Wednesday, 27 May 2015

BBC and other MSM 'admit' their coverage has been biased against #UKIP

Interesting coverage of a Conservative councillor for his comments on social media. Interesting because this kind of coverage (especially on the BBC) has been almost entirely reserved for UKIP members, candidates etc. Every UKIP instance was pounced on, every other party had a free ride.

But now, suddenly, I see a national and local BBC news story on TV about a Conservative - Bob Frost here are the web links.

Dover councillor Bob Frost suspended over Big Issue tweet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-32886774

The media have dug up even more on him now...

Tory councillor, 49, suspended after calling rioters 'jungle bunnies' on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027390/Tory-councillor-Bob-Frost-suspended-racist-Facebook-jungle-bunnies-riots-remarks.html

The only reason for this to get such a high profile now is so the BBC and MSM can use this as 'evidence' that they aren't bias against UKIP. So admitting that up to now they have been.

Sorry guys, too late. There was clear bias up to the election, anything you now mention in court that you didn't mention at the time doesn't count.

For what its worth - I don't have any problem with calling black rioters 'jungle bunnies', nor white rioters 'white trash' - but pejorative comments on all black people or all white people based on their skin colour - that is out of order...

Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Two Red Lines - whether we are in *or* out of the EU.

If the UK liberates itself from the EU, there are many options open to the UK.

Other treaty arrangements with the EU include 'EEA' (European Economic Area') and  'EFTA' (European Free Trade Area). I have a little knowledge of what these other treaty arrangements cover, and some of the bits I do know, I don't like - I dislike them enough that they are no more acceptable than full EU membership.

...provides for the free movement of persons... adopting almost all the relevant EU legislation other than laws regarding agriculture and fisheries.
Except for Switzerland, the EFTA members are also members of the European Economic Area (EEA)
Further Switserland (the only non EEA member) is also part the EU single market (meaning EU rules apply to all products/services even if produced and sold internally) and a signatory of the Schengen Agreement allowing undocumented movement of people between members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement)

My Red-Lines include:-

1) UK Border Control
No entry to the UK for foreign nationals unless they have first been given specific permission. And certainly no entry for work or settlement without further qualification.

2) Domestic production/trade to be regulated only by UK domestic law, with no input from external, foreign authorities.
The UK will decide or itself it is wants to limit the power of vaccum cleaners, or sell products in metric or imperial measures etc.

Neither EFTA nor EEA pass either of these tests, so neither is an acceptable alternate should we leave the EU.

There is no time for real renegotiation with the EU - so what was the plan - to trust a promise?

The public cannot be asked to vote on a promise that would have to be honoured by all UK governments, all EU commissions and all governments of all EU member states (and the populations of those member states if they require their own referenda), even if those governments/commissions etc change between the promise being made and it being delivered!

To genuinely change the UK's relationship with the EU there must be treaty changes (scrapping most if not all of the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution).

Any 'change' that doesn't require treaty change can be reversed (or 'reinterpreted') by the EU commission at any time.

However there is no way that any serious treaty change could be made in the time that David Camerons's Conservatives have allowed.

A treaty change requires the unanimous consent of all EU members - and some of the members require their own referenda on treaty changes(!).

So, in truth, all that Cameron can offer will be a *promise* of change - and the UK public will go into a referendum voting on whether they really understand what has been promised (how often has a politician said one thing, done the opposite and claimed they didn't 'lie' the public just misunderstood?) and even if they do believe they understand, voting on whether they believe it will ever be delivered (by the UK government, the EU commission and all EU member governments).

For the referendum to be meaningful the treaty changes must be in place, the UK must have its 'new relationship' already in place, and then the public vote on 'in/out'.

The public cannot be asked to vote on a promise that would have to be honoured by all UK governments, all EU commissions and all governments of all EU member states (and the populations of those member states if they require their own referenda), even if those governments/commissions etc change between the promise being made and it being delivered.


Aid, Schmaid... But freely given charity - now you are talking!

It is wrong to tax people to finance foreign aid - people are already free to give should they so wish.

I was having a look at the latest figures I could find for charitable giving and found this:-
https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/uk-giving-2014.aspx

In 2014...

70% of UK adults gave money at least once during the year. 44% gave money to charity in an average month. In this period 55% of donations were of cash, 30% direct debit, 15% online and 11% by 'text'.

A total of £10.6 billion was freely given in this way.

In 2014, the UK government ring fenced £12 billion of our taxes for foreign aid (equivalent to the 0.7% of UK GNI (Gross National Income)) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31928078).

As you can see these two figures are not hugely out of line - it shows that UK charities are quite capable of handling these sums of money - and to do so without the coercion the state uses to collect taxes to throw around in this way.

Should the government want to be in control of such money, the state could set up its own charity for aid - allowing taxpayers to choose whether (or how much) they support the governments programme as against a genuine charity, or even giving directly to the people they may seek to help.

It is wrong to tax people to finance foreign aid - people are already free to give should they so wish.

Monday, 25 May 2015

#EURef what does #EUIn and #EUOut actually mean?

There is no option to stay in the EU as it is today - The EU is on the fast track to become a singe country. In/Out is a choice to dissolving the UK and becoming a small part of that country, or leaving the EU and the UK continuing as one of the words top 10 independent nations.

The UK is to have an in/out referendum on its EU membership.

These options will be presented as staying in meaning staying as we are vs leaving and undergoing some significant changes.

However this is not the case. What people must be made aware of is where the EU is already heading since the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution was signed. This treaty passed huge powers from EU member states to the government of the EU - the unelected government of the EU - the EU Commission.

The Lisbon treaty has already legally transferred these powers, but they are so wide ranging it will take many years for the EU commission to have all the institutions, systems and people in place to actually take these powers on...

The EU as it stands is already destined to change immensely, change as set out in the Lisbon treaty. The EU is to effectively be a single country with a single government, single army, navy and air force A few changes have been made, a few are being made, but many, many more are planned, agreed and signed up to.

There is no option to stay in the EU as it is today - The EU is on the fast track to become a singe country. In/Out is a choice to dissolving the UK and becoming a small part of that country, or leaving the EU and the UK continuing as one of the words top 10 independent nations.

Time is Money? Wrong way round mate, truth is 'Money is Time'

The most important thing in life is.... life itself. Without it, you are nothing, you are not even you, you simply 'are not'.

There are three things you do with your life - Work, Rest and Play:

Rest: Living - Time spend doing the unavoidable essentials for maintaining animal life - you have to sleep, you have to obtain food and water, you have to eat, and you have to relieve yourself afterwards. Rest is the time spent on the non optional elements of existence, time out from making free choices.

Play: Leisure - Time available to do as you please, within the resources available to you.

Work: Labour - Time you choose to spend to increase the value of your play time - either its duration or its value by increasing the resources available to you during that play time.

That is time covered but, I hear you cry, 'what about money?'. Money (wealth) is the way you exchange your time with other people and their time/resources.

The purpose of this exchange is to maximise the value (to you) of your play time. Money/wealth itself has no manifest, physical, practical purpose other than to increase the value of your play time - paying other people for their resources/work time, so you don't have to do the work yourself, so you can play for longer or play better (more agreeably or enjoyably) with the additional resources.

A resource is anything that exists. A resource may occur naturally, or it may be made by the hand of man. You may obtain a resource by spending time finding it, making it, exchanging for it or stealing it. The cost of a resource is the time it takes you to obtain it, the value of a resource is whatever it ultimately adds to the value (to you) of your play time.

So the value of money/wealth is it enabling you to call on other mens labour - to pay other people so as to increase the duration/value of your own leisure/play time.

So money is time - it represents a mans time spent labouring that you might use to increase your leisure.

Sunday, 24 May 2015

Who is to 'head' (whatever that means) the EU out campaign?

Here is one article on it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-lynton-crosby-is-tory-eurosceptics-choice-to-secure-british-exit-10272160.html

Douglas Carswell suggested James Dyson...

Err, remember the lunatic EU law cutting vacuum cleaner power to 1,600w? James Dyson wants to leave the EU because he thinks that limit is too *high* he wanted it cut to 700w (I wonder what power his devices use eh?).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11075490/James-Dyson-suggests-leaving-the-EU-over-vacuum-cleaners.html

James Dyson is exactly the kind of person that EU-Lovers say the EU *protects* us from - and they are right partly right! The EU are bad, but there are worse things! However there are far, far better things too!!

After we leave the EU, there is no point in letting a different set of authoritarian loons (like Dyson) get near the levers of power! Like the tragedy of Eire/Southern Ireland when they got independence from the UK, then spent a generation under the repressive authoritarian DeValera and Catholic Church, and once DeValera was finally out of the way they joined the EU!

UK must leave the EU for *more* liberty, not less as Dyson wants.

What was Carswell thinking when he suggesting this monster to lead the 'out' campaign?