Saturday, 22 December 2012

Decarbonisation - Solar and Wind - China good, UK bad?

Decarbonisation is a con to trick UK and Western taxpayers into redistibuting wealth to China.

Many people say the UK is wasting its time 'decarbonising' its energy production, because any cut in UK's use of carbon will almost instantly be replaced or even dwarfed by Chinas expansion of carbon based energy production.

In response the Green side cite China as being the worlds largest investor in renewable technologies (citing wind and solar) - suggesting that this shows that they are also committed to decarbonisation.

However, if instead of investment (spending on technology, with a view to making a profit from it later), we look at use of that technology the picture is quite different.

Country Population Electric Total (TWh) Wind (GWh) Solar (GWh) Wind+Solar (TWh) %age of Total
UK
63,181,775
363.5
5,274
8
5
1.5
China
1,347,350,000
3226.1
25,000
428
25
0.7
US
314,982,000
4111.5
70,800
808
72
1.7

Population is just for reference, but as you can see from the final column, China is way behind the UK and the US in terms of the proportion of electricity it generates this way.

Overall China looks better for 'renewables' in general, but this includes cheap/simple use of natural resources - such as hydro-electric from massive dams on massive rivers. Something not available to the UK.

So while China is make huge amounts of money from the technology it is supplying to the rest of the world it certainly doesn't seem to be eating its own dog-food.

How can this be? I suggest the only reason is that while China likes our money, they know the windmills etc that they are supplying are entirely un-economic to use...

Saturday, 10 November 2012

The McAlpine Child Abuse Farce - Just an excuse for aggressive regulation?

Many years ago an abused child, during a police interview, named Lord McAlpine as one of his abusers - how he came to believe that one of his abusers was indeed Lord McAlpine is unclear.

But, whatever hapened in the subsequent investigation and prosecutions Lord McAlpine was never charged with anything so there was no public record of him being named, and the abused child was left thinking that his abuser was indeed Lord McAlpine, and that the Lord had 'got away with it'.

After decades of rumours circulating the issue came to a head on the back of the Jimmy Savile abuse publicity when the rumour of Lord McAlpine having been accused was televised.

At this point the Lord finally stepped in, he simply communicated with his accuser who immediately withdrew his accusation - it being reported in the media that the actual abuser was not Lord McAlpine, but a relative of his.

So after decades of doubt, stress, worry and rumour this specific issue appears to have sorted out in a matter of hours... unfortunately in private so there is no public record to answer the questions that this mis-identification kicks up.

There are still questions about who it was who was mistaken for Lord McAlpine, what happened to them and why the abused individual was never informed of this 'mistaken identity' etc.

I would hope that having not bothered to resolve the issue long, long ago Lord McAlpine will be doing *nothing* that is likely to discourage abused inividuals to come forwards, be listened to and to receive justice in future.

Social media did a great service to the public in this instance - in future people should resolve such issues rapidly, not leave them to fester for decades. However, I suspect many prominent people would much rather such issues would not be resolved until they are dead - as per Jimmy Savile - these people will be pushing for more regulation and control of both the mainstream media and of social media - they must be resisted for all of our sakes.

Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Countless white turbines stand mute witness to mans inhumanity to his felow man

With Remberance Sunday approaching, I was struck by the visual similarity between the rows of white crosses in war cemetaries, and the rows of white turbines in wind farms.

I was also struck by the thought of those who will pay the ultimate price for the expensive electricity generated by these turbines - many of the people who will go hungry and even freeze to death this winter because fuel is artificially over priced will be those who had surived war.

Those who were killed in war are rememberd with small stone crosses, those who survived war but now will be killed by the expense of wind power will be remembered with huge white turbines.

Wind farms are gardens of rememberance for those sacrified to the vanity of politicians and their inhumanity to their fellow man.

Tuesday, 30 October 2012

There can be such a thing as society, and I think Maggie would agree...

In making a point about everything having to be paid for by some real person and done by some real person, there being no separate, mystical, entity with money, time and labour to do things for us, prime minister Margret Thatcher utterd the oft quoted words "there is no such thing as society".

Given the way the meaning of this phrase has been misrepresented over the years, I would like to re-present the same argument but in a slightly different way.

1) There is such a thing as society.
2) Everything that is done, society has to do.
3) Everything that is done, society has to pay for .
4) You are society, what you want done you must do, what you want done you must pay for.

Simples.

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Cameron concedes that the UK would be better off out of the EU - #UKIP win!

The current conservative line on our EU membership is that we must insist on repatriation of (some) soverign powers, and if we cannot get them back then we must leave the EU.

For this to be a rational proposition there are three models of the UK to be considered.

1) The UK 'as is' as a member of the EU
2) The UK independent and not a member of the EU
and
3) The UK as a member of the EU with some repatriated soverign powers.

Cameron and the conservatives are conceding that 1 is the worst possible option. That the UK being independent would be better for us than our current situation within the EU - exactly what UKIP have been saying for over a decade now.

Having ruled out scenario 1, there may be discussion on the merits/differences between scenarios 2 and 3.

For 2 and 3 to be assessed against one another, both options must be fully examined and modelled - this is a dream come true for UKIP - scenario 2 must fully analyse how an independent UK would operate outside the EU, expensive analysis that UKIP couldn't dream of funding itself, but work that the government must now pick up.

Let debate commence!

Friday, 28 September 2012

I just wrote to my MP - misselling financial products is fraud.

I just went to http://www.writetothem.com/ and sent the following to my MP - self explainatory I think.
(Yes I mistyped my own name - duh... getting used to a tablet/screen keyboard!)

Friday 28 September 2012

Dear Simon Kirby,

On the radio this morning I heard a representative of the FSA, the financial regulator. He spoke about the misselling of financial products, he said that as 'punishment' that the missellers had been forced to refund the money they took. When asked why there were no prosecutions he said that it was 'a longway short of fraud'.

I have to strongly disagree, I see no difference between a person selling a financial product that the customer does not need and a person selling a home owner roof repair work that is not needed, or a tarmac drive that never sets.

I think there are seriously twisted morals at work here - just because a confidence trickster wears a suit and works for a bank it does not make them any 'better' than a dodgy labourer. In both cases an innocent member of the public, often a vulerable member of the public, has had money taken from them dishonestly. For many people money is tight, and those relying on banks for advice are clearly not the best off of people.

Clearly the FSA have failed to regulate in the first place, so allowing another masive miselling scam to be undertaken. Clearly they have failed in their primary duty and have a vested interest in trying to minimise the perceived damage they have let happen.

This simply will not do, unless besuited, banking fraudsters who rip off the public are put behind bars, there is no incentive for them and others not to missell (fraudulently sell) again and again and again.

I hope you can raise this as an issue with the appropriate part of government - prosecutions must follow.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perin

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Brightons Moronic Green Council - cut public transport, boosting car sales!


Used to be able to commute to London...

The first 52 used to get to the station at 7:20 giving an hour and a half to get to work by 9 in London.

Not now

The new service (52, connecting to 47 in marina) wil get you to the station at 8:16... can't be in london before 9:30...

Used to be able to commute to Brighton...

The third 52 used to get in to Brighton station at 8:55, so good for anyone starting at 9:00 angwhere along the route.

Not Now...

The new service gets to the station at 8:16 (as above) too early for a 9:00 start along the route or in Brighton. The next gets to the station at 9:11, too late for a 9:00 start along most of the route...

And getting home is now just as bad.

Similarly the return times have been shifted about half an hour, leaving very long waits for anone finishing at 5:00 pm...

A neighbour is having to buy a car!

A neighbour of mine has decided to buy a car to get to his job at the hospital, rather than spend an extra hour and a half travelling on the new 'service'.

School/Collage? Forget it.

The old service had two buses that went to cardinal newman school in the morning (a useful service for BHASVIC too) one of these has been cut (the early one that my son needed to get to BHASVIC on time) even though Kitcat claimed to have 'saved' all the school buses.

The new service ends my family's use for buses.

The new service is no good for me when working in Brighton or London, I will have to drive (at least I already have a car,  unlike my neighbour) nor for my eldest son who attends BHASVIC, who will now (despite his asthma) have to walk a mile to the sea front, or to the Falmer road up a very steep hill to get a Brighton and Hove bus to get in on time (and avoid being double charged).

The new service doesn't actually go as close to BHASVIC as the old one, but as it is no use because of its times, maybe this doesn't matter!

Want to use the 'facilities' of central Brighton after work? Forget it.

Finally the last 52 used to depart Brighton Station at 7:28 pm, the new service means getting the 47 (to hopefully connect with the 52 at the marina) leaves the station at 6:45 pm, so if you want a beer after work, it better be a damn quick one ...

Greens - what a bunch of hopeless amatures

Who would have thought the Greens would boost the local economy by increasing car sales by cutting public transport? 

You can get a day pass currently for £3.20 (online) what is a 52/47 return going to cost I wonder? Maybe that doesn't matter either, as the service is of no use, so will not be used and will probably be cut due to non-use in the next review...

Saturday, 4 August 2012

Third World Ghettos in the UK - Must be cleared.

With the conviction of a girls parents for her murder. Murdered in the UK for behaving like the British Citizen she was, rather than the Muslim/Pakistani her parents wanted her to be. It is time to face down the multi-culturalists and their fundamentally flawed philosophy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/iftikhar-and-farzana-ahmed-jailed-for-life-for-murdering-their-daughter-shafilea-8005179.html

Here in the UK we have allowed third world ghettos to be established, ghettos populated by people with no interest in the UK other than the security and wealth that they can take from it. And as can be seen form the case mentioned above, anyone wanting to better themselves, become properly British and contribute to UK society is liable to be put to death - especially if they are female.

More than simply 'allowing' these stains on our country to exist, many (particularly on the left) have actively encouraged the establishment of these 'communities'. The irony that these lefty campaigners also pretend to support issues such as womens right would be laughable if it weren't so deadly.

Here, today, in the UK we have citizens (often girls) being bullied, beaten, having their genitals mutilated and even being murdered - usually by their own families, and with the full approbation of their deviant communities. Meanwhile the good, honest British public have been cowed into silence by years of the mobbing call of 'rascist' when ever any concern, however justified and reasonable has been raised.

These third world ghettos must be eradicated from the UK, they have not place here - like the slum clearances of the past this is something that has to be done and can only be done from the outside.

The UK has many communities, what makes them compatible with the British way of life is that people are free to join or leave them as they wish. Closed communities and no go areas cannot be tolerated here and will not go away by themselves.

The British citizens desparately trying to escape these ghettos deserve our help and support - those who seek to hold them back must be condemned and convicted for the evil they do to those around them and the damage they do the the UK as a whole.

Racists do not see these communities or any of their members as really 'British' so are happy for them to exist and run themselves - multi-culturalism is predicated on active racism. I do see these people as British, which is why I cannot accept those who behave as if they are still in their third world societies, nor allow their chidrens rights as British citizens to be ignored.

Saturday, 14 July 2012

Brighton Greens, playing at politics - administrative failure and splitting the city.

I was horrified find that the 52 bus service from Ovingdean was being cut.

The bus service from Ovingdean has never been spectacular, however it did at least connect the village to the centre of brighton going to the marina past the hospital and then via the main shopping centre on to the train station.

I use this service when getting to work in Brighton and one of my sons uses this service to get to college in Brighton where lessons can start at any time during the day.

However, I am even more horrified to discover that the savings made by cutting this service were  inaccurate by around £50,000. Further I understand that having found this £50,000 underspend, instead of it being used to save Ovingdeans one direct public transport link to the city -  the 52 bus service - it is being transferred away from Ovingdean to be used to subsidize bus services in other parts of the city.

I am at a loss to understand, firstly, how such a huge financial mistake could have been made in the city budget by the green party, but further how such a mistake could have been missed by councillors of all parties sitting on the city council.

If a mysterious late lower bid had been discovered as a result of corruption it would at least he understandable. However, for it to have been the results of poor administration beggars belief.

I understand `Big lemon` the company providing the new service do not currently use the same ticketing system as the existing Brighton bus service. As the cut 52 bus service will not take travellers to the city any more, travellers will need to change buses and so have multiple tickets and possibly lose out on discounts. If Big Lemon are to upgrade their ticketing systems I hope this is not funded by the public purse, otherwise our only direct public transport to the centre of our own city will have been destroyed simply to finance an upgrade to a private companies own assets.

Thursday, 26 April 2012

LibLabCon - you can't get a fag paper between them - #UKIP are the game changer.


Cameron and Co's problem is they exactly the nasty, old school, right wing, undeserving, toffs that the left wing are quite correct in objecting to. Cameron, Osborne et al know they don't deserve and haven't earned what they have, that they are throwbacks to an age that should have long passed.

Cameron and Co can't beleive that they are still getting away with it, so dare not make any waves that will accelerate their eradication. Unfortunately Cameron and Co see social democrats as the biggest threat to their unearned privilege, so it is to the left, the socialists, the social democrats that they make concessions, it is these social democrats that they dare not provoke.

Cameron and Co dare not provoke the socialists so follow their agenda with just a slight tweak to ensure that their own undeserved privilege is preserved.

While the battle is between undeserving toffs clinging on to undeserved power, wealth and privilege vs undeserving social democrats tying to usurp undeserved power, wealth and privilege for themselves, while this is the battle then real people, earned reward, liberty, merit, and equality of opportunity doesn't get a look in.

We are locked into an uneasy acceptance of a model that keeps the leaders of the left and the right in comfortable 'competition' while neither have any intention or interest in improving the lives of us, the masses.

LibLabCon - you can't get a fag paper between them. People who reject this phoney competition are joining and supporting UKIP - a fresh choice for the UK, a fresh choice for the people of the UK.

Sunday, 22 April 2012

Female Genital Mutilation... Cowardly Sunday Times.

This barbaric practice must be stamped out in the UK - Is everyone entrusted with power (every Government Minister, every MP, every Police Officer, ever Jounralist, every Parent, every Citizen) too cowardly to act?
Paul Perrin

The Sunday Times reports 100,000 British victims of this barbaric practice - carried out while they are British Citizens. Many not actually performed in this country, but some reportedly so.

Like so many reports, the cowards raising the issue shy away from pointing the finger where it really belongs. Instead they report on doctors and even dentists who offered to perform, or arrange for the procedure to be carried out.


But who are the real criminals? It is the parents. The parents (or guardians) entrusted with the care over a child who choose to have this grievous bodily harm and sexual abuse inflicted on their innocent charges.

Child sexual abuse has been given a special status in the UK - even if committed abroad, you can be prosecuted for it in the UK.

All parents of children who have been cut in this way, must be held to account - personally and individually - if found guilty the should be named, shamed and (if possible) stripped of their citizenship and their responsiblity for looking after children, or even coming into contact with them.

Illegally interfering with a childs genitalia is defacto sexual abuse - when will the police move? Where are the thousands of parents going to be locked up? Where are the children, taken in to care going to be housed?

Act now or be classed as savages, part of a huge step backwards for the UK.


Friday, 13 April 2012

Marx was a creature of his time - a time that has passed. If he were alive today...

I don't like Marxism it is a retarded throwback, an answer to question that no longer applies in the west (and hasn't for a very long time).

Marxists are just like other minorities who are no longer 'oppressed' but have been brought up with a 'race memory' of a time when their forebears were oppressed, and still think it applies. Jews are no longer forced to live in ghettos, excluded from mainstream society, homosexual activity is no longer a criminal offence, indeed 'civil partnerships' give same-sex couples the same benefits as mixed sex couples get from marriage, dark skinned people are no longer enslaved or segregated nor even forced to give up seats on buses (not they ever were segregated on buses in the UK...).

In fact, the American black civil rights movement actually owes the UK a huge debt of gratitude... it was during the second world war, right here in the UK that US servicemen started serving in non-segregated units - so as not to offend English sensibilities - an advance that could not be rolled back.

Just as minority rights groups in the UK are clearly trying to fight old battles with enemies who no longer exist (or never existed in their country) so Marxists and socialists are trying to fight a battle with a foe who no longer exists because opportunity is no longer about class.


Opportunity in the UK has not been about class for a long time - the first and second world war's were the final nails in that coffin. Marx broadly won his battle - but his soldiers marched on - and still do.

The enemy of opportunity today is not class it is generational. The redistribution of power in the first half of the 19th Century was huge - it transferred power from a ruling class to people from all classes. And this is where it has all gone wrong (again).

The baby boomer's had it all - a country in ruins that needed rebuilding - work, opportunity and growth lay at their feet for them to pick and choose from - which they did. They were from poor backgrounds, they were hard workers, they were careful with their money. Once the opportunity was there (as the working classes has so long demanded) they took full advantage. However, as a new experience for society, no one stopped to think whether this new way of life was sustainable. The previous model of class based privilege was a structure that had lasted for millennia - it is almost a 'natural state of affairs', it flowed down the generations almost unchanged.

This new 'opportunity for all' culture was untried until now. And with no established mechanisms for containment it went of the rails.

The new 'opportunities' were rapidly taken advantage of, and many people from all former classes got rich on it - and with their old instincts for prudence carefully tucked it all away. Property prices rose, billions of pounds were locked into pension plans, the squirrels took every newly available nut and not only hid them away, but guarded them jealously.

They guarded their new wealth so jealously that they even refused to pay for many of the new services (that would previously been considered luxuries) that they now demanded. Instead of paying themselves for healthcare, welfare, education, development etc, they decided that the government should borrow the money to pay for these things. Should the government ever have to repay, then the baby-boomers knew they had the money in the back to cover the bill - but there was no need to hand it over just yet...

What they forgot were their children - generation-x - the children of the careful, prudent baby-boomers who were brought up to be carefree because everything was now freely available. A generation they were now in the process of betraying.

Eventually the baby-boomers saw what a good time the youngsters were having and wanted a slice for themselves - they forgot their old prudence and started spending the wealth that they had so carefully and earnestly put aside for so long. The boomers conveniently forgot that the money they were now spending was already earmarked to pay for the services (former luxuries) that they had been receiving for so long.

And here we are now - the baby boomers bills are coming in - generation-x never had the money to pay these bills - the boomers had kept it all to themselves, and by now have either spent it all over again, or hidden is so thoroughly that no one else will ever get their hands on it.

The bills are coming in, but they are also still being run up. The boomers don't care too much, their hidden wealth will see them out before the final demand is ever seen. Generation-X are still only just realising what has happened (hence articles like this one). Meanwhile it is dawning that on the Generation-Y (the children of Generation-X) that they will be picking up all the bills and there will be *no* wealth to cover it.

Boomers lived on credit, but originally had the wealth to cover it - they bow out having spent everything, leaving a wasteland. Now, at this late stage,  Generation-X have bills (past present and future) to pay with no opportunity to create wealth, but worse still, Generation-Y and beyond are starting out with their credit already maxed out...


  • Boomers entered adult life with no money, but unlimited opportunity.
  • Generation-X entered adult life with no money and limited opportunity.
  • Generation-Y enters adult life with huge-debt and no opportunity.


The two world wars brought about socialism that 18thC philosophers/politicians would have died for. But because the 'race memory' of many people kept them thinking that they were still oppressed, needed/deserved more it brought about (and continues to advance) the very selfish, indulgent, unsustainable 'social democratic' society that is destroying us and will kill our kids.

If Generation-X won't bite the bullet, then Generation-Y and beyond will - they must reject the debts that are passed on to them - they owe the past nothing, Generation-X were stupid they let there parents spend everything and leave them will the bills - Generation-Y must be smarter, and not let the dead rule the living.

'Social democracy' is a long slow suicide - you can only really trust yourself, look at where trusting others has brought us. The rot started in Europe - the EU - and the UK got sucked in and is being stripped of what wealth it does have to foot their bills - Generation-Y have to turn this around if they are to have any future worth living at all...

Saturday, 7 April 2012

Have a bit of pride, the LibLabCon social democrats are for losers.

A dozen years of Labour government under Blair/Brown stripped the British people of their pride. Stripped them of their pride in 'doing things for themselves', 'working hard for good rewards', 'playing hard because it had been earned', 'taking care of themselves'.

Under John Major the previous Conservative administration got more votes than ever they did under Margaret Thatcher! It was a last ditch regrouping - Thatcher had instilled a confidence in the people of the nation that they could each be masters of their own destiny, and (now without Thatcher to maintain it) much of the nation desperately wanted to beleive that Major could continue it.

The choice for voters, wanting to keep their freedom and independence, was made easier by Labour having the buffoon of a welsh windbag Neil Kinnock leading them. In 1977 William Hague made a speech (as a 16 year old!) had captured the tone that lasted almost 15 years (http://free-english-people.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/william-hagues-1977-conservative.html). Kinnock was everything that was despised at the time - he supported dependency on the state, reward for mediocrity, limiting the benefit you could get from your own hard work, and end to personal reward for personal success. And the voters turned out and voted in record numbers for the (hoped for) heir to Thatcher/Hague individual freedom and pride, against the rush for mediocrity and dependency of the Labour party under Kinnock.

Unfortunately, Major did not live up to his promise, he simply did not have the leadership qualities to keep the Conservative party under control. So when Tony Blair came on the scene, aparantly rejecting the call to slothful of the Kinnock years, seeming to offer Thatchers pride with a twist more compassion for those who didn't flourish under their own steam or by their own efforts, then the die was cast and New Labour rose to power.

But while Blair's New Labour was busy fronting up the party, the old dark heart of Labour was busy in the Treasury under Brown. Over a dozen years, The smiling snake oil sales man Blair convinced people that everything was rosy, while Brown in the Treasury cut freedom, independence and self-sufficiency off at the knees - turning a nation of shopkeepers into a nation of welfare dependants, and robbing people of the pride they once had.

The Conservative party had a string of failed leaders (including William Hague, who had so capture the tone in 1977) - they failed because they didn't recognise what had happened to the country under New Labour - they were appealing to proud people who no longer existed, such people had been forced to change under New Labour rule.

Eventually David Cameron took charge and turned the Conservative party completely - he recognised what had happened under New Labour and had a choice - whether to appeal to people to rebuild their lost pride and progress again to self motivation, individual reward for personal effort, or whether to pander to the culture created under New Labour. He went for the latter - and where Blair had won as 'Conservatism but with an extra twist of compassion', Cameron now offered 'New Labour but with an extra twist of capitalism'.

This is where we are now - with the three old parties all offering slightly different flavours of the same dish - 'social democracy' - socialism with elections. A system that  that eats away at the motivation and pride of the workers from the bottom, so turning layer after layer of workers into state dependants. A system that will keeps going until so much has been eaten away that what remains simply cannot afford to support the increasing number of dependants any more.

LibLabCon - all social democrats now - you can't get a fag paper between them - but professional politicians are well paid however badly the country performs, so what do they really care?

The people of the UK only have one way out - and that is to build a path out of this social democracy nightmare, out of state dependency and back to self-sufficiency, self-motivation, reward for effort, a better standard of living by working rather then taking state handouts.  Where work brings rewards and Welfare as an essential safety net for the desperate, not a fun trampoline for the feckless.

Only UKIP even recognise that such a path is needed - and UKIPs' 6 point plan is the overview of how it can and will be delivered. The sooner the UK turns itself around, the sooner we will get back to where we should be as a first rate nation for our citizens and a first rate nation in the world.

(UKIP 'What We Stand For' http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/wwsf.pdf)

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Paulsops Fables and Fairy Tales: Creation vs Evolution

On a small planet in a galaxy far, far away...

A group of men and women sat around a table discussing the meaning of life, where they had come from, particularly whether they had been 'created' by some great inteligence, or had 'evolved' by chance and random event - and in any case would they 'owe' anything to a creator even if one existed?

Back on planet earth, in the board room of a hugely wealthy and powerful corporation they received a crackling transmission. A transmission secretly relaying this discussion, captured with microphones concealed in the very pod that had taken the first artificial organisms from earth to that small distant planet.

The people of that distant planet didn't know about the pod, nor the microphones, nor the transmissions - if they did, it would have answered the question they were now discussing. However, all that was about to change. The board of directors consulted a document drawn up billions of years earlier entitled "Intellectual Property Rights to Genesis DNA and all its descendent", the life was owned by them, by law, and they were about to start preparing to collect what was rightfully theirs - before it got too smart for them to recover...

What was the name of the planet that those distant creatures inhabited? Funnily enough, the creatures called their planet 'the earth' - orbiting the sun between venus and mars...

If you allow life to be owned, don't be surprised should you find yours has an owner (other than you) and they turn up to collect.

Tuesday, 3 April 2012

Paulsops Fables and Fairy Tales: The Three Towers

There was an island in the middle of an ocean. It was quite a large island; it was large enough to have three citys around its shores. The citys were far apart and each was quite different in its culture and language.

Inland, the island was hard to traverse and as they hadn't invented the aeroplane the people of each city didn't have much contact with each other - there were few overland visitors between the cities, just the occasional intrepid explorer, trader and merchant., But the people got on quite well together when they did meet, and were always very interested in the different ways of the foreigners - despite the language barriers.

The people of the island had, however, invented the boat. It so happened that each city had been built on its own bit of coast so the people could benefit from the plentiful supply of fish and so each city also had a harbour where boats could safely dock to load and unload goods and people.

So it was the means of the sea that contact, communication and trading between the people of the different citys happened. However despite the safe harbours, each city had dangerous rocks near the entrance to their harbour, and if it was dark or foggy (and it often was foggy just off shore) ships were liable to be sunk - losing the lives of their crew, and the goods in their holds.

Losing ships in this way made imported goods very expensive, as many would end up at the bottom of the sea, and the merchants would have to make good those losses by charging even more for the goods that were successfully landed. The people of each city accepted this, as they understood the risks and the expense. If a merchant was unlucky they might lose all their goods, crew and so their fortune - and maybe even their own lives, but if a merchant got lucky and avoided the losses they could be come very, very wealthy indeed, so there was no shortage of people willing to take the risk.

This is how things had been for a very long time, as long as anyone could remember. But one day things changed. A man had an idea; he called it 'the light-tower'. All it needed was a tall building to be put on top of the dangerous rocks, with a light at the top so ships could be warned of the rocks and so avoid them. When people asked how the light would be kept alight he realised that he would need people to live in the tower to look after the light, and so he changed the name of his creation to 'the lighthouse'.

People knew that these lighthouses would be difficult to build and so would be expensive - and that the people who lived in them would have to be paid too. But they also realised that if the lighthouses meant that ships didn't sink, then imported goods could be far, far cheaper so they would save money there. With this in mind the people decided to build the lighthouses with their own savings, expecting to make good their costs from lower priced imports in future.

However, at first, it didn't work as the people expected, the merchants said that people had been happier with the higher prices in the past, so should continue to pay them - because that's what the goods were worth to the people - and now sailors weren't drowning the people should be happy with that as a return for their 'investment'. So without the risk of losses, and by keeping the high prices, all the merchants expected to become very, very wealthy indeed.

However it didn't work as the merchants expected either, the people were outraged and turned off the lights until the merchants agreed to lower their prices - which they did.

So the people had paid for the lighthouses to be built, and continued to pay for staff to live there and run them, in return they got cheaper imported goods; and the merchants had a more reliable income with far lower risk.

For many years this worked and every one was happy.

Then the Great Inventor (as he was now known) had another idea - he invented dynamite. Dynamite was a powerful explosive that could blow things up – even hard rock. The Great Inventor realised that with the dynamite the dangerous rocks could be blown clean out of the sea, this would make it safe for ships and a lighthouse would not be needed any more. In his own city this is just what they did.

The rock was gone, the lighthouse was gone and the people who used to live there went back to other jobs. The people still had their lower prices, but no longer even had to pay staff to look after the lighthouse so everyone was better off.

When the other cities heard about this, not everyone was so happy - especially the lighthouse staff. They had got used to being important and being well paid and didn't see why that should change.

In fact the lighthouses that had once been simple (but strong) buildings now looked more like palaces on the inside - no expense has been spared for these important people and their vital service - and the weren't about to let that go with out a fight.

So in the second city a campaign was put in place to remind the people how much of their money had already been spent on the lighthouse - it was explained that having spent so much of their money making the building so wonderful it would be 'madness' to blow it up. Madness to replace a beautiful, luxurious monument with an empty space. The discussion raged, but while many people wanted an end to the continued spending now that it wasn’t essential, there were also many people convinced by the staffs’ campaign who now agreed that it would be 'madness' to lose such a wonderful monument that already worked so well.

Without overwhelming support for blowing up the rocks and losing the light house nothing changed and the arguments just rumbled on and on and on, the staff kept their jobs and privilege and the people kept paying their wages – just as they had been doing for years. The staff were no longer as well liked by everyone, but their comfort made that an acceptable price to pay, meanwhile the people protested every time they got their salary-bill and they discussed new plans on how the lighthouse could be removed and the rocks blown up - plans that never quite came to pass.

In the third kingdom, the staff saw what had happened in the other two and didn't much like either result – to lose their jobs or to be despised! So they came up with a different, new plan. They told the people that they didn't like them having to pay taxes to finance the staff, and that the lighthouse could be made 'self financing' or 'financed from own resources' a complicated way of saying "we won't be on your tax bill" all the people had to do was give up ownership of the lighthouse itself, giving it to the staff and they would look after everything.

The people agreed to this immediately - a tax cut, free money – how wonderful... Of course it wasn't quite so simple as that, after all the staff had to get money from somewhere... and this they did, quite simply - they stopped each passing ship and made a charge to the merchants for the service the ship and merchant had received - of course the light house staff could charge what they wanted as the lighthouse was theirs, and without it the merchants could lose all their goods.

Of course, once the merchants had paid the lighthouse staff what they demanded, they needed to recover the expense - so they put their prices up. The people were not totally happy with this, as they weren't making a saving after all, just instead of it being a tax that they had a say over and annual reminders of, the lighthouse staff and merchants were now completely in charge of the cost that got passed on to the people!

But after a while this was mostly forgotten or ignored - taxes were lower, no one ever saw a bill for the light house staff, prices seemed 'reasonable' based on the costs/expenses paid by the merchants so every thing settled down.

When the people eventually leaned what the other cities had done, someone did suggest blowing up the rocks so the lighthouse would no longer be needed - but everyone agreed that the rocks and lighthouse now belonged to the staff... so it was only they who could choose to blow it up, and would obviously need compensation for all the money they would no longer earn – and that would be an amount that no one could possibly afford, so the idea was soon forgotten and every one got on with their daily lives. The lighthouse staff got wealthy, and the people almost unknowingly picked up the bill.

City one, where everything work in everyones best interest was called Liberty; City two where logic was put aside for 'social benefit' so no one could quite agree was called social democracy, and City three where people were ripped off, but didn’t even realise it – and had no control even I they had realised it - that was called the EU.

Paulsops Fables and Fairy Tales: The fairest of them all.

The Evil Witch looked in to her magic mirror and uttered those immortal words "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?".

The Evil Witch did not feel she really need to ask - as she knew she had taken actions to ensure she got exactly the answer that she wanted. So asking now was just a vanity thing, she did it so she could hear the mirror say the words that she so loved to hear.

Years before, The Evil Witch had come up with a cunning plan to be 'fairest of them all' with no effort on her part. Instead of making herself fairer than everyone else, she simply had to 'remove' anyone who was more fair - this would leave her as the 'fairest one of them all' and no one could dispute it without the risk being 'removed' themselves.

So The Evil Witch had enchanted thousands of henchmen and instructed them to go forth and butcher and destroy anything more fair than herself - that was a lot of destruction and butchering!

So when The Evil Witch uttered those immortal words, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all", she knew the response she would get... at least she thought she did... but it was not to be, the answer that came back instead was:

"Shirley Williams, you evil witch, your comprehensive schools are not the fairest of them all, for a few grammar schools still exist and are expanding".

The Evil Witch was enraged that her orders for destruction had not been fully carried out, but dare not show it as it might create doubt in the minds of her enchanted followers - some of whom were now quite senior and had come to genuinely believe that not only were comprehensives 'the fairest' of what remained, but were 'fair' in an absolute sense - or at least this is what some of them (rather implausibly) claimed to believe.

What did The Evil Witch and her evil followers do? The answer to this, gentle reader, will have to wait for another day, when the Kent satellite Grammar schools situation is resolved and we shall see if The Evil Witch and her evil plan prevails, or if the people seize the opportunity to free their land from her evil, twisted spell so their children do not have to suffer as they did, but can learn, grow and prosper with social mobility once more, as previous generations had.

Sunday, 1 April 2012

Drug legalisation... opiates...

UKIP policy for drug legislation is to have a Royal Commission to take an unbiased look at the evidence - this seems like a good policy to me - review and follow the evidence to give us the best outcome possible.

Having said that I took a look at cannabis and opium - I chose to look at these as it would seem reasonable for people to 'grow their own' if they were legal... But I ended looking at opium (opiates) in most detail - opium, morphine, heroin.

The big surprise to me was that it is commonly known that, in themselves, they are not harmful substances, pure morphine and heroin do no damage to the human body beyond the potential for constipation(!), as a 'natural product' raw opium is not such a pure substance so is harder to so specific about.

The nasty medical state associated with 'addicts' is universally considered to be a result of their own poor hygiene and contaminated supplies - not the opiates themselves.

The other issue is 'addiction' - a person having any dependency is seen by some as a cause for concern of itself.

A typical addict in the UK will aparantly spend all their free time securing their next 'hit', so as to avoid going through withdrawal. This accounts for people who become addicts finding that their lives fall apart - everything comes second to getting the next hit, they have to put their jobs, families and everything to one side to seek out a supply of their drug - and as their lives fall apart, it becomes harder for them to finance their addiction - having to pay whatever the illegal suppliers demand - without a job, they are often reduced to stealing from their families and from strangers.

I have to say - having looked through all of this, it seems to me that the 'problems' associated with opiate addiction are a direct result of the legislation banning them - nothing to do with the drugs/chemicals themselves. I am still looking at evidence, research - but so far it seems pretty solid that it is the legal ban that causes the suffering and pain, not the substances.

If this is the case for opiates, one has to wonder what researching other illegal drugs would turn up

Thursday, 29 March 2012

On Property and Ownership of Assets - Numpty vs Joe Soap

Property only has any value if ownership rights can be enforced.

Ownership rights are enforced by 'society', 'the state', 'the people' or however you want to characterise it. So it is we, the people, who create all property value - so logically and morally everything belongs to all of us (who are willing to fight for it).

Permitting private property (enforcing property rights) only make sense while we the people get fair value from doing so.

This works well where the 'owner' can make better use of the property than we could ourselves - and in return they are expected to share a proportion of the 'extra' we have enabled them to create, extra value that we ourselves could not have created.

Permitting/Allowing an entrepreneur to own assets worth (say) £10,000,000 is fine, because with it they will create more jobs, goods etc than joe soap could with the same assets - in return part of that 'exrta' is shared among the true value creators (property right enforcers).

Conflict arises where Numpty get control of such assets. When Joe Soap knows that he could make as good use (or better) of those assets than Numpty can, Joe wonders why he is honouring/enforcing property rights that are destroying value.

This is most offensive to Joe when Numpty adds no value at all - where the assets Numpty controls, simply by virtue of existing, create more value - value that Numpty gets all the benefit of.

The current problem is that many people think property is 'real and absolute' and that property rights are 'real and absolute' so they are not accountable to anyone for them.

But property exists because we choose to allow it (even created the very concept of) - and we will continue to do so while we beleive it is in our interests to do so. But undeserving rich.. beware...

Saturday, 24 March 2012

Why the freedom in the UK depends on the monarchy and the Church of England.

The Monarchy

The main reasons people use to attack the monarchy are actually the main reasons they are better than elected heads of state.

The main 'complaint' about having a monarch is that they aren't in place based on merit.

A monarch is not elected/selected by an electorate, their skills and suitability are never put to the test - the job is simply their by virtue of birth.

This is also the best argument in favour of having a monarch instead of an elected head of state.

The arrogance of elected leaders is astounding - in the UK for many years our choice of Prime Minister has been between the Labour leader or the Conservative leader. While the winner shows great hubris in explaining the great skill, inteligence etc that they have had to employ in beating their opponent, in truth there is no absolute standard.

Our elected PM, is not elected against some absolute measure, they are simply just slightly better than 'the other one'.

A monarch is fully aware that they have their position simply through an accident of birth - it is certainly up to them how good a monarch they become, but the fact they are monarch is no personal reflection on them.

So while elected leaders pretend they are something special - and end up believing it, and acting on it as if they are all powerful gods - a hereditary or other process of merit-free succession keeps the office holder firmly in their place as the beneficiary of good fortune, a debt that they have then to repay to the people of the state they head.

The UK monarchy have done far more to justify their live styles/wealth than (say) Tony Blair or the Kinnock clan ever have, or ever will do.

The Church of England

Just as an unelected head of state is a good thing to keep the role away from the slugs that would otherwise weasel their way into the role under a guise of supposed 'democracy', so the Church of England has an essential role in England - even for the non-religious. Unfortunately it is a role that is is almost completely failing to perform - however this is not a reason to abandon it, either they must raise their game and fulfil this role, or the people must find a new champion to undertake it.

The role is to remind and ensure that people remember that humanity is right at the top of the tree of life, that we are all created equal, and that we are not ultimately accountable to anyone or anything in this world. 

In their words, what we do is by God's will, and it is by God that we are ultimately judged. Not by earthly powers - but whether you believe in God or not, the message is sound.

It is not for any earthly power that people are to be ordered about, their lives controlled, their spirit suppressed. Whether you believe in God or not, this principle needs to be maintained, and the Church of England was the institution that used to maintain it.

Conslusion

With the monarch protecting the people of the UK from big tyrants, and the Church of England protecting us from smaller ones England was a pretty good and free place. But this is being put under pressure by 'presidential' style governments and other manipulative, interfering organisations (the EU, the UN, big NGO's (non governmental organisations). 

If we don't reassert the influences that these two great institutions once held with out question, then our children will be looking at a bleak future, where individual freedom and liberty are long forgotten, or even dirty words.

Monday, 19 March 2012

The New English Revolution

The crunch is nearly upon us.

It is now generally accepted that as things stand, the standard of living for most people in the UK is falling and will continue to do so.

The 'baby boomers' of the post war years were generally hard working, prudent and self reliant. They massively grew the economy and wealth of the country, and they benefited from the wealth that they created.

However, they didn't leave much room for following generations to do the same, and didn't pass on the opportunities. The same traits that created the wealth also made (and makes) them cling to it. The following generations have no ownership of the wealth the boomers created, and there is not the scope for more growth for them to create their own wealth.

We are at a transition point - where the boomers' wealth is being hoovered up by big business and fabulously wealthy individuals/families - it will never reach the bulk of generation x and their descendants.

In response the government (that is ministers and MPs) are playing a nasty, evil trick - in league with the bankers/money men - a trick to give the impression that every thing is 'business as usual' and this is just a 'blip'.

They are tricking us into spending all the money we have yet to earn (and/or spending it in our name) - spending all that money now, today, in return for a few last years of feeling wealthy. They are getting us into debt on a scale that is almost unimaginable.

But the day of judgement will come, when we have nothing left to hoc or borrow against - our future pay/labour and that of our children born and yet to be born will have been spent. We will then be working for *nothing* to pay it back - and the interest charges on the debt mean it will, in reality, *never* be paid back. Our lives, our very souls and those of our descendants are being promised to the devil in perpetuity.

It is not yet too late to turn back. Not quite. But it soon will be. The choice is ours, it has to be made now, and it is our children and their children to come who will pay the price if we get it wrong.

Food, shelter, freedom, security - these are our essentials and we can have them for pennies - everything else is icing on the cake and is not worth risking our futures for.

Friday, 16 March 2012

Marriage is not for the good time, it is about the bad ones.

There is much talk of 'same-sex marriage' - supported by the all the main three party leaders. I think the phrase is clearly an oxymoron, as marriage is a step on a journey of a man and a woman having children together and bringing them up is a safe secure environment. Marriage is clearly optional - you don't have to be married to have children, or to stay together to bring them up. However it is there for those who want it as a basis for starting a life together in which to start their family.

The big issue that everyone seems to have missed out on is what marriage is actually for - it keeps being presented as a rather trivial celebration of love and an excuse for a party (the wedding). But where marriage really counts is not in the good times (where everything is easy) but in the bad times when things seem bad and dark. Marriage is a constant and permanent reminder that you have chosen to stay together through thick and thin. Children being brought up by their real parents is the gold standard for human interaction. For many, marriage is the life line that keeps families together when everything else says 'give up and let go', making the difference between keeping going and making things work or throwing in the towel.

Serial marriage/divorce (as practices by the rich and famous) does damage the institution - but they have not broken it. But trivialising marriage as a 'party' to celebrate a good time will indeed break it.

Getting married for your future children/family is a serious commitment - getting married to show 'how much you love each other' at the time is just vanity.

Don't let vanity destroy the institution of marriage - 'the family' is weak enough nowadays already.

Friday, 9 March 2012

Taxpayers as government Human Shields against themselves!

I heard a far left socialist complain about their child's taxpayer funded 'Child Trust Fund' (a £500 bond given by the government at birth to all kids) had actually been going down in value over the past few years.

I was quite pleased to see, maybe, a chink forming in their blind faith that 'the state knows best'. Presented with such clear evidence that the state was at best incompetent or worse 'a thief', one can only hope they follow that thread and find the truth.

My contribution to that journey of theirs?

I explained that the government can never be trusted with money, nor to benefit the public. By example I pointed to three examples - the Child Trust Fund, Right to Buy (council house purchase subsidised by the taxpayer), and Pensions.

There are many flaws in the way the state manages each of these things, but the one overriding point of these things is that they are entirely for the governments benefit and the supposed 'beneficiaries' actually get nothing - worse, the government steals from the public under the guise of 'helping out'.

These things - Child Trust Funds, Right to Buy, Pension - are not gift horses, they are ravenous sharks, crocodiles and vultures created to give the government more of our money to play with without mentioning the dreaded 'tax' word.

First, Child Trust Funds - you are obliged to take this £500 and hand it to a life insurance company to manage for 16 years until your child is grown. You have no say/control over it - meanwhile the life company uses this money to make profit for itself, pocketing most, but handing a little back to you which it then takes a fee from... Don't like it? Tough.

But at least your child is getting something back eh? Well have you seen the new university tuition fees that the government have extended now? With one hand you get what is left of a £500 16 year investment (that you had no control over), with the other you are charged £30,000 to take a degree course - bargain or rip off?

Secondly, Right to Buy - a relatively poor council house occupant is given a huge subsidy to encourage them to buy the house they live in. The taxpayer puts up many thousands and the occupier takes out a mortgage on the balance - again the life company/bank/mortgage provider gets more business, more of our money to make profit on and take fees out of.

But at least this non-wealthy individual gets a valuable asset to pass on to their children and help their social mobility along eh? Well do you know what happens to poor peoples houses when they get old? The get sold off and the money used to support you in your old age and in a care home. You put your money in to a house, and now the state takes it all back (your cut and theirs) and gives you 'care' that everyone else gets for free - bargain or rip off?

Nest, Pensions - the state are 'kind' enough to give you tax breaks on pension contributions - hurrah! How do you get them? Well... you don't, our old friends the life insurance companies do - you pay a life company a fixed amount each month, the government gives them the tax you paid on that money. As usual the life company gets to do what it likes with the money - in this case it is their own money... you don't 'invest' your pension contributions you pay towards the promise of a pension - the money is theirs in return for the promise of a pension (size unknown, value unknown etc so no risk to them, just free money for them to play with now), and the government can dip into those funds (with all kinds of tax tricks) when ever it pleases.

But at least you get a pension at the end of it, so have a better life eh? Well who can say? expected returns from pensions have fallen through the floor and means testing on benefits means what you get as pension will most likely be knocked off elsewhere. And through your whole life you were deprived of the use of your own money in return for this - bargain or rip off?

So where does 'human shield' come into this? Simply these three government tax-tricks are perceived by the supposed 'beneficiaries' as a *good thing* and they will fight to 'protect' them! The government have created back door taxes the people love, support and want to participate in! Unfortunately this is done by making fools of us, while we slog our guts out creating the wealth, the life insurance, banking and related industries are coining it in and divvying it up with politicians.

I want to attack this government theft, but have to overcome the public who will do all they can to protect the government that enslaves them... sheesh!

Thursday, 1 March 2012

Why 'redistribution' based on income cannot end poverty.

The left love to talk about wealth redistribution - it seems so simple take money from those who appear to have a surfeit, and give it to those 'in poverty' and everything is rosy - no poor.

If the world ended the day after this mass redistribution then it would appear to have 'worked', but life is not static.

If the poor are 'given' wealth - what will they do with it? Well, presumably they will spend it and end up poor again... When they spend it, where will it go? Well, presumably to the 'wealthy people' where it came from, they got wealthy by selling things to the poor in the first place!

So a one off redistribution is (at best) a temporary 'fix', with the previous state soon returning. Ones next thought might be to make this 'redistribution' a regular event, or even a continuous process.

But if redistribution is repeated regularly or continuously, then we are taking money from the rich, giving it to the poor for the rich to earn back again. If the rich are only ever working to get their own money back, why would they bother at all? Being 'rich' simply entitles you to hand over your wealth to others - what is the point to it? So production stops and everyone is poor.

At least everyone being poor is 'equality' and so is 'fair' in some twisted way I guess.

Its people wot matter - not inanimate legal entities, they are false idols.

Just a short blog against respect for 'organisations' or other non-live entities - whether a company, organisation, country, department, political party, union etc.

Only *people* have feelings, only *people* have motivations, only *people* do things, only *people* can be happy, only *people* can be sad, only *people* can be grateful, only *people* can be sorry, only *people* can be accountable, only *people* can feel, only *people* matter.

People deserve respect; non-human legal entities (or groups or collectives) deserve NO respect - there is nothing to give that 'respect' to, nothing to receive it.

Do you feel loyalty towards a company? If so its shareholders and directors have done a job on you - they have perverted you human nature. A company is just a bit of paper, a registration document, a vehicle to make taxation easier. You may feel loyalty towards people employees by a company, or maybe its shareholders or directors - it matters what happens to them they are people, but a company is false idol not worthy of emotional attachment.

In relation to emotional responses, these 'idols' are tools used to manipulate you. Like a newly hatched chicken being shown an old Wellington boot and imprinting on it as its 'mother' - people are led into making emotional commitments to these false idols. Human emotions/attributes are perverted for the gain of others.

People need to wake up and look around - ever been angry with a company/organisation? What did the company care? it has no brain. Ever felt disloyal about moving your custom from a company/organisation? what did the company care? it has no feelings. Ever had an apology from a company/organisation? What does that even mean? what did the company feel sorry 'with' its cheque book?.

While you are focusing on companies/organisations or whatever, the people in charge of that entity are picking your pockets. People are better than this, they are worth more than this - an individual always trumps an organisation of any kind (not the people who may be part of the organisation, but the organisation itself).

Next time you hear anyone emoting about something inanimate, call them out on it. They are demeaning themselves and all humanity.

Tuesday, 28 February 2012

Tough choice? Not really... Taxpayer funding for long term treatment of foreign patients VS surgery for a UK citizen.

I saw two stories about medical treatment in the UK today:-

Free (NHS - so taxpayer funded) treatment to foreign nationals in the UK - at a cost of around £18,000 per year each.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100140001/free-nhs-treatment-for-foreign-hiv-patients-no-wonder-were-out-of-cash/


And

A Sussex family trying having raised £15,000 need a further £10,000 for an operation to let their disabled son walk.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9557935.Family_s_bid_to_raise___10k_to_help_boy_walk/

While there are UK citizens having to pay for treatment, there is no case for taxpayers to fund treatment for chronic (long term) conditions for non-citizens - the choice here is simple.

Sunday, 26 February 2012

1400's "Heretic!" - 1600's "Witch!" - 1990's "Racist!" - 2000's ?

Its good to see that these mindless calls to 'mob' a victim are out of favour at the moment.

At these various times these various accusations have had the magical quality of automatically condemning the accused - someone would make the accusation and the 'mob' would descend - then regardless of the outcome of any investigation/trial the accused would still be condemned/tainted by the accusation alone.

In the politically correct 1980's up to around the 2000's 'racist' was an accusation that could be made against anyone and you could be reasonable sure that the mere accusation would damage and condemn the accused even if untrue - it lost its 'magic' when it was finally recognised that most of the nasty people making the accusations were deliberately using it in that way.

What these abusers had no regard for was that by crying 'wolf' so often the word is degraded and real accusations get ignored, so genuine victims are left impotent. But this is of no concern to the false accusers, their motivation is simply to damage people they don't like in anyway they can, at any cost to society or to real victims.

Many of Brighton's politicians seem to have learned their lesson in 2010 when they and supported a 'call to arms' (http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/09/unwise-brighton-politicians-put-back-on.html) along with Brighton Unity against 'March for England' - a call intended to bring violence to the streets of Brighton.

Even at the time many UAF (unite against fascism) supporters blogged to condemned the call, as March for England while being 'pro-England' were not considered racist, and the racist organisation EDL (English Defence League) that sometimes tried to muscle in on March for England events had been told to keep away and had agreed to do so.

But there are still some idiots that continue to throw around worthless, bogus allegations - particularly when they have no argument of substance to advance, and particularly when they seek to cover up their own racist or otherwise objectionable views.

Saturday, 25 February 2012

#Localism #Roots and #Racism - Cultural AIDS and Social Arthritis - #bhbudget

Recently during the Brighton and Hove budget debate an item was raised that, I think, is the nub of all these issues.

One councillor questioned the commitment that newcomers/incomers to an area have to the history and culture of the people of that area, as compared to people 'born and bred' in an area. In return another councillor (not a native of the area) suggested that incomers were a good thing to prevent inbreeding.

In many university towns there is some friction between the transient students and the settled/native population - students being seen as non-taxpayers who have no long term commitment to the area, the native population feeling that they are picking up the bill and getting no long term benefit in return.

In Brighton and Hove this seems to be coming to a head as more or the originally transient students settle permanently in the area attracting other newcomers in - often without ever having 'integrated' with the native population.

Where does this leave 'localism'? Are the 'locals' whoever happens to be in an area on a particular day? If so, at least that is clear - but if not, then where is the line drawn between who is and who isn't local, and so who should be given the power that 'localism' is supposed to be handing down?

To apply the blanket term 'racists' to people who want to preserve the heritage/culture simply doesn't make sense - that would suggest that all 'anti-colonials' were simply racist and should have just submitted to colonial rule. This isn't about race or genetics, its about culture, the social norms of a society and their development.

It seems to me that the UK is suffering from Cultural AIDS and Social Arthritis - having never had to really defend the our way of life on our own soil, earlier migrants and their cultures have simply been absorbed - adding what good they may have, and letting the bad fade away. But now we see the rise of more militant alternative ways of life - ways that don't want to develop/integrate with what is here, but to simply replace what we have.

The UK's culture has never needed that much of an immune system to preserve the good, it simply overwhelmed/adapted/integrated good new things letting the bad fall away - but now with mass migration, bad, unwanted elements of some cultures are establishing permanent footholds and will not simply fade away - our immune system is being overwhelmed.

And even where our society does have some defences left, like a body with arthritis, it ends up turning them on itself - while the good fights the good, the bad simply breezes through.

If someone seeks to join a society, I would, at the very least expect them to make the effort to learn the language well enough to communicate effectively, and to have the humility to understand and absorb the culture before setting themselves up to direct it.

Linda Hyde puts the case for local people and their attachment to local heritage


Ania Kitcat suggests incommers are good to prevent inbreeding

Friday, 24 February 2012

#Brighton and #Hove Council and #Green Supremacists

The people of Brighton and Hove are inbred and need new blood to improve their stock.
Really Green Party Opinion?

Yesterday Green led Brighton and Hove Council debated the first Green Budget. It was webcast on a live stream and there was a busy live twitter discussion using the #bhbudget hash tag. I watched and tweeted on much of the discussion, only missing one bit (which I hope to catch up on, on when the council put the video on the council website).

In the end the result was as expected - the Greens proposed tax increase was thrown out.

however, the event of the evening was actually the maiden speech by one of the Green Councillors - Ania Kitcat.

In her speech, she said that she thought it was good for Brighton to have new people coming in to prevent/reduce inbreeding, and with a dramatic pause looked daggers towards the Conservative councillors.

As her English is not very good, I am not 100% sure if she intended to make such a nasty insinuation/slight against the people of Brighton and Hove - particularly the Conservative councillors. I thought it may be a phrase that she translated from her native language and was rather more offensive in English than the original (update: I asked this on yahoo answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AokwmV64bUT20lkbox1Uqn7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120227085333AArnjsm). Or maybe her English is so poor she didn't mean it at all (her English was quite muddled for most of her speech).

However, on consideration, I don't think it is for me to second guess what she meant - I think it must be taken at face values (a horrible, nasty slight on the natives of the city), surely the least the public should expect from a councillor is someone who can express themselves clearly?

If she meant something different, it is really for her to apologise, explain what she actually meant and explain how she will prevent such misunderstandings in future (if, a misunderstanding, it was).


Linda Hyde puts the case for local people and their attachment to local heritage


Ania Kitcat suggests incommers are good to prevent inbreeding

Saturday, 18 February 2012

#Welfare #Workfare #Injustice and #Slavery

It is wrong for people to expect to be supported by others if they are capable of earning their own living.
Paul Perrin

The coalitions 'workfare' programme as currently operated is nothing of the kind, it is wrong, immoral, coercive and wealth destroying.

1) The government justifies much of the Tax and National Insurance contributions it extorts from us by claiming it is to fund welfare - But if welfare is to be withheld and people are to be made to work for a pittance instead, then our Taxes and National Insurance contributions need to be cut substantially - I don't see that happening - do you?

2) If people are to made to work for their benefits, then why are they made to work for the benefit of shareholders in private commercial companies? Tesco may get free shelf-stackers, but how does that save the Taxpayer any money?

3) If people are to made to work for their benefits, then why are they doing jobs that might otherwise be done by real 'employees' - this destroys the very jobs that they might have hoped to have taken!

4) Even if people were made to workfare in the public sector rather than for private shareholders this would displace public sector workers who would otherwise be employed.

There are two possible answers:-

1) Forget welfare all together - let people keep their Tax/NI and provide for themselves when times are tight.

or

2) Offer people 'workfare' working for *private individuals* - doing work/jobs that would otherwise not be done at all. Gardening, decorating, household chores - things that the individual would otherwise have done for themselves.

Option 1 is likely a bit radical and would need to be brought in over time. However option 2 could operate immediately, taxpayers would get a direct benefit from the welfare they are financing, individuals would be doing *real* work on *real* jobs, but without displacing any real employees.

'Workfare' is very loose label - too broad to really mean anything specific. As currently implemented it is clearly slavery - peoples have had their wealth taken from them (tax/NI) and then are being made to work to get it back. Worse still the taxpayer is being ripped off, because the benefit of the work is going directly to private shareholders. What a mess - just like so much of the coalitions policies.

Socialism/Fascism vs Libertarianism = Creationism vs Evolution

Socialists and Fascists are the militant creationists of human social interaction, Libertarians are the believers in natural social evolution.
Paul Perrin


Socialism/Fascism vs Libertarianism


It is funny that totalitarian schools of politics (e.g. Socialism and Fascism) are based on the central premise that people need to be controlled to deliver the 'best' results - that people left to their own devices/strategies will naturally lead to chaos, decay and anarchy.

Contrast this with Libertarianism, which is founded on the belief that 'the best will out', it opposes the enforced limitation of individual self-direction - the only limit being a practical one for the survival of the very system, that is limiting individuals unwanted interference with other individuals own self-direction - "you are free to do anything except interfere with other peoples freedom".

And while socialism/fascism can't tolerate anyone having free-will, a libertarian wouldn't seek to prevent a group of individuals from working together, following a leader or observing a text - as long as it didn't interfere with their own freedom.

Now consider the parallels here with creationism and evolution.

Socialism/Fascism insist that their is one right way (their way) and this must be enforced - the same thinking that demands that life/existance can only be the result of an intelligent guiding mind that had a master plan all along - in the case of totalitarians it is 'their' master plan that they believe must be applied, completely and exclusively.

vs

Libertarianism recognising that billions of heads are better than one, and that through natural selection, survival of the fittest, random mutation and other evolutionary processes people will create/discover what works best individuals and their social interactions.

Libertarians extra strength


Where the libertarians win hands down is that they have no ideological objection or barrier to cooperation, or formal social rules/structures - their concern is only how they come about and ensuring there are no artificial barriers to them evolving further. While socialsim/fascism want to lock humanity into a final rut of their totalitarian ideologies, libertarians are committed to ensuring that there is always a way out for those that want it.

Sunday, 12 February 2012

UK Devolution - there are two choices as far as I am concerned.

There is plenty of talk about the unbalanced devolution situation in the UK.

Certain issues have been 'devolved' to national bodies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales (assembly or parliament) - such as health and education (so university fees). However England has no national body, so these issues are still decided by the UK parliament at Westminster - so Scots, Welsh and NI policy are set by people from those nations, but English policy is set be people from the whole of the UK.

This is 'unfair', but there are several possible ways of handling this, 1) It can continue to be ignored, 2) The devolved bodies could be abolished and 'devolved' issues returned to the UK parliament at Westminster, 3) England could get its own parliament.

Option 1 - ignoring the problem is the default option, it is what currently happens and is generating a level of dissatisfaction, however to change a different option needs enough support to actually bring the change about.

Option 2 - abolishing the devolved bodies - this is generally said to be impossible/impractical/unacceptable - however I would suggest that given the option of only full independence or abolition, this could focus minds somewhat.

Option 3 - An English parliament. This is the option that gets the headlines, however there are two suggestions for implementing this.

3a) A new body to work under Westminster. This is a proposal for a new parliament, with newly elected english representatives - working separately from the UK parliament which would continue to handle UK wide issues.

3b) Allow the English MPs at Westminster to meet separately as an 'English Parliament', while also meeting with all UK MPs as the UK parliament.

It seems to me that if we can't have equality from option 2 (having a single parliament for the whole UK), then option 3b is the best solution - I only need one 'representative' (MP) - my current MP decides UK wide issues and English issues - so I see no reason that he can't continue to do so. It simply means that NI, Scots and Welsh MP's would be removed from the decision making process on issues 'devolved' to the English parliament.

Having a single MP for the English parliament and the UK parliament would mean no extra expense and no change to elections and no extra politicians to *create* more work for themselves - also it could be implemented very quickly and simply.

NI, Wales and Scotland may wonder why they are paying for two full time representatives, while the English pay for only one - but as long as they pick up the tab for there representatives, then that is their privilege and their problem.

However - should Scotland decided to become independent, then I think all bets are off - if GB is to be divided, rather than being a single island/country then I would favour the South East/London becoming an independent state too. GB/UK has some rational as an island, but if that is given up then there is no particular rational to the south east and north to be a single nation...

England as an independent nation - Cockneys and Scoucers, Geordies mashed in together but not Scots? - why?

I have as much/little in common with a Scouser or Geordie as I do with a Scot - if the Scots break the UK, then the South/South East should become independent too - if we aren't in this all together then we need to be a size that we can get behind to build a new nation.

Workfair, Immigration, EU and stuff...

Before getting on to workfair...

For generations, many people in the UK (known as the very rich) have 'made their living' by simply inheriting land (originally from a distant relative who got it from a monarch who took it from someone else simply by force) and letting people use it in return for rent. Nice work if you can get it...

I tend towards 'all property is theft' (which raised the question is theft always wrong, can't it sometimes be justified - I'll leave that open for another time).

In my view, if  being a citizen of a country means anything it means an equal share/right to the resources of that country - its 'our' country, we are all born equal as citizens, so what argument against this can there be?

A share of the resources of the UK is enough to give every citizen the means (with their own labour) to support themselves - in my view that is the states duty discharged, you can offer a citizen a means of support but you can't make them use it.

Workfair - expecting people to work to support themselves, and giving them a safety net opportunity to do so is not a million miles from what I set out above.

Immigration - this is an issue because there is a distinct link between the land/country and its citizens - it is for other countries and citizens to decide how they run their affairs, but how the UK is run should be solely down to the citizens of the country - nothing is owed to, or asked of non-citizens.

EU - well the Euro debacle shows that the EU is simply too big an area to seed new ways of working/thinking - you don't start a fire with large logs, you start with a spark, tinder and twigs.

Where 'workfair' gets a bit of a bad name is that people say it 'forces people to work' which is slavery. But it doesn't... people are entitled to not-work and freeze/starve if they prefer... Whether the amount of work required and the level of reward returned are equitable is a different issue, which does need attention, but that is a detail, not an flaw in the principle. If people don't want to use the state workfair programme, and still don't want to freeze/starve they should (of course) have the opportunity to do so working for themselves or for others on the private sector.

The choice is yours/theirs - chose to support yourself or not - what you can't choose is to make others support you (and that should apply to landholders as much as bog-standard citizens).

The answer to life the universe and everything is...

The answer to life the universe and everything is...

Freewill.

Every individual human being has the capacity to exercise freewill - and it is only be exercising that freewill that they make their own unique contribution to the world around them.

Exercising freewill is:-
  • the difference between simply existing and really living.
  • honouring humanity.
  • celebrating you own unique life.
  • only possible while you are here - time is limited.
  • divine.

Denying others freewill:-
  • freewill denies them life, and condemns them to mere existance.
  • strips them of humanity.
  • selfishly condemns them to insignificance.
  • robs them of their short, precious lives.
  • is the very essence of evil.

Every legislation-promoting do gooder, collectivist, nannying official, coercive government official and everyone who wants to impose their will in place of your own is attempting to override and deny you freewill, they are evil and an enemy of you and all humanity.

It is only be recognising individual liberty, rights and freewill that people can make the real contribution that human life uniquely allows and that human life demands (if it is not to be wasted).

Freewill is the difference between man being a simple beast of burden and being human.

This isn't a new idea - right back in the myth/truth(delete as applicable) of many holy books such as the Bible, mans true existance starts with the acquisitions of freewill that self-knowledge allows. However, the denial of freewill (that the churches based on these books tend to promote) is not a good thing, it is not a way of returning to a purer state, no, it is to decry and demean that which (if exercised) makes us human, and uniquely makes human life worthwhile.

Freewill turns the existance of a simple beast of burden into a living human being with a life that can be rewarding and worth living.

If you aren't fighting for individual freedom, then you are supporting the death of the most precious gift man has at his disposal. Don't impose on others - let them be human too.

Saturday, 11 February 2012

Public Health Campaigns are Killing us - Nudging us to Death.

Bullying has been nationalised - its called Public Health Campaigning.
Paul Perrin

Have you noticed that whenever the government start a new campaign on a health issue related to eating food or behaviour the situation almost always gets worse?

You might argue that this is because the campaigns aren't big enough or were started too late, but it seems pretty clear what the real situation is...

By publicising an issue widely, it becomes normalised and (at least partially) acceptible.

In the past 'fat kids' were always citing medical conditions for their situation - never overeating - overeating to become fat was always a taboo. But now (with government help) it is normal and 'expected' for many kids to overeat and be fat, the government have supported those who have taken any 'shame' and 'peer pressure' out of behavioural issues - you aren't allowed to comment on anyone's appearance any more. If members of the public happen to exert any 'peer pressure' (even if it to the good) it is now considered 'bullying' and has a whole new taxpayer funded industry to combat it.

So instead of the public regulating itself, the 'public health industry' have usurped that role - and (at taxpayer expense) are making a complete hash of it. They tell us that its not unusual to overeat and get fat - in fact is is very, very common - so if you are told that most people lack the self control to mange their diet, well, you are hardly to blame if you can't are you? Yes its good to know that there are other people (again) funded by the taxpayer who can 'help you' - but god forbid you should help yourself, or your fiends or family or the public have any influence.

The other 'common' eating disorders Anorexia and Bulimia we all know what they are called and what they mean - but they weren't common or well known 30 years ago, they are still uncommon in counties that still don't publicise them.

When it was discovered that Carol Carpenter (a singer in a popular musical duo) had an eating disorder (in addition to drug issues), a disorder that led to her death - it was shocking headline news. Now it seems every female in the media has an eating disorder, as well as millions of children in our schools, and millions of young adults.

So how do these Public Health Campaigns try to do their work? By nagging, pestering and needling us - on TV, in the Newspapers and all over the internet (at our expense) they are telling us that most people are doing something bad, but are incapable of doing anything about it with out further taxpayer-funded help. Given the abject failure of these campaigns to actually work, people are left with only one outlet for their apparent failure that about which they are constantly reminded - stress. Public health campaigns are a massive source of stress to every one they are targetted at, and stress related illness is currently one of the biggest killers in the UK.

So on one hand taxpayer/government funded Health Campaigns are publicising and promoting the very issues they claim to be aimed at reducing, on the other hand they contributing to stress - a massive killer.

How did this come about? Why is it allowed to continue?

Because many thousands of people's livelihoods are tied up in keeping this industry going - through our taxes we are obliged to pay these people to destroy public health and to slowly kill us - and their profits are huge.