And now they track more of our movements

We hear there is a plan to build a database of all our travel movements. 

Of course, they say it is to fight illegal immigration...so why do they need to know if, when, how and with whom I, a citizen, travel?

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, defended the plans. “The UK has one of the toughest borders in the world and we are determined to ensure it stays that way. Our high-tech electronic borders system will allow us to count all passengers in and out and targets those who aren’t willing to play by our rules.”

Now, I think everyone will agree that Phil Woolas is probably one of the most odious lickspittles known even to the Labour Party. A nasty, spiteful piece of work with a voice suited to the role of Lord High Prod Nose.

How, Phil, is it "high tech" to keep a list on a disk drive, eh? Maybe it is "high tech" to the bunch of half-wits you keep hiring from "the usual suspects". If you are just keeping the records, then that is all it is to do, right? 

Well, it becomes a little "high tech" when the data is scanned proactively to see if there are any potential patterns. If a pattern is seen how soon with those involved be asked to "explain themselves" or become subject to covert surveillance or other investigations with or without warrant? How soon before presumption of guilt over innocence? How soon, Phil, you bureaucrat? How soon before this information is cross-referenced to other information? Very soon a department of proactive snoopers will grow, mark my words. It will. Anyone who says it won't is ignorant of the DNA of a State. A State wants to control, monitor, seek out, manage. It is what it does. "If only we had more or better information" they say. This is why the terrorist angle is so convenient, for then it gives a veneer of justification to demand people say who they really are and put a credible punishment to it - for if nobody is being defrauded, no punishment evaded by travelling under another name, then there is no crime. There still is no crime in law, but now we have "legislation" to make it so.

An administration run by the Libertarian Party would not even bother with the "non dom" issue, for Income Tax would be abolished so there would be no need to track chattel citizens. If you ever failed to "get" why abolishing Income Tax is so much better for freedom than, say, abolishing VAT, surely this now shows you why Income Tax makes you chattel, a cow to be milked, owned by the farmer. Surely this now shows you why the Libertarian Party is right to abolish a tax that gives the State first call on your earnings and in so doing makes them believe they own you and you owe them.

This is why the only people trusted to run a State are those who think it is an evil thing that is necessary if and only if it is the least bad way of doing things.

My movements should only be disclosed once a warrant has been issued. The State does not "own" me. I do not belong to the State, the State is there for my benefit, not for me to be some tax or vote farm for ITS benefit, so it can employ more like-minded parasites. 

The best way to achieve stronger borders isis to have a plurality of non government entities recording citizens data - private, mutual, listed, non-profit. The government wants to know about us? Go ask a Judge and prove you have probable cause to suspect a crime has or is being committed.

I am not one of the State's Gollywogs - as in rag doll toy representing a subservient human chattel, for colour is NOT the offence in relation to the doll - a black doll is not offensive per se. The perceived notions of slavery, subordination, cowed, whipped and oppressed soul enslaved and forced to dance to their master's tune is the issue with the Gollywog. Under a government such as this we all become Gollywogs - black, white, brown and yellow. That is how Socialist "equality" works. 

The colour of your face does not matter as long as the State boot is stamping on  it.

The Mask slips still futher

At times the Government puts up a little effort to pretend to be our elected representatives.

I now hear that the UK Police will be asked/allowed/enabled/directed to enter your property, vis your computer hard drive without your permission, without notification, nor with a warrant. They will do so if the active agent is a "foreign" Police force, i.e. another EU force.

Therefore, "our"* Government is happy to see our Police be a proxy for an EU Member State force, bypassing our Courts and English Common Law.

The EU is not one for Rule of Law and the EU is the source of this outrage. I doubt the EU will see it as an outrage, for it probably makes it "easier" for them to perform their activities -NEVER a sufficient justification for reducing the rights of the individual.

This Labour Administration has shown it is now no more than an EU Gaulieter. The UK Police is clearly considered no more superior with regards to our liberties than any other EU force. We have seen how foreign courts can demand the UK Police jump and arrest someone, but again, I do believe that the UK Government no longer considers them "foreign", just as they do not appear to consider other EU forces as "foreign".

This is how it now appears - that the Labour Administration does not consider EU Member States as "foreign", nor the EU Parliament, nor the EU Commission, but views the UK as just a collection of Regions with no more or less sovereignty over us as any other EU Region.

Come on, you bunch of Fabian Fifth Columnist lickspittles. Admit it. Have the stones. Then we can begin your trial for Treason.

BTW, forget the Tory Administration, they are Centrists who are part of the problem. The LibDems are a nest of Fabians for sure. Any Libertarians therein have got to realise this now, especially after the horsetrading that is going on over some so-called "National Unity" Government. Anyone who thinks this will do anything other than swallow up and spit out the Lib Dems is naive. Not forgetting that UKIP has an historic membership of albatrosses who are united by one thing only - a hatred of all things EU, so the true Libertarians therein are also up the swanee.

Nope, the one party that stands for Rule of Law, yet sees the EU and a bloated State as a threat to it, is the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is the one party that will not stand in the way** of you to live your own private life as Tory or as Socialist as you want to be, as long as you do not try and coerce others to be also, or make them pay for it against their will. Set up your voluntary workers collective or go it alone and set yourself moral standards...for yourself, we will not stop you. Try and impose your dogma on others and you have another thing coming, mind.

* "our" as in a cockroach found in one's kitchen could be considered "one's cockroach".

** note the term "not stand in the way", as opposed to the language of the others, which talks of "allowing". Allow - who do they think they are!

Brown-Straw Bill of Wrongs

So, we see a Cabinet kerfuffle over plans for a new "Bill of Wrongs Rights".

Brown talked earlier in the year about a new constitutional settlement. This "Bill of Wrongs Rights" is part of that. Brown likes the term "new settlement", for he has used it in terms of the financial crisis, too.

What Brown &Co forget, is that a Bill of Rights is - or damn well should be - about restraining government, NOT restraining people. I take that back. Brown did not forget this. He knows that is what it should be, but I suspect the old Marxist-Manse nexus inside him cannot but interfere with, pester and control the population.

Brown said that such a bill would open a new chapter on British liberty. Epilogue, more like, for he is using the idea of "rights", which are more like "entitlements" to then justify restraining "responsibilities" upon us. 

We can see a precursor of what is to come in the attempts to bully fat people by threatening them with the withdrawal of NHS treatment. It is insidious to do this, for those so bullied are hardly in a position to opt out of the NHS, not pay into it and seek an alternative provider. The law demands you pay, so instead of being a customer, free to choose, you become a cost and subject to a squeeze. Funny that they do not offer to reduce their NI contributions due to lower life expectancy and thus pension obligations, but that is another thing.

The arrogance is astonishing. Who do they think they are to decide how people live and what responsibilities people have at such a level? They clearly feel they are in some way the arbiter of "correct" behaviour. 

They are not.

At the very best this Bill will be the Tyranny of the Majority, but I suspect it will be the Tyranny of the Minority, a Tyranny of pressure groups and vested interests. It will begin the codification of "social justice", which as a word ranks in vileness alongside "deprivation", "progressive" and "entitlement". As you may know, social justice comes from the concept of social rights and social rights, as J.S. Mill has said, are "monstrous":-

A theory of "social rights," the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language--being nothing short of this--that it is the absolute social right of every individual, that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social right, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them; for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious, passes any one's lips, it invades all the "social rights" attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other's moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.

This odious "Bill of Rights" is just such a manifestation of the monstrosity outlined above. People think they have the right to control and oppress people in its name.

We will see limitations on our freedom to act and react because, make no mistake, certain kinds of acts will be protected, the kind that the Sociofascists and Statists approve of, while others that are inconvenient to them, contradict their world view or would enable people to demonstrate that they were wrong risk being curtailed. The Taxpayer will foot the bill under pain of imprisonment. Instead of people reforming themselves - for I believe 90%+ of the feckless will if no longer encouraged to remain so by bad policies and Welfarism - they will be forced to reform. Forced to reform instead of coming to the conclusion of their own free will. This road will, in my view, lead to the criminalisation of non-conformists*. 

The Bill is expected to contain such utter wibble as "the right to healthcare". That is only half the story. What it should say is "those whom the State so chooses should pay for other people's healthcare of a quality and composition as decided by the State if those other people are deemed to deserve it in accordance with criteria also decided upon by the State". Now, THAT is what will happen, yet it is not a right, is it? A right would be "Let no person, body, government, agent or organisation prevent any person gaining access to healthcare that is willingly provided". The same goes for education - religious carpet-munchers cannot prevent women from accessing schools, for example. However, that is a world away from saying the State will decide who will have to pay for that schooling and what form it will take.

So, under the umbrella of "rights" we see the scope for enormous powers collected to the centre and the bureaucracy. As J.S.Mill says above, there will be no violation which it would not justify.

And Brown and Straw try to sell this noxious brew as "Constitutional Reform".

* It will create the need for S.T.E.N.C.H. - the Society for the Total Extinction of Non-Conforming Humans -  Carry on Spying

Nicholas on Coffeehouse Nails The Fabian Treason.

Here. @October 28th, 2008 11:42am.

The Right, or perhaps more importantly the non-Left, must realise that they are an endangered species, soon to become a persecuted minority. The old establishment used to be the Right, the Left subverted it, infiltrated it and toppled it in the course of a 50 years "quiet" revolution, the final bayonet in the guts being the brilliant deployment of the Political Correctness weapon. Now the Left is the establishment and the Right must come to terms with that fact and face the reality that the rapidly undermined democratic "system" is not going to change the status quo. The state broadcaster believes and promotes the idea that any Labour government, even a stinkingly bad one, is better than the Tories. The rest of the establishment follow this line and even the last few remaining bastions of the Right surrender to walk the walk and talk the talk in the interest of perceived peer pressure. The scrutiny is all one way. The Left have harnessed the mob.

Only when the full horror of a totalitarian leftist state in Britain emerges over the next decade or two will any opposition find strength and, aided by the inevitable cancer which will destroy the state from within, deploy the appropriate methods against it. This must run its course, unfortunately, and until that time we will have to endure the bullying dogma of the Left in all its many forms, including so-called comedy entertainment.

Unlike JR above, who sounds a little too much like a BBC blog-monitoring agent provocateur, I find Brand and Ross about as appealing as pond slime.

Absolutely spot on, old chap. One thing to note: the Left are and will be far more totalitarian, absolute and vicious than the Right ever could. Envy is more extreme than dismissal.

Keynes

Keynes famously said "When the facts change, I change my mind".

Alas, he was wrong from the outset, so as that fact did not change, neither did he change is mind.

He also said "In the long run we are all dead", which might give us a hint at why he was happy to mortgage the future.

Keynes is so utterly wrong, yet now at the very point when we should reject his dysfunctional, bankrupt ideology the more, Gordon Brown and Darling are embracing him.

Today's borrowing is taxation...with interest. Borrowing today reduces the spending power of every pound in every pocket, so it is an insidious, indirect and unavoidable taxation upon us all. It is taxation for the future, too, as that debt plus interest needs to be repaid. As WSC said, taxing your way to prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.

The only possible reason I can see for all this is that the Government wishes to conduct a scorched earth policy so that the next Tory government will be a short one. Ladder-kickers, the lot of 'em.

If you want to stimulate the economy, make it run faster, reduce the friction. Reduce government spending. 

It is an absurd notion to think that by taking money away from individuals, handing it to a bunch of the Government's pet friends, mainly in the construction industry, to then spend and employ people, that somehow those people employed and suppliers supplied will magically create demand across all the economy. How about just not doing anything so that everyone keeps their money and can spend it directly in the first place? How about REDUCING taxation so people feel more confident, can pay off their loans and then resume spending? Oh no, that alternative does not require the State to be involved. Its mates cannot get largesse. It is then not the arbiter, the director of resources. It will not be able to delude itself that it knows best.

Gordon Brown: As unpopular as Neville Chamberlain.

So reports The Telegraph this morning.

Neville Chamberlain signed away the sovereignty of another country, which is bad enough. Gordon Brown has signed away the sovereignty of his own, OUR, country. This makes him more than unpopular. More than incompetent. It makes Gordon Brown a traitor by design, something you could not level at Neville.

In the name of God, GO!

The Loss of Sovereignty marches forward: EU Court Rulings

Traitors from Britain have supported this scandalous move whereby foreign courts can try us in absentia AND that extradition is AUTOMATIC. 

The combination is very potent and an utter outrage, rendering our courts subordinate and drawing ultimate sovereignty and power to the European level - of course the plan.

I can imagine Federasts from France or Germany proposing such nonsense, or even in Il Duce II*'s Italy. This clearly shows that our administration is infested by lickspittle self-loathers who have absolutely no idea what our freedoms are or why they ever existed. The other alternative is that these traitors are intentionally undermining our system so it can fit into the EUdenrat.

When are these shaved gibbons going to realise that the legal system is there for the protection of the people NOT the convenience of the State!

UPDATE: It seems that our Attorney General, Baroness Scotland has supported the move. No surprise coming from one of my top Traitors (see right). It is an outrage that we have such imbeciles/traitors** in our midst.

* Burlesqueloonie

** Delete where applicable

Polly: Carbon Cretin.

I am going to break with my normal approach of pressing the "track changes" button, for in this case, I don't think Polly is being disingenuous or hypocritical. She is just barking mad.

Energy use has to be cut soon, so it's odd that this techno-savvy cabinet still shies away from a simple credit system.

What is with the "has to be cut"? No. Energy use will increase around the world. It is not the use of energy, but how, what and where. As for the government being "techno-savvy", one only needs to look at the dismal failures in IT and other areas to know the Government is incompetent at this. Why break a habit?

Awful August, the weather forecasters call this unseasonably cold, wet month, as holiday-makers huddle against intermittent monsoon downpours, reminded that global warming doesn't necessarily mean a Mediterranean Britain.

Post Hoc fallacy. By the way, Polly, environazis are now hiding behind the more general and weedle-worthy term "climate change".

Every month, reports from climatologists deliver worse predictions of the speed and tipping points for irreversible climate change.

They are paid to, dear.

A 4C temperature rise is the latest warning: it would bring unimaginable horror in its wake.

Would, if it were true. Is it? No proof.

The time to act gets shorter, but the political will to act lags ever further behind the science that tells politicians they must do so.

The time to act does not get shorter, it is just that the dire warnings are getting shriller and for good reason - the AGW game is nearly up.

Latest figures, including air travel, shipping and energy used in our goods manufactured abroad, show no cut in Britain but an 18% growth in emissions.

Goods manufactured abroad, eh? Like in China, perhaps. Go there and ask them to cut their output if you believe it is the case. No? Thought not.

If the market is the answer, soaring energy prices should drive down emissions. Road traffic figures showed a 2% drop in car use, with demand for petrol briefly 20% down - but already it is rising again as the price falls.

And? Your point is? The market is functioning correctly - you sound as if you WANT to see high energy prices.

On household energy - responsible for 27% of emissions - it's too early to know the effect of 30% price increases. But as one hour of an old-fashioned lightbulb still only costs 0.8p, energy prices may not be noticed by those who already consume most.

Now, Polly, you are joking right? If one hour of an old-fashioned light bulb only costs 0.8p, then surely the energy consumed is very small also. The reall issue is HEATING. Inside the above is a subconcious nagging to buy low energy, high mercury, flicker-on, shimmer while on "low energy" bulbs. Lead by example. I bet Chez Toynbee is not bedecked with such bulbs, or would remain so for long. Even Polly's dim-bulb brain can detect the hesitation caused by CFLs.

Those who will make serious cuts are the poorest and debt-averse pensioners. Official fuel poverty figures are expected to rise to 5 million people this winter: more deaths are expected among the old and cold. Back in Labour's optimistic can-do days in 2000, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act created a legal obligation to eliminate fuel poverty among the vulnerable by 2010, a target missed by so many light years that Friends of the Earth is seeking a judicial review to get the act enforced. Gordon Brown's plan to buy off the problem with £100 vouchers for the poor is no answer.

An unenforceable Act does not mean we spend more time trying to enforce it. It means it should be scrapped.

What does the public think the answer should be? The Institute for Public Policy Research has just conducted the most extensive consultation so far, with focus groups in Newcastle, Camden, Southwark, Bristol and rural Suffolk across all social groups, as well as a nationwide opinion poll and interviews with energy companies, climate change NGOs and consumer organisations. The results pointed in one clear direction.

Seventy-four per cent said they are "very concerned" or "fairly concerned" about climate change - so politicians can ignore the shrinking, unconcerned minority.

Climate change is not the same as AGW, Polly. I am concerned about climate change, but I do not buy into the man-made back-to-the-caves mentality of the "enviro" lobby.

Seventy-one per cent thought action was necessary to curb people's energy use.

Then where is your problem? 71% will then curb their energy use, so energy use will be down. Or do you consider them like yourself - hypocritical?

But there was pessimism about the public changing its behaviour: only one in 10 thought people would drive less or take fewer flights.

Oh, ok, so "other people" need to cut back.

Naturally, favourite choices were the painless ones - the cheaper, environmentally friendly options. Least popular was any system that taxed energy use.

Common sense at last.

They were offered three possible government actions.

A false trichotomy.

First, a carbon tax could be added to all energy not generated from renewables. Second, a cap on the amount of carbon that companies could emit in selling their energy to consumers would force them to generate more from renewables: they would pass on the extra cost to consumers. But both of these were regarded as too unfair, with the impact felt least by the wealthy who burn most energy.

Very free with your use of percentages, eh? The rich are a small number in the scheme of things. Tax will either not affect them or they will move away and THEN it will not affect them. People get rich and are determined to stay rich so people like you cannot dictate how they live.

Personal carbon trading was the most popular option: it was the fairest and it wasn't seen as a new tax.

Most popular or the least worst of an appalling shortlist? In a way it is not a tax, but a form of privatised rent-seeking, as we shall see.

Here's how it works: each year everyone gets equal carbon credits to spend on petrol, home heating or air travel. People exceeding their quota can buy more credits. People who use less can sell credits. It encourages home insulation, energy saving and less driving or flying. Since low earners use less - 20% have no car, 50% don't fly - they can profit by selling to those with big houses, foreign holidays and gas-guzzling cars. It would be a powerful but voluntary agent for redistribution.

Firstly, you gloss over a massive factor in all of this - the State will need to track EVERY purchase we make in the areas so deemed by the State to have an impact. Very soon it will cover food, clothing, technology, everything. Secondly, it is NOT "voluntary" as people are not free to step outside the scheme. It will demand that all such purchases are paid electronically, so getting more information into the hands of the State (which it can, of course, sell without our permission to marketing organisations).

Failure to pursue personal carbon trading (or any other method) joined the long list of good causes killed by Labour cowardice.

I am not disputing that there is a long list of good causes killed by Labour cowardice, but this load of old crock is certainly not amongst them.

At Defra, David Miliband took it up with enthusiasm and commissioned a feasibility study, but after he made a strong speech advocating it, Gordon Brown at the Treasury banned any further mention.

Yes, I recall that "carbon credit card" idea. It was barking mad authoritarian moonbattery then, and it is still authoritarian moonbattery today.

Miliband was moved away and what was called a "pre-feasibility study", limped out with the judgment that this idea was "ahead of its time".

Yes, the Police State is not quite in place yet. Wait a few years when the EU is fully in control, then it will be a doddle.

They guessed it would cost £2bn a year to run, threw up sundry obstacles, and the report disappeared.

Only £2bln? From government IT? I wonder if those "sundry obstacles" were things like "impractical", "too expensive", "massive invasion of privacy", "AGW unproven".

Odd that a government with computers thinks it can't introduce a simple credit system, when a Nectar or Oyster card shows how easily home and car fuel bills and airline tickets could be deducted.

"A government with computers"? - Jesus wept! You forget, polly that oyster and nectar are OPTIONAL. One can still pay by cash. It is not a "simple credit system", but yes, we see the plan. I have long thought Gordon Brown has lusted after the idea of eliminating cash as a means of payment and this would move further in that direction. You also gloss over the "idea" of inter-personal trading of "carbon credits". People don't trade Nectar points on the open market, do they? Even if it did work what do you think would happen, numbnuts? The "rich" would buy up points and live as before. The poor, due to, erm, poverty, will sell points to pay for the energy that they can afford. The ONLY result is that the Government invades our life and a bunch of useless, non-productive parasites and IT supplies who cannot hack it in the private sector cream off huge wedges of taxpayers cash, some of it sticking to the governments ever-outstretched hands.

By supporting a carbon credit system, you, Polly, show yet again that you have absolutely NO IDEA how a market works and cannot get your Socialism-addled noggin to think beyond the immediate and self-serving.

Historian Mark Roodhouse of York University draws comparisons with his work on wartime rationing. Back then the state provided ration books for all, covering not just fuel but coupons valuing virtually every individual item in the shops from clothes to food.

We were under siege and supply was limited, UNLIKE NOW. Even then, the black market thrived.

Have we become more administratively incompetent since then?

Absolutely, for we now have a Government chock-full of morons, product of the dumbed-down "show-and-tell" coursework generation.

Roodhouse records the wartime internal debates about whether to cut national consumption by raising prices. "They concluded rationing was the only way to achieve dramatic cuts without feeding inflation or causing social unrest," he reports. They, too, considered making ration coupons tradable but decided equality of sacrifice was essential. But Roodhouse considers tradable carbon rations "would improve on the system, preventing black markets in unused coupons".

But this does not "improve on the system" for one is comparing apples with oranges, with actual hard scarcity and one trying to be synthesized by Authoritarian Government Fiat.

The trading element makes carbon rationing feel more voluntary and less oppressive.

Only to a moron, perhaps. "Feel" is not the same as "is". This IS involuntary and it IS oppressive.

In distribution of wealth, Britain is now back to 1937 levels of inequality, regressing backwards every year:

Yes, war followed by 60 years of the Welfare State. Well done. Thanks, you spiteful creatures!

that's what makes any kind of carbon tax or reliance on high prices impossible, the burden falling too unfairly.

Ah, so if the Socialist dream of a lumpen clay was actually achieved, higher prices could have been used. Oh what joy!

Doling out ad hoc energy vouchers to the poor at the taxpayers' expense is the wrong answer, and it only adds to the poverty trap by making the step up harder to climb.

Polly, I want to you to remember that statement and when you come up with any more ideas about redistribution and welfare, replace "ad hoc energy vouchers" with the current madcap idea that is rattling around your bonce.

Will Brown at least pay for it with a windfall tax on profiteering energy companies?

No, not even if he implemented such a windfall tax, for Brown pays for NOTHING. We, the taxpayers, pay for EVERYTHING in varying degrees. It is a zero-sum game (bit like your IQ) - energy companies will sandbag again or just not bother to build infrastructure, for how could they if Grabber Gordon keeps shoving his clunking fist into their savings and stealing all the notes?

But if personal carbon trading is "ahead of its time", that is exactly where we need to be.

It is not "ahead of its time" (unless...see above re EU), but is "a head up its arse".

Cowardly political leaders dare not tell voters the plain truth that we need to cut energy use.

It is not about telling here, Polly, you are proposing that people are FORCED. Big difference. Anyhow, since when have they got all honest?

If Miliband makes his run for the leadership, plain speaking about the climate will be one of his pitches - and bravery on personal carbon trading will be a test of candidates' seriousness about both climate and social justice.

Both "climate" and "social justice" are concepts for the subjugation of people and the removal of freedoms. I think Miliband is too smart to lash carbon credits to his leadership mast. Oh no, if he is still for it, he will bring it in once he has counted all his chickens after his premiership is hatched.

Who Will Rid Us...

...of this turbulent Priest?

The bearded old goat Archbishop of Canterbury, thinks that adoption of elements of Sharia in the UK is "inevitable".

I suppose anything bad is "inevitable" when you are a self-loathing, guilt-ridden fifth columnist like "Dr"* Rowan.

He is an imbecile. A dangerous "useful idiot", a panderer, an appeaser. I suppose he is hoping for a seat at some religious table, but you bet he would be happy with a subordinate seat, as long as he had a seat. He is a loathsome creature.

Let us not be mistaken. Anyone who thinks that Sharia will remain an option once it gets its claws into the system is a fool. It is Totalitarian creed practised by Totalitarians. I suspect it is touted as an option, a "voluntary" code as long as both sides wish it. Do you really think for an instant that this will remain so? Very soon it will become mandatory, maybe not in law, but by brute aggression. Muslims will be intimidated to conform to Sharia "courts". It is easy to see how it can be done - if you do not, you are not "muslim", but apostate...and we all know what that can lead to. Once this is entrenched, we will see demands for any dispute or legal action involving a Muslim to be performed via Sharia "courts". Sharia "courts" will become the "superior" system, and by superior I do not in any way suggest better - quite the reverse - just in terms of precedent over people's lives.

Sharia "courts" operate the inquisitional system as happens in Europe. A "judge" collects evidence and makes a judgement. There is no right to your day in court, no right to cross examine. It is not the adversarial system we have where defence and prosecution work to produce the evidence before a jury which is then advised by a judge, but who's advice the jury can decline to take. We are judged by our peers in the UK, for all its faults, not some self-absorbed, bearded totalitarian with a chip on his shoulder.

Inquisitional systems are VERY BAD for Rule of Law.

We have recently seen the moonbattery that is paying out benefits to imported illegal extra wives. We see more hints at pandering:

"If there are specific instances like stamp duty, where changes can be made in a way that's consistent with British law and British values, in a way to accommodate the values of fundamental Muslims, that is something the Government would look at." Gordon Brown.

This is the road to serfdom. Let me say that again. This is the road to Serfdom. Very soon we will see the need to get "approval" from the MCB or whohaveyou to ensure that any new tax is "Islamic". They will have a veto, or even finagle an exemption. They will get to see the budget before anyone else and their approval will be sought. It is utterly unacceptable. We saw hints of this when the MCB were worming their pimply backsides into meetings to "pre approve" anti-terror raids. MADNESS.

To "Dr" Williams, Gordon Brown, Jack "shit" Straw, the MCB and all totalitarian mysogenistic bearded goats out there I have a message for you:

If you want a disgusting inquisitional legal system, live in a place that practices it. England has the finest legal system known to mankind - HANDS OFF.

* "Dr of fairy tales" does not really wash with me, frankly.

Housing: It's The State, Stupid.

We see some extraordinary nonsense from the hatchet-faced angler fish Caroline skin Flint, suggesting the unemployed be denied access to council housing.

The unemployed will gravitate towards subsidised housing, and council housing is the vast bulk of that. Who does she think will be in council housing?

Well, for me the interest is an issue behind the inanity, imbecility and general puffery of her "policy" which is being and has been well shredded in the press and on blogs. I need not go into the point that she is systematically an awful, nasty piece of work. An arrogant, robotic Blears-in-waiting sound-bite generating question swerving, ladder-kicking lickspittle of the political class. Anyone who saw her in "reset mode" during the Politics Show when she projected a reality distortion field around the question of denying some bearded hate-mongering scrote entry into the UK that the Town Clerk of Britain refused to confront should be used in evidence and played as a backdrop to her eventual air tap dance.

But I digress...

For me the real issue is the involvement of the State in housing. If the State were not landlord of last resort or a builder and operator of vast housing stocks, interfering Authoritarian rent-seekers like Flint would not be able to get her polished fingernails into people's lives in this way - it would just not be her business. The remit of the State would be about if people are entitled* to various benefits such as unemployment or housing, not to give it out with moralistic strings, or, as Samizdata's Guy Herbert coins, Moralitarianism **

This "policy" is just the tip of the evil iceberg that is Statism and the Authoritarianism that it fosters. Once you get the State "in charge" it cannot help but grab control. Once you make the State responsible you prevent people being responsible for themselves and the consequences of their actions. You infantilise people via the poisoned chalice of Welfarism. You make them dependent and thus a client. The dependency implies strings and strings ask to be tugged and teased, like some grotesque Mafia Godfather. This is no surprise. The State is Enforcer in Chief, after all.

The answer is to remove the temptation. The State should not provide vast amounts of housing directly. Look at what they become - economic deserts. If anyone uses the term 'deprived', let them know what entity, if any, does the depriving - the State. Who stops people moving from one location to the other, treating people like cattle? The State.

I believe the key to State/subsidised housing lies in a simple rule: that nobody in receipt of State benefits including housing benefit in cash or in the form of subsidised State housing should be able to increase said allocation of housing. This specifically applies to those who enlarge their families via births, marriages, taking on more "dependents"***, importing family members, bigamous foreign-wed wives or whathaveyou. If you are living in State housing with your mum and you pop a sprog, tough - there you stay. No more rooms. No separate flat. No bump up the list. You want more kids, then do what all the poor working taxpayers have to do - earn more to pay for it, squeeze up or move under your own steam.

* sorry, I hate this word.

** another term came up in that thread - "benetax" a form of tax and benefit mix loved of the FibDumbs. Sounds like a haemorrhoid cream, and quite right as that hits to me at where I think it deserves to be shoved.

*** technically they cannot be "dependents" as someone who is dependent on another - in this case the State - is not really in a position to have their own dependents in truth.

Hague and Brown's EU Nightmare

I heard that Hague had a particularly good speech in the House of Commons over the EU treaty, tweaking the nose of the (absent) Prime Minister while making a series of all important points.

Well, here is a clip: It is magnificent, hilarious, beautifully constructed and tells a truth.

All Miliband can do is laugh, but the joke is, actually on US. Hague should keep this up over and over again banging on about how our Sovereignty is being taken away. Ridicule those Internationalist, Authoritarian, Rent-Seeking, ok, Socialist parasites.

DING! Repetition, I said "Socialist", which basically is an Internationalist, Authoritarian, Rent-Seeking parasite.

Pat Condell pulls no punches pt94.

The ever-dry, rapier wit of Pat Condell sets about the Canadian HRC dhimmitude.

Pat socks it to'em.

This is a nice augmentation to the ongoing exposure of the 'tyranny of the banal', the very lawsuit mentioned, which is going on in Canada. The Trench picks out an excellent soundbite, which pretty much nails it "I don't answer to the State".

"...ok"

Spot on. The above vid reminds me of Pulp Fiction when Tarantino was "discussing" with Jules and Vincent about coffee, storage, brains and getting f***ing divorced*.

We shall not grant them the moral authority, for they neither deserve it, nor are able to exercise it. These Fifth Columnists, these self-loathers need a mirror held up to their miserable faces for a reality check.

* no counselling, no trial separation...

March of the EU Superstate: Trial In Absentia

Via DK.

I am absolutely flabbergasted. LickspittleBaroness Scotland is about to agree - or is that rubber stamp? - to enable extradition from the UK to another EU vassal province Member State for people tried in absentia and for that person or persons so extradited to immediately go to jail, do not get your day in court, do not get a trial by your peers. People do not even need to be TOLD they are being tried in absentia. It brings a new dimension to the Three O'Clock Knock.

Off course, if you are a member of the politburo EU Commission, various attached security services, para-police forces and misc traitorous flunkies, you are in effect extra-judicial, so this never ever applies to you. Baroness Scotland is likely to be one of those who are exempt from this pestilential concept. It is presented as a "tidying up exercise" - we've heard THAT before with the Constitution Treaty. It is presented as normalisation, but is in effect reducing us all to the lowest common denominator. This is no surprise to me, seeing as the whole pus-filled, bleb-encrusted carbuncle is basically Socialist.

It, however, most certianly applies to US! Question: When I am taken away, will my wife get a receipt for her husband?

If Lickspittle Baroness Scotland agrees to this she is a Traitor. She has betrayed the people of the UK. I suspect though, as all such functionaries are, they "rationalise" this by telling themselves that they are "only obeying orders". That, and seeing as they have bought into the whole caboodle, its gravy train, pensions, sinecures, expenses and insulated lifestyle*, above even "laws" like this.

Thousands of years ago, 300 Spartans stood and defended what was then the beacon of Liberty - not idealised democracy, but the rights of people to vote and overturn their leaders by due process . ~They stood, fought and refused to yield against monarchy, tyranny and absolutism born from the delusion and pretence of divine power.

EU "Law" is not my Law. It is alien. It is what the British fought against. It is what we rejected and have been rejecting until the Fifth Columnists gained power. The English Common Law is my Law. I was born into it and I wish everyone could be born to it and remain should they so choose.

Go, stranger passing by, and tell the Spartans that we lie here dead, obedient to our Law.


* "It is as if the Pharaohs have returned..."