Thursday, 26 December 2013

Christianity - A force for individual liberty.

It is a shame that Christmas is under such attack - haters of Christianity, whether militantly atheist or of another faith seek to drive a wedge between our Chirstmas celebrations and the Christian messages of 'peace and good will to all men', and the innocence and equality that we all start life with as new born babies.

Yes other religions have had winter festivals - but so what? Any one can organise a party.

What makes Christmas special is the message -  a message that every libertarian Englishman can get behind what ever they think of the source! All people are created equal, people are not answerable to any earthly power, it is not for any earthly power to tell you how to live your life. Each of us is complete and perfect.

Marxists, Collectivists and Social Democrats (that is lib lab and con) hate Christmas and Christianity for so powerfully putting the case for individual freedom - don't be suckered by these siren voices, they don't seek to free you, they seek to chain you - to take your liberty and make you dependent on the state.

You dismantle your protection against these forces at your (and your childrens) peril

Thursday, 14 November 2013

Lisbon Treaty - Opted out or not? Our MP's clearly have no idea!

I have recently written to my MP, asking about this situation - and asking how anyone is supposed to have any faith in a 'renegotiation' when MP's don't even know what the current treaties mean!

I will follow up with any reply.

---------------

Dear,

I am sure you are aware of the current events surrounding the UK 'opt outs' from the 'Charter of Fundamental Rights' as (understood) to have been ensured in the signing of Lisbon Treaty.

One story of the situation is linked to here:-
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/british-public-duped-on-eu-rights-charter-and-courts-chris-grayling-claims-8936952.html

Here, a Conservative Government minister is reported as suggesting that the UK pubic were 'duped' - I fail to see how the UK public were 'duped' as they were never consulted, so never had an opportunity to express what they considered the situation to be.

If anyone was duped it was the MP's in the house of commons who voted on the 'Lisbon Treaty', while (obviously) not actually understanding what it meant. Even those who voted against the treaty clearly had no understanding of its consequences, or they would have said so at the time.

This episode clearly shows that 'constitutional treaties' are of too complex and sensitive to be entered into at all - having an unwritten constitution ensures that the UK and its citizens are not put at the mercy of the legal profession in explaining to us what it consists of, it exists in our hearts and heads, and so is not dependent on the interpretation of others and can never be wrong.

Even this government have, time after time, messed up legal proceedings to remove terrorist suspects - failing in their proceedings again and again until they finally change the law to suit themselves and make themselves 'right'.

In light of this, can you explain what credibility a 'renegotiation' with the EU could possibly have when those doing the 'renegotiation' on behalf of the UK clearly have no idea of what the treaties already entered into actually mean!

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

'The State' - the thuggish gang with the biggest sticks who run everything... You want anarchy? We already have it!

The 'democracy delusion' is not that democracy is broken or doesn't work, it is that it doesn't actually exist at all.

Its taken some time to get here... but like so many revelations, once recognised it seems obvious...

We live in anarchy - we can only live in anarchy - there is nothing else. Our lives are 'what we can get away with' while they guys with the biggest sticks try to impose their will on us. They guys with the biggest sticks are 'the state' - we are well trained so they don't need to use their sticks too often on most of us - and the state is very experience, they generally know how far they can push without causing outright rebellion.

The key part of our training, to keep some peace in the midsts of this anarchy, the element that keeps (most of) us in order is the delusion that we have some say/control over the guys with the big sticks. We have been suckered into believing that our 'system' is not anarchy, that our 'system' is something called 'democracy' that is in some way intrinsically different to anarchy. It isn't - but many of us eagerly accept this delusion because it means we can pretend/imagine/believe that we are free.

This realisation - that democracy is a delusion, and there is only anarchy - explains why trying to install democracy in other countries has been so hit and miss, imposing the delusion on a whole population, of mixed ages, in one go, is very, very difficult - here we start the indoctrination as soon as a child can be removed from its parents and put in the care of the state at school, so the delusion is established in our minds on a one to one basis over many years.

The 'democracy delusion' is not that democracy is broken or doesn't work, it is that it doesn't actually exist at all. People will only follow a 'democratic' decision if they agree to do so, or are coerced to obey it... thats obvious isn't it? People do what they think (given the immediate circumstances) whatever they think is in their best interest. In a 'modern western democracy', the guys with the big sticks (the state and its minions) try to make compliance with their decisions appear to be 'in our best interest' by punishing us if we don't comply. How is that different to anarchy?

The states 'laws' are just their 'rules' - and we will be punished if we don't comply with them, their 'laws' are not special in anyway, they are not intrinsically different to a group of street thugs running a 'protection racket'.

Monday, 28 October 2013

Islam inspires many people to become terrorists - So what are you going to do about it?

People can bang on about islamic/muslim terrorism or bang about Islam being 'the religion of peace' and deny that it has anything to do with terrorism.

However, regardless of where blame lies, it simply cannot be denied that Islam does inspire many people to terrorist acts - there are plenty of examples of this, we see them every week.

To say that it is not islams 'fault' that this happens is pretty much the same argument as 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' - 'islam doesn't kill people, people kill people'. Outside of the military, most guns are used for sport, not for killing people, however this has not stopped guns being heavily regulated and  (in the case of hand guns) banned completely. In the same way, if Islam was a common drug that caused some of its takers to turn terrorist then it would undoubtedly be banned - one wonders why followers of a 'religion' get such special treatment as compared to sportsmen and drug takers.

I am not a fan of bans - every ban restricts my choice (regardless of what my choice would actually be) nor am I a fan of making people responsible for others (whether I am my brothers keeper is for me to decide), but its is time to at least recognise and accept the undeniable fact that islam/mohamed/allah inspires some people to become terrorists and murderers. If Islam is not to be banned entirely  then it is for the supporters of islam to make the case for not proscribing it, including their plans for ensuring that those who cannot handle it are protected from its influence.

Friday, 25 October 2013

Left try to baffle with bullshit - Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million? - Daily Record

However much complexity the Daily Record raise around the accounts and tax situation, the key point is that the shareholders believed their money could be better used elsewhere.

Grangemouth bailout: Did Ineos screw the taxpayer of £134million? - Daily Record

I used to play chess. I was taught that when playing against a much better player, my only chance of winning was if my (superior) opponent made an error. I was further instructed that a much better player would not make a mistake against my normal 'sensible' game, so the tactic to employ was to make the game as complicated as possible. A complicated game also made it more likely that I would make an error - but with out the complexity I was going to lose anyway!

A similar tactic comes up in politics - especially (but not exclusively) in broken left-wing politics. When an argument cannot be won the opponent will create a fake, complex, web of arguments to divert attention from their obvious failure.

This story in the Daily Record is an example of just such a tactic.

You must remember that Ineos the owners of the Grangemouth plant had left their chair, put on their coat and were going out the door - they had walked away from the plant as a business. There was no path for them to reopen negotiations, it was game over from their side. Ineos shareholders had decided that their money (£00's of millions) could be better used elsewhere than at the Grangemouth plant under the unions terms. End Of.

The story in the Daily Record seeks to suggest that there was lots of profit to be made from Grangemouth, they are suggesting that the Ineos shareholders turned away from those big profits - but can make no suggestion as to why the shareholders would do that.

However much complexity the Daily Record raise around the accounts and tax situation, however scheming they paint the shareholders as being, however cunning and duplicitous they paint the shareholders as, the key point is that the shareholders believed their money could be better used elsewhere and were taking it with them.

The Shareholders were not cunning - they simply decided to put their money where it would get the best return - that was not at Grangemouth under union control. The shareholders were simply rational, the Unions were simply incompetent and arrogant.

If persuading Ineos to reopen their offer has cost the taxpayer - i.e. the taxpayer has had to pay for an offer that was available *free* only days earlier - then that cost is directly attributable to Len McCluskey and his Unite union - and if that is the case, and I had my way, the union would be surcharged every penny of that cost to reimburse the innocent taxpayer.

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

McCann - Crimewatch Reconstruction.

Ok firstly... I virtually skipped the whole McCann thing 'till now - Kids can go missing if parents leave them unattended... I use the safe in hotels (even in the UK) for valuables, and kids are far more valuable than anything that would fit in a safe - I never left my kids unattended anywhere.

But as there has been a reconstruction, I thought I'd follow it through to get the time line of events that evening - this is what I got from Crimewatch (times aporox, so give or take 5 mins either way on each?).

This is the iplayer link (will probably be out of date by the time you read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01jqssz)

Praia da Luz on the 3rd May 2007.

Back entrance - Shutters, french windows, curtains - all closed to keep dark (no mention of being locked)
Fron entrance - Door

8:30 McCanns leave kids in apartment 5a, go to tapas bar to meet friends.
8:35 Other guests arrive Matt+Rachel Oldfield (staying  next door in 5b), Jane Tanner+Russell O'Brian
9:00 Matt Oldfield goes to checks on his kids.
9:0? 3 more guests arrive
9:0? Gerry McCann goes to see kids
9:05 Gerry McCann sees kids
9:1? Gerry McCann stops to chats to guest on the way back.
9:0? Jane Tanner leaves to check her kids
9:15 Jane Tanner passes McCann apartment checking on her kids
9:1? Gerry McCann Back
9:20 Starter - every one present
9:30 Kate McCann stands to check, but Russell O'Brien and Matt Oldfield Go
9:3? Matt Oldfield returns, Russell O'Brien stays with sick daughter.
9:40 Jane Tanner goes to take over from Russell O'Brian
10:00 Kate McCann finds daughter missing, French windows open

So if it was a planned abduction, as the police currently suggest, then abductor(s) - knowing the McCanns schedule - would have to be looking at 8:35-8:55, 9:05-9:25 or 9:35-9:55 (a few minutes after a parent is expected to have left/half hourly check, till a few mins before they return - giving a maximum of 20 mins to get in, do the job and get out). Gerry sees the kids at 9:05 so not the first slot, and a delayed start on the second, how ever Gerry is still not clear at 9:15 when he is chatting to another guest between the apartment/bar and Jane passes to check on her kids, giving almost no time until the the next slot... So 9:35 it has to be. This time Matt goes in place of Kate (no explanation of how he gets into the apartment to check on their kids) - he checks his kids (next door as well) so now looking at going in about 9:40 at which time Jane must be going past the apartment to take over from Russell, who then (presumably) pass the apartment going back to the tapas bar. So it is about 9:50 and your slot is to 9:55... Would an abductor go for it? If you can silently kidnap a kid from an apartment in five minutes, who needs a plan? Kids would be going missing all the time - even while parents are in the shower!

Saturday, 12 October 2013

There are only two political systems - and only one is practiced today.

People talk about political systems as if you simply choose one and implement it - communism, democracy, anarchy, socialism, fascism, marxism etc.

However this misses the very simple point that any system can only work in one of two ways - firstly by consent, where something is engrained enough in human nature that it happens and works all by itself; secondly by force, where a greater power makes people work/live in a particular way. These are the only options - voluntary or involuntary.

Now, not every part of an involuntary system will require coercion. People will naturally do what they need to do to survive, the coercion may just be in making them give up part of what they have created, or some similar event.

If a system operates on consent, its participants may freely choose any form of government - and as there is no coercion may drop out of that system whenever they please. Many communes style communities operate like this already - you are always free to leave with your belongings.

A system that you are not allowed to drop out of is (by definion) coercive - people are not allowed to leave, they are obliged (by force) to comply.  The people enforcing compliance may structure their system how ever they please and give it any name they want - and as long as they do not over-reach themselves and suffer a revolution they can do as they please.

Some people are foolish and think that political systems exist outside this model, 'we live in a democracy' they may say - the only question you need ask is 'can you leave it?' - if the answer is 'no' then you live in a coercive system that those wielding the power have chosen to present to you in that way. In practice your vote has as much influence/power as the fact you breathe the same air as those in power.

The most powerful coercive systems are where those in power mange to get the public to do the coercion for them - if you are ever attacked for questioning the system, you know that you are living in such a system. You question but are told 'this is a democracy, you have your say, now shut up and get on with it'.

The most aggressive non-violent threat to a questioner is to suggest that they should have no land to live on - that they should sacrifice what they currently own and go and live elsewhere - starting (presumably) from scratch.

Changing they way things are run is not a quick or easy job - you have to have, and present, a convincing case that the human mind can accept and clearly see as better - so much better that those currently in power either accept it too, or face a revolution by those who do.

Monday, 30 September 2013

Taxation is murder, taxation destroys lives, taxation blights lives.

Many old people die from cold because they can't afford fuel bills because of taxes on those bills. They die because the tax man has taken money from them to pay for other peoples priorities.

Many sick people die after being refused medical treatment by the NHS because NICE or their local health authority has decided a treatment is not 'cost effective', and they cannot afford private treatment for themselves. They die because the tax man has taken money from them to pay for other peoples priorities.

Many householders lives are ruined because they cannot afford house insurance because of levies/taxes put them out of reach. They suffer because the tax man demands money from them to pay for other peoples priorities.

Many youngsters whole lives are blighted because they are obliged to attend failing state schools, even though we are taxed more than enough to pay for the high quality education available in private schools. Lives are blighted because we are taxed to pay for other peoples priorities.

Given a free choice, I'd probably pay some money towards the armed forces, border control, police service, courts, fire service, medical service, I'd not pay for diversity coordinators nor climate change inspired green vanity projects.

Others may have other priorities - let them choose to pay for what they care about, and where the money is needed. I suspect key services would end up with plenty of support - loony services would not.

Those who support taxation - coercion, threat of force to take someone's own property from them - so they can use it to support their own priorities, prejudices, foibles are both selfish and arrogant - and bring misery and death to millions of innocent people.

Tuesday, 24 September 2013

The Future of Europe and the EU - Made In Britain.

2015
UK Start withdrawal from the EU

2017
UK an independent country with a unique UK/EU trading/cooperation treaty

2018
UK trading widely with the whole world and the EU

2020
UK/EU treaty globally accepted as a model of international cooperation.
Other EU members choose to leave the EU and adopt the UK/EU treaty.
Other non-EU members adopt the UK/EU treaty relationship.

2025
EU has ceased to exist, former members and other countries from around the world are soverign but trading/cooperating with each other under models of the original UK/EU treaties.

Job Done.

Vision for an Independent UK - needed now.

If there were to be a referendum on our EU membership tomorrow it would almost certainly be lost - as the british people would not vote for a complete unknown. A vision of a modern independent UK is needed - people need something to actively vote for.

The UK has been a member of the EU for over 40 years, it has leached into our insitutions, traditions, law and lives. It would be foolish to think that it could be removed, that we could leave, and everything would carry on as if we had never been members.

There are many questions and issues that need to be addressed - many are likely to be contentious and divisive - even among the most ardent anti-EU campaigners.

If no such vision exists then the UK and its people is laying itself open to be hijacked, and our EU exit could lead us into something far worse.

It would be possible to spend many lifetimes discussing (arguing) over every minute detail of UK after EU - and as the EU is a moving target, the discussions may not even keep pace - the EU could create new questions issues faster than old and existing ones are addressed.

To prevent this work delaying a UK exit from the EU, I think it is vital that a mechanism is put in place to allow the people to be directly and rapidly consulted on issues arrising and to make their choice. This mechanism would be the only pre-requisit of leaving - as it could be used to settle every other matter.

The recent (happening as I type!) departure of Geoffrey Bloom as a UKIP MEP shows how important it is that UK's exit from the EU cannot be intrinsicly tied to a set of absolute polices that will always alianate one section of the public or another.

Once the UK is independent then new, better, democratic systems need to be put in place, and from there on it will be the people who decide.

The work on this new covenant between the British people and its government must start now to have any hope of being ready in time.

Monday, 23 September 2013

I have had enough of Channel 4, Cathy Newman and Michael Crick trying to incite violence against #UKIP supporters.

I wrote to sussex police today:-
I am concerned that Chanel 4 News, in the persons of reporters/journalists Michael Crick and Cathy Newman are behaving in a way that is likely to provoke racial violence.

On several occasions they have used their airtime on chanel 4 to create the false impression that the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) are a racist organisation.

As someone who has been a candidate for UKIP in parliamentry and local elections, I beleive their behavour puts me and others like me at risk of attack from misguided 'anti-racists'.

These false accusations by these reporters on channel 4 cannot be allowed continue.

I await a response.

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

EU Membership worth £92bn a year to the UK, equivalent to £3300 per household.

In a tweet exchange this figure was quoted to me by an EU bod (personal tweet account...).

He gave me this link to support that claim:-
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/international-trade-investment-and-development/docs/u/11-719-uk-and-single-market

I kicked the tyres... and they fell off...

Just the quick headline nonsense noted here.

In the Summary it says:-
EU countries currently trade twice as much with each other as
they would do in the absence of the Single Market. As a result, the Single
Market may be responsible for income gains in the UK between 2% and 6%,
that is between £1100 and £3300 a year per British household.
In section 2  it says:-
EU countries trade nowadays twice as much with each other as they would do in the absence of the Single Market. Given that, according to the OECD, a 10 percentage point increase in trade exposure is associated with a 4 per cent rise in income per capita, increased trade with Europe since the early 80s (around +15 percentage points) may be responsible for around 6% higher income per capita in the UK. This represents £3,300 a year per British household.
Problem is...

If the single market (established in the '80s) doubles the trade we do with the EU (an increase of 100%) - how come it has only increased by 15%?

This alone makes the document worthless nonsense(!). This is a document that  people are quoting and citing this to support our continued membership! Is there any reason to think any other data they are using is any better? No... not really...

I also can't help noticing that this £1100-£3300 per houshold - of course it doesn't go to households, it goes to Fat Euro Cats, but even if it did - would just about cover the increase in our fuel bills caused by the EU's very own Green Tax!

So even on their own best figures, the gross benefit of EU membership is entirely wiped out by their own green energy tax - every other cost of EU membership is a direct cost and drain on the wealth we in the UK create.

Thursday, 5 September 2013

Observations on Universal Credit - and why Citizens Income with Flat Tax is better.

An extra 32 hours for £50? Really?

Universal Credit is an attempt to replace a number of benefits with one single benefit - simplifying the system so saving time and money.

As with all big state IT projects, the implementation is a shambles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23963867

But if it pays of in the long run, that will be forgotten, I just saw the figures in that story and thought I'd do a little analysis...

Graph showing how universal credit would fall as earnings increased

Which looks to me to say:-

The unemployed 20 year old gets £500 a month.

If he works 48 hours a month (12/week) at minimum wage (£6.25 an hour) he earns £300 a month (more than his rent!).

But with UC he will have a total of £700 a month so his 48hrs work have made him £200 better off - thats an extra £4.17 for each hour worked.

If he works 80 hours a month (20/week) at minimum wage he earns £500 a month (almost double his rent!).

But with UC he will have a total of £750 a month so his *extra* 32 hours have rewarded him an extra £50 a month... or a measly £1.56 an hour(!).

Or :-

Monthly
HoursPayslip RatePayslip TotalUCMonthly TotalReward Per Hour WorkedReward per Extra Hour Worked
0n/a0£500£500n/an/a
48£6.25/hr£350£350£700£4.17£4.17
80£6.25/hr£500£250£750£3.13£1.56

An extra 32 hours for £50? Really?

How about this instead?

With a real 'citizens income' the figures would look something like this:-

Monthly
HoursPayslip Hourly RateTotalTax at 30%Take homeCIMonthly TotalReward Per Hour WorkedReward per Extra Hour Worked
0n/a---£500£500n/an/a
48£5.25£252£76£176£500£676£3.67£3.67
80£5.25£420£126£294£500£794£3.76£3.67

So a fixed citizens income and a flat rate tax means workers keep 70% of every single £ they earn.

To simplify even further why not just tax the employer the 30% of their total wage bill - make the wage £3.67 and not tax the employees at all? I'd like to see people try to dodge their taxes with that in place!!

Monday, 2 September 2013

Why trains are crap....

No wonder the poor can't afford holidays

My Wife and I took our two sons on a short break (two nights) at a hotel-resort/spa near Tiptree in Essex - we live near Brighton.

Check in/out 12:00.

We went by Car

We loaded the car, packed a picnic set off at 10:00, had early picnic lunch arrived at 13:00. For our return two days later we left at 12:00 got home at 14:00.

It was 200 miles round trip, we got about 35mpg so 6 gallons of fuel used on the actual journey. Total cost about £40 in fuel.

So that is 2 hours each way door to door (3 with a lunch stop) - £40.

For reference: We could have hired a car and had it delivered/collected for about £100.

By Train

By train we would have lugged our stuff to the bus stop for 8:00 , got a bus to the station for £10 (for four of us), and would mean a change - with a 10 min walk at the end to get the station itself. (A taxi would be about £15)

Optimistically we may have managed to get the 9:00 from Brighton to Colchester - costing £220 (return) for all of us. With two or three changes we'd be at Colchester for 12:00

From Colchester we'd probably have needed a cab - say £15 to arrive at 13:00.

Assume return trip is similar then its a total of £20 is bus fares, £220 in train fairs and £30 for taxis (and no transport on site!).

So that is 5 hours each way (a total of 7 changes) - £270


My case rests.

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Anti #UKIP, Channel 4 'journalist' (snork) @cathynewman shows more stupidity.

The figures I quoted weren't just about degree-level education, but schooling too. So 51 per cent of UKIP voters lack educational qualifications (defined by YouGov as GCSE level) of any sort, compared to 36 per cent for the Tories.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10237393/Loathing-Ukip-sexist-jibes-doesnt-make-me-a-feminist-man-hater.html

Lets see what this means if we accept it is true (rather than lies, damn lies, statistics...). It must mean either:-

1) LibLabCon are seen as serving the interests of academically clever people at the expense of the less clever. There is no shame in being less clever than others - by definition half the population are less clever than average, the other half are more clever than average! So LibLabCon unfairly disadvantaging half the population is a good reason to vote for a party that doesn't - so vote UKIP!

or

2) That these unqualified people are 'smart' but have been failed by the state education system - a system that LibLabCon have created and been responsible for for generations. In which case it is another good reason to reject those parties and support a party that wants to ensure the best education is available to all - so vote UKIP!

Which is it Cathy? By opposing UKIP you are either you support exploitation of half the population, or you are supporting the preservation of a state education system that has failed.

The cyclists road tax/vehicle excise duty/emissions lie.

Its become fashionable for the anti-motor lobby to say that the additional money paid to the government for a tax disk does not pay for roads, that roads are paid for out of general taxation. that the tax paid for your tax disk is to pay for the emissions of your vehicle.

1) People who tax their cars do so because they want to use roads. If they don't want to use roads they would not have a car and would not tax it.

2) Road Tax is not based on the emissions of your car - it is the same whether you run your car 24/7 creating maximum emissions or never run your car creating zero emissions.

3) Even the bike-nuts say that Vehicle Excise Duty (which they say is not a tax) goes into the central pot of 'general taxation'. How can anything that is not a tax go into the governments 'general taxation' pot? It can't - this bike-nut claim is nuts.

So in summary, car owners pay road-tax/VED because they want access to roads, that money is taken by the government in a pot which is used to pay for roads.

What morons gave Kaya Burgess an award for coming up with his crap? Sheesh.

Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Race/Cultural wars coming to the UK.

Unless there is significant change, there will be a violent uprising in the UK.

It may already be too late to to stop it, because it so many different groups want it to happen.

1) The man who used to drive the Clapham omnibus.
His job has gone, he sees foreigners come to his country and receive more money from the taxpayer then he himself has ever received, even while working - he wants change.

2) The 'bog standard' young man.
He has never had a job that will lead to anything, and knows he probably never will, he is at the bottom of society and sees immigrants joining at a higher level than him. He has done nothing wrong so thinks 'anything is better that this' - he wants change.

3) The islamic young man.
He has never had a real job, and doesn't really want one, his 'gang' is his islamic community/circle of friends, he thinks he can make his mark by fighting a war in the name of his religion, first establishing Muslim Areas and building out from there - he wants war.

4) The Fascist and Anti-Fascist
Fascist/Anti-fascist - now the same thing, people in a gang seeking authoritarian control over others. Formerly a 'bog standard' young man now part of a wider gang looking to make their mark by fighting the 'other' gang - he wants war.

5) Politicians
Politicians want power, the more power the better, what better excuse to seize even more than by encouraging/allowing tension to build to the point of revolution? Bring in martial law and draconian big-brother authoritarian policies. Governments enjoy governing, they don't really care who they govern, as long as they have power. - war suits them fine.

6) The European Union
A major shake up is the perfect excuse to step in and dismantle the UK, break the people of England once and for all - ending centuries of English Libertarianism that has been a constant thorn in the side of authoritarian European politics/leaders.

Revolution suits all these people, because they don't like the way things are and think they can come out the other end in a better position - they can't all be right.

Saturday, 3 August 2013

The far left aren't #UKIP's only enemies - BALE attack even more fiercely.

The objective is not just to attack the individual, it is to sew the seeds of mistrust among all UKIP members - if this can be done, BALE and HnH/UAF can sit back eating popcorn while UKIP members attack each other using time/energy to damage UKIP instead of building it.

UKIP grass roots are getting it from all sides, but when you are sensibly in the middle, as UKIP are, that is what happens.

I blogged about HnH/UAF (Hope Not Hate/Unite Against Fascism) a short while back, for claiming to be 'anti fascist' but in practice being fascist themselves and attacking the moderate centre (UKIP), rather than authoritarian groups like the promoters of Sharia Law.

I only recently heard about BALE (Britons against Left-Wing Extremism), they appear to be a far right group and claim to oppose Hope Not Hate. However, from their actions it is clear that they, like HnH really want to attack the moderate centre (UKIP).

BALE are working with HnH (whether organised or just opportunistically) to disrupt UKIP's grass roots members.

The BALE attacks are using the same tactics that the BNP used (before it collapsed), so I assume BALE is really just a new front for disaffected ex-BNP supporters) - BALE picks an individual and then makes wild claims about them being a HnH infiltrator and a paedophile (for some reason BALE think everyone on the left is a paedophile, so everyone they attack is called a paedophile too).

While these attacks are in progress it is usual for fake profiles and pages to pop up on various social media in the name of the person being attacked, and for incriminating postings to be attached to them. These fake postings are then taken and used elsewhere as 'evidence' - removing them further from the original source and making them that bit harder to verify/disprove.

The objective is not just to attack the individual, it is to sew the seeds of mistrust among all UKIP members - if this can be done, BALE and HnH/UAF can sit back eating popcorn while UKIP members attack each using time/energy to damage UKIP instead of building it.

One person currently being attacked is Linda Reid - secretary of UKIP Brighton and Hove. I originally met her as she was a long time UKIP supporter and became my electoral agent in the 2010 general election and even since then we spent many days leafleting together and doing other UKIP work - I can say from experience and without hesitation that she is a first rate supporter of an Independent UK, she is honest, fair and has great integrity - a huge asset to UKIP and someone anyone would be proud to count as a friend.

As BALE have made such wild, incredible claims about someone I know well I believe everything else they say must be read knowing that they are untrustworthy and seek to damage UKIP. They as much an enemy of UKIP as HnH/UAF - and being anonymous dangerous in many different ways.

While on 'enemies' - I will mention the SLAT accounts (like SLATUKIP) - which I think is short for Sad Losers ATtack UKIP. They are just as keen to disrupt UKIP, and have cooperated (whether formerly or opportunistically) with both HnH/UAF and BALE against UKIP - their common enemy.

My advice? Ignore anonymous postings on the internet - if they don't have confidence to make themselves known, they aren't worth a second of a real persons time.

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Hope Not Hate are oppressive, authoritarian fascists - check it out.

On the Hope Not Hate website they have a graphic 'Putting UKIP under the magnifying glass', so I asked how many Mosques they had 'under the magnifying glass', and whether they suspected/examined all muslims in case they supported sharia... oddly enough no answer has been forthcoming. Hope Not Hate are oppressive, authoritarian fascists - it is only their target that is different to the 'traditional' fascist.

Prejudice is the root evil behind racism - pre-judging people based on their appearance, ignoring the unique individuals that each of them is. Racism is a subset of prejudice, making prejudice at least as bad as racism, if not worse.

In a recent twitter exchange Hope Not Hate, showed its own prejudice.

For some time it has been clear to many people that Hope Not Hate, Unite Against Fascism and other far left protest groups are no better than the people they claim to oppose, in fact these groups appear to be exactly the kinds of people they claim to oppose. Furthermore, unlike the groups they attack, these groups are large, high profile, well financed, powerful - hiding their authoritarian fascism 'in plain sight'.

In the twitter exchange, a UKIP member was attacked for saying sharia law (the islamic legal system) had some elements that he thought would probably have some success - threatening to cutting of the hands of thieves for instance. While most people may not support such a punishment, they may well agree that it would be quite a deterrent, does this make them 'supporters of sharia' does this mean the 'embrace sharia'? I hardly think so.

However, Hope Not Hate (presumably in the person of Simon Cressy) tweeted, and blogged that a UKIP member (and parliamentary candidate, I understand) had 'embraced sharia' and then went on to attack him for it.

I challenged Hope Not Hate on whether they condemned all supporters of Sharia Law - and they confirmed that they did. I then went on to challenge them to show that they had attacked such supporters in the past - they could only cite mentions of the notorious Anjem Choudary and some Saudi who had wanted to visit the UK, they had no mention of attacking Sharia supporters equivalent to the UKIP members they attack

On the Hope Not Hate website they have a graphic 'Putting UKIP under the magnifying glass', so I asked how many mosques they had 'under the magnifying glass', and whether they suspected/examined all muslims in case they supported sharia... oddly enough no answer has been forthcoming. Hope Not Hate are oppressive, authoritarian fascists - it is only their target that is different to the 'traditional' fascist.

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

Socialism - not in our imperfect world...

Want to see socialism in action? Look at the rubbish blowing around the streets of Brighton.

In the name of socialism the bin men are unionised, but the union put their own interests ahead of the public - so hold the residents to ransom to extract more money from them.

In the name of socialism the council provides bin collection, but this take responsibility away from the people - making them lazy, unthinking and dependent. Who cares how much rubbish they produce if they have already paid for it to be collected?

In the name of socialism the council is responsible for keeping streets clean, but this takes responsibility away from the people too - its not their problem. If someone drops rubbish in the street it no ones business - the council are paid to clean up.

This happens to 'socialism' every time. 'The people' are sold the mirage of everything belonging to every one, of every one being responsible for everything, everyone having a say on everything. But soon an elite takes over and claims to be 'the people', while the people are sidelined owning nothing, responsible for nothing, having a say on nothing.

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

Email I sent to Brighton Council - wonder how long till they respond?

Thank you for your comments, Paul Perrin

This is an automated response to let you know that your enquiry has been received by Brighton & Hove City Council Website, and will be answered as soon as possible.
Your message was received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 at 19:33 and was forwarded to ehl.community@brighton-hove.gov.uk.
The content of your message was as follows:

If refuse collectors are not working then (as a city resident) I would like to privately hire a truck, collect the worst of the rubbish and take it to the dump. I believe the council dumps will not currently allow me to do this - how do I get permission to take council rubbish to a council dump? I would also like written confirmation that the council do not consider dumped rubbish to be their 'property' so there is no question of anyone preventing such a collection. Thanks

Notice to recipient:
The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed
and may contain information which is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately.
Thank you in anticipation of your co-operation.
You can visit our website at http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk
Please consider the environment, only print out this email if absolutely necessary.
Please Note:  Both incoming and outgoing Emails may be monitored and/or recorded in line with current legislation.

Monday, 17 June 2013

How Feminism screwed up its opportunity.

Before 'feminism' men were the bread-winners and spent their time as part of the rat-race, women were the home-makers with spare time to spend on voluntary and other activities.

This put women in the fantastic position of having time to plan for huge improvements in society, a chance to challenge the political status quo - something that working-men simply didn't have the time/energy to do.

As the feminist movement developed looking at new politics and improving society something went wrong, very wrong.

Instead of seeking to improve society for everyone - men, women and families - feminism became a simplistic sexist attack force. Big new ideas were banished and all that was left was a demand that women be  'allowed' to give up the role/space that they had and simply join the working-men in the rat-race.

An amazing opportunity was squandered - as free people demanded the right to become slaves...

Imagine the 'Occupy' protesters gradually demanding (and getting) the right to become overpaid, under performing bankers... That what feminism has done - instead of changing anything for the better, just become exactly what it set out to change...

Bummer.


Brighton Eco Show at the Brighton Centre - Future of Electric Cars.

At the show last week end there was a seminar with three pro-Electric Cars (or EV's Electronic Vehicles).

They spoke about many things that they though were 'important'or'great' about EVs, here are some with my observations.

1) You really need to know how you will use your EV before choosing one - short, long, commuting etc.

BUT

You will own a car for 5 to 10 years... your needs/use will almost certainly CHANGE in that time. Heck, I am on a bog standard mobile phone deal because I never know how I'll be using it so don't go for special mobile tariffs! How do I know what use my car will be put to over the next 5-10 years.

As it happens I tow a mobile camper, I fairly often take 4 or 5 other passengers. I also pop down to the sea front to collect a son from the bus stop to save a 30min walk (since the 52 bus route was messed up by the greens)

2) Electric cars are pollution free.

BUT

The electricity (or hydrogen) is generated somewhere - the pollution is just shifted.

3) You drive better because you have an eye on energy use.

BUT

Is driving for better 'energy use' actually better driving for road use safety? I often floor the gas it in my car to join a motorway. I break hard if it is needed (being cut up etc) too. I keep a safe distance but move with the traffic its about other vehicles, not my fuel consumption.

4) With a hybrid you don't need to worry about range.

BUT

You spend your whole time consuming fuel (electric or petrol) hauling around the other motor that you aren't using! And I'll bet the servicing is a good chunk more than for a single engine.

5) Electric cars are great for car clubs, one club car takes 20 other cars off the road - cutting pollution and congestion.

BUT

Those other 20 other cars would be *parked* if they aren't actually being used - Car Club cars don't cut journeys, just physical numbers of vehicles.

6) Energy feed in tariffs mean you can have the electricity for your car *free*.

BUT

Those feed in tariffs are artificial - set by the government to encourage take up - how many people got diesel cars because they were encouraged too by low diesel duty, but now pay more than for petrol?!

Also the feed in tariffs are paid by tax on other peoples energy bills - you can bet the poor don't have solar panels etc... so they are picking up the bill for wealthier people who do have capital to invest on such things!

Electric Car? No Thanks!

Friday, 14 June 2013

Scottish Independence - I oppose it even though it would be good for English economy.

I support the union 100% - my birthright, being UK born,  is to have free movement and equal treatment anywhere in Great Britain and Northern Ireland (unfortunately not in Southern Ireland though).

That said, Scotland's independence is out of my hands, it is up to the people currently living in Scotland to vote on it in a referendum next year. Note it is people currently living in Scotland not just (nor all) Scots as many Scots don't currently live in Scotland, and many of the people living in Scotland are not Scots...

If Scotland do get independence, what I would like England's Government to do is:

1) Require all Scots (as non EU citizens) to have visas for being in the UK.

Work visas only issued if an UK(/EU) citizen provably cannot do the job. This would free up many jobs in the UK and so reduced our unemployment substantially at little cost to the UK.

2) Put the maximum possible tariffs on Scottish goods.

England is Scotland's primary export market, with imports blocked, the goods services provided by Scottish companies would have to relocate south of the new border - bringing a massive boost to English manufacturing and services (especially in the North) at little cost to the UK.

3) Veto any Scottish application for EU membership.

To ensure the benefits set out above come to fruition, there would have to be no doubt that Scotland would never be a member of the EU while England remains a member.

It is tempting to support Scottish independence for the huge economic benefits that would accrue to the remaining UK - however I would much prefer the Union to remain and be strengthened.

Scotland leaving the UK would not be a repetition of Eire leaving the UK, but more a repetition of Pakistan ceding from India.

**edit**
Last 10 days of the campaign for scottish independence and it has been pointed out that Scotland has a huge number of civil service jobs that have nothing to do with Scotland... so
4) Repatriate as many state jobs from Scotland to England as possible.

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

EU-Sceptic Conservative? Ain't no such thing! Vote #UKIP


David's Failings - do these sound democratic or EU-Sceptic?

1) Broken promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

David Cameron calls for referendum on EU constitution (Telegraph 2/6/2009)
Tories rule out treaty referendum (BBC 3/11/2009)

2) Three line whip against EU referendum demanded in a public petition.

EU referendum: Cameron to impose three-line whip (BBC 20/10/2011)

See how your MP voted then.... The Public Whip

3) Ignores debate on private members bill calling for EU exit.

MPs debate case for UK pulling out of European Union (BBC 26/10/2012)

4) Letting an EU referendum bill run out of time in 2012.

Referendum (European Union) Bill (HoC 29/5/2012)

5) Forced to reintroduce EU referendum bill - but with no action required regardless of the result!

Conservatives publish EU referendum bill (BBC 14/5/2013)

**EDIT (9/6/13) **

6) Abandons EU referendum bill - was never a real promise...

David Cameron: I can't legislate for an EU referendum (Telegraph 7/5/13)
(I know this date pre-dates point 5 - I can't keep up with conservative lies on this, so can't explain it...)

Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Reductio ad Absurdum - Seeing through political lies - migrants create jobs, government can borrow to invest.

1) Uncontroled immigration from the EU creates jobs.

If this is true, then Spain (unemployment 27.2%) and Greece (unemployment 27.2%) could fix their unemployment problems by exchanging their unemployed! As migrants, they would create jobs in their new country and each country would have 100% employment!

Believe that? No? Then you can see that the original statement is bogus,

2) Governement can borrow monry to 'invest', it isn't 'spending'.

If the government can borrow money and 'invest' it so getting a 'return' that more than covers the interest payments, well then none of us need ever work again! The government just needs to borrow money and 'invest' it and we cal all live off the excess returns!

Believe that? No? Then you can see that the original statement is bogus.

Thursday, 18 April 2013

Brighton Drug Taking Rooms

It is being proposed that Brighton (council? NHS?) look at providing 'safe houses' (or at least rooms) for drug users  to take their (own) drugs in a clean environment under medical supervision.

While this sounds like a motherhood/apple-pie proposal - it is potentially hugely expensive and it really isn't clear what it actually offers addicts that they don't already have access to. I believe clean syringes/needles are freely available and an ambulance is only a 999 call away from anyone in an emergency.

I understand the expense and quality of drugs are the biggest problem for drug users - risking themselves to get money for their habit and getting impure (random strength, contaminated) doses.

Unless the service will provide quality control on the drugs used it seems pointless.

However, even this is fraught with problems, if the users drus were tested would staff allow a user to take a dose known to be contaminated? Surely not, and If not what is the addict to do? Be told to take it elsewhere (so much for being safe!)? Have it confiscated so they have to go and try to find another dose (if they have the money...)?

The only 'solution' to avoid contaminated drugs would be for pure drugs to be made available in the drug-room itself. Then the question is whether they are 'sold' to users by the medics (state becomes monopoly narcotics dealer - what if the addict has no money?), or whether the drugs are simply given free to users (state issues free drugs for all, from huge menu, on demand!).

This doesn't even start to address addicts and dealers being attracted to the area (unless it is an EU wide scheme).

So simply providing a 'venue' seems to solve nothing, but creates a whole new raft of problems... but it does provide more jobs and 'prestige' for medics etc 'working' in the area of drugs and addiction... so you can see why they would like it.

Wednesday, 17 April 2013

Socialisms useful fools. If you don't like your job, that is your problem, nobody elses - farmers included.

I am sure there are farmers who are happy with their lot - but the public rarely of ever hear from them. What the public, the tax payer and consumer, actualy hear is complaint after complaint from farmers and the farming lobby about how unfair everything is, and why it is everybody elses fault and 'society' needs to change, needs to adapt, so farmers can have everthing just as they want it. For 'change' and 'adapt' read 'pay us more'.

For socialism to win, and deliver the public into serfdom under the thumb of the party bosses, the public must be impoverished and made dependent. On the basis that many people would 'choose' serfdom if starvation was the only other option - those that wouldn't, wouldn't be around for much longer.

So, again they cry goes up that "the consumer isn't paying enough, they are getting something for nothing, make them pay more, it is 'the right thing to do', 'its only fair'". Of course, for these people, nothing is ever enough - if they win once they won't be satisfied, they will simply push all the harder for another wealth grab, and another - until they have it all.

While the vested interests fight this battle, the government are happy for their income from taxes and duty's (being percentage based)  to rise with the prices. 20% tax/duty on 'a lot' is more than 20% tax/duty on 'a little'.

It isn't just farming/food - the activists here are just useful fools, as are activists for other vested interests. We are told that we have some 'moral duty' to pay more for our food, pay more to run our cars, pay more to heat our homes, pay more to use public transport, pay more to drink alcohol, pay more to smoke tobacco, pay more for spurious 'progressive' posts in the public sector, pay more to foreign governments, pay more for just about everything.

It is said 'time is money', but more importantly, for many of us (the non-rich) 'money is time' - our money represents the limited and precious hours of our lives that we have sold to someone else simply to survive and get by.

Every call for us to pay more is a call to give up a bit more of out lives, sacrifice a bit more of our time here - simply because someone else thinks they have more right to our limited existance than we, ourselves, do.

In the end people will only pay others for things if they cannot do those things for themselves, more cheaply (based on the value they choose to give their own time). Doing things for yourself usually has the additional benefit that no tax is payable - that would be a tax on your very existance! (Only the most evil of people would support that - as it amounts to slavery).

The farming lobby, public health campaigners and greens are in the vanguard of the socialists states 'useful fools' in pushing us towards a horrible, totalitarian, socialist society. Don't be taken in by their moaning and nagging and bogus 'real cost of...' arguments - if they are unhappy, then it is for them to sort out themselves, without dumping on the rest of us.

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

Open Border 'Libertarians' - the lefts fifth column of utilitarianists.

There is a group of people claiming to be libertatian, who have perversly come out in favour of open-door, unlimited, unfettered immigration.

The central plank to their argument is that - in total - a higher proportion of immigrants are employed than UK born, implying that they create more wealth than they consume, so increase GDP so they are a benefit to the UK.

My first challenge to this argument is that it could justify some imigration, but it there is nothing there to support open-door immigration. Why shouldn't we expect 100% empoyment among immigrants? After all we are in a position to choose who to admit and who to allow to stay - unlike native citizens, who are here for better or worse...

But a bigger question comes back to Maggies 'no such thing as society', society is not an entity in its own right, it is a term that refers to individual men and women. So what does it even mean for a 'country' to be better off? Countries don't have minds, souls, feelings, thoughts... the government/state may be 'better off' with a higher GDP to tax, but a man on minimum wage is still on minimum wage regardless.

If the argument is that the average person in the UK is better off, well again - the UK citizen on minimum wage is still on minimum wage even if a new migrant is in the UK earning a fortune - is the open-door-libertarians argument that UK citizens have some duty to share their birthright simply for the benefit of non-citizens? This is a clasic utilitarian argument - 'the greatest greatest good for the greatest number through redistribution'.

These foolish young 'libertarians' have thought themselves through libertarianism, righ in to utilitarianism (a socialist philosophy) but not noticed (or don't want to admit it) so cling to a trendy 'libertarian' label they no longer deserve.

Friday, 22 March 2013

A UK from first principles. (1)

Every UK citizen is entitled to a living by their own labour

A UK citizen maybe called up to fight to defend the country - this gives them a right to a share in the land we stand on.

The UK is about 60 million acres, there are about 60 million UK citizens - so each UK citizen is nominally entitled to one acre of land.

Farming 6 acres can provide self-sufficiency for 6 people (without huge physical effort) - so each citizen has the (theoretical) ability to be self-sufficient by their own (relatively light) labour.  In practice not all land can be farmed, but I haven't included the sea and fishing resources so I am still comfortable with the principle.

This gives a nominal default condition for UK citizens and the ownership of the land they stand on.

It is this that, I believe, should be the logical underpinning of a citizens income and citizenship itself - the right for each UK citizen to the use of, or receive rental income from, a nominal acre of UK land. This is in return for being prepared to defend the country, this should be as of right and untaxable.

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Minimum Pricing - First they came for the untouchables.


Minimum unit pricing for alcohol is being promoted by many groups - particularly those of a nannying, lefty bent. However, even some of a more conservative nature seem to be supporting this bandwagon.

To me as a believer in equality and freedom, this is an attack on the humanity of a group of our own citizens.

I know of no one who is asking/demanding that they pay more for alcoholic drinks themselves.

The entire minimum pricing programme is being promoted by one group, to be inflicted on another group - the smug, comfortable, faux-compassionate, do-gooders inflicting and imposing their will, against the will if their less comfortable, poorer, vulnerable victims.

The promoters of minimum pricing have done well to bring about this divisive alignment - to put themselves in a group, with no accountability to anyone else, with apparent power over another group unable to defend themselves. Creating a society where men are no longer equal - instead we have the coercers and the coerced, with no election or battle, a simple coup d'etat.

Poor peoples access to alcohol is to be restricted - no such restriction will be placed on any other part of society. Would a wealthier part of society accept a restriction placed only on themselves? Ban the middle class from driving? Ban the mega rich from skiing? Or even banning either of these groups from consuming alcohol? If not then why is it that the current target group are seen as acceptable victims of this coercion? Simply because they are poor and without political influence or power?

To treat the poor in our society with such high handed prejudice disgusts me to the core. Supporters of this shameful proposal disgust me equally. If this goes through, then I can only hope that one day they too will find themselves in a similar position of those they seek to oppress today, and get to feel their own boot stamping on their faces...

Friday, 15 March 2013

Why has housing become 'unaffordable' in the UK?

People are constantly complaining that the cost of housing in the UK has become unaffordable...

The relative cost of labour and materials has not had much of an influence they have been quite stable - although arbitrary building regulations are always being piled on, causing some distortions. But the main cause of price increases is demand increasing more than supply.

Demand rose because:-

  • Good Investment: Property has been one of the few investments open to the general public that the government have not completely debased and stolen from. This is most likely because politicians and their friends also have such big investments in property.
  • Population Growth: More people both born here and from immigration.
  • Property Preference: The properties available have become less of a match to what people are looking for. More, small/individual, accommodation is apparently being demanded.

Supply has been limited because:-

  • Planning requirements on land has blocked development.
  • Planning requirements for redevelopment has blocked redevelopment.
  • Investors in land have been content to watch the asset appreciate rather than actually build on it.
  • Developers build the most profitable type of property, not the most wanted/needed.
  • The costs of moving discourages owner/occupiers from doing so, so many people stay in properties that have become 'inappropriate' for their needs.

So prices rose.

Prices cannot fall safely because people cannot afford to sell for below their purchase price (or re-mortgage value!) - unless they are desperate/bankrupt they have to stick it out.

Inflation will eventually make current prices look more reasonable - so unless the bubble is to 'burst', it is a matter of waiting for inflation to 'bring prices down'.

The bubble bursting may help prices come down, but at the expense of the current home 'owners' being impoverished and made homeless. This would add to the problem, rather than helping to fix it.

So as you can see if you look at each cause... its the government wot done it.

Thursday, 14 March 2013

Government Borrowing and Spending to Create Growth

This is how it works.

Imagine you have a spouse, kids and house - so mortgage, food, heating etc to pay for - and you lose your job and can't get another one.

What you do is...

  1. Take out all the loans you can - empty your bank account, hit your limit on all credit cards.
  2. Spend all this money on luxuries you wouldn't normally buy.
  3. Wait for the shops you spent all your money at to offer you a job to cope with the 'boom' they just experienced
Good eh?

Or

The state spending to promote growth is like a starving man eating his own leg to fatten himself up.

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Marriage (and other stuff...)


The most effective way make people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognised before. People are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretence at the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes all at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regime of expressed.

Hayek - The Road To Serfdom - 1944

Tuesday, 5 February 2013

As 2010 #UKIP parliamentary candidate for Hove and Portslade - on traditional/Christian values.

This is a letter I wrote in reply to a voter in the 2010 general election, as UKIP candidate for Hove and Portslade.

He had asked about my support for Christians and Christian values.

I wrote:
church leaders pursuit of 'modern relevance' seems to have led to an abandonment of traditional values, and made what remains very hard to protect.

This seems particularly relevant now that traditional 'marriage' is on the verge of being abandoned.

--

28/04/2010

Dear XXXXXXXX

The UK traditionally and historically has a Christian culture, this is a fact and should never be forgotten. I myself was married in church and both of my children were baptised (although I would no longer count myself a churchy person - partly due to what I saw as the wishy-washiness of the national church leaders).

There is a balance to be made between conflicting rights of different groups, but our traditional, native culture currently seems to be held in contempt and not even accorded equality with other groups - this is just plain wrong.

In principal I would fully support keeping Sunday special (surely everyone deserves one day a week of rest) - however as a self-employed working man I know that with high taxes, high prices etc for many (myself included) even six working days a week is not always enough for one person to earn a living for their family, as long as this is the case I could not support a law that could harm these people and their families. These pressures on working people need to be addressed to have any chance of any day of the week special.

I hope I don't offend you, but I really think that the church leaders have a huge responsible for the current state of affairs - their support for socialist politics has helped lead to a country of high tax that means working people have very little time for social/family activities and little spare money for voluntary charitable work; their support for socialist 'working regulations' has then helped rob people of the means to support themselves and their families. also the church leaders pursuit of 'modern relevance' seems to have led to an abandonment of traditional values, and made what remains very hard to protect. Please don't take this as an attack on religion, it is just disappointment with the leadership of the church.

I hope none of this seems evasive or offensive - I suspect that of the Hove candidates I would be the strongest supporter of Chirstian values (even if on a tradition rather than religious basis).

Protecting peoples rights is never comfortable, as they only really need protection when they are under attack and protecting them will put their defenders under attack also - however I am prepared for some discomfort if elected!

Best Regards

Paul Perrin
UKIP Candidate for Hove and Portslade [2010 General Election]

Saturday, 26 January 2013

Same sex marriage suporters indulge in some gay bashing of their own...

What a display, half a dozen straight, same sex marriage supporters laying into a gay man because he doesn't agree with them.

Before knowing he was gay, they attacked him the same way they attacked me (me being a straight opponent of same sex mariage) - they were throwing around bogus 'equality' arguments, and saying how this is a vital issue that all homosexuals and most hetrosexuals support, and that only a bigot and homophobe could disagree with them.

He stood his ground and produced several great links showing that no serious rights organisation considers same-sex marriage a 'human rights' issue, he withstood the onslaught with style, running rings around his attackers.

Then the bombshell - pointing out that he himself was gay.

Well that was spectacular - the shouts of bigot and homophobe evaporated in an instant. However it was not a knockout blow... his attackers u-turned and pivoted... and launched a new attack from a different angle.

Now they insisted that he was an exception, that he was on his own, that he was misguided and like all gay people he was sorely oppressed and needed their help to be treated equally as a normal person.

He would have none of this - he renewed his counter attack tearing their arguments apart one by one - refusing to let them label him a victim in need of their pity and their help.

Meanwhile, I too had been fighting these promoters of 'enforced victimhood' and 'disparagers of true equality'. As they cowered and failed I gave another tweet of support to my gay comrade 'Good stuff, keep this up and we'll have to start treating you gays as normal people', sarcasticly highlighting the 'we powerful [straights]' vs 'you [dependent on our help] gays' division that these supposed believers in 'equality' are trying to estabish and reinforce in perpetuity. And highlighting that he was already superior to them in his arguments.

What ever the arguments in favour of same sex marriage, the bulk of the noise is coming from mostly straight pro-ssm campaigners, many of whom seem to be genuinely homophobic, who are reacting to this dog-whistle issue as bogus 'proof' that they are not. They know/care little about the issue itself, they just want to be seen to be associated with a 'right on' cause.

So who is it that has little or no respect for gay people? Clearly those who not only think they want/need their help, but will do their best to bully them into accepting it. Me, I have much more respect for people than that - gay or straight, black or white, male or female - to me they are all 'normal people', and individuals,, already.

Monday, 21 January 2013

Would you Adam and Eve it? (#1)

And so the story began.

Adam and Eve lived on a five acre farm with their three children.

Each day Adam would tend the fields and animals, doing whaterver work and tasks the time of year demanded. Eve would look after the house, keep it clean and tidy, prepare meals and have primary responsibility for looking after and managing the children. But in either case, Adam and Eve would help out in any role where it was required.

This was a division of labour that worked very well for the whole family, a bit like governments having different departments for domestic affiars - 'The Home Office' - and for another for non-domestic affairs - 'The Foreign Office'. Or of a company having different departments for managing the internal operations of the company (Human Resources, Typing Pool etc) and external operations (Salesmen, Client Relationship Managers etc).

Adam and Eve were equal partners in their relationship and family, they chose how best to divide and/or share roles - in some cases one of them specialising and building up specific skills, in others (like bed time reading to the children) they shared the priviledge of doing the task.

Being sensible, rational people it never occured to them to split every job precisely down the middle to try to make things 'equal' or 'fair' - that would be inefficent, artificial and childish. Things were efficient, fair and enjoyable as they were.

Thing is, I call them Adam and Eve, but that was just the shortened version of their names - I think their full names were actually Alisadam the childrens mother and Steven their father - but could be wrong... or have them around the wrong way - but that doesn't really matter does it?

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

'Same Sex Marriage' - revisited - still an oxymoron.

I blogged almost a year ago about 'same sex marriage' - having had various discussions, debates and arguments about it I thought it was about time to summarise developments.

One thing that hasn't changed is that 'same sex marriage' is still an oxymoron (self contradicting), it cannot exist.

However the arguments to explain this situation have developed since I last blogged and there is one that is particularly key - so here goes.
The essence of marriage is an exclusive relationship between the two parties. A man and a woman who are married are legally bound to only have sexual intercourse with each other - breaking this exclusivity is 'adultery' and with no further ado is grounds for divorce. In fact the marriage only properly begins when they do have sexual intercourse together following the ceremony and  by so doing 'consummate' the marriage.

Returning to (say) 'an old flame' or having a 'one night stand' even the once is 'adultery' and in itself grounds for divorce. There is no need to demonstrate any particular damage, hurt, reasonableness - the act itself is all that matters.

However, it has been 'decided' that under 'same sex marriage' the definition of consummation and adultery will not be changed to cover same-sex situations. So a partner in a 'same sex marriage' could indeed return to an old flame, or have a one night stand and would not be considered 'adulterous'. For the 'marriage' to be terminated by divorce some proof of 'unreasonableness' would have to be demonstrated by the 'other' partner.

More perversely - if a partner in a same-sex marriage did have sexual intercourse with another person (of the opposite sex...) it would be considered adultery(!). So performing an act with someone that they had never, and could never perform with their 'partner' becomes grounds for divorce, while performing sexual acts they can/do perform with their partner are not!

This isn't a 'new' or 'clever' argument - it is just capturing some essence of my initial objection to 'same sex marriage' - marriage recognises and protects a unique and exclusive relationship between one man and one woman focused on the unique act of creating children together and raising a family.

'Same sex marriage' defines nothing that makes the couples relationship exclusive or unique - the essence of 'marriage' is simply not there - 'same sex marriage' is indeed an oxymoron.