Thursday, 20 September 2007
The main concern of the farmers is that they didn't share in the illegal profiteering.
The OFT are threatening legal action that could result in massive fines against the price fixers.
What about us? Are we to get our money back? or is this just another government 'tax' - the public are ripped off, then the government turns up and takes it from the unofficial taxman (aka thief)...
It seems the governments main driver is that they resent anyone other than themselves exploiting the people of england.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
I say that if it is decided that we are to be subject to a written constitution, then it is for us to write it.
I have not been entirely convinced of the need for a written constitution - we have done relativly well with out one. However as new governemnts continue to push the boundaries of their power (with too little opposition from the judiciary, and the house of commons), I think it may now be a good idea - but only if it is properly considered and written by us.
Having our own written constitution would also block attempts by foreigners to impose theirs upon us.
If a person is in debt, they do not have the money to pay the debt. They are obliged to either work to earn the money to pay the debt, or to suffer the legal (state-enforced) consequences of defaulting.
This is state backed slavery.
That the government is enslaving English graduates by pushing them to take loans to pay for their education is obscene.
If the government are so sure about the value of degrees (which are obviously worthless if everyone has one - someone has to clean the toilets) - then the government should be confident that they can recover the costs from later earnings by those graduates, and should keep degree courses free - or even sponsored with grants (for those from whom it is likely that they will recover the costs later in taxes).
Monday, 17 September 2007
As we are furhter oppressed by the state to give up our privacy and liberties should we wish to travel, the following passage made interesting reading..
What is a passport? A universal recommendation of a traveller's person, a certificate of security for himself and his belongings. The treasury, whose nature is to spoil the best of things, has made the passport a means of espionarge and a tax. Is it not to sell the right to travel and to move about?
PJ Proudhon - 1840
However, behind the scenes they have completely screwed up the economy and the peoples finances. And all this with out a whimper from the supposed 'opposition' parties.
Pensions are completly bust in the UK (unless you are an MP of course!); gold was virtually given away in exchange for bland euros; tax has become a weapon to attack the public rather than its proper function as funding national interests; it is harder for people to generate wealth as they are taxed on money they have yet to earn, and their property is stealthily taken from them by the governement - forcing them into public sector jobs and so in hock to the labour government so ensuring the continuance of the corrupt labour era in which we currently live.
Sunday, 16 September 2007
Every leader knows that acheiving this is not dependant on you do well yourself, but on neutralising the opposition.
Gordon Browns every action is tuned to this outcome - the latest attempts to embrace members of other political parties shows this very clearly, if everyone is in hoc to Brown for their position, noone is going to rock the boat against him.
Government by Consensus is alien to England and the English way of life - it is undemocratic and fundametally attacks the individuals opportunity for freedom.
The Lib Dems (who remembers them?) are cowtowing to Brown just as deeply as they can, and some well known Tories seem to be leaning the same way.
Brown and the Brown-Nosers are the biggest threat to the Free People of England that could be imagined - Brown must be stopped, while we still have a system to do it.
Getting rid of leaders is the greatest power we currently (seem) to have - we didn't put Brown in his current post, and this usurping must end.
When locked up in Egypt for being a member of the evil Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation, he had time to study and says he came to realise that he Hizb ut-Tahrir were compeltely misguided and misguiding and so he reformed.
However during this time it seems that he was adopted by Amnesty International as a 'prisoner of conscience' - is this really the type of person that Amnesties supports want to assist? He, himself admits that he was wrong and twisted, and that the organisation is dangerous, and that being locked up gave him the opportunity to study and see his mistake.
Will Amnesty appologise for their mistake, and ensure that they do not repeat it with others from whom the public are not safe?
Well as yet another overblown charity, I don't think there is much chance of them fessing up. But this kind of organisation and attitude that those of us who want to acheive or retain their genuine freedom are up against.
If we are not careful our children will start to think that the authorities are entitled to ask for this kind of info, and that they must comply.
Our children must know their rights, and have the confidence to assert them.
Sacrificing freedoms and rights because the authorities are lazy is part of the slippery slope that we are in great danger if sliding down - and our chilren are being groomed to be compliant.
Don't let them do it.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Any group that seeks to exclude me on any grounds (race, creed, colour, geography etc...) can hardly expect my support. Indeed if these groups specifically seek to use their concentrated power against me then what can they be other than my enemy?
Any minority that seeks disproportinate influce can hadly compain if they are trumped by the genuine majority - and they won't complain at all will they (yeah right).
I am very dissapointed with the creeping division introduced by the politicians in scotland, but as I am britisih and this island belongs to me noone is going to exclude me from any part of it. At leasts any Welsh thoughts of independance are entirely unrealistic - completely fanciful. Being british means that I am english, scottish, welsh and irish (and probably a bit german, danish, french and roman) - little, closed communities will just have to live with me the way I am.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
This doesn't seem to add up to me, as the wild fires can only release carbon that the vegitation had absorbed while it was growing - so the whole thing seems carbon neutral to me...
Anyway - as this burning is (somehow) seen as beneficial it is being funded by a large polluting industry who trade their emissions against it.
I think the flaw in trading is pretty clear -- if every time someone thinks of a way of reducing emissions, then someone increases their emissions by the same amount, then there will never be any overall reduction!
Emissions trading effectively prevents any reduction in emissions - and so is a very bad thing.
So rich people fly around the world and pay for trees to be planted to soak up the equivalent CO2 that their flights have generated.
So what is this saying to the rest of us?
It seems that it is just a selfish smug "well global warming isn't my fault".
If these people really cared about CO2 why aren't they paying to offset the emmissions of the rest of us?
Do they think that they will only be affected by the CO2 that they have caused to be generated?
Offset is a bizzare concept - so I would like to point out that its proponents are in the all together...
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
They cry that web-content is unreliable and overly trusted.
What they are really concerned about is that all of the public are being made starkly aware of the bias that is at the heart of all content regardless of media.
The professionals have been trusted, but that trust has long since been betrayed - they are no better than the amatures, just more polished so their bias is less obvious.
The 'honorable' BBC? They are among the worst - with no accountability and a inherited reputation of trustworthness that they no longer deserve.
Doctors are no different to garage mechanics - they just fix different types of 'machinery', bodies instead of cars.
Busy bodies in Enland are taking over and need to be put in their place, if advice is wanted then it will be requested - until then these busy bodies should shut up and stop spending our money on things we neither want nor need.
Monday, 4 June 2007
It isn't for our weather.
The UK is attractive because it is essentially safe and peaceful - and as a result effort peoples effort can be put into building additional wealth rather then expended on pure survival.
However there is no abolute need for immigrants to physically reside on these islands to benefit from peaceful safety - instead we should export our peaceful, safe, way of life to other geographic areas where out admirers can receive these benefits without moving so far from home.
People who want to benefit from the British way of life should be provided with a suitable area of land in their originating country in which to receive those benefits.
We need to franchise the British system to other locations, and (as with any franchise) retain complete control of the system - Immigrants come to the UK despite the fact they have had no previous say over the way Britain is run; often they are leaving countries where they have, indeed had a say in their running, and they accept that they still prefer what we have done here without them. It is a natural consequnce of this to see that there is no need for them to have a significant say in the future running of any British franchised colony - with the notable exceptions of the British populated world (America, Canada, Austrialia) few non-european countries could be considered anywhere near as desirable places to live as Britain.
Yet again more restrictions and controls are being proposed and they are being promoted as the precise opposite - additional freedoms, less intervention.
To protect the British way of life it is essential that our politicians are reigned in, and put firmly in thier place - as our servants, not our leaders. The prime minister may lead his party and may lead the house of commons, but he/she has no place attempting to lead any British citizen.
The enless cries by politicians that the public 'dont understand' and just need to be better 'educated' (until they agree with what the politicians wanted all along) must stop.
Parliamentry scrutiny means nothing for the British people - Parliament is run by politicians, for politicians. They only scrutinise for their own protection, not ours.
Monday, 19 February 2007
England belongs to the English people - every last rock and blade of grass belongs to us all, we need make no claim on it, or take any action for this to be so - it is an automtiic birthright.
As a birthright it cannot be taken away; no treaty, agreement or any other instrument can ever deny the right of the English to own England.
The Government seeks to usurp our rights to our land and air by imposing charges and taxes for access to these things that we already inalianably own.
The Government seeks to pass control of our usurped assets to foreign powers in Europe that they might one day disown us and ascend to even greater power over and remoteness from the people of this country.