No case to answer!!!!!

I once held the Police FORCE Service in immense respect, I remember well the village ‘bobby’ in Wingate who kicked my arse on occasion for riding my bike without lights after dark, or who came to school to give talks on a range of issues. I once held genuine respect for the Police (a job I knew I could never have the vocation to do) and once held genuine respect for authority and respect for the rule of Law.


Now read this…..

And watch this…….

So yet again, or quelle surprise, the police officer responsible will face no charges after violently assaulting a law abiding member of the public, lawfully going about his peaceful business, an assault that many believe ultimately led to his premature death.

We may never know if Ian Tomlinson would have had his heart attack then or later with or without the Police assault but one cannot deny (as the Independent Police complaints commission and CPS have done) that a completely un-provoked indefensible violent assault was committed against this man.

Keep up the good work guys for where there was once, ONE Raoul Moat, now there are ten and counting….

Justice has not been done nor has it been seen to be done.

By a strange coincidence, it is also exactly 5 years to the day since a violent incident carried out by a gang of ‘tooled up’ Metropolitan heavies calling themselves "the Police" executed an innocent electrician. No one has been caught, no one has been prosecuted, no further inquiries are ongoing.

17th January 1978 – 22nd July 2005

.

What Raoul Moat has taught us.....

Raoul Moat is gone; shot to death.


He died face-down in a field surrounded by countless armed police. It’s not yet clear whether he was killed by his own weapon in an act of suicide or by the projectile from a Tazer rifle that caused an involuntary triggering of his shotgun.

Some may utter “who cares”

But we should care because increasing numbers of people are meeting the Grim Reaper in increasing regularity at the hands of armed Police.

All a direct consequence of the breakdown of a criminal justice system that protects the criminal above the law abiding and defends the “human rights” of the wrong doer over those of the victim.

But Moat’s story, of his crime laden life, joke sentencing and early release, the pathetic manhunt and his sordid death does clearly illustrate the futility of our Nanny-knows best State.

During the hunt for Raoul Moat, the police cordoned an area of some 12 square miles. The best advice and only succor that the Police could give to the residents of Rothbury and the surrounding area was “lock your doors and hide”.

Indeed.

We have never seen a more effective demonstration of the way in which the British people have been disempowered by successive Governments. The safety of those people within the cordon was wholly dependent upon the police; and a healthy dose of luck. And luck played a big part, because “luckily” Moat had no interest in killing randomly, unlike one Derek Bird did across the Pennines.

We know that, during the manhunt, he broke into the homes of the public and was seen walking in the streets of the village. Had he wished, he could have taken lives at random and on a whim.

He chose not to.

The people of Rothbury got lucky. Moat was not a totally deranged man. He carefully chose all of his victims.

So the pertinent question is?

When Raoul Moat was roaming the North East dealing drugs and smashing people's windows, with his wild weapon dogs straining and slobbering on the end of their ropes, do you think his neighbours could have got our Police and the criminal justice system to help them against him?

errrrr….alas no….not a copper in sight!

The system was too busy, or too feeble.

But once the police had ignored a warning from Durham Prison that a dangerous man was loose, please note; a convicted child-beater whose offspring he liked to thump so hard that their teachers spotted the bruises. And note this fact also for this is the only reason Moat was in prison at all, harming a child. He could have frightened and intimidated adults all his criminal life and nothing would have happened.

So on release he became a self-proclaimed bloody murderer and maimed his victims who survived.

And suddenly what do we find?

Helicopters all over the sky. RAF jets are scrambled with specialist infrared seeking technology. Armoured cars are requisitioned from Ulster. On go the para-military outfits.

A miniature Werhmacht turns out to have been waiting in reserve, ready to fan out across Northumberland in coal-scuttle helmets and draped in enough weaponry to take on the Taliban in Helmund province.

So that's why they were not to be seen when Moat was on his crime spree life intimidating his community, they were too busy, I suppose. On manoeuvres or sitting in police stations doing pointless other things.

A Police force service indeed.

It seems to me that we have had a very bad bargain foisted on us with the State. We have relinquished our right to effective self-defence. We have been sold a ‘pup’ by successive Governments. It’s not a very good deal either, but it goes like this,

“Guns are dangerous. You are unfit to own them, even for your own defence. But, you need not worry, for the Police Force Service shall take responsibility for your safety.”

Nay it will go one better and take the monopoly on force in our society and stamp on anyone’s neck who so much as lifts a finger to defend themselves.

The Moat debacle has revealed the lie. The State and especially the Police are incapable of protecting the individual.

The hunt for this man involved 600-odd armed police, dogs, helicopters, armoured cars and even fast jets. Yet, he evaded capture for 8 days…one man, with a double-barreled shotgun, a tent and some basic fieldcraft. He “tied-up” one tenth of the UK’s armed police and brought a community to a fearful standstill.

Imagine what ten such men could do. Or a hundred, or even a thousand such people, well equipped with automatic weapons, organised and motivated.

And the police’ own estimates reveal that there are some 4 million illegally-held guns in the UK. That’s despite all the banning and the legislation to enforce it, all the amnesties and the confiscations.

Pathetic.

The bad guys are well armed. And will always be so.

The responsible law abiding citizen has to cower in their homes and rely on a feeble Police service.


There are just less than one tenth of the police on duty on the streets at any given time to protect members of the public. How can we be so naive as to expect that they will be responsible for our personal safety?

Firearms legislation in the UK is an ill-conceived joke, but it is the supreme exemplar of Orwellian double-speak. Because the real message from Government is this …

“your personal safety is predicated upon your being defenceless.”


“And we the State will enforce our monopoly on force by prosecuting anyone who seeks to defend themselves.”

So......

That’s where we are at in 2010. We are a nation of adults, none of whom has the right to effective defence of their self, their family, their neighbours or property.

And, if that makes perfect sense to you, then pat yourself on the back; because you truly are a “Progressive”.



.

Out of the box thinking...

According to our Justice Secretary Ken Clarke fewer people should go to goal, because – the argument goes – while the number of men and women behind bars has risen steadily, crime rates have not fallen and the public’s concern about crime has remained at a similar level.


Concern remained level?

Au contraire……

Evidence is clear on one thing though and that is that the current sentencing policy doesn’t modify criminal behaviour one iota.

By the time a young offender has accumulated enough wrongdoing to finally earn a term in clink, they’ve already learned that they can ignore the law with impunity, or if caught at worst end up with a few weeks litter picking or even better an opportunity to steal the paint thinner for ‘sniffin’ in their curfew time while painting the park railings.

Because you see, these are people for whom deferred gratification is saving just enough BBQ sauce for the final chicken nugget; appealing to their long-term self interest and that of society is just so much wasted effort and money.

Sentencing if properly administered is supposed to serve two aims, retribution and rehabilitation. The consensus view I’d be willing to argue is that it doesn't achieve enough of either.

Justice needs to be seen to be done, all too often it is the victim who suffers not once but twice when the derisory sentencing is handed out.

But if the current sentencing policy doesn't work - and it doesn’t – then surely Einstein’s definition on madness must come into play: i.e. keeping on doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

So here's a truly ‘progressive’ and arguably ‘fair’ alternative Ken to run past your boss Dave;



BRANDING.



Think about it for a moment!



Young people are excessively vain about their appearance. God knows with two young teenage children don’t I know about it!

Using liquid Nitrogen (painless so won’t offend the human rites brigade) to brand say a big 'T' on the forehead of a habitual thief or shoplifter, or 'V' for violent offenders, 'D' for druggies or ‘P’ for the pushers of such and so on would work as a disincentive like few other measures.

Trust me, it would affect fashion; the branded would affect hoodies or headbands to hide their brands that wound their vanity whilst honest citizens would expose their brows with pride.

If they continued to offend, we could become even more 'progressive' and move to those mediaeval fallbacks of public humiliation like the stocks and pillory or even nose-slitting and ear removal for the most habitual of offenders.

Maybe I am getting a bit carried away.

Or maybe not.

But let's start thinking out of the box here about crime and punishment; the current sentencing policy simply doesn’t work.


Has anybody got a better idea?


.

I'd vote for that

There will come a day of reckoning (I hope) between the Police Force "Service" that has been allowed to do whatever New Labour told it to do (including hiring vertically challenged individuals as the pic shows) and the People of Britain which would like it to do what it was created for, protect and preserve the Queens peace.


As we all know the ACPO is a private company (but Government taxpayer funded and totally unaccountable) consisting of chief Police Officers who "advise" the Government on policy and in effect, run the Police "service" to enable a "hands off" approach to policing by the Government.

It hasn't worked.

Crime real and perceived is at appalling levels whilst the Police chase the targets that enable the ACPO to get rich on bonuses (funded by us) and allow Politicians to dismiss our concerns and claim our perception and victim experiences of crime is wrong or even irrelevant by the likes of Ken Clarke, meanwhile proposing to release yet more of the small numbers who make life misery for the law abiding majority.

Swathes of our inner cities and sink estates of our towns are no go areas as the politically correct "advisers" stay away from the real controversial problems and hit and bully the predictable soft easy middle class and honest poor again and again.

So instead of policing and rounding up known criminals, we have the highest number of CCTV cameras of anywhere in the world. Instead of focusing on the 100,000 or so prolific habitual criminals (that’s just 0.16% of our overall population) that cause most of the crime in this country, we have pointless knife and gun amnesties and small policemen.

The result of course is a Police Force Service that does anything but serve us. It is built and functions only to serve Politicians and the ACPO, it has become a servant of the State instead of staying true to its founding principle of being a servant of the Law.

We watch as each and every day, OUR Police force service becomes less accountable to us the people who agree to be policed and pay for it and more accountable to demented isolated politicians and police chiefs anxious to develop social experiments or control dissent for failed policies.

We NEED elected Police chiefs.

For example I’m pretty sure Brixton residents would vote for a Police Chief that promised drastic measures to reduce crime in Brixton lets say. It's the residents after all that have to live with crime day in, day out who should have a say in how it’s dealt with. But no, our governing elite, living in gated communities driven around in protected armour plated transport declare that is not necessary. What is needed they tell us are more targets but without offending "the local community".

Heaven forbid that we do…..

I say free the people of Brixton (or any other area) from the effects of crime by allowing them to say what Police Force Service they want and how they want it run. They're the ones paying for it anyway so why shouldn’t they be able to elect someone who says they will do what is wanted by the majority of those living there?

Name me one ACPO member who has to live in Brixton? They don't. They all live in thatched rural cottages after retiring at 50 on a full taxpayer funded pension. No decisions taken by them will ever affect them; therefore they can have and do not have any interest in the effect of those decisions that they take.

Only on reaching the targets that pay the bonuses.

Or am I being too cynical?

If you’re worried the people of Brixton might elect say a Lee Jasper or another Bernie Grant as Police chief? Bring it on I say. For they are the ones who will be dealing with the consequences, not you or I. If the gun culture thrives, it'll be their children being shot, not mine and it'll be their fault for not electing someone who didn't want to deal with it. If it's not safe to walk the streets in Brixton because their new Police chief has decided all his officers need to be "diversity and culturally aware" and has sent them to Kingston, Jamaica, so be it.

Likewise, my local Police "service" is pretty much invisible. The one bobby we have to patrol in the village isn’t seen much, unless you need him. I know what he looks like because his picture is up in the local Spar but crime is naturally low where I live, children leave their bikes out on front lawns overnight, and residents leave their car windows open and unlocked on hot sunny days on their drives so I resent seeing CHIMPS (completely hopeless in most policing situations;) PCSO's swaggering about the not mean at all streets of Heighington dishing out parking tickets to the odd driver who parks a wheel on the edge of the village green.

Bugger off and leave us alone.

Anyway if I had a choice I'd vote for pretty much the guy we already have, even though I don’t know who he or she is. It’s my choice after all.

If you want to improve the area you live in, you should be able to vote for whoever is going to Police it, just as you should be able to vote for who will run the schools or collect your bins .

Get the right man or woman for the job and watch it prosper.

Get the wrong one and just see what local people empowered with accountability will do.


.


.

Highway Robbery...

John Palmer is perhaps one the most famous or should that be infamous characters in our national history…

Who?

Well we all know him by his real name Richard or Dick Turpin……he used John Palmer (Palmer being his mothers maiden name) as an alias to avoid detection by the forces of law and order of the time.

The name Dick Turpin has become synonymous with highway robbery because according to history this notorious highwayman’s exploits led him to becoming one of the most wanted men in England.

Such were his alleged exploits that one could almost believe he was the only man robbing people at the time.

The truth is somewhat different alas, he was one of many of such ilk, nevertheless the reality of the highwayman who takes your hard earned wealth from your pocket is still alive and well today in the form of taxation by government.

The recent budget proved this.

What has struck me though is the total lack of critical attitude to government taxation; very few commentators, MP’s, MSM, the majority of people n Britain, if any at all are up in arms at the level and scope of modern day taxation.

Why is this so?

I know I’m not alone in feeling angry at the levels of direct and indirect taxation but to me, what fills me with rage is the mentality or state of mind of both taxpayers (who obediently acquiesce) and the mindset of entitlement from ministers who take it from our pockets.

The burden of taxation continues to rise not fall…..even the recent budget increased overall taxation. The percentage of our income and capital taken is shockingly huge….the TPA calculates that ‘tax freedom day’ the day on which we stop working for the State and start working for ourselves was 30th May this year.

In other words we work for five months for the State before we even get to earn for ourselves!

Feels like longer……

Put another way, before we spend a single pound of our income, between 35% to 55% of what we earn is stripped from us, and its going up next year with the NI rises that come into effect from April. Then we have Council Tax imposed on us to supposedly fund local services as well as the licence fee which is another form of mandatory taxation. Of what remains, on the majority of purchases (excluding energy, food, books, etc) 17.5% is tacked on, which will now rise to 20%, that’s one fifth of the price that is added to the true cost of the goods and services we choose to buy!

But even on energy we pay hidden government imposed levies (thanks to the religion of global warming) and this will get worse under this governments misguided energy policy.

Then on essential items like petrol and diesel, around 65% of the cost of every drop we buy is duty and VAT that goes straight to the government. One cannot even turn to drink now as the duty on this now is so extortionate you’d need a week’s wages just to go out on a Friday night with friends.

These are just the very basic examples; there are countless others readers could no doubt add. And don’t forget to factor in the hidden cost of the huge bureaucracy the ever expanding machinery of government needs to administer this financial three-ringed circus.

The principle of taxation was to provide basic public necessities; people accept fair taxation in return for, transport infrastructure, good local governance, the defence of the Realm, defence of the Queens peace though law and order, the provision for the desperate and the needy, whether temporary or permanent.

But the moral decay of the last 13 years has left us bankrupt and with a prevailing mindset that believes that government can solve any problem and just needs more and more of our money in order to do so, we have seen the state balloon in size and its appetite for our cash is gargantuan, yet it still wants more.

This is the clearest demonstration of wasteful, lazy and overbearing governance. Of authoritarian, paternalist, control freakery that sees our money taken then used to bribe the lazy and indolent, the gullible and feckless so self serving politicians can enjoy the trappings and office that go with the power they wield over us.

Where is the outrage? Where is the deeper thought that leads people to question why we have allowed government-by-consent to be transformed into electoral dictatorship? Where are the people who are standing up and demanding that government only takes what is needed to fund the essentials and nothing more? The failure to do this has allowed government to absorb our money and fritter it away on wheezes and trivialities. It is utter insanity that the government gives money to groups to fund their ability to campaign for the government to spend our money on their special interests. It is disgraceful that we indirectly fund charities and associations that we may choose not to support, through government grants and hand outs.

Just think how much better off we would be if we kept more of our own money and decided for ourselves how and where to spend it. Think how much better the goods and services we could buy would be if driven by competition amongst the companies and sole traders whom we decide to spend our money with. Think how many more jobs would be created to service the needs of a wealthier population, in turn reducing the need for state help and therefore the need to tax us so much. Consider, given our natural generosity, how much more money worthy charities would collect if we could better afford to contribute. Consider how much more free we would be with a smaller and less intrusive money grabbing state, and consider how much happier we could be if we were able to make more decisions for ourselves.

Having thought about that, now ask yourself, why do we tolerate the status quo? Why do we not take back power and decision making for ourselves, rather than leave it in the hands of incompetent and elitist self serving politicians? Politicians who, despite having billions and billions of pounds of our money to hand in recent years, and billions more in the coming years, have and will manage to spend it all with little to show for it?

Billions more has been borrowed on top of all the taxation they have collected, and that too has also been squandered, and all by people who have contrived to leave this country deep in debt, now necessitating the picking of our pockets to harvest yet more of our meager incomes to repair the damage.

The prevailing attitude is one of ‘you have money so we are taking it’. There is no sense of regret or apology from the privileged elite who govern us for doing so.

Quite the opposite in fact…..

Such behaviour is ludicrously described as ‘progressive’ and ‘fair’. It is nothing of the sort.

It is highway robbery……

But at least with Dick Turpin you know what you were in for............

Because, he at least had the decency to wear a mask.


.

Famous Last Words......

While Rome burns…….. (The treaty of Rome’s project the European Union that is) with the sovereign debt issue threatening to engulf the Eurozone, spiraling us into double dip recession.


Or worse.

The colleagues get together to have a cosy sausage and egg “love in” and make full use of the “crisis” to further the project……

And our very own Dear Leader (whom no majority wanted) gets down to ‘promising’ his colleagues in the ‘local’ council meeting that Britain will play “a positive, active and engaged role in the European Union”

Indeed we will for our Dear Leader has failed to keep his ‘promise’ to us the little people and shackled us with the terms of the Lisbon Treaty.

Back at the ranch meanwhile George Osborne tells Parliament:

"Our plan is to hand over to the Bank of England responsibility for macro prudential supervision that should never have been taken away from it."

In plain English he went on to say;

"It's clear the Bank needs to have a greater understanding of what's going on in firms."

Equine housing and belated security solutions spring to mind!

Osborne said that Labour's regulatory structure, which shared power between the Treasury, the B of E and the Financial Services Authority, had been a disaster.

Few (in our outside of financial services) would argue with this; fewer still would I guess oppose the return of such powers to the largely independent Bank of England.

The Chancellor also announced the creation of an independent commission which would look into the link between retail and investment banking. The crisis was caused, in part, by the collapse of investment banks, which threatened to bring retail and domestic accounts down with them, ruining the lives of millions of ordinary Britons.

And I would add too much debt……….

But I have a question?

Why is Osborne assigning these new powers, when across the Channel EU legislators are preparing three new regulatory bodies, all of which will have powers far exceeding those of the B of E, and most of which are being created by unelected, unaccountable Eurocrats thoroughly hostile to the City of London's culture and status as one of the most successful financial centres in the world?

What does the EU's internal markets commissioner, Frenchman Michel Barnier, have to say about Osborne's proposals? Barnier do not forget, is under orders from the poisoned jealous dwarf Nicolas Sarkozy to "bring an end to the Anglo-Saxon model."

Wiser voices than mine have urged Osborne to ignore EU legislation affecting financial services.

Much the same way as the French merrily ignore directives on agriculture, national champions and pretty much everything else that they don’t like.

But will George listen?

Will it matter if he does?

For there is little prospect of blocking these measures as they will be decided by qualified majority voting introduced under the Lisbon treaty, which deprived Britain of her veto.

So as we can see the ‘ratchet’ effect of the EU project marches on, in one direction only, imposing yet further ‘harmonisation’ with European law with the proposal to reduce the drink driving limit in Britain, (this is not a British Government proposal) along with our financial services industry under jealous attack and thus we find the colleagues’ using the current crisis to push for more powers over scrutiny on national budgets.

We are heading towards a single European economic policy and a single European government, at terrifying speeds only the enlightened few predicted pre-Lisbon.

But did anyone listen?

And let us not forget that our leaders, pre and post general election 2010 didn't believe we deserved a say in a referendum on closer European union.

Nor will they ever.

This got me thinking about strong national characters that had huge impacts on our British history and their famous last words.

Some of my personal favourites are;

“All my possessions for a moment of time”  Queen Elizabeth I

“Josephine”…………….. Napoleon Bonaparte

“Kiss me Hardy”……….. Horatio Nelson

“I’m bored with it all”…………Winston Churchill

“Et tu Brute"…………… Gaius Julius Caesar

All spoken by people who earned their places on the world stage by having moral and physical courage, political acumen, conviction, personality, character and vision.

All of whom played a role in shaping our country (whether internally or externally)

And then we have this;

"We  I  want to be in Europe but not run by Europe"……… David Cameron, 2010

In the hall of quotes for famous last words it doesn’t quite have the same ring of truth and conviction as uttered by lesser mortals!

Does it now?


.

Barking mad.........

Now anyone who uses open public spaces would agree that stepping in dog fouling is not a pleasant experience but rather than target the actual root of the problem a cash-strapped council has come up with an ingenious way of raking in even more revenue from law-abiding people.


And no it’s not the motorist who’s been targeted………

Dog owners are facing £1,000 fines if they take their pets to the park on long leads.

Yes long leads……

The ban on leads longer than two 6ft 5in applies to dozens of parks and open spaces.

'Bosses at Tameside council say they have brought in the measure to reduce dog fouling. The council says owners are more likely to clean up after their pets if they are on a short lead.'

But what if the dog, obediently walking beside its owner as mine does on command is not on a lead at all…..

Tameside is the first local authority in Greater Manchester to bring in the rule and introduced it despite many retractable leads being between 15ft and 22ft in length.’

I would dearly love to see the council's research that suggests the distance between dog-on-lead and the dog-owner is representative of the likelihood of said dog-owner cleaning up their dogs mess.

Who were the people sitting in some cosy taxpayer funded council office wasting hours and hours of our money in a tea and biscuit overdosed ‘brain storming’ session that thought this one up!

I would genuinely love to know?

I would predict that no such research exists (not even a council would be stupid enough to commission something like that)

Or would they?

Any sane person with even just a sprinkling of common sense would know that it’s not the dogs higher cognitive faculty thinking “hey my owners 15ft away its time for dump he doesn’t have to pick up”

BUT rather the personality of the dog owner that determines if the pooch’s mess is cleared-up!

But that little pearl of wisdom must be too complicated for Tameside’s council bosses to assimilate.

Too much tea and biscuits must addle the brain.....

Then there's the question of how this policy would be policed. Are we going to see litter wardens and CHIMPS (Completely Hopeless in Most Policing Situations) as the Police call PCSO’s in Tameside whipping out their tape measures every time a person walks past with a dog on a lead?

“Excuse me sir please stand still and keep your dog under control but do not retract your lead I have a measurement to take”

They are drunk enough on petty power and officious enough to perhaps try…………

Rather than targeting the people that leave dog mess, which I would applaud in any case, it hits law-abiding dog walkers in the pocket. Fining someone for the length of their dog lead is the most absurd example of the raft of mindless petty rules and regulations that are there to bully and cajole the law abiding; fining someone £1000 for doing so is outrageous.

But the final word goes to Tameside Council who claim the idea is intended to make parks 'more enjoyable'

Ministry of Love anyone?

Barking mad indeed……


.

Power or Prosperity?

“I want Europe to have one currency; it will make trading much easier”

One could be forgiven for thinking the original rationale for the single currency uttered from the EU?

Mais non…….

But the written word of one Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon used military force in his attempt to politically unite Europe, and failed; Hitler tried it too and failed.

But the EU (France and Germany) learnt their history lessons well and have used the existing institutions within national governments, citizen inertia, and even the tactic of totally ignoring referendum in its drive for integration and unification.

But will fail also…….

I hope……

For the Euro was not an economic decision for the benefit of many, or even trade, it was a political one for the benefit of the select few.

And politics is a dangerous game…….

Especially when we little people, under free market economics begin to feel the pain.

As we do now.

And now we get the EU telling us that the only way to solve the problem is for sovereign national governments to ‘submit’ their budgets for approval to Brussels before announcing them to their own elected MP’s.

And George Osborne resists…..

And rightly so………….

Because this sticks in the craw somewhat, especially when it is from the same EU Parliament that has repeatedly had auditors refuse to, year after successive year ‘sign off’ The EU’s own budgets because of the endemic ‘corruption’ and patronage that only fools fail to see.

Or the corrupt don’t want us to.

And meanwhile in a seemingly ‘unconnected’ event in Washington last month, the US Senate (who provide a third of the cash for the IMF) voted unanimously to prevent the IMF from using its cash to bail out economies locked into debt spiral.

Ergo the PHIIGS (Portugal, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) all within the Eurozone.

Unconnected…..?

Well perhaps not for these two events share a similar theme; in that the elite political ‘club’ who rule our lives are at last starting to realise (perhaps) that the main barrier to resolving these crises and reinstating business-as-usual is not so much our ability to afford it, but the little people, yes us the electorates, un-willingness to pay for it anymore.

As Angela Merkel is finding out.

And yet the French remain remarkably quiet about it all.

Somewhat contrary to national character……

Unusual indeed……

For what have they got to hide?

So at a time when Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and now Hungary’s spiraling debt issues are squeezing the Euro down in value, while economists (who will argue for ever and a day over how long it has got left to live) many people are looking for the reason to explain the Euro mess.

An interesting explanation as any comes from Dani Rodrik of Harvard when he states on his blog that the current crisis is putting politicians face-to-face with his own theory he calls the Rodrik Trilemma.

I have an ‘impossibility theorem’ for the global economy….It says that democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full.

And if you attempt to force to combine all three ingredients, you get, well you get The European Union.

But the trilemma is not a universal problem in my view.

It is only a leftist socialist problem.

That's because in The EU, at least, only the socialists who run it want to maximise the power of the state while giving the illusion of delivering prosperity via economic integration. For in socialist-speak, "democracy" and "national sovereignty" are code-words for the slogan "Centralise all Power to us the Socialists."

Socialists acquire and maintain political power by distributing privileges and bounties to their supporters.

While smearing and attempting to destroy their detractors credibility’s with labels such as “racist” or “fascist”.

Or maybe worse……..

The ‘sofa politics’ of the Anthony Blair years are testament to that in Britain, the European Commission and how it appoints said commissioners and other un-elected officials is evidence of the same within the EU.

And so when socialists decide to rule in this way, you inevitably press the pedal to the metal ‘on all power to us’ under the guise of "democracy" and "national sovereignty." And that means that you sacrifice individual and national prosperity with the sacrificial knife of ‘borrow tax and spend’ on the altar of politics.

And it is no co-incidence that in the Eurozone countries GDP has fallen decade after decade in inverse correlation with the rise of political and economic integration of the EU.

But sooner or later, as long distance runners would say ‘you hit the wall’. Just like we see happening in The EU and the eurozone now.

In other words, under socialism, democracy means the out-and-out conversion of the limited constitutional state with its traditional checks and balances on the power of the executive into a patronage state and a select state citizenry mutually dependent upon one another.

And also on borrowing.

Lots of borrowing…….

And on spending.

Lots and lots of spending………..

And when will it stop?

Look no further than the countless Quango’s, the local and central government agencies along with the overly generous welfare budgets that consume our collective wealth and dominate but blight our lives here and in the EU to see the fruits of this profligacy.

And when you get many socialist political parties wedded to the patronage concept you get the ultimate icon for such.

The European Union.

For the misplaced folly of the socialist state still thinks it knows better than you or I on how to spend our hard earned money.

Nominally, socialists are not too keen on national sovereignty, and democracy either. Because they are an anathema to the socialist mantra and their raison d’être of ‘State knows best’.

They seek to use the ‘fear’ created by any crisis (9/11 and the London tube bombings are good examples) to galvanize and mobilize support for more State power, intrusion, control and intervention while using soothing phrases like “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.

But the opportunity to acquire political power is too tempting and ultimately far too desirable to wait for the odd crisis or two to come along.

So the other part of their arsenal is that they have replaced real wars with the "moral equivalent of war," so making every issue real or imagined into a domestic political war, spending hundreds of Billons of Pounds and Euros to win gussied up national wars on diversity, health and safety, equality and hate.

But all the while reinforcing the power of the State and Police monopoly on force by bullying, cajoling, threatening and criminalising the middle class and honest poor with countless rafts of petty minor offences, infantile advice on how to live our lives enforced by reams of senseless rules and regulations.

Just ask anyone who puts a bread crust ‘biological contamination’ in the plastic recycling container!

Or puts too much in that the lid won’t close.

Or who wants to defend their family and home against an intruder.

Or fights back against mindless relentless torment from street thugs who are continually ignored and unchallenged by the police force service.

Or wants to defend and express deeply held Christian beliefs.

While still failing utterly to tackle the real problems of the age; the economy, immigration, debt, poverty, crime, breakdown of family, of local communities of the rule of law and loss of cultural identity and pride in ones heritage.

And so now, to distract us even more from their failures we have the new War of the age;

The invented, fabricated man made global warming crisis now thoroughly discredited and exposed for the sham it is, that requires a national mobilisation (and more taxation) that will need to cover almost all of Britain (that even if we were to do so would not generate even one fifth of what we need) in pointless wind farms to produce "green energy."

But only when the winds blow……

And it doesn’t always do so.

This folly will cost Billions for consumers in higher energy bills to implement, herald a true age of ‘fuel poverty’ for millions and mean the lights go out and our computer screens go blank within a decade or so when our nuclear and coal fired power plants reach the end of their lives.

All because the EU says we have to under directives thrown about like confetti at a wedding by the un-elected un-accountable B-EU-rocrats in Brussels and implemented with fervent zeal by our home grown power drunk petty officials in our town halls and police HQ’s up and down the land.

Yet they believe in it all…..

Or will do so until they find the new ‘ruse de guerre’……

But true Conservatives don't want to plunder the state to service special interests.

Democracy for conservatives is merely the election and accountability of motivated practical ‘real’ life experienced honest men and women to write practical laws, repeal senseless ones and to secure the liberty of individuals from State control.

True Conservatives don't want to deploy national resources into moral equivalents of war that divide the nation. They just want to use national power to empower people locally, to defend the Queens peace and allow law abiding citizens of the crown to go about their lawful business, all the while generating the prosperity to pay for it all, while occasionally delivering a sharp, fair and just but severe moral message to the wrongdoers that they will be punished.

And all of this can be done with limited government powered by a reasonable, fair and affordable share of the take in tax of our GDP.

But only if we find the courage to take back our national sovereignty.

And the brass balls to implement the far reaching reforms required.
The single currency in the Euro may come one day to represent both the Zenith and Nadir of the aims of the European project, a political decision driven and locked into free market economics.

It was doomed to fail, economically at least (whether it will be allowed to politically is another thing) for sham entities don’t normally survive if free markets don’t believe in or buy the goods.

Unless they are state subsidised of course…..

I used to think naively that once conservatives had shown socialists under free market economics and limited government what could be achieved, then they’d go home enjoy the fruits of this prosperity, having seen the light and live happily ever after.

But after the experience of the Blair/Brown years and the formative Cleggeron coalition and the relentless drive of the EU project (that no majorities in any country voted for, including here, and in some even voted against) I have become more pragmatic, sadder too but also wiser.

For I have learned one universal truth……..

Socialists won't ever stop preferring power over prosperity.


.

Senseless insanity

My heart goes out to the families of those murdered by Derrick Bird in Cumbria on Wednesday.

A seemingly senseless wanton waste of life.

We will never know the full truth of “why” he chose to kill so many people, before killing himself and may only ever be left with the speculation rife in the media that it was over “financial pressures” and or a “family feud”.

It is a horror reminiscent of Dunblane and Hungerford.

So I would not be surprised if the Westminster political bubble (that lives outside the real world) knee-jerked into action to “tighten” the use of legitimate firearms yet more.

Derrick Bird held a firearms certificate for over 20 years without incident, so how do you legislate against a few hours of insanity like this?

Sadly you just cannot……

Far from making our streets safer the ban on firearms since Hungerford and Dunblane has only served to move their use and availability into a black murky criminal world that can neither be policed, nor neutered despite the occasional “amnesty” from time to time.

For criminals have never been ones to obey the law.

What I do know is that if I’d been in the area on Wednesday and been allowed to carry a concealed firearm (which law abiding citizens were once in this country allowed to do under Common Law) I’d have shot back.

Or maybe have been shot too, but at least it would have been on equal terms, not helpless slaughter.

Maybe Derrick Bird would have been deterred from roaming the county looking for victims if he’d known someone might have shot back.

Then again perhaps not…….

There have been many studies about the “effect” law abiding citizens carrying concealed firearms have in controlling crime. The most in depth and far reaching one covering many countries world wide by Gary A Mauser and Don B Kates was published in 2006.

You can read it here….

The conclusion about English gun control and legislation is interesting indeed.

“Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of (hand-guns) in crime than ever before; No matter how one approaches the figures one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less (in England before 1920) when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”
Chief Superintendent Greenwood.

The most startling conclusion worldwide is that it is not legislation restricting or even allowing access to firearms (such as the Second Amendment in the USA) that affects murder rates, but the socio-economic and cultural factors (lunatics aside) of any particular nation that have the greatest impact on said murder rates.

Interesting.

However criminals calculate the odds of "will I get away with this", and then they calculate what will happen to them if they are caught.

Unless they are stupid of course…..

But the brighter ones know that if a potential victim in a confrontational crime such as in a robbery, burglary, assault or a mugging could be carrying a concealed firearm they are less likely to perpetrate the crime for ‘fear’ of being maimed or killed themselves.

This is a fact borne out by countless studies and forms part of the main argument by John R Lott in his book More Guns Less Crime.

Derrick Bird was not a convicted criminal, he was once a law abiding citizen who stepped over the edge of sanity into a world of senseless insanity.

Sadly no amount of legislation or restriction to access on firearms would have prevented such a huge loss of life on Wednesday.

But someone carrying a concealed firearm shooting back, might just have……….


.

The Sanctity of Human Life

Modern Socialism takes a high moral tone about many subjects, from the defence of the perverse self serving judgments under The Human Rights Wrongs Act to supporting pointless but allegedly ‘noble’ wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan (though funnily enough it used to mean opposing wars under almost all circumstances).


The interesting thing is that its outrage is so selective and inconsistent.

Some would argue hypocritical…..

This has long been so, and arises from the fact that the Left still hasn't worked out how to replace Christianity as a moral code for protecting the sanctity of human life.

But it keeps on trying.

This leads to some enjoyable inconsistencies hypocrisies. And my personal favourite lies in the past. The not so old USSR was one of the most racially bigoted and oppressive societies ever to be “thought” into existence. Socialists conveniently, not so much denied but rather ignored Stalin's racialist mass deportations of Chechens, Crimean Tartars and Volga Germans (and indeed his anti-Jewish frenzy after World War Two).

And still do.

While labeling anyone who stands up for property rights, individual civil liberties, freedom of speech, integrity, pride in one’s history, heritage, culture and the rule of law….”Fascist”.

When anyone with half a brain and half the wit to use it would know there is no discernable difference between Fascism and Communism, especially when one considers the methods they both use to achieve the same end, Absolute subservience to The Sate.

But my favourite Leftist Socialist inconsistency is the tangle they get themselves in over Islam and Israel.

For in their universe Islam is good where it challenges the conservative Christian monoculture of Britain and the USA. Islam is bad when it denounces homosexuality, and generally opposes the sexual promiscuity (which is the main legacy of the modern left). Islam is good when it pursues its unrelenting war against Israel. It's bad when, in the mythical form of 'Al Qaeda' or the more tangible form of the Taliban, it 'hates our way of life' and opposes the education and equality of women, etc etc, ad infinitum.

You get my drift.

Islam's attack on Israel (in the Islamic world) often takes rather unpleasant forms. Muslim clerics say things there that would get them drummed out of civilised society here.

Or perhaps not.

And indoctrinate their youth and children via TV shows that beggar belief......

And worse......

And worse still.....

I urge you to watch them (the links above)....they make my flesh creep.......

But Israel is the country most people in Europe love to hate - while making it clear that this loathing has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Good heavens no.

“Perish the thought! The very idea, how could one even think such a thing? Anti-Semite? Me? NO WAY!”

Thus the Leftists doth protest.

And yet, despite these protestations, why is it that other countries can and constantly do despicable things, and there's not one tenth of the fuss there is if Israel so much as try’s to defend its citizens? And that Arabs can be massacred, tortured, imprisoned, you name it, and if it's done by other Arabs, nobody seems to mind. But if Israelis do it, it's all over the bulletins and the front pages of every Newspaper. Why would that be?

Well, it could have something to do with the fact that Israel has no oil, and the Arabs have lots, a huge influence on the British foreign Office (and Now the EU) and the BBC for many decades.

But it's also because that oil also finances some very slick PR, the kind nobody notices is PR. Arab lobbying doesn't get noticed and its propaganda is reported as news, which is the real aim of all such Arab PR. When did you last hear anyone talking about the 'Arab Lobby' in Washington, or in London for that matter? And yet there are such organisations, well funded and slickly run, though they go by much nicer names.

But ponder on this.

After the convoy's ships came to shore, those on board were offered the choice (as I understand it) between immediate deportation in return for signing a declaration that they had entered the country illegally, or being held in prison. Since they had intended to effect an illegal entry into Israeli territory anyway, which is quite closely guarded against unwanted visitors, this doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to me.

Those who refused to sign these 'confessions' were taken to Prison. And have since been released and deported.

Prison, then deportation, yes what can you do with someone who try’s to enter your border illegally?

Give them benefits, a house, freedom to roam at will?

Alas not in Israel.

But by comparison with the standard prison in the Arab world, all of which qualify for at least five stars for notoriety (especially the beatings with electric cables in windowless cellars) I would imagine it was a reasonably soft experience.

What do these people think would happen to a bunch of Israeli activists who turned up in a boat off (say) the Syrian coast, with a cargo of humanitarian aid for the hostage Jews of Damascus (whose passports are stamped helpfully with the word 'Jew' – again remind you of anywhere?).

Lots of floating corpses and charred wreckage methinks.

Then there's the general question of Gaza. It was interesting to see the Egyptians opening up their border with Gaza, just for a few days. Normally it's rather more officially shut than the border (through which much aid does in fact penetrate) with Israel - though there are so many smugglers’ tunnels underneath it that weapons and quite large cargoes constantly make it through. Why is this, since the Gazans are the Arab and Muslim brothers of the Egyptians? Surely they should welcome them with open arms and open borders. Yet they don't.

And still nobody asks why?

Indeed, Egypt (illegally, but to the protests of nobody) annexed Gaza after it captured it in the failed 1948 Arab war on the nascent state of Israel. And it held on to it without anyone much fussing about its squalor and deprivation, until 1967, when Israel captured it and illegally occupied it, a misdeed that (by contrast) the Jewish state has never been allowed to forget.

Don't these facts (in fact any factual knowledge at all) rather undermine the oversimplified myth that all Gaza's problems arise from its being under a “wicked” Israeli siege?

Gaza is a pretty grim place. I think the idea that a blockade will persuade the Gazans to throw out their Hamas government is nonsensical and doomed, and I think Israel's recent behaviour towards Gaza has been cruel and stupid. I still condemn the recent Israeli military attack on Gaza, which failed to meet the criteria for a just war.

But I have a nagging suspicion that those who now adopt the cause of Gaza (and have swallowed hook line and sinker the propaganda narrative of the 'Aid Convoy' versus the 'Wicked Zionists') are much, much more interested in undermining Israel's long-term right to exist than they are in the undoubted plight of the Gazans. And why, exactly is that? What is the reason for this selective outrage against one nation among dozens, by no means a perfect democracy, but a democracy none the less, and also by no means the most oppressive or violent or ill-run state in the world, let alone the Middle East?

The Arab or Muslim world for shame despite all its oil wealth could lift every Muslim out of the poverty and misery they endure in the Middle East but they choose not to. Why? Because it suits the Arab world to have Muslims suffering; as a focal point against Israel in its long term quest to destroy Israel.

So in the midst of this partisan press induced haze, we now find ourselves in a huge row over the alleged 'Aid Convoy' manned by alleged 'Humanitarians' which approached the Israeli coast at the weekend and was boarded by Israeli armed forces.

Is this description 'Aid Convoy' (adopted by many media outlets) not itself partisan? It most certainly is. The Israeli authorities offered unequivocally to deliver the ships' cargoes to Gaza if they were unloaded at the Israeli port of Ashdod and passed through the normal custom checks against contraband.

A reasonable offer n’est pas?

But the worlds press has largely ignored this “angle” of reporting for the leaders of the 'Aid Convoy' refused this offer. Therefore it is plain that its prime purpose was not to deliver the aid, but to deliver it in a certain way, in defiance of the Israeli blockade of the Gazan ports, an action they knew from the start would bring the Israeli armed forces about their ears.

And condemnations from the Worlds press.

Via very slick PR indeed.....

If you want to be wholly dispassionate, you might call it a 'convoy' without adornment. But to call it an 'Aid Convoy' is itself a departure from neutrality. I myself would call it a propaganda fleet, but then I am openly partisan on this issue.

Now, I have grown a little frustrated by the rather cliché-ridden coverage of the incident in the British media, who have by and large accepted a narrative of brutal Israelis versus sweetness and light. Personally, I view the Israeli military response as incompetent more than anything else.

Their famed intelligence services should have prepared them for the resistance they undoubtedly encountered aboard the Mavi Marmara, so why did they winch lightly-armed soldiers in thick incapacitating gloves, one by one, directly into the hands of a hostile mob? I believe the subsequent injuries and deaths are largely the result of this failure of intelligence and planning, leading to the soldiers shooting.

For what else can a soldier (of any nationality) do when being assaulted by a mob with murderous intent armed with knives and metal bars?

The incumbent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Yoni, was the only Israeli soldier to die leading the rescue operation at Entebbe (still considered a textbook counter insurgency hostage rescue operation) and testament to the effectiveness of the once famed Israeli intelligence services.

So how they get it so wrong this time?

Israel had good reason to halt the ships when they ignored the instructions of its Navy, as any sovereign nation would do in parallel circumstances. I’m left wondering what the Turkish Navy would do to a pro-Kurdish 'humanitarian convoy' heading for its coast, if they ignored instructions to halt.

Not a pleasant thought to consider.

Israel should have had effective plans and dispositions to take control of those ships when (as was almost certain) the instructions would be ignored.

For here is what they must have known. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute's (MEMRI) ever-useful translations of Arab sources (generally reliable) MEMRI (from whose blog I have taken some of what appears below) is of course an Israeli organisation, often accused of being in some way connected to Israeli military intelligence, and doubtless selective in what it translates, but I have yet to see the accuracy of its translations challenged.

It emerges that these ships were not, quelle surprise, entirely peopled by pacifist vegetarian idealists from the Isle of Wight.

For instance, one of these 'activists' is a lawyer who once represented a terrorist for free (his client was the interesting Kozo Okamoto, still in the Middle East and anxious not to return to his native Japan). For Mr. Okamoto took part in the 1972 Lod Airport massacre, in which 26 innocents were massacred.

And the list grows.

Most were active supporters of Hamas, the despotic and murderous Islamist rulers of Gaza. Hamas hurled their Fatah opponents to their deaths from the tops of high buildings when they took over, (where was the press outrage at that) and recently imprisoned in disgraceful circumstances a British freelance journalist, Paul Martin (Google it) to a chorus of almost total silence from the British media and left-wing intelligentsia.

Then there were some members of the Egyptian 'parliament', who are supporters of that country's rather un-moderate, and barely-tolerated, Muslim Brotherhood.

One of these legislators is reported to have said at a March 2010 conference, ‘A nation that excels at dying will be blessed by Allah with a life of dignity and with eternal paradise.’ He also said that his movement ‘will never recognize Israel and will never abandon the resistance,’ and that ‘resistance is the only road map that can save Jerusalem, restore the Arab honour, and prevent Palestine from becoming a second Andalusia.’

This is a most interesting statement. Andalusia, as Muslims call Spain, is the only territory Islam has ever permanently lost. The reference underlines the fact that the real issue in this conflict is not what everyone thinks it is. This has nothing to do with the 'rights' or 'freedoms' of the 'Palestinians', who would be oppressed and neglected by whatever Arab state (probably a Greater Syria/Jordan/Lebanon) that arose on the ruins of Israel. It is the Muslim belief that no territory, however small, should be conceded by Islam to be ruled by non-Muslims.

MEMRI also produce a photograph which purports to show one Yemeni Parliamentarian on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, clutching a rather large curved dagger, doubtless ornamental.

There were also some keen Salafists from Kuwait, not to mention our old, old friend Bishop Hilarion Capucci, whose idea of Christian charity once (in 1974) involved smuggling weapons to the PLO, misusing his diplomatic status to do so. (His release from prison was among the demands of the Entebbe hijackers - you know, the charmers who separated the Jewish passengers from the non-Jewish ones - back in 1976.)

The Bishop (I particularly appreciate this fact) is also said to have appeared on postage stamps in Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Syria, so much is he loved in the Arab world.

No doubt for the tone of his sermons, rather than his smuggling prowess.

Well, that gives you a flavour of the passenger lists. These people weren't neutrals, and they certainly weren't benevolent towards the Jewish state. Sure, loathing Israel is a point of view, and a very common one these days now we've all worked out our post-Holocaust guilt. But supposedly impartial news reports should not ignore the fact that these very partisan 'activists' could generally be found among the camp of the Israel-haters on board these ships.

I'd also point out here in passing, because I haven't time to dwell on this at the moment, the very important point that Turkey, until recently a strong ally of Israel, has recently begun a major and significant foreign-policy shift, and is now growing daily closer to its neighbour Iran - which is of course one of the backers of Hamas in Gaza. The Turkish government needs a pretext to scale down its diplomatic ties with Israel, while remaining in NATO, to continue to promote its candidature for EU membership.

And we all know how much Turkey values the sanctity of human life.

.