, Title II, article 67:2 “ The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws.” The clause seems bland, but it means state security (however defined) takes precedence over the rights of individuals.

Article 8 is also very interesting. It would seem to state that one's personal data are safe. But are they? Under current EU regulations, member states are required to keep records of all e-mail traffic and all telephone conversations. In fact it is as if the government would be reading all your letters. Many EU member states, the government can enter your computer at will and change data and records on your computer without your knowing it. All this snooping and spying is, of course, in the interest of state security, to “fight terrorism!” It all looks as if the Nazi slogan “Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles!” (You are nothing, your people is everything) were put into effect in today's EU.

Ah, and then there is, of course, freedom of expression. Article 11 establishes this unequivocally. Currently, all 27 EU member states have such a provision in their constitutions. Yet on at least two issues, EU citizens do not enjoy this freedom of speech. In a number of member states (Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, the Czech Republic) it is a criminal offense to publicly wonder whether six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II. Even if you would believe that, say, no more than 4.5 million Jews were exterminated, this could land you in jail for years. It is effectively prohibited to conduct research into this topic (to try to establish how many Jews were killed during WW II), because it makes you a “Holocaust denier.” 

Nor is it allowed in some states to make any sort of remark criticizing islam. This will immediately cause you to be prosecuted for what in the US is called “hate speech.” This is happening to Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who will be put on trial next January for making allegedly disparaging remarks about islam, whereas what he really did was assemble a movie using available footage, to demonstrate the violent nature of islamic teachings.

Free speech, or freedom of expression is really a very simple issue, a clear-cut case. Either you have free speech, in which case you may say ANYTHING at all, or you have no free speech. It is like being pregnant: either you are, or you aren't. It is impossible to be a “little bit pregnant,” just as it is impossible to have “some free speech.”

Thus in the EU today, there is NO free speech. Nor will there be any when the Lisbon Treaty takes effect. The EU crackdown on “illegal” downloads, threatening anyone caught downloading copyrighted items more than three times with lifelong exclusion from internet access, can be interpreted as an indication that a major offensive against one of the few remaining vestiges of freedom is underway.

I am afraid the EU “constitution” (rejected by European voters wherever it was subjected to an honest, fair referendum) in its warmed over version called “Lisbon Treaty” is no more than a useless piece of paper. It is about as meaningful as the old Soviet and East German (GDR) constitutions which, come to think of it, are surprisingly similar to the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 50 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution granted all citizens freedom of speech. But whoever dared voice criticism of the system in any coherent, vocal way, was severely punished. Punishments included loss of job, domestic exile (nuclear scientist Andrei Sakharov), and assignment to a mental hospital. There was no free speech in the old Soviet Union, like there is no free speech in Europe today.

Similarities between the Lisbon Treaty and its communist predecessors are quite remarkable, for instance in the clauses on equality before the law.

Article 34 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution proclaimed full legal equality for all: “citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.” 

The East German Constitution echoes this. Article 20:1 reads: Independently of his nationality, race, religious ideas, social background and position, every citizen of the German Democratic Republic enjoys the same rights and duties. Freedom of religion and belief are guaranteed. All citizens are equal before the law.” Coincidentally, the Lisbon Treaty is strikingly similar: “ Everyone is equal before the law ” (article 20), and “ Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited” (article 21). 

And just to remind you, in the former communist world of Europe, basic human rights such as these were formulated in the Soviet and East German constitutions, were violated on a daily basis. Henckel von Donnersmarck's shocking movie “The Lives of Others” (2006) shows this in a most penetrating way. The Stasi, inheriting brutal, effective Gestapo methods, was keeping tabs on most of the East German population. Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, it listened in on all telephone conversations, opened all envelopes and read all letters. It kept controls on anyone entering or leaving the country. An army of almost 100,000 secret agents, helped by 200,000 civilian collaborators, spied day and night on East Germany's 16 million citizens. Most European governments today are using time-honored Stasi techniques to keep their citizens under surveillance. However, technology has advanced so impressively since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, that today's government spooks glean more information on unwitting civilians than the most fanatical Stasi agent would have hoped for in his wildest fantasies.

As recently as 2006, a most eloquent and insightful warning against the EU and the Lisbon Treaty's precursor, the ill-fated “constitution”, was given by former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky. Traumatized by the experience of living in the Soviet Union, Bukovsky noted the deeply disturbing similarities between the old Soviet Union and the blueprints for the EU super state. The European Commission, he noted, was the exact equivalent of the old Soviet Politbureau, in terms of the secretive way power was exercised, the recruitment and personalities of its members and the scope and reach of its decisions. The “European Parliament” today (and under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty) is a mere rubber stamp institution, just like the “Supreme Soviet” of the old USSR.

As a matter of fact, there are so many similarities between the old Soviet Union and the EU that mere coincidence is unlikely. Bukovsky argues the EU was designed to be like the old USSR. The architects of the EU? Mostly social democrats, whom Stalin quite aptly called “Social Fascists.”

Most Europeans have not yet understood this. Most are still indifferent, but their indifference will soon vanish when the full weight of repressive EU policies and EU taxation doing its destructive work will be felt.

Sooner than anybody now thinks, the only way to vent criticism of the EU will be in the form of jokes. No doubt many of the characteristic old Soviet jokes will be dusted off and given an anti-European Commission twist.

By that time, all Europeans except for the privileged class of “eurocrats” will be prisoners in the EU. However, they will certainly have a wonderful Constitution.

H/T: Guido Fawkes

Public Money & Commons Self-Regulation

Paul Waugh picks up on an extremely important point, that the Standards & Privileges Committee have promptly gone against one of Sir Christopher Kelly's recommendations - something I was under the impression that MPs accepted unconditionally. But hey, we are talking 'politicians' here...............

If, as the S&P Committee maintain it costs public money, then how about it is spent by letting the public decide? That is exactly the point for a 're-call' system and local referenda being used. But hey, this would mean the introduction of local democracy - something MPs profess to know about but cannot see the point of introducing.  

Democracy for the people - God forbid!*


* Which is probably the reason why not one of the Con/Lab/LibDem cabal want a referendum!

How The UK Leaves The European Union

According to Chris Bryant, Europe Minister, it is very easy, as he explains here (starts 20min 49secs in).

Simples.

It is also one of the first 'acts' in The Plan; a publication that shows how within 12 months, true national and local democracy could be enacted in our country.

Blair Brown Cameron

To use the supposed quote of the second about the first - now also applicable to the last:

"There is nothing you could now tell me that I would believe".

Melanie Phillips

A superb article in the Spectator headlined 'Britain's Quisling Party. Do go read.

Who Is The One Telling Porkies?

John Rentoul would appear to be trying to have fun at the expense of Dan Hannan, with this post.

As I have posted before there are a number of people whose views I would lend credence, before doing so to others.

On the basis that the Conservative Party are - or were - one happy family, John Rentoul's post does beg the question whether Dan Hannan has been 'knifed in the back' and is thus a victim of fratricide.

Hacked Off (2)

Richard North, EU Referendum, writes about what he terms village idiots posing as journalists, to which can be added leader-writers.

Part of the editorial comment in today's Daily Telegraph really does 'take the biscuit' for its patronising and illogical content.

"The strategy he unveiled yesterday was both coherent and credible, robustly Eurosceptic in tone while wholly realistic in ambition."

Hardly coherent, definitely not credible, more Europhile than Eurosceptic and totally unrealistic in ambition. Not coherent in that all Cameron could do at his press conference was continually repeat the same thing time and again. Not credible in that it amounts to a 'fairy story', but one containing yet another 'cast-iron' guarantee which will be shattered. Unrealistic in that the agreement of the other 26 member states will not be forthcoming as it would open a Pandora's Box of almost every other member state clamouring for their own opt-outs. If this is the height of ambition of David Cameron and his 'government-in-waiting' one has to ask when will the bar be raised above ground level.

"Instead, he said that if negotiations in the next parliament over the repatriation of powers prove futile, the Tories will, if they win the subsequent election, put the issue to a national vote."

Agreeing to have a referendum at the subsequent general election may be all very well, but it seems to forget that Cameron has to win the next one first. And in any event since when did politicians allow those that pay them, privileges? I seem to recall a saying 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'?

David Cameron has been duplicitous in what he has said, in what he has done - this policy has been in his filing cabinet for some time - and he asks us to trust him?

Dan Hannan Wants A Referendum

So does Douglas Carswell.

Dan Hannan goes slightly further. He says:

"We need a broad movement within the Conservative Party that will push for referendums, citizens’ initiatives and the rest of the paraphernalia of direct democracy. I don’t just mean a referendum on Europe - though, naturally, that is the obvious place to start. I mean full-on Helvetic people power, ..................I have returned to the back benches in order to concentrate on building such a movement.

Don’t misunderstand me: I voted for David Cameron as leader.............and I reckon he’d be a million times better than Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. One of his strengths is that, unlike Gordon Brown, he doesn’t mind people disagreeing with him. Well, then. This Conservative is for a referendum: a proper, deep-cleansing referendum that will settle whether our country remains subordinate, or becomes self-governing. Now who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?" (my emphasis)

Don't Let Tim Montgomerie Play Football For Your Side!

Unless you want a plethora of 'own goals' that is! From a post on Conservative Home with this heading:

"There are very good reasons to vote Conservative (but Europe isn't such a good one anymore)"

 Ukip have just had a slogan handed them on a plate! Thanks, Tim!

Cameron 'Con'

Having watched the third charade of the day, Cameron's 'statement on Europe' - the first two being PMQs and Harriet Harmans statement on Kelly - he seems to have committed the greatest sin of all, that being: when in a hole stop digging.

"Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people. If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum. And that will cover not just any future treaties like Lisbon, but any future attempt to take Britain into the euro. We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key - a commitment very similar to that in Ireland." 

As Lisbon is a self-amending treaty there will be no further treaties, so why promise a 'referendum lock' which will never be used - yet another worthless 'cast-iron' guarantee. The fact that the Lisbon Treaty states the currency of the European Union will be the euro - and remember we as a country have just signed that treaty - there ain't much Cameron can do about it if the EU 'decide' to 'introduce' it. As to a 'referendum lock' - if we had a referendum - we all know what happened to Ireland!

"I recognise there are some who, now that we cannot have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, want a referendum on something else...anything else. But I just don't think it's right to concoct some new pretext for a referendum simply to have one for the sake of it.That wouldn't survive serious scrutiny." 

Whilst it is accepted that we cannot have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - that is now 'dead', having become law - why cannot we have a referendum on our membership of the EU, which can be summed up as 'Who Governs Britain'. That is hardly 'concocting' a pretext, surely? What does not 'survive serious scrutiny', Mr. Cameron, is your ducking that simple fact!

"A Conservative Government will address some of these problems by negotiating three specific guarantees with our European partners guarantees over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU."

Whilst acknowledging that any 're-negotiation' requires the agreement of the other 26 members, Cameron does not say what would happen if they do not agree. Stating that it would probably take the life of the next parliament to accomplish means that if not agreement is forthcoming we would, in effect, be exactly where we are now.

"What I have set out today settles our policy for the next parliament." 

A policy which can leave you, five years later, in exactly the situation that you are in today is, for sure, one hell of a policy! In other words, Cameron has 'concocted' a plan to 'shunt' the matter to one side for five years.

"If I am elected Prime Minister, the British Government I lead will be an active member of the European Union."

As the majority of the country don't wish to remain a member of the EU, under the current terms of membership, what right does Cameron have to insist that we remain a member? Does he not have an obligation to annul, laws which the British people do not want? Bugger! I forgot, Cameron's a politician and as such obligations are a word he no doubt does not understand - or believe in!

"Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people..........It is not politicians' power to give away - it belongs to the people."

If it is right that, in the future, transfer of power should not be carried out without the say of the British people and that it was not the politicians' power to give away, then surely it is right that the transfer of powers that have already happened need the 'say of the British people'?

One also has to ask if what was said today is a 'cast-iron' guarantee or a promise - either way, does it matter in that what has been 'promised' is not worth the paper his words were written on for one simple reason. The EU would never agree to the repatriation of some powers as it would open a Pandora's Box. If they did agree to what Cameron wants, it would mean he could go back again and ask for more, leaving the EU with no option but to agree, having agreed previously. It would also mean other countries in the EU also clamouring for the return of certain powers.

The European Union will not be worried in the least about what Cameron is proposing today - the only thing that would worry them would be if he had announced an 'in' or 'out' referendum as, for certain, they know what the answer would have been.

MPs, Trust, Promises, Respect, Government

Having watched the unveiling of the Kelly Report, PMQs and then the statement from Harriet Harman, I was struck by the following, during the latter two events.

MPs repeatedly talking about the standing Parliament, the perception of Parliament, MP's integrity and, in particular Gordon Brown maintaining that, unlike some, he and his Party keep their promises.

The banality of it all took my breath away. For Gordon Brown to maintain, with a straight face, that he keeps his promise, WTF! Gordon, let me give you a clue - 'referendum, promise of '?

For MPs to stand up, one after another, and pontificate about the standing of Parliament and their own integrity when they have been complicit in eradicating hundred of years of democracy, its traditions and customs, in this country beggars belief!

The whole performance offered by PMQs and Harriet Harmans statement which immediately followed was nothing more than a charade. On the basis that a leopard does not change its spots, one suspects that the next charade will be that scheduled to begin at 4pm today!

Some Thoughts

For some time I have been a great devotee of the words of Ronald Reagan. His detractors often criticised him, mocked him and his views, however as history often shows words spoken by enlightened men often resonate in later years. Especially now, with the imminent ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, consider the following:

From a speech in 1957, given to the Eureka College:

"And now today we find ourselves involved in another struggle, this time called a cold war. This cold war between great sovereign nations isn't really a new struggle at all. It is the oldest struggle of human kind, as old as man himself. This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state........Don't be deceived because you are not hearing the sound of gunfire, because even so you are fighting for your lives. And you're fighting against the best organized and the most capable enemy of freedom and of right and decency that has ever been abroad in the world...........This democracy of ours which sometimes we've treated so lightly, is more than ever a comfortable cloak, so let us not tear it asunder, for no man knows once it is destroyed where or when he will find its protective warmth again."

From a speech on the campaign during the 1964 Presidential election:

"This democracy of ours which sometimes we've treated so lightly, is more than ever a comfortable cloak, so let us not tear it asunder, for no man knows once it is destroyed where or when he will find its protective warmth again........You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

From a speech to 2nd Annual CPAC Convention, 1st March 1975; relevant today in respect of the position of the Conservative Party in the polls:

"But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors revert[ed] to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means." Relevant to our agreement to join what was then the Common Market: "In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues -- to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state -- that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation's ability to protect itself."

From the closing remark of a speech at The Conservative Political Action Conference Dinner, 20th March 1981:

"Our moment has arrived. We stand together shoulder to shoulder in the thickest of the fight. If we carry the day and turn the tide, we can hope that as long as men speak of freedom and those who have protected it, they will remember us, and they will say, "Here were the brave and here their place of honor."

Digressing, but relevant to the present expenses scandal, is this story from a speech to the Annual Convention of Evangicals in Orlando, Florida:

"An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters. And he couldn't help but ask, he said, "But wait, how -- there's something wrong -- how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?" And St. Peter said, "You have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're the first politician who ever made it."

From a speech to the House of Commons, 8th June 1982:

"The British people know that, given strong leadership, time, and a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God..........During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, "What kind of people do they think we are?" Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, "What kind of people do we think we are?" And let us answer, "Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well..............For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny."

It is worth repeating words from Ronald Reagan's First Inaugaral Address, 20th January 1981:

 

"From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

In the extracts above, I have tried to remind you of the words of one who was a great statesman - and would that we, in this country, had one today. Do go read more of the words of Ronald Reagan, which can be found here.

Is This The Way Forward?

My thanks to Muffled Vociferation and her post which leads to this.

Whilst not agreeing with all the ideas put forward by nourishing obscurity, the general idea does seem to appeal.

Comments anyone? Not that it is expected they would read this, but comments Hannan, Carswell, Farage, Cash, Helmer et all?

The Paucity Of The Socialist Argument

Readers of this blog will know that I have been engaged in a hard fight to determine which housing association is to be my new landlord - result not yet known.

I have just been involved in an argument - very short - about our membership of the EU and the fact we have not been consulted. When confronting him with the point that he is demanding a say on who should be his new landlord and the contradiction encapsulated in his view that we should not have a say on our membership of the EU and thereby who dictates the laws under which we live, his response was noticable by its absence!

Principles? Socialists don't know the meaning of the word!

Chris Bryant - An 'Honourable' Politician?

Chris Bryant, Minister for Europe, has called on David Cameron to make an immediate announcement, rather than 'bury' it under the details of the Kelly report which is due out tomorrow. He also called for 'honesty and straightforwardness' from the Conservatives.

This statement - from a minister of a government renowned for 'burying bad news', for making announcements just prior to the dissolution of Parliament, known for being anything but 'straightforward' - leaves me, almost, utterly speechless with its sheer effrontery.

Gordon Brown, in his acceptance speech on assuming the leadership of his party, included these two sentences: "And we will govern for all the people of our country." and "The new government I will lead belongs to you." If he really meant that then (a) in governing for all the people he would not follow a course of action which the majority did not want; and (b) if the government he leads belongs to the people he must ask the people for their agreement to casting aside hundreds of years of self-rule. His action in not fulfilling a manifesto promise of a referendum on a treaty, generally acknowledged as being virtually identical with its predecessor, is the act of a coward, a dishonourable man and a charlatan.

Never let Gordon Brown address me ever again on matters of liberty, Britishness, honesty, truth, respect or duty and that applies also to any politician, regardless of party, who is not prepared to stand up for the independence of this country. May all such politicians be condemned to eternal hell and damnation

A Forerunner Of Things To Come?

I wonder if this is a but the start of more similar articles and also on what voting by the electorate will be partly based, come the General election?

Some in the MSM may well believe, as does every MP, that the public will have forgotten 'Expensegate' come May/June next year and also that the EU will not feature very much as a topic.

Methinks they are wrong - and this blog will do its utmost to make sure that people do not overlook those two factors - even if they have become two 'elephants in the room'!

H/T: Sky News & Guido Fawkes

Hacked Off

Normally I would have 'time' for Rachel Sylvester of the Times, but on this occasion I must take issue with some of her views.

Discussing the 'expenses' scandal and the effect of the 'court of public opinion', Rachel opines:

 "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons".

And are we not justified Rachel in both our verdict and our wish for the future of the House of Commons? It is also worth noting that some of us would not stop there either - the use of hemp and lamp posts springs to mind!

The article also states:

"Britain is not like Afghanistan, where corruption means ballot boxes being stuffed to rig an election. But politics is about mood and emotion as well as reason and for the rule of law to be upheld the system has to command respect.......Once the authority slips completely anarchy looms — or the voters will look for an alternative source of leadership, such as the BNP".

Having previously made the point that 'journalists' are guilty of 'sweeping statements' without checking their facts, or even considering the words written - for example 'Britain is not like Afghanistan, where corruption means ballot boxes being stuffed to rig an election' - perhaps she does not recall this and this? 

Also what is the problem with 'journalists' that when writing on the subject of the electorate looking for an alternative repository for their vote, always offer the BNP as that alternative repository? Is this part of a 'conspiracy', by the Con/Lab/LibDem parties and the MSM, to ensure that those parties do receive votes? Have 'journalists' not heard of the SNP or Ukip?

Writing that: "Sir Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is right to raise concerns about Conservative plans for elected police chiefs — that will simply encourage knee-jerk populism." Rachel Sylvester demonstrates a lack of understanding of 'direct democracy' and 'choice' - go read 'The Plan', please! Oh, and 'knee-jerk populism' is far better than 'knee-jerk politics'!

Likewise her comment: "The verdict of the court of public opinion is too harsh on many MPs." shows a complete lack of understanding about how the public feel on the issue. Any MP who has purchased a second home, not made any claims other than mortgage interest, utility bills and council tax, and then subsequently sold that property, having paid CGT and made a profit, is guilty of personal gain at the expense of the taxpayer; and is thus guilty of a lack of moral judgement on what is right and wrong.


Which is probably why I am 'hacked off' by what appears to be 'amateur hacks'!

'Journalism'? Where

Both the Times and Telegraph report on the 'shock' news that the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro will have melted within the next 20 years. Watts Up With That has a post on this entitled 'Oh no, not this Kilimanjaro rubbish again!', which just about says it all!. Note that at the end of this post Anthony Watts makes the point that "it is simply bad science to not consider land use issues looking you in the face while you drill ice cores on the slopes." and, in regard to land use, I would point you to this post, also from Watts Up With That.

In his book, The Real Global Warming Scandal, Christopher Booker recounts how Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris disagreed strongly with the IPCC's 2001 report, to which he had contributed, that global warming would cause a spread of diseases. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Tony Blair, made the now familiar claim that global warming was responsible for the melting of the ice at the summit of Kilimanjaro. He was challenged by Reiter who referred to studies that showed this had been taking place since the 1880s. It was not due to global warming, these studies concluded but to deforestation causing a sharp drop in precipitation. Booker writes: "Apparently unable to answer Reiter's point, King broke off in mid-sentence and led his delegation out of the room." (pp 115,116)

Yet again we have articles written by supposed 'journalists' who have failed to do their homework and produce a 'balanced' article, instead preferring to 'parrot' the information with which they seem to have been presented.