Free People of England

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

2012-02-11T11:05:00.000Z

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.

Vassal States - EU, Italy Greece (and WIkipedia)

2012-02-08T12:06:00.000Z

I have updated the Wikipedia entry for vassal states... Some eu-phile muppet has created a new account just to revert the article (coward). So thought I'd put a copy here for reference...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal_state

Vassal state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vassal state is any state that is subordinate to another. The vassal in these cases is the ruler, rather than the state itself. Being a vassal most commonly implies providing military assistance to the dominant state when requested to do so; it sometimes implies paying tribute, but a state which does so is better described as atributary state. In simpler terms the vassal state would have to provide military power to the dominant stat

European Union

Main article: European Union

The European Union (EU) was originally established as a economic pact between a number of European countries first based on trade but then expanded its membership and developed by steps to establish itself as an independent political identity under the Treaty of Lisbon.

The first member states to truly become vassals of the EU were Italy^[1] and Greece^[2].

In Italy the EU directly appointed an existing MP as new Prime Minister (Mario Monti) who then appointed a new cabinet including many unelected technocrats all with out reference to the citizens of the country.

In Greece the EU directly appointed an academic as new Prime Minister (Lucas Papademos). Shortly after this, the EU sought to deepen its power over Greece by attempting to directly appoint a commissioner to take direct control of the Greek national budget^[3]. There were even suggestions that the country should be renamed to mark a break with its past^[4].

The appointment of a financial commissioner was blocked, but a special task force was sent to Greece under the leadership of Horst Reichenbach^[5]. This was not well received by many Greek people, who made reference to the Nazi German occupation of Greece in the Second World War^[6], and reference made toGauleiter^[7] the name for local Nazi party leders during the Second World War.

References

One in Eight Brighton Residents Work in Local Retail - (plus video)

2012-01-30T14:02:00.000Z

1 in 8 of Brighton resident employed in city's retail sector worth £375m/yr
https://twitter.com/#!/johnshewell/statuses/163948589624729600

This was a timely tweet as I recently produced a video about Brighton and Hove Council failing to support retail businesses - particularly with their aggressive anti-car policies.

The fact there are so many closed shops that the council 'decorates' to look better should be warning enough that all is not well. But the fact the council don't bother to record shop closures probably says it all.

Not just 'ouch', but 'bloody, bloody ouch - that really hurts' - Schools in Brighton/Hove

2012-01-30T00:11:00.000Z

Skipping a load of background... (for now...) and getting right on with the current story/issue.

I read in the local paper (definitely not a 'rag'... legally dangerous to call them 'a rag'!)... Anyway, I read that...

A local school whose 'league table' position had slipped from solid middle to absolute bottom described this years results as 'a blip'.

A F*KING BLIP !! - it maybe a BLIP for the schools stats and the local councils stats but is isn't a F*CKING BLIP for the kids who just left the F*CKING SCHOOL without DECENT QUALIFICATIONS.

Sorry to be so blunt, but this really focuses 100% on something I despise about the state education system and the public sector in general. There are armies of people who think *firstly* about themselves and their position and only *secondarily* (if that) about the people/individuals they are supposed to be serving/delivering to.

A school has failed a year of its students and calls it is called a 'blip' - it is the start of the rest of their lives to those students...

One of my boys could have been in that failed year - but a few years back we raided of our savings (our kids 'collage fund' our 'pension fund' etc) and took him out of that (clearly declining) school for a private school, a private school that had/has only one focus - to do the best for every single child in its care. Not a 'hot house' or for 'high flyers only' but a school that wanted kids who would fit in and that it could help be the best that they can be.

It is tragic what has happened to the kids left behind at that failing school, and I feel for every parent who (for whatever reason) couldn't do what we did for ours, and may have had to watch their child meander into mediocrity instead of stretching towards their potential.

Brighton and Hove schools and stupid 'lottery plus catchment areas' policy is a proven failure.

And more widely 'Comprehensive education' is a failure, however long it goes on and however much taxpayers money is thrown at it, it can never, ever work. It is time to face up to is failure and either switch to a different, better new system - OR - switch back to a Grammar School system that we used to have and used to propel so many children from 'poor' families up the socio-economic ladder.

There is no time to waste, kids are being failed right now - and a blip on government stats is a life time of regret for them.

Brighton and Hove Greens (again...) - Showing ageism in libraries is alive and well.

2012-01-29T20:15:00.001Z

Brighton and Hove Greens are planning to ditch the mobile library service.

Green Councillor Jason Kitcat the 'brains behind the budget' has said the vehicle needs replacing and this would cost £120,000

I have been chasing the council about ditching the mobile library service (using freedom of information requests), and finally got a definitive response...

The Greens are scrapping the mobile library vehicle because it is 7 years old. It is purely based on the age of the vehicle, not about its condition or the cost of maintenance/repair, just age. There has been no review/analysis/checking of the vehicle - they simply scrap at 7 years regardless...

I guess some people might have expected a bit more from a group who claim to be into sustainability, recycling etc... After all that is how some people still (naively) see the greens.

Even I would expect more from such a group... But truth be told the 'Green Party' have nothing to do with sustainability, recycling, the environment etc... the environmental issues of the 'ecology party' are just a smoke screen they pay lip service to. The modern Green party are the same far left marxist 'socialist workers party' types who have leapt on each and every cause they can to impose their beliefs on all of us.

The Green party have done a pretty good job on some of the residents of Brighton/Hove, even getting comfortable middle class people to vote Green and so support their own destruction.

I guess the Greens getting in as a minority administration has done every one a favour - we get to see their true colour (deepest, deepest ideological red) before they have full power to implement their plans.

Its a near thing, but together we can ditch them next time and get an administration interested in serving the residents of the city rather than seeling ot control the residents of the city...

Back on mobile libraries:

Is the mobile library dead?
In the age of eBooks, its demise wouldn't be a surprise – and yet in some places the mobile library is thriving
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/07/mobile-libraries

Brighton and Hove Green Led Council - Budget Consultation Farce #2

2012-01-29T16:55:00.001Z

Following on from my last damning of Brighton and Hove Greens for being blindly loyal to unfounded predictions - putting blind faith in bad guesses and getting it wrong (regarding the budget - their foolishness over 'man made global warming' is for another day!).

The Greens' Jason Kitcat produced a council budget for two years, instead of the usual one year.

In The Argus local newspaper I remember (but can't find the link) a report of Tory councillor Theobald saying it was not sensible to be setting a two year budget when it is impossible to know what could happen between then and now.

I, myself, challenged Kitcat on twitter about this - pointing out the the existing 2.5% freeze grant (that Kitcat wants to reject) was only confirmed a short time before the budget was set - no one knew about it a year ago, let alone two years ago! So what might the future hold? Kitcat simply insisted that nothing had been announced for next year, so it was sensible to assume there would be nothing.

Kitcat was further challenged on his crystal ball gazing by a local Labour activist - again to no avail.

Now, it hss just been reported that the government are indeed considering additional grants *next year* to councils who freeze their council tax this year!

Councils could be financially protected in the future if they freeze council tax this year, communities secretary Eric Pickles has hinted.
http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=104744

Theobald didn't *know*, I didn't *know*, the labour activist didn't *know* - but we all recognised that you don't dump a huge bill on council taxpayers 'on the off chance'. Meanwhile, Kitcat didn't *know* either, but showed blind faith in his own guess - a guess that hammers local taxpayers - a guess that turns out to be wrong.

Taxation "You have to tax people, because selfish people won't just give!'

2012-01-28T14:50:00.000Z

When discussing voluntary charitable giving vs coercive taxation, an argument often put forwards in favour of taxation is "some people are selfish and would not give, so you have to tax them".

My response is "So what if some people wouldn't give?".

If state welfare is provided by spreading the burden between everyone using taxation - then some people will be forced to pay when they would rather not, but also some people will pay less than they would be willing to give otherwise...

If we simply let people give as much (or as little) as they are prepared to give we will have the society we are willing to pay for, no one will be imposed upon, and no one will be robbed of the opportunity to be as charitable as they wish.

The same extends to the allocation of general taxation for essential state duties - such as defence, justice and market regulation. If there are people who don't want their taxes going on the UK's nuclear deterrent, then why not let them have their taxes spent elsewhere?

I'd be happy for more of my taxes to go to our nuclear deterrent and have less spent on the areas that are already covered by the those who don't want to pay for our submarines.

The idea that 'everyone' must be made to pay towards 'everything' is simply bogus - based on the patronising view that taxpayers are cattle the be herded by their 'betters' and incapable of making their own choices/decisions. It causes friction, encourages evasion and suits no one.

Radical drugs policy

2012-01-28T12:26:00.001Z

Many people like taking drugs - many drugs mimic natural body chemicals/responses that everyone enjoys as part of the way we naturally function.

If someone enjoys a film that you don't like or a joke that you don't 'get' - do you resent them enjoying the film/joke? Well I guess you won't be bothered about the film, but might resent not 'getting' the joke, and be demanding to know what is so funny.

It seems to me that this (jealous/resentful feeling when not getting the joke) is the cause of much anti-drug feeling - that some people can be having a 'good time' that the anti's don't share in.

The difference between not getting a joke and not taking drugs is that the latter is most likely through fear - a fear of being out of control, a fear of getting addicted, a fear of what others may say/think, a fear of the law.

The anti's are angry out of frustration at the conflict of wanting a 'good time' but not being willing to 'pay the price' - and jealousy of others who are prepared to do so.

The anti's are fundamentally unhappy with their lot, because their efforts at happiness can by surpassed simply and cheaply - but only by taking a risk that they dare not take.

I am not anti-drugs, as I am not angry, frustrated or jealous of those that do; I am not pro-drugs because I don't think they are essential to be happy.

One thing that does amuse me is observing the anti's tie themselves in knots as they try to create new and ever more bizarre, disjointed reasons to pretend that their attitude is based on anything other than their own internal conflict caused by their puritanical prejudice and bias.

One thing that is sad is the anti's actions (laws, bans, wars) creating a market for organised crime to hugely profit in the trade of illegal substances. A trade and legal environment that gives bad people vast amounts of money to be bad with and often drags people (who only want to be happier) down in to poverty, crime and despair - which can often leave them ever more eager and desparate to seek out the cheapest feeling of happiness they can get their hands on...

What has been done so far on UK drug policy is clearly not working - its time for a complete rethink, and a radical change.

Brighton and Hove Councillors - Fools and Felons - Alcohol Minimum Pricing.

2012-01-27T09:38:00.000Z

Pubs in the UK have recently been shutting at unprecedented rate.

The start of the steep decline coincides precisely with the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs, however there are some who say that the two things are not related - but they seem to have no real explanation as to what else at that specific time could have triggered the start of the decline...

Parliament recently passed a motion in support of the British Pub - supporting proposals intended to reverse the decline (or at least slow it).

Even more recently, Brighton and Hove city council were presented with a motion supporting the parliamentary motion - however it had a toxic tail added. As well as supporting the parliamentary motion, it added:-

(2) Urges the government to introduce a minimum price for alcohol sales in England to stop the sale of cheap alcohol in shops and supermarkets and address the disparity between shop and pub prices, thus encouraging consumers to drink in the safe and regulated environment of the local community pub. http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=37680

So they want to 'address disparity' in pricing - but not by bringing pub prices down, but by pushing shop prices up! Who are these guys working for? who do they represent? in whose interests are they really working?

Why do they say they want to end disparity? They say it is to encourage people to drink in the 'safe and regulated' environment of a pub. Well I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think there are many normal people who would feel safer in a pub than at home!

As for 'regulated' is that now considered a good thing in itself? Regulation for the sake of it (at public expense of course) - is it automatically a public good for peoples behaviour to be controlled by the state? Well it seems that Brighton and Hove city council think so - the lessons of the Soviet Union so quickly forgotten...

It seems the lunatics really have taken over the asylum - we can only hope to get control back before damage is terminal...

Green Energy Policy - A Return to the Dark Ages and War.

2012-01-24T11:44:00.000Z

The Greens despise mankind as a species and hold us in contempt, as evidenced by quotes such as:
Giving society cheap abundant energy is . . . like giving an idiot child a machine gun.
Paul R. Ehrlich - a founder of modern Green philosophy
Paul Perrin

Recent developments mean we now have access to more energy resources, in more locations, than we ever imagined.

Shale Gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas
http://geology.com/energy/world-shale-gas/

Underground Coal Gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification
http://coal.decc.gov.uk/en/coal/cms/publications/mining/gasification/gasification.aspx

Deep Sea Methane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

There is believed to be more energy in deep sea methane alone than in all other carbon sources (oil, coal etc) put together. These energy resources are vast and spread all around the world.

Energy supplies are one of the major causes of military and political conflict in the world - most recent military adventures by the US and UK have been accused of being based on greed for oil rather than humanitarian or political issues.

Another source of future conflict is supposed to be water - for both drinking and irrigation. With cheap energy, there is no limit to the moving of water around the continents of the world, nor to water purification and desalination.

The whole world could be on the edge of a new revolution - a revolution of cheap, conflict free energy. If this revolution is well managed this could lead to a new golden age for all mankind.

Such a new golden age would not be universally popular - there is a long (twisted) tradition of self-flagellation, guilt and puritanism in western culture - a philosophy that says mankind deserves to suffer and struggle and that an easy life is bad for 'character'.

Sometimes this 'guilt' philosophy is genuinely held, other times it is just a tool of the ruling class to keep the subjugate others and keep them in place as a servant or peasant class.

Amongst others, the Green party are fully signed up to this guilt based philosophy - whether all of their supporters are aware of it or not. They argue against accessing this new golden age, they say we should turn our back on this cheap, abundant energy, they argue for a return to small local community (tribal) living, based on hard labour. Had they been around in the stone age, mankind would still be in the stone age and the Greens would have celebrated this achievement.

We must reject the obsolete philosophy of 'mankind is bad and deserves to be punished'. We had almost put it behind us with the decline of widespread support for churches preaching 'guilt and original sin', the Green movement is working hard to revive it. But it will result in more and continued conflict, suffering and poverty - we must simply say NO to these bizarre siren voices.

Pretty much everyone supports a clean environment, conservation of natural resources that are limited and cannot be replaced etc - but the Green party are not about these 'apple pie and motherhood' issues, they are about controlling and suppressing mankind. Don't be fooled by them.

The state undermines 'community cohesion' simply by getting involved.

2012-01-23T10:04:00.000Z

Social Cohesion: The state isn't part of the solution, the state is the cause of the problem!
Paul Perrin

During a water outage that lasted a number of days, some old folk were complaining about the number of times they were having to answer the door to people offering to get them water from standpipes/tankers. They had every pot and pan full already, filled by earlier helpers.

When you hear about communities falling apart, old folk freezing, starving, dying and not being found for weeks - what was happening during the water outage?

Simple - many people like helping, they are happy to help - but when the state steps in and hijacks that responsibility (along with their dodgy 'third sector' hangers on) people are deprived of the opportunity. The state has taken responsibility for looking after people in most situations, so other people let them get on with it - the state destroys community spirit, community cohesion. However, when exceptional circumstances arise (such as the water outage) people seize the opportunity to 'help', 'feel useful' and 'make a contribution'.

People would help more, be more community minded if the state got out of the way - stopped usurping the role and stopped taking our money to pay for it - with less done by the state, and so less cost, taxes would be lower and people would need to work fewer hours and have more time to be community minded - just as many already want to be.

Other examples of people seizing the opportunity to help, beating the state to the job, were the clean up after the riots, and during snowy periods when council gritting fails - many people get out and make paths safe.

The state isn't part of the solution, the state is the cause of the problem!

Brighton and Hove Green Led Council - Budget Consultation Farce

2012-01-21T09:36:00.001Z

Having spent significant amounts of council taxpayers money, and consumed a vast amount of public time and effort, the Green led Council has come clean and admitted that the figures in their budget were wrong.

In a hugely embarrassing u-turn Jason Kitcat, the green councillor behind the budget was forced to confess that there was considerably more money available to the council than he had said in the budget proposal, and many of his proposed cuts (that had been the source of much expensive and time consuming debate) were entirely unnecessary.

This new information came to light only after an extensive period of consultation and debate. Unfortunately that debate only engaged a very small niche of the Brighton and Hove taxpayers, but was at considerable expense and time consuming for the few who did participate.

This embarrassing Green confession also calls into question a fundamental and key element of the Green councils budget policy.

Kitcat has declared that he is setting a two year budget to provide 'stability', this policy has been seriously challenged from many quarters (Labour, Conservative and UKIP) - especially as it forms the basis of the Greens decision to reject 2.5% budget increase from central government, an instead demand a 3.5% increase in their charge to Council Tax payers.

As this episode shows, the Greens got their figures hugely wrong over the one month budget consultation period - how on earth do they believe they can accurately predict figure over a two year period? Council taxpayer being landed with a projected 10.5% rise in council tax will be asking what credibility the Greens still have on finance... if any.

Migration and Unemployment - do migrants take jobs from UK citizens?

2012-01-10T10:21:00.001Z

The left wing think tank NIESR get the answer they want, by asking a question that doesn't mean what you think it does...
Paul Perrin

The Reports

There have been two reports just released on the issue of whether immigration damages job opportunities for our own citizens.

One was from 'Migration Watch' who tend to beleive that uncontrolled immigration is bad for the UK:
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressReleases#307

And one from NIESR (National Institute of Economic and Social Research) a left wing think tank who tend to support uncontrolled immigration to the UK:
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pubs/searchdetail.php?PublicationID=3125

The Migration Watch document has been reported in various places, with opposing comments from the NIESR and ASI (The Adam Smith Institute - a free market, business oriented think tank who would tend to support business having access to cheap labour).

NIESR - and its flawed question.

THe NIESR report is presented as showing there is no link to immigration and unemployment. However that is not the question it actually asks or answers...

The NIESR report is actually looking at whether a company taking on a migrant worker will automatically sack an existing UK employee. Literally 'do migrants take UK workers jobs'. This is a very narrow and odd question to ask, but there are some obvious reasons that NIESR might prefer this question to the really important question of 'would more UK workers have jobs if there were fewer migrant workers'.

The NIESE question and approach is cleverly crafted as it would only detect large scale and hugely clumsy acts of employers simply sacking their UK workers and replacing them with new migrants, and it would not detect the issues that have causes uproar in the past.

What the NIESE study completely hides is new jobs being created and going to new migrant workers, rather than going to our existing unemployed citizens.

So the NIESE study is designed to miss the very issue that caused such a stir in june last year - "British Jobs for Migrant Workers" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284568/British-jobs-migrant-workers-Figures-ridicule-Labours-employment-pledge.html).

The Lefts Betrayal of our own Unemployed

Why is it such an issue that new jobs are going to migrants rather than our own unemployed, and such a devious distraction for reporting of this study to imply otherwise?

Because the economy is in bad shape and we need to GROW the economy to fix it. As it grows, new jobs will be created, but if those new jobs go to new migrants rather than our own unemployed, we will not get the benefits of that growth - and the economy will never recover.

If we are to cut our welfare bill by getting people back to work migration needs to be properly controlled, we can't let the left continue with their lies which they are now so wedded to that they can never face the truth.

Summary

Everyone in the world wants a better life and no one can blame them for trying to achieve one. But migration has to be on our terms - when it is for the benefit of UK citizens - maybe for skill shortages, specialist skills etc. Not purely for the financial advancement of foreign workers at the expense of UK workers.

A government has sovereignty over a particular piece of land, and has an absolute duty to put the interests of the citizens of that land above all other interests - that is what governments exist for, and why citizens entrust them with sovereignty.

While our own government is not putting our own interests first it is betraying us all.

(ps. Migrant vs Immigrant - these words seem to be used interchangeably now - for the avoidance of doubt, in this article, they refers to people who are not citizens of the UK, it is not a reference to where they were born, or other citizenships they may have had in the past).

Citizens Income and Flat Rate Tax

2012-01-09T15:46:00.000Z

This is just a high level summary of how a 'citizens income' would work, I was tweeting about it so thought I'd write it up a bit...

Citizens Income

Every UK citizen would receive a regular payment from the government - no means testing, just a fixed sum with no strings. This would be simple to process.

The sum would be sufficient to cover basic 'living' expenses.

So for the unemployed, no additional benefit would be payable - the 'citizens income' would replace job seekers allowance and housing benefit.

For the employed, there would be no 'tax bands' and no 'tax free allowances' - instead they would receive the citizens income to replace their tax free allowance.

This would be on the region of £10,000

Flat Tax

All income would be taxed with one tax at a fixed rate - this would replace the existing National Insurance contributions and income tax. This rate is likely to be around 35%.

Because the tax rate is flat, and because everyone receives citizens income regardless of other earnings - there is no 'benefits trap' everyone would 'take home' 65% of every pound they earned/were paid, in addition to their full 'citizens income'.

Who pays the 'Flat Tax'?

Once in place, every company would be paying 35% of everyones pay to the government as tax - so why bother to track individuals tax payments at all? If a company had a total payroll bill of (say) £1,000,000 per month - it could simply pay 35% to the taxman (£350,000) and then distribute the remainder (£650,000) to its employees 'tax paid'.

And Corporation Tax?

How about setting the salary 'flat tax' and 'corporation tax' the same rate?

If this were done, then a companies profits (income, less costs except payroll) could be taxed at that rate (say 35%) and the remainder would be 'tax paid' and could be distributed to workers as pay and share holders as dividends with no further tax to worry about.

A huge part of the UK tax system would simply disappear. The citizens income would only be paid to UK Citizens, so there is no room for 'benefits fraud' there and a company would be paying a flat tax on all its profits, so there is little scope for evasion there, finally as all payroll is taxed at the same rate and paid by the company, there is little scope for companies to commit fraud/evasion, and no scope for individuals/employees to do so at all.

Finally

During the switch from our current taxation system to the new one, peoples 'take home pay' would have to be protected - it is a 'simplification' not a tax raising exercise, so people currently paying higher tax rates would actually have their 'gross' salary figure cut, while people on low pay may have their 'gross' salary increased - however every one would continue to 'take home' the same immediately after the switch over as they did before, so there would be no hardship and no windfalls!

There would be massive savings to be made in the existing civil service that handle taxation and there would still need to be some level of 'benefits' or 'social security' for those with various special needs.

Some people may choose to do nothing and scrape by on their 'citizens income' as their only means, but many would also be in a position to try to start new businesses, or do voluntary or care work for others, while yet others will be content to just carry on working at a job and receiving their pay to live a bit better - getting 65% of every single penny they earn from the first to the last.

A Philosophical Note

On the face of it 'citizens income' seems rather socialist and collective imposition on the public (who after all will ultimately be paying for it), but if we are to accept that, regardless of anything, people aren't going to be left to starve on the streets, it does seem the most efficient way of providing basic sustenance for all citizens.

On a philosophical note, I would suggest that a country belongs to all of its citizens as a birthright and to provide a basic living in return for them sharing their part of this commonwealth with everyone else is a fair trade - in theory each citizen of the UK is currently entitled to 1 about one acre - the citizens income could be though of as the income they earn from their one acre...

Dianne Abbott's racsim and the real damage it does.

2012-01-08T13:50:00.002Z

Different cultures work in different ways (or they wouldn't be different cultures) but the culture someone chooses to follow/adopt is a personal choice, entirely within their own power - not governed by the colour of their skin.
Paul Perrin

Context

Dianne Abbotts tweet, on its own is literally 'taken out of context'.

The context was a discussion on how black community communities and black leaders are presented in the media and to politicians - asking what a 'black community' is actually supposed to be, and so who/what those 'leaders' are supposed to be representing.

In this discussion Abbott rebuked the other participant for asking if the the term 'black' on its own was meaningful. Abbott suggested that was a valid line of discussion but that it should be kept quiet/private (don't wash dirty linen in public) and was a line of discussion that 'white people' like using to oppress others.

So 'in context' the tweet is (if anything) more racist than when taken out of context.

Its impossible to 'know' what someone else really believes - but if Abbott is judged by her words, she is undoubtedly a racist.

Equality Campaigner?

I think applying this title to Abbott is disingenuous - as her purpose does not seem to be 'equality'.

Her purpose is the advancement of those she considers to be 'black people', whether this makes them equal to others or not doesn't seem to matter one way or the other, as long as they advance others can 'go hang'.

And if you happen to have a black skin, but don't consider yourself primarily a 'black person' then you really better watch out for her ire.

The Real Damage her Racism Does

In the past the KKK and the Nation of Islam cooperated on the basis that they both supported a division of the races - the heavy-weight boxer Muhammad Ali addressed a KKK meeting.

Abbotts racism, drawing a line between 'black people' and 'white people', is no different.

In todays Sunday Times Rob Liddle (a humorous columnist, so with some comedic licence) quoted an earlier Dianne Abbot quote where she suggested that black mothers worked harder for their children than white mothers - Liddle suggesting they have to 'because the black fathers are nowhere to be seen'.

As a joke about a stereotype it may be amusing, but if taken at all seriously is offensive towards the millions of black fathers do take responsiblity for their families. Abbott's comments as a politician is what maintains this kind of humour.

Abbotts racism gives licence to all racism - the colour of her skin should make no difference to how she is judged.

PIP Breast Implants, the NHS, the MHRA etc.. etc...

2012-01-06T21:36:00.002Z

People with more time and resources than me will cover the fine detail, but I wanted to put one clear view from the public perspective on record...

Regulation

Many thousands of women (and men) paid for cosmetic surgery - the surgery was regulated by the UK government, the quality control of the equipment and implants used was regulated by the UK government.

It now transpires that the government regulation was completely incompetent.

This regulation has cost every single tax payer money, and this regulation has caused damage - people trusted the surgeons and surgery because the government approved the process and its quality control.

Health and Socialised Medicine

Apart from the regulatory failure, there is the plain 'health' issue - a person worried about a 'lump' will be treated by the NHS with a sense of urgency - a woman whose mental health is threatened by a pregnancy will get a termination on demand.

How is a persons worry about an implant any different to the worry caused by finding a 'lump'.

We are forced to finance the NHS, and in return it is supposed to have promised to treat all our ills - if it is going to be fussy about what it will and wont treat, then the public should become fussy about what they are prepared to pay towards it...

Asbestosis, White-Finger, Thalidomide - PIP Implants - etc...

When a significantly large group have an identical problem, isn't that exactly why people accept and support governments acting 'in the public interest'?

Action is needed now - the lawyers can sort out the compensation, insurance etc later - many peoples health (physical and mental) is at risk, we have the resources to fix this problem very quickly, and the resources to chase the guilty to the ends of the earth to pay for it *afterwards* with interest.

The Stephen Lawrence Story - media and political manipulation and myth.

2012-01-05T09:32:00.001Z

Firstly... this isn't about Stephen Lawrence as a person or his murder or his murderers, rather it is about the story that politicians and the media created based on those events, and used to manipulate public opinion. This blog entry isn't even about whether that was a good or bad thing generally, its just pointing out that it happened.

I could preface this with mealy mouthed waffle on about tragedy, awfulness, pity, struggle etc - but you can pluck a para or two of that from any number of news websites, so take it as read ok?

The story that has been presented to me over the past 15 years based on this event - and many other 'equality' stories - has been this is some one just like you except in one vital detail, that one detail being the thing that the public are told they are prejudice about, that one detail being something that the equalities industry are making money out of, and politicians are making political capital out of.

In this story the victim is a Londoner, a youth, out one evening with a friend - just like any other London youth might have been at that time - someone you could relate to, empathise with 100% - but he is murdered for one reason, the one thing that makes him at all different to you, that one reason is the colour of his skin. He is you, you are him, except for this one simple difference.

But, after 15 years of this story being repeated over and over and over exactly as first told, suddenly new information comes out, information that changes the 'just like you' part of the story, no reason is given for this information not having been given before to make the story more honest. Rather it seems the story has served its purpose, and now there are more newspapers to sell so that story doesn't matter any more.

It turns out that the victim was not 'just like' any other London youth, not someone solidly bound to the city or even the country - he had seriously considered moving out of the UK (back?) to Jamaica where his parents came, a place he had been taken to as a baby, moving there to work, and it turns out that his grave is actually in Jamaica too. Was he British? Was he Jamaican? A murder is a murder, but misrepresentation is still misrepresentation.

As I said at the start, this isn't about Stephen Lawrence as a person or his murder or his murderers - it is about the misleading story the public have been fed about who the people involved in this incident are/were.

Why did the 'story' leave out so many facts to paint the particular picture it did? Presumably to get additional public sympathy, dishonestly exploiting the empathy of the British people. I think you can forgive a family doing everything in their power to get justice, but the police? the politicians who have been grandstanding and band-wagon jumping and used this to manipulate the public? and the media (papers and television) delivering the politicians message (or their own hidden agenda), instead of the honest facts and news?

None of this changes the facts of the case, but 'the story', its creators, publishers and distributors have been deceiving the public for 15 years...

p.s. I am blogging this because I feel deceived - why should you care? Well if you don't care that's fine, bye, its no skin off my nose.

p.p.s. Any comments not based on the content of this post will simply be deleted - there are plenty of other places on the internet to publish unrelated stuff.

Making the most of our Roads - Pre-booked Parking.

2011-12-22T12:22:00.000Z

Imagine...

You want to go in to Brighton for the New Year Sales, you will be bringing back lots of items, so need your car to transport them.

As things stand today, you set off early, you hit the traffic queues, slowly crawl into Brighton, stop/start, stop/start burning fuel, wearing brakes, emitting fumes. Eventually you get to join the long, long queue for the car park and then trickle even more slowly forwards until eventually you get through the barrier and go looking for a space. Time wasted, fuel wasted, jams caused.

Or

You txt a request for a parking space near the shops you want to visit, request a time and duration of stay. You get a txt back giving three options for available locations, time and duration. You select one, then get on with your business. Knowing that there will be no jams and a space will be waiting for you, you set of shortly before you allocated slot, driver directly to the parking space park and shop.

An answer - pre-booked parking

A huge number of vehicles clogging Brighton roads are simply looking for or waiting for a place to park.

They sit in queues, holding up other traffic all emitting fumes to no purpose.

A solution? How about making all parking spaces in Brighton pre-bookable so no car ever waits for a space? Before a vehicle even starts its journey, the driver knows where they are going - and because the roads are clear there is no need to set off early to allow for jams. Set of to arrive just in time, as the previous vehicle vacates its space.

So drivers spend less time travelling, so use less fuel, emit fewer fumes and tie up the roads less.

How do you force people to use the pre-booking? You don't need to, it as long as bookings are allocated fairly everyone is better off, there is no reason/need to force people to use it.

Council tax payers could be given a free allowance of parking slots, early booking could be given a discount, any person, company or organisation with parking space could allow the system to manage their space too (when they don't need it).

The city has recently abandoned plans for 'Park and Ride' - but with pre-booked parking the city could implement 'Park and Park' for its visitors - instead of queueing on the city roads, wait in a holding area outside the city until a parking spaces is allocated and then drive directly to it to arrive just as it becomes available.

Brightons roads would be used for their intended purpose, to let people get from A to B, not as a huge holding area for people waiting for parking spaces.

Good For Brighton - Its people, visitors and businesses

Under Labour, Conservative and Greens, the council are jaded and out of new ideas they are all pretty much the same in thinking pricing is the only solution.

The city needs to move away from the failed old parties and the new failed party (the Greens) and get some fresh thinking - that's me - that's UKIP.

Want to work instead of get benefits? That's a criminal offence!

2011-12-19T01:36:00.000Z

This is a short blog to expand on a point I was making elsewhere.

One of my closest mates at my crappy comprehensive school had entered the school planning on being a doctor or surgeon - his primary school report said he was 'the perfect pupil' he had played cricket for the county juniors and was a top geezer. His family were as 'salt of the earth' as it is possible to be - rock solid working class grafters - running a newsagents/sweetshop with three teenage+ boys (he was the youngest) living above the shop - and with an outside toilet. Sleep overs (and even visiting for the evening) would be a revelation to many...

The crappy comprehensive we attended crushed any such expectations and leaving at 16 he became a bricklayer for British Rail...

Having lost touch I later heard (from his father who had become a cabbie who happened to get me as a fare) that my mate had been short of cash and had let the insurance on his motor bike lapse - he got caught by the police on the way to work and charged. He lost his licence. But he needed his motorbike to get to work so went on using it... eventually he got caught again and was 'done' for driving while banned, not having insurance etc...

Yes, I know 'its the law' and all that... but this was a young bloke trying to earn a living, a bloke with no interest in benefits, from a family that had no interest in benefits...

These events actually pre-date the Blair/Brown fiasco of a government, but I see the influences persist right thought to this day.

Relying on the state is 'easy' - but if you want to leave and be independent you need a massive escape velocity, because at every turn there will be people and institutions poised to take what you have earned so far, and throw you back down into the black hole of welfare dependency.

Fighting prejudice everywhere...

2011-12-15T16:48:00.000Z

I am lucky to be in a group that, while commonly hated, doesn't go in for self-loathing. I am a normal, white, law abiding, middle class, married, male with kids.

I value what freedom I have and object to any other UK citizen having less freedom than I do - I also hope (probably in vain) that those with more freedom than I have are working to expand my freedom, the evidence seems to be quite the opposite, those more free than I want to further limit everyone elses freedom.

Gender

I object to being obliged to provide information that the recipient has no right to. A big issue that I have objected to for many years is 'gender' on forms. Unless someone has the 'right' to check my gender for themselves then I do not believe they should be asking me for the information.

I have no gender 'issues' myself, I simply object to unnecessary information being demanded (for train season tickets for instance).

It now transpires that transsexuals have a genuine specific problem with 'gender' being given on forms it can put them in awkward and embarrassing situations. Now there is discussion of allowing them to not answer such questions, or have a special category. My suggestion? Scrap the question all together - like I have suggested all along. Only your partner and doctor NEED to know your gender.

If companies/organisations weren't gathering more information than they needed, this problem would never have arisen in the first place.

Smoking

I don't smoke (I gave up before I got married, in the 1980's). And I prefer not to be in a smokey atmosphere - however I strongly object to the bullying anti-smoking lobby - especially that part I involuntarily finance though my taxes. The bogus argument of 'protecting employees in bars' preventing ALL customers from smoking is devious, dishonest and nasty.

Alcohol Consumption

I read that the recent 'occupy' camp in Brighton had tried to operate a 'Dry Zone' policy (which I take to mean no alcohol on site). I hope, after consideration, they will see the irony of their position.

There are two points as I see it:

Firstly it condemns even moderate drinkers (pretty much everyone?) banning something just because a few have a problem with it is very totalitarian response - not a place I would have thought Occupy would want to put themselves.

Secondly, if someone genuinely is an alcoholic why should that excluded them from the protest? Is occupy launching itself with its own class of 'untouchables' built in to its very core?

I don't expect this view to get much sympathy, but its this lazy approach to equality now that will end up damning it in the future. That such a prejudice could slip into a new protest movement unnoticed shows how far gone society is...

Today drinkers, tomorrow smokers, then they will come for...

Summary

People really should stick up for others while they can - otherwise when you need someone to stick up for you it may be too late.

I don't remember where but someone wisely observed that sticking up for others is never comfortable - because you only need to stick up for others when they are unpopular and everyone else is against them - and so will be against you too.

Usual useless government action - this time for 'Troubled Families'

2011-12-15T12:24:00.000Z

The government and their interference is the cause of most problems in society, not the solution.

A governments only 'tool' is taxpayers money, their only control is to take more in tax and throw it at a 'problem' or not take more tax and let taxpayers fix problems themselves.

The first justifies the governments existance and expansion, the second undermines it so they always choose the former.

I Received a link to some government 'infographics' on 'Troubled Familes':

1) First a circular argument - "We need to stop it because otherwise it won't stop"

2) Another circular argument - trouble at school or with the police is part of the definition of a 'troubled family', so of course they will be more likely to have been in trouble at school or with the police. (re: being in cares see 'infographic' number 4).

3) Now we have 'estimates' based on number of troubled families within local authority area - well, unless local authority areas are all the same size this is meaningless, even if the figures weren't guesses.

4) Being in 'care' shows more state failure. This may show one of two things, either being in care is bad for children and the state is useless as a parental replacement, or if being in care isn't to blame directly then the state took the children into care too late for any damage to be repaired.

5) Finally the governments 'solution' - throw money at it.

In summary, what a waste of taxpayers money, what an insidious trick for the government to pull on the public - to justify taking tax and pretend people will be helped when they won't be.

The Met, Millie Dowler and Voice Mail (pt2)

2011-12-12T12:57:00.000Z

This is a follow up to a previous blog post:
Media, Ministers, the Met, Murdoch and Money (1)

The story about Millie Dowlers voice mail deletions didn't make sense, so back in July I blogged about it and sent of an freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Police.

This has finally (about six months on) got to the end of the Mets' request/review procedure, with them refusing to give me any information (or confirming/denying that any relevant information exists).

However the story is back in the news, so here is an update:

After Millie Dowler went missing, her mobile voice mail became full - people leaving messages asking her to call, but not being picked up/deleted.

It was reported that someone working for the News of the World had 'hacked' the voice mail to gather information about the story, it was further reported that this person deleted some of the voice mails so there would be space for new messages that may lead to new stories.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world)

At this point, Millies mother became aware that messages had been deleted, so took hope that Millie herself had picked them up, and so must be alive. This, unfortunately, was not the case.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064516/Milly-Dowlers-mother-reveals-phone-hacking-gave-false-hope-Leveson-Inquiry.html)

I was surprised that the police had not traced the caller who deleted the message, so put in an FOI request regarding this.

(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/millie_dowler_voice_mail_deletio)

Subsequently it has transpired that at the time of the voice mail deletions, News of the World had not yet engaged the man responsible for the hacking claims against them - so it was not him who deleted the messages.

(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3992095/Milly-Dowler-hope-messages-were-not-wiped-by-paper-say-cops.html)

Now it is being suggested that it was the police themselves who caused the messages to be deleted!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072851/Phone-hacking-Milly-Dowlers-voicemail-messages-deleted-police-News-World.html

I don't think my (refused) FoI request is unreasonable, and a reply would have shed light on this long ago.

So I am left wondering if the Metropolitan police actually have a different, undisclosed, reason for refusing my request and taking so long about it.

Labour 4 Westbourne ? ha ha ha!! No, get out of the LabConGrn rut - Vote #UKIP

2011-12-11T00:12:00.001Z

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

I was given a copy of Labours election leaflet for Brighton and Hove City Council - Westbourne Ward.

I was gob-smacked on the issues they cite as reasons to vote for their candidate! Remember, Labour ran the council for TEN years until THREE years ago.

1) They say Hove needs a new school.

OK, so when should plans been put in place for that? Kids aren't born at school age... there is plenty of notice on how many school places will be needed - it is LABOUR who failed to plan in the first place! OK the conservative administration that followed them should have caught up - especially as the Westbourne ward had two conservative councillors representing it!

Thats a Labour and Conservative fail right there.

2) They say a £200 council tax rise (3.5%) is too high and will hit struggling households.

OK, so what was the average council tax increase while Labour were in charge?

Looks around 9% to me... and that was when inflation was around 2%!

Big Labour fail there.

3) They say parking charges strangle business.

OK, they are certainly right there, but they were no better - a report from the Argus back in the late 2000, talking about 2007/2008 when labour were in charge:

It made a profit of £7.4 million That amount was a £1.2 million leap from the £6.2 million and £13.9 million income generated in 2007/8.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4698793.Brighton_and_Hove_City_Council_s___7_million_parking_profit/

They seem to be saying "Vote Labour, because the Greens are doing what Labour were already doing."

Well I say Brighton and Hove need change from the LabConGrn rut that forms the current council - so...
Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The council only exists to serve the residents - make me your man on the inside.

2011-12-08T15:57:00.002Z

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The council only exists to serve the residents. Even the big businesses like American Express are only of benefit to Brighton and hove in as far as they benefit the residents (with jobs, inward investment, bringing in wealth, business and supporting better facilities).

The council has (and finances) many 'partnership' organisation - collections of organisations being consulted on policy. How many residents are a member of even one of these organisations? I am not a member of any - I expect (and other residents should expect) to be able to speak to the council directly.I further suspect that many of these 'partnership' organisations are manned by the same people over and over - giving residents no voice, and unaccountable 'representatives' several voices. These partnerships must be properly reviewed.

I am not (yet) a councillor, I don't have time to examine everything the council does, but every time I look at what the council is doing or a council document I see masses of improvement and efficiencies that can be made! If this is typical then there is huge scope to make savings in the cost of the council operation and improve the service offered to residents - often simply by making the council properly and directly accountable to the residents so silly pet projects can be ditched before they even start!

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Brighton and Hove - It isn't just Pavilion! Transport and Shopping.

2011-12-08T15:42:00.001Z

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The Council persist in planning and operating as if the City is just Brighton Pavilion.

This shows especially in transport policy - the city has been described as ideal for alternative transport such as walking and cycling. This may be true of central Brighton, but further out there is not only simple distance to consider, but the substantial hills of the downs. Mass public transport is not an adequate replacement for personal transportation. Even in central Brighton it is a brave person who would leave their bicycle parked and unsupervised.

Residents deserve special treatment by their own council, to access the facilities of the city. Some free parking - especially for those furthest from the centre - whether on a specific day, with residents 'vouchers', or a dedicated (pre-bookable) residents car park (the Laines car park has a 'private' entrance and could be considered).

Once people get out of the habit of shopping in the city - going elsewhere, or even shopping on line, it will be far harder (if not impossible) to entice them back. The council lose income, businesses lose income and residents lose facilities that make the city such a great place to be.

There are tough financial times ahead, and with more and more closed shops boarded up in the centre of Brighton already we need to boost trade before the decline becomes permanent.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Brighton and Hove - Housing - Not failing to plan, but actually planning to fail.

2011-12-07T23:54:00.001Z

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Just last month Brighton and Hove council had a report that Brighton and Hove will need 16 to 20 thousand new homes by 2030 - so they are recommending the building of only 11 thousand (at least 5000 short!).

Either the council do not trust the original estimate - in which case they need to explain why and have another (trustworthy) one done or they need to explain why they are deliberately planning to leave Brighton and Hove (and a future council) short of between 5,000 and 9,000 homes.

In the same document they recommend arbitrarily restricting the the increase in 'houses of multiple occupancy' (HMO's)- which would prevent many existing properties being more efficiently used.

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/sustainability/City_Planning_Doc-Summary_Leaflet.pdf

So the existing council are planning to ensure a housing shortage, by deliberately building too few new homes while also putting barriers in the way of those who might seek to address the shortage by creating more HMO's and so making better use of the housing already available... Brighton Greens are rapidly becoming another 'failed old party' to join LibLabCon...

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Brighton and Hove Budget - Part 3 - 'Below Inflation rise'

2011-12-05T17:30:00.001Z

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Coucnil Tax rise below inflation? No, 100% over Inflation - its doubled.

The budget makes quite a play on the following graph:

It shows how much above inflation council tax has risen over the past decade and a bit.

In the budget document this is included to used to support an argument that a 3.5% increase is 'fair' because it is below inflation, when many past increases have be far, far higher than inflation.

However, there are several issues here - firstly the reason the council are going for 3.5% is not because they want 3.5%. They are asking for 3.5% because that is the most they can ask for with out triggering a local referendum - and they know full well that they would lose that referendum.

I am quite sure that the Greens would ask for 10% of 15% increases as labour did in the early 2000's if they could get away with it!

Also, what is so magical about a single years inflation figure? My own graph:

Shows the net effect of the increases against inflation over the past decade.

Right now council tax payers are paying almost twice as much now as they should be according to inflation.

The council raise around £60,000,000 (sixty million pounds) more than they would if rises had been restricted to inflation. So what do we get for that £60,000,000? How did we get by ten years ago with out that money being taken from us and spent by the council?

I am sure every taxpayer would be happy to have that extra £400 a year back - to spend as they see fit, maybe with local businesses, maybe on local charities, maybe just to heat their homes over winter - whatever they, as individuals, have as their own, personal priorities.

What is the justification for not giving back what was taken, without explanation?
Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Synchronicity or Inspiration? Esther Rantzen - Silverline

2011-12-04T17:39:00.001Z

I was delighted to read in todays Sunday Times that Esther Rantzen is starting a help line for older people 'Silverline'. A service working in a simliar way to 'Childline' the childrens service that she created some time ago, and appears to be going from strength to strength.

Older people requiring care have always been vulnerable, but now with ever more older people requiring care and ever less control over who provides the care the situation needs urgent attention.

It was this that prompted me to tweet the following about a month ago:

https://twitter.com/#!/pperrin/statuses/134210762846638080

Well what ever promoted the creation of 'Silverline' - I think it is a fantastic cause that deserves support.

Brighton and Hove Budget - Part 2 - New Projects, 'spare money' - Greens break their #1 manifesto pledge.

2011-12-03T18:03:00.000Z

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

The Green manifesto clearly said that they would

Resist, to the greatest extent possible, the service cuts and privatisation imposed on local councils by the Conservative and Lib Dem Government. Where the Coalition leaves no choice, protect services for children, vulnerable adults and those on low incomes.
Green Manifesto, Priority Number 1

Having detailed all their cuts, the Greens say they have some spare money available for new projects - new projects that they then set out.

But if the cuts mean they have money left over, this surely simply means they have chosen to make more cuts than they needed to.

The Greens may believe that their new projects are more important than the items they have cut, but that doesn't change the fact that they have made cuts that they did not need to make. So the Greens have deliberately acted against what they said was their number 1 priority in their manifesto.

So much for the Greens 'fresh start for a fair city'.

Vote PERRIN, Vote UKIP, Brighton and Hove City Council, Westbourne Ward, 22nd December

Brighton and Hove Budget - Part 1 - Toilets and Libraries.

2011-12-03T10:44:00.003Z

1) Public Toilets

Public toilets are an essential part of a city's infrastructure - don't let them close

Clean, usable, public toilets are an essential part of the infrastructure for any city that wants people to access it using public transport and to travel on foot. They are also an essential facility outside the urban area where tourists, and parents with children maybe caught short.

Toilets in public areas are open to abuse. Hence many retail outlets now restrict use of their toilets with access-codes and the like. Also, while shops already have staff on hand to look after them, public toilets generally do not have this benefit so require dedicated staff to be employed if they are to be supervised.

Acting as an attendant to a public toilet, simply to ensure that it is kept clean and call on the police if there is any disturbance is not an arduous task, and I am sure there are many people who would be prepared to take on the role as a public service and for 'pin money'.

2) Libraries (especially Mobile Libraries)

Libraries - especially Mobile Libraries - should be considered as an essential part of the councils infrastructure in communicating with the public.

Libraries should be considered one of the Councils primary public faces in communicating with the public, and part of the councils eyes and ears in recognising and listening to the public.

Brighton and Hove council - especially the Greens - persist in thinking of the city as purely the central urban area. Access to the central facilities of the city is not good for people living further out, and with the councils attacks on car owners that access is being made worse and more expensive.

Losing mobile libraries is just an other indication of this blinkered thinking.

The council should add value to the use of libraries - it should look at cutting advertising/publication in the commercial press, and issuing a free-sheet of such notices that the public can obtain on paper from libraries, or on-line. Access to other council facilities through libraries should also be considered - whether directly, or using public access computers in libraries with print-on-demand.

In respect of Libraries it is for the council to use them or we, the public, will lose them.

Recall of Elected Representatives

2011-12-01T09:17:00.001Z

David Cameron has no genuine commitment to making parliament and MP's more accountable to the public.

In principle, recall should be available to all electorates on demand. At any time, a petition by a proportion of the electorate should trigger a new election - simples.

David Cameron has suggest a process that he has labelled 'recall', but gives the electorate no additional influence, control at all!

Cameron insists that an MP must:

Commit a significant offence
Be censured by parliament
Be subject to a major petition from the electorate
Parliament must agree that parliaments original censure was insufficient
New election!

My response:

Offence: Who decides what is 'significant' or not? How about betraying a manifest pledge? Yes/No?
Censure: What if parliament decide no censure requried (maybe a minister already resigned)?
Petition: Yes, I'll accept that
When would parliament *EVER* admit it had not done enough and must defer to the people?!?
Election: Yes, I'll accept that too.

Green farce continues in Brighton and Hove (pt 2) Vote #UKIP in #westbourne

2011-11-30T17:27:00.000Z

My previous blog post was about Brighton's Green Led City Council increasing vehicle emissions around three schools by reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph. (see here).

Now the full two-faced farce that is the Green party shows itself as they use emissions to justify a massive hike in parking charges despite city centre shops already suffering from the recession, hard times and cut backs.

Public Health Implications:
5.15 Measures or changes that will contribute towards reducing the impact of cars in the city, and therefore the effect on public health in terms of harmful pollutants (and injuries sustained in collisions) will be beneficial to public health. Nitrogen dioxide, principally emanating from vehicles, is a respiratory irritant which is known to exacerbate asthma. There is a 3.5% increase in mortality for a 100ug/m3 increase in ambient NO2. There is a 5% increase in hospital asthma
conditions for the same increase in NO2
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=35826

So all of a sudden CO2 is important - when it supports the council fleecing residents and visitors... but not when it may impact the health of the city's children at school where they cannot escape it.

It seems that the Greens support what ever figure looks like it will let them bash the motorist, business owner, parent and resident and simply ignore the same figures when it may prevent them bashing the motorist, business owner, parent and resident.

As a side note, funny that the report very specifically mentions '100ug/m3' of NO2 causing '3.5%' increase in mortality, but gives no indication of how much traffic reduction may reduce NO2! Will it be 10,000ug/m3 or .0001ug/m3 or somewhere in between? With out this figures given are meaningless - just intended to generate 'fear, uncertainty and doubt' and so make people easier to manipulate.

Lets make this a one term Green administration.

Vote Paul Perrin - Vote UKIP - especially at the Westbourne by-election on the 22nd!

Un-joined up Green farce continues in Brighton and Hove speed limits...

2011-11-28T14:09:00.000Z

Brighton Greens continue their attack on car users, even at the potential expense of children's health...

Recently three areas have been accepted to trial a speed limit reduction from 30mph to 20mph. It is interesting that all three sites are based around schools, but no argument is presented suggesting that pupil safety will be increased, each case is made on more general grounds.

However, being near schools does have a consequence that seems to have been completely missed - a consequence related to a previous blog post here which presents independent data showing that changing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph increases car emissions by around 15%.

http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/07/green-mp-caroline-lucas-attacks.html

So while the speed limit change does nothing to improve pupil road safety, it does ensure that the children will be subject to increased pollution through car emissions.

This is the extract from the council minutes accepting the speed limit change:

3.1 The Review undertook a pilot study to test the review methodology in three demographically different areas of the City with a view to implementing any recommendations in order to assess the effect of 20mph speed limits, as opposed to zones. The difference between a limit and a zone is that a zone includes traffic calming measures intended to make the speed limit selfenforcing. The three areas in the pilot study were:
Eastern Area, vicinity of Saltdean Primary School selected because it lends itself to the creation of a small area which would encompass the local commercial centre.
Central Area, vicinity of Stanford Infant and Stanford Junior Schools, centrally located within an area subject to numerous complaints from local residents regarding safety, with a supporting collision history. This would be a medium sized scheme, including the surrounding residential streets.
Western Area, Portslade in the vicinity of Peter Gladwin Primary, St Nicholas C of E Junior and Portslade Infant Schools. A large area encompassing all three schools and a substantial residential area with some supporting collision history
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=33467

Who will save us (and our children) from these troublesome Greens (and others who supported this change)?

Well I am running for the council in the current Westbourne by-election (http://paulperrin.co.uk) and will happly take up that challenge.

Council tax payers in Brighton and Hove have every right to feel dismayed...

2011-11-24T12:44:00.000Z

“Sadly, Jason Kitcat seems to revel in being part of the only council administration anywhere in the land currently planning to increase council tax next year, when most others are seeking to implement a freeze or a cut. Council tax payers in Brighton and Hove have every right to feel dismayed that their civic leaders have so little regard for their hard-earned cash that they want to snatch even more of it.

“Council tax virtually doubled over the last decade – without an equivalent increase in quality or quantity of services – so Cllr Kitcat and his colleagues should be looking at how to make savings from what they are already taking. Earlier in the year we found the council’s mileage rate to be 65p, rather than the HMRC-recommended level of 45p, whilst it was still employing three “European Officers” and three political advisers. Has anything been done to rectify that waste of taxpayers’ money? Other councils are cutting their coats according to their cloth: Brighton and Hove should follow suit.”
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2011/11/taxpayers-alliance-reveals-novembers-pinup-pinhead-month.html

Society vs People... The left and the greens cry "there is no such thing as a person"

2011-11-21T16:44:00.000Z

There is a very famous quote from Margaret Thatcher, a quote that is most famous for having been taken out of context and then used against her an others in an entirely bogus way.

That quote (in fact a paraphrase) is, as I am sure you have guessed, "there is no such thing as society".

This paraphrase comes from a published article which can be seen here http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689.

The point was not a dismissal of people working together, it was a recognition that 'society' is nothing other than the people who make it up - without the individual people there is no society.

Why do I blog on this now?

I blog on this now because a realisation has struck me, a discovery regarding many of those who disparage the 'no such thing as society' quote. The realisation that these people also take exception to the genuine meaning of Mrs Thatchers words!

They don't recognise individuals, they only recognise societies, organisations, communities and other collectives.

This becomes apparent when reading articles, blogs and other (particularly personal) writings. From the 'great and good' who would rather give to a big charity rather than directly to a person in need; through to local councillors who want the council to have more money to help the poor and vulnerable but then raise that money by taxing those very same poor and vulnerable people!

I cannot count the number of left wing and green blogs that throw around phrases like 'poor' and 'vulnerable' referring to classes of anonymous people - but show not an ounce of interest or compassion for the individuals who make up those groups. As if the people, the individuals do not exist outside of the 'society' or 'collective' that the left have assigned them to for the purpose of what ever argument they are presenting.

Rank Cowardice...

2011-11-19T20:59:00.001Z

I read that the entire Governance Committee of Brighton and Hove council ABSTAINED on a decision that had been fully researched and had a recommendation to be rejected. Once the entire committee had abstained the chairman of the the committee then declined to use their casting vote.

A right of way was being claimed across a piece of land - those claiming had to show that the right of way had been in use for 20 years - the councils own report said that had not been proved so the application should be rejected.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 That the Committee declines to make an Order on the basis that the evidence
referred to in this report does not demonstrate that the claimed right of way
subsists or can reasonably be alleged to subsist.
http://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=35149

As a taxpaying resident, I can only wonder how these councillors dare to hold their seats and responsibilities and also to claim attendance allowances and special responsiblity payments.

They have completely failed in their responsibilities, and the decision will now go to central government for a decision.

Why did they act this way? Is it simply cowardice? A fear of upsetting the voters who supported the claim? As a council by-election is imminent, I can only assume the worst - that the 10 councillors were more concerned about party political campaigning than fulfilling their responsibilities and doing their (taxpayer funded) duty.

When reviewing the list of councillors on this committee remember what other 'complex' issues they may claim to understand - issues far more complex than rights of way... climate change for instance - its causes and consequenes...

Meeting Attendance (Expected)

Attendee	Committee Role	Party
Cllr Leo Littman	Chair	Green - Preston Park
Cllr Ann Norman	Deputy Chair	Conservative - Withdean
Cllr Amy Kennedy	Member	Green - Preston Park
Cllr Jason Kitcat	Member	Green - Regency
Cllr Gill Mitchell	Member	Labour - East Brighton
Cllr Warren Morgan	Member	Labour - East Brighton
Cllr Brian Oxley	Member	Conservative - (resigned)
Cllr Stephanie Powell	Member	Green - Queens Park
Cllr Bill Randall	Member	Green, Council Leader - Hanover & Elm Grove
Cllr Geoffrey Theobald OBE	Member	Conservative - Patcham

Brighton Greens - using the poor as pawns in their political game.

2011-11-15T09:46:00.000Z

So it starts...

Having decided to reject a government offer of 2.5% and instead charge residents an extra 3.5% (2.5% to cover rejecting the governments offer, and 1% for... ?) the Greens are moving onto the next phase of their plan - to try to portray this as a 'government cuts' issue.

https://twitter.com/#!/jasonkitcat/statuses/136369907687374850

Will the resident who want to pay an extra 3.5% to get an extra 1% spending please make themselves known? For other council tax payers, I am sure you will not be fooled by this pathetic, manipulative posturing by the Greens.

Who will be hit hardest? It will be those near the bottom - those who have the least income but not so little as to have their council tax paid for them. The greens are stamping on the fingers of those at the bottom to make them let go and give up - at the same time hoping to point the blame elsewhere.

Voters who think the greens are 'cuddly tree huggers' need to be put on notice - the greens are anything but cuddly, for the sake of everyone in the city, especially the poor this really has to be a one term green administration.

30th Day of Action - Child Minding to let working parents work - an update.

2011-11-10T15:08:00.003Z

My previous blog entry outlined an idea I had for providing community child minding on the 30th - when unions and teachers may be striking and closing schools for the day.

So an update...

The Police

They Suggested I contact the Criminal Records Bureau for a 'CRB' check as these are required for working with children.

I looked into this, but asking for a CRB check of myself, to be sent to myself so I can be sure that I am a suitable person for this activity doesn't seem to make much sense!

And if parent doubts you to the extent they want to see a CRB, then how could they trust that what you showed them was a genuine CRB anyway?

CRB checks are really to help employers vet staff - they are not a 'licence' or 'authorisation', so not much used to me!

The Council

I phoned the council to chivvy things along - they had my email and it was pending a reply, so it was all in progress.

In summary, it is not the councils area/responsibility, but I was told that looking after children under 8 requires Ofsted registration (which is a very long process). But that there are no limitations on children over 8.

The helpful council lady gave me Ofsted's number so I could get the full low down.

Ofsted

The lady at Ofsted gave me an outline of their requirements - particularly that there is a list of
exemptions to registration. Unfortunately the list is currently under review, so not available on their website!

However she explained one exemption to Ofsted registration which is if you intend to look after children for less than 14 days in one calendar year, so as I am only looking at a day I would be exempt.

In summary so far...

Its all fine from that side of things - no limitations or restrictions. And there was me thinking it would be red tape up to my neck and health and safety gone mad! And that I'd be able to write a whole raft of blog posting complaining about things... but no.

To go further, there would the issues of location and additional helpers - but nothing official to worry about.

**Update**

1) While no Ofsted registration is required, they do require 14 days written notice!

2) My wife is Akela of a local cub pack - and is now looking into running an event in the Scout Hall as a bit of a fundraiser (donations, not charges - maybe suggest 1.5 hours pay?).

TUC/Unison Day of Action ? Innocent working parents deserve better.

2011-11-10T09:42:00.000Z

The 30th November is planned as a TUC 'day of action' with as many public servants walking out and striking as they can muster.

Times are already hard in the private sector - and many parents hard-pressed. The last thing they need is to have to take a day off and lose a days pay simply because the public servants they are already paying handsomely (better than themselves in many instances) want more.

So... I think what is needed is a free, one-off child minding service for the day.

What would this entail? Well I am finding out - Starting with the local council and the police...

The police contact centre have responded suggesting I contact the CRB for a check - I have contacted them, but as a private citizen, and knowing I have no convictions, cautions or anything else am not sure what a CRB would tell me about myself!

My initial letter to Brighton and Hove City Council and Sussex Police follows.

-- Lets see how it goes, as the private citizen strikes back against so called 'public servants'...

Hi,

There is a 'day of action' planned for the 30th of November when many public servants are intending to cut the services they supply for one day. This is expected to lead to the closure of a number of schools.

As thing stand, if/when schools close many working parents will have to miss a days work, and so lose a days pay so they can look after their children who will be off school.

So, I am interesting in what legal restrictions there may for providing/manage/organise/arrange a community child minding service for the day, so working parents who would otherwise miss a days work, and so a days pay have somewhere/someone to leave their children with for the day.

Other than providing a free, public service to rescue hard-pressed working parents from the 'day of action', I have no other fixed plans and would plan to arrange the service within what ever legal limitations there maybe.With only a few weeks to go, this obviously needs to be done with the minimum of red tape.

Can you give me contact details of anyone who should be notified and/or can advise on any legal requirements regarding such a service?

Regards

Greens - think human poverty is good for the environment?

2011-11-09T21:12:00.001Z

If your council freeze council tax this year, central government will add 2.5% to the total!
If your council don't freeze it then central government will add NOTHING.

To keep council tax down (a tax generally considered 'regressive' as the poor pay more in proportion to their income/wealth than the rich) the ConDem government coalition has told councils that if they freeze their council tax this year, then central government will top them up with the equivalent to a 2.5% on council tax! Hurrah!

It appears every council in the UK has accepted this offer except for one. The one exception is the Green led Brighton and Hove council. They are not willing to freeze their council tax, so will forefit the 2.5% central government grant and instead add 3.5% to individual council tax bills.

Double whammy - I am paying tax to central government, they have offered 2.5% back, Brighton Greens have declined that offer AND demanded a 3.5% increase - so I am 6% down on the deal.

I have heard it suggested that the Green movement actually want people to be poor, because that means they have less opportunity to 'damage' the planet. This would certainly be an explanation for this and some other recent actions by the Green led Brighton and Hove City Council.

Anti Squatting, Pro Squatting - just cant trust politicians on either side...

2011-10-30T11:37:00.000Z

Politicians - Blue or Green - just can’t trust them eh?

Anti-Squatting: Weatherly and co misleading on squatters, citing issues *already* covered by existing law:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/25/squatting-law-media-politicians

Pro-Squatting: Brighton Greens – cite house empty for 30 YEARS to support confiscating properties empty for 6 MONTHS.
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2011/10/brighton-house-stood-empty-for-32-years/

As Weatherly has also said he would happily remove protesters from St Pauls himself, I assume he prefers protest by riot to peaceful occupation… Next election, he is toast...

Cameron - the advertising man. All talk and no action (OK - lies).

2011-10-30T01:07:00.007+01:00

From the UK Governments e-petition site, as instigated/created by one "David Cameron"

What are e-petitions?

e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

See that bit 'influnce government policy'? Well here is what David Cameron said about the e-petition on a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.

At Prime Minister's Questions, he said he shared MPs' frustrations with how the European Union worked but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit the EU as it was "not our policy".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15373005

See what he did there?

First says petitions are there to influence government policy, then justifies a three line whip against a petition (the EU Referendum) before the debate has even taken place becuase it is 'not government policy'.

Do I need to spell it out again? I'd guess not... but... Cameron says 'petitions are to influnce government policy' then says "I'll three line whip this because is isn't government policy"

So does anyone need a clearer example of David Cameron as a bare faced liar? Or can we all agree on that?

**edit**

Since posting this blog entry I have used writetothem.co.uk to ask my MP this very question, I have also registered a complaint with the advertising standards authority.

Cameron agreed to SIX EU treaty changes - with no repatriation of powers...

2011-10-29T18:24:00.003+01:00

Denis Cooper, on Conservative Home said...

Since the Treaty of Lisbon finally came into force on December 1st 2009, there have been no fewer than SIX piecemeal EU treaty changes put in the pipeline.

Firstly a protocol was agreed to sort out a legal pickle over the numbers of MEPs; that was quietly approved by Parliament through Part 2 of the European Union Act 2011:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/part/2/enacted

Then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/sep/09/eu-euro

"There are four more treaty changes which have to be ratified by all 27 member states in addition to the ESM revision. They are Croatia's accession treaty, which must be ratified by 2013; the Irish protocol, which persuaded the Irish Republic to vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty; the separate Irish amendment to the Lisbon Treaty, which allows every member state to keep their European commissioner; and the Czech protocol which persuaded the eurosceptic President Václav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron will not use any of these treaty changes to repatriate powers."

Hang about, what's this "in addition to the ESM revision"?

Oh, that's the other EU treaty change, the radical EU treaty change agreed by EU leaders on March 25th through European Council Decision 2011/199/EU:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:091:0001:0002:EN:PDF

which the government, and for some reason also the mass media, like to pretend never happened.

Although Hague did have to lay a statement before Parliament on October 13th:

http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/eu-section5-statement

admitting its existence and denying us a referendum on it; and on Monday a question from Mark Reckless MP forced Cameron to likewise acknowledge its existence, Column 36 here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111024/debtext/111024-0001.htm

"Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The Prime Minister tells The Daily Telegraph today that we should use any treaty change to shore up the euro to get powers over employment and social policy back, yet on 25 March, he agreed to precisely such a treaty change, but did not ask for anything in return.

The Prime Minister: I have to take issue with my hon. Friend. The very limited treaty change that is about to be debated in, and hopefully passed by, the House of Commons ... "

Except that it isn't a "very limited" treaty change; it's a radical treaty change, and one which Cameron stupidly and recklessly gave to the eurozone states - more accurately, really, to Germany and France - without getting anything substantive in exchange to protect our national interests.

---

Nice one Denis - thanks for the permission to repost.

IDS - standard collapse or a 'supposed' conservative EUSceptic

2011-10-28T10:30:00.000+01:00

The changing face (thin mask) of Conservative party EU Scepticism
OR
Cameron's desperate attempt to prevent complete conservative wipe out in the next EU elections

Conservative 'Champions' of EU-Scepticism

We have seen William Hague start as (probably) a genuine believer in the primacy of Westminster as the UK government and then gradually drift in to the standard EU phillia of our political class.

We have seen David Cameron talk tough on the EU (although whether 'cast iron' Dave was ever genuinely EU sceptic (or has any firm principles) is open to question) but when cornered revealed as an EU phile.

Now we have the supposed 'arch' conservative EU Sceptic - their new champion replacing the fallen Cameron and Hague - Iain Duncan Smith. Presented as the man who disobeyed John Major PM's three line whip on the 'Mastrict Treaty' but then went on to lead the Conservative party (the 'quiet man who rapidly fell silent').

The fall of the final 'Champion'

The story of IDS's Mastrict rebellion was stoked up in the press - the new EU hard man.

Then came the vote on having giving the people a referendum on the EU. IDS follows the party line (as a minister he had no choice! to do otherwise would have split the coalition!).

But we were reassured...

IDS lets it be known that he wanted to vote for a referendum, but couldn't - however if it happened again he would resign rather than go against his EU Sceptic principles:
IDS threat to quit: I won't vote against my Eurosceptic principles again

There are official denials of such a threat, but IDS refuses to support the denials ('Minister Coy over quit threat'):
(Note the BBC have removed their original report of this and replaced it to make IDS look less scheming than he was).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15487211

Then IDS admits he didn't support the referendum at all anyway, so any threat to resign was purely on being subject to a three line whip:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gvCmJZ26EEvJl1LuQLzgp84bgZ1A?docId=N0319781319754075306A

Finally realising how stupid, dishonest and unprincipled this whole episode make him appear - IDS now issues a blanket denial that there was ever any disagreement by himself at all!
(This is the story that the BBC used to airbrush out their 'IDS refuses to support Camerons claim of no threat to resign).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15487211

Conclusion

There are no EUSceptics on the Conservative front bench.

BBC Still not responded to my complaint - trying to conflate 'EU' and 'Europe'.

2011-10-26T08:54:00.000+01:00

A few blog postings ago I blogged about a complaint I made to the BBC - I asked for a response, they haven't bothered, so I have just complained again.

The BBC continues to confuse 'EU' a political elite based in brussels, the 'Eurozone' a subset of contries that susbscribe to the EU and share the Euro as their currency, and Europe - the continent, its people, its countries, its languages and its cultures etc. For instance Stephanie Flanders on BBC Today this morning (26th October 2011)

I complained about this previously, asking for a response which you have failed to provide - I expect a response to this by return.

Original complaint:

The BBC persistently seeks to conflate the continent of Europe, its people, countries and cultures with the political organisation that is the "European Union".

i.e. On the Radio 4 Today program this morning the presenters (I won't call them journalists) constantly referred to the Conservative party conference not discussing 'Europe'.
What is is about 'Europe' that they should discuss? Its geology? Its population? No your lazy and misrepresenting presenters actually meant 'European Union' - its commission and other institutions.

Asking people what they think of 'Europe' is very, very different to asking what they think of the "European Union'.

I am sure the BBC are fully aware of this device to misrepresent public opinion on the European UNION, but by making an official complaint I hope to start the process of slapping the BBC back into line.

If they deign to reply I'll let you know what they say - if not, I'll get around to escalating it...

Letter to my MP - calling to support EU referendum regardless of party whips.

2011-10-19T10:45:00.008+01:00

Following the presentation of a 100,000 signature petition to parliament, there is to be a debate on whether the people of the UK should be given a referendum on our membership of the EU (European Union).

It has also been reported that Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour party leaders are against having a referendum (despite what they have said in the past), and that MP's may be subject to a party whip to vote against the referendum.

Accordingly I have written the following to my (conservative) MP.

Please read it then WRITE TO YOURS.

My Letter

Dear,

There is soon to be a debate/vote on giving the people of the UK a referendum on the UK's EU membership.

Such a referendum would deliver on the promises that David Cameron made on behalf of the Conservative party before being elected - that the people of the UK should have a direct say in the constitutional changes that the EU is bringing about.

It would also deliver on the promise that Nick Clegg made when he instructed Liberal Democrats to vote down a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - he said it was 'because it is the wrong referendum, people want a referendum on in/out'.

More generally people feel that just as the Liberal Democrats were elected on a false pledge on Tuition Fees, the Conservatives have been elected on a false pledge of EU-scepticism.

Apart from the direct EU issues, all parties and MPs have professed to support calls for 'reconnecting' the public with politics. We have had a referendum on voting reform, what better way to continue this reconnection that with a referendum on another divisive (between politicians and public) issue?

And what better way to entrench the division between people and politics than vote down this referendum - a debate that has come about through a petition of 100,000 people?

The referendum question as proposed is not particularly good - giving three options, and being worded badly - but the principle of finally giving the people a say on this issue cannot be ignored.

I ask and hope that you will vote for a referendum on this issue, regardless of any instructions from you party.

Yours sincerely,

Reply

Dear

Thank you for writing to me about the Motion regarding a referendum on Britain's continued relationship with the EU.

At present, this matter is very much in flux because of ongoing discussions in Westminster. Although I am in Brighton today, undertaking constituency visits, I am in touch with colleagues in Parliament regarding this matter on a frequent basis.

Please be assured that I shall vote for the best outcome for our country as a whole.

In the meantime, I have carefully noted your comments and request that I vote to support a referendum.

I will keep in touch as matters develop.

Kind regards.

Reply after Vote

Dear

I wanted to write to you regarding the EU referendum debate.

I have received many emails and letters espousing both sides of the argument. I am only too aware of how important this is.

I believe the EU has become a huge, overly costly, bureaucratic organisation fundamentally lacking in both democracy and accountability to the many millions of people who pay for it through their taxes and who are bound to live by its rules.

However, I must emphasise, the Motion that was put for debate and a vote yesterday was three-pronged and badly timed as it was demanding an in-out referendum in the next Parliamentary Session. With Europe and the Eurozone in a financial crisis which is affecting our economy and those countries not even in the EU, I could not support such a motion as the most important thing in the short term needs to be financial stability and political certainty. I think it is also important to stress that notwithstanding its many failings I am a believer in working with, and co-operating with, our European allies especially as the Eurozone is Britain's biggest customer.

The Conservative Party manifesto for the last General Election which was voted for by millions of people, made it clear that we believed Britain should remain within the European Union but we should not be run by the EU.

The issue is we did not promise a referendum on whether we should stay or leave the EU. However, we did promise a referendum on any further transfer of power from Britain to Brussels and we have already delivered on that promise with our "referendum lock". We also made it clear that we will work to repatriate many of the powers we believe Britain has lost to the EU, particularly over social and employment legislation. The Prime Minister confirmed that policy yesterday, in the debate.

It is worth pointing out that there were two other amendments put forward for debate, which I was minded to support if they had been selected for debate by the Speaker:

"This House calls upon the Government to publish a White Paper during the next session of parliament setting out the powers and competences that the Government would seek to repatriate from the EU, to commence a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU and to put the outcome of those negotiations to a national referendum.”

and the second motion that I could have supported is:

"This House believes that it was wrong for successive Governments to hand over increasing powers to the EU without seeking the approval of the British people in a referendum; believes that it was right for the present Government to introduce legislation which requires a referendum before the transfer of any further power in a in a new Treaty; and notes that by enacting this legislation Parliament has prevented such undemocratic transfers of power in the future. This House believes that the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far and that the burden of EU legislation is suppressing growth in the UK economy. It calls upon the Government to negotiate to return powers that should reside with the UK rather than the EU, including in the field of social and employment legislation. Furthermore, this House:

- Calls on the Government to bring the EU budget under control and believes that anything more than a real terms freeze in the next EU multi-annual budget would be unacceptable;

- Believes that the United Kingdom should not participate in the Eurozone bail-out of Greece and insists that the Government avoid participation in any further Eurozone bail-out of Greece; and

- Believes that Eurozone bail-outs should be the responsibility of the Eurozone Member States.”

However, the Speaker, who has absolute control of these matters, did not choose to call either amendment. I was sorry to hear this when I was in the Chamber. Given my reasoning above, I decided to reluctantly vote against the Motion that was debated last night.

I want to assure you that I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter, and I will continue to keep you appraised of developments.

I hope the foregoing is helpful.

Kind regards,

Screw faith, its religion that matters.

2011-10-15T09:34:00.000+01:00

Why do faith schools tend to do better than non-faith schools?
Why do faith communities tend to be more ordered than non-faith ones?
etc...

Well the clue is in the name 'faith'. 'Faith' is used to all and every religion, and to make a distinction between religion and non-religion based things - and this puts the answer in plain sight.

The important thing about 'faith schools' and 'faith communities' is not 'faith' at all - in my experience, most people who classify themselves as having a religion are very dubious about the existance/form of what their 'god' is supposed to be. You hear "well I'm christian, but...", "my family is jewish", "I was raised a catholic".

The common thing about all these 'faiths' is a common set of rules - the religions themselves. A clear set of rules, set out, explained, examples given at great length, and a history that they have tended to favour 'well ordered' societies (those that don't, have - by natural selection - fallen by the wayside).

What makes these 'religions' as distinct from purely moral/social codes is that that final arbiter is cited as 'god' an external judge who has no reason to be anything other than perfectly fair.

I suggest the 'faith' bit is most relevant to children and newcomers - like training wheels on a bicycle or scaffolding around a new building - it supports the subject while development is taking place - but there comes the time when the scaffolding is irrelevant, the development is complete and will stand or fall on its own merits - the scaffolding can be removed or left it place, it makes no real difference.

In the end, broadly following the rules of any religion is as good (often better) than trying to follow any other set of moral/social rules - even if you don't have faith or believe in its god.

So a 'faith school' does better than a non-faith school even when very few people there actually have any 'faith' - it is simply that they have a clear set of rules that are well known, easily remembered and that participants have agreed to follow - rules which cannot be challenged on a whim nor need endless explanation - the answer to challenges is "it works" or "god says so", if you don't like it then 'goodbye'.

Clearly a common moral code works well for societies, simple tools like doing the 'right thing' because you are expected to behave as if your every thought/action is being observed (by a god) are useful. Its 'religious codes' that work - not faith.

If every one behaved *as if* they were being observed, there would be no need for CCTV cameras! Children can behave that way because they have the 'scaffolding' of faith in a god - adults because they see from experience that it make society a better place.

Complaint to the BBC: Use of the word "Europe" to refer to the "European Union".

2011-10-03T07:54:00.000+01:00

I have just sent the following complaint of bias to the BBC.

The BBC persistently seeks to conflate the continent of Europe, its people, countries and cultures with the political organisation that is the "European Union".

i.e. On the Radio 4 Today program this morning the presenters (I won't call them journalists) constantly referred to the Conservative party conference not discussing 'Europe'.
What is is about 'Europe' that they should discuss? Its geology? Its population? No your lazy and misrepresenting presenters actually meant 'European Union' - its commission and other institutions.

Asking people what they think of 'Europe' is very, very different to asking what they think of the "European Union'.

I am sure the BBC are fully aware of this device to misrepresent public opinion on the European UNION, but by making an official complaint I hope to start the process of slapping the BBC back into line.

I'll let you know what they reply...

Again UK again stands as a beacon of freedom in Europe.

2011-10-02T10:12:00.000+01:00

Now the Euro project honeymoon is passed and the scales are falling from the eyes of the gullible who took it at face value the real story is starting to be told and recognised as the real truth.

The Centre for Policy Studies publication of 'Guilty Men' a short read by Peter Oborne and Frances Weaver not only tells it how it is, but tells it as it always was. Nothing material has actually changed, it is just the the truth of it can no longer be denied.

It is just as it was during the second world war, when the UK stood alone as an example to the peoples of other European countries. An example that it is possible for the people of a country to resist the sweeping oppressive domination of Germany and their French collaborators.

The UK not only (again) has its share of appeasers, but has a strong fifth column that actively support the interests of the UKs enemies against the interest of the UKs people.

This time the enemy is the EU - not the people of Europe nor their countries, languages or customs - but those people who have been allowed to become their political leaders and the people and institutions who have actively supported them and opposed the forces of freedom.

The collapse of the Euro project is an opportunity to show that their previous arguments and assertions were nothing other than 'whatever was required' to bring all the people of Europe into subservience under the yoke of the EU.

The UK stands as an example to the people of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain etc that there is life outside the Euro - we are the physical proof of that, the proof that EU-apologists were so keen to destroy by taking us in to the currency.

The people of the UK are now close to having the opportunity of leading the oppressed people of Europe to freedom. Not just out of the Euro, but right out of the whole evil EU empire.

Freedom for the people of western europe, and real freedom for the people of the former eastern European states who thought they were getting freedom by leaving the USSR ,but just swapped one totalitarian politcal master for another - the EU.

This is the line between the people of Europe (including the UK) and their politicians - it is our own political class who have sought to enslave (just as most african slaves were first enslaved by other africans - our real enemies are within) - most people have not been as vigilant against this as they should have been, it is not too late, now is the time to push ahead and lead the way out of the EU.

Unwise Brighton politicians - put back on the record (from 2010)

2011-09-28T23:16:00.001+01:00

This is a statement made in April 2010 by Unite Against Fascism and a supporting response from Brighton Unity made in April 2010. Its signed by a number of politicians, and I put it here just so it is on the record (having been airbrushed off the internet elsewhere...).

The UAF statement was massively rejected and opposed by many of their 'usual' supporters - as 'March for England' opposed any participation by EDL, and is generally considered a peaceful 'pro-England' group.

Following this call by UAF to counter-march in Brighton, it seems EDL were actually inspired to march in Brighton some months later - well done UAF, creating trouble/friction were there was none...

STOP THE RACIST EDL FROM MARCHING IN BRIGHTON!
On Sunday April 25th there will be a 'March for England' taking place in Brighton. In previous years we have ignored this demonstration as it has been small and peaceful. However, this year members of the racist and violent English Defence League (EDL) will be attending the march.
The EDL is a racist organisation with links to fascist groups like BNP and Combat 18. They claim to oppose only 'militant Islam', but they target all Muslims by demonstrating against mosques such as in Harrow and Dudley and chanting slogans such as "Pakis Out" and "if you build your f*ucking mosque we'll burn it down".
Just weeks ago Sussex UAF members were sent racist private messages by local EDL supporters and the Sussex UAF page was vandalised with posts from several regional EDL divisions.
Previously where the EDL have marched, Asian people have had their property vandalied, been physically attacked and also stabbed. When they have been outnumbered they have been prevented form attacking anyone.
Lets stop them marching in our town to show them that Brighton will not be divided! There will be unity festival to defend and celebrate multiculturism in Brighton, join us!
Sunday 25th April
Meet 10am,
Victoria Gardens, Grand Parade.
(North Of Brighton Pavillion)

*******************

Brighton Unity Statement
We state our strong opposition to a march that is planned for Brighton town centre on the 25th of April.
We believe this march, which claims to celebrate St Georges Day, will actually bring the unwelcome presence of the violent and racist group the English Defence League (EDL) to our city.
The organisers ‘March for England’ claim to be an anti-racist organization with no connection to the EDL, but the site forum has several mentions of EDL groups joining this march, and the website includes links to other far-right organisations including the EDL.
Forum discussions on the he EDL’s own website show many of its members are planning to join the march.
The involvement of EDL members with this march is an unwelcome development, elsewhere when this group has been involved in marches, such as Luton, Stoke and Dudley the result has been violence, racial abuse and attacks on individuals, property and on places of worship.
Brighton and Hove is a city that its residents value for its tolerance and peaceful nature.
We live in a vibrant multi-cultural community, where other peoples’ lifestyles, race and faith are accepted and appreciated, we do not need this march and we will not support it.
Many people in Brighton will enjoy and celebrate St Georges Day and the rest of the weekend, without the nasty xenophobic and islamaphobic rhetoric of the groups involved with this march.
Signed,
Cllr Paul Elgood
Lib Dem Group Leader
Cllr Rachel Fryer
Queens Park, Green Party
Cllr Vicky Wakefield-Jarrett
Hanover & Elm Grove Ward, Green Party.
Cllr Ian Davey
St Peters & North Laine Ward, Green Party
Cllr Amy Kennedy
Preston Park Ward, Green Party

Nancy Platts
Labour parliamentary candidate for Brighton Pavilion
Berni Millam
Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Pavilion
Dave Hill
TUSC Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Kemptown
Simon Burgess
Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Brighton Kemptown

Phelim Mac Cafferty
National Chair LGBTGreens.

Peter Atkinson,
Branch Secretary,
Unison, Sussex Community and Mental Health
Stephen McClean
senior steward for Brighton Unison health (pc)
Susan Bowes
Unison, Brighton Local Gov Branch Equalities Officer (jobshare).
Tom Hickey,
Chair of the co-ordinating committee
UCU, University of Brighton
Steve Pepper
PCS branch secretary
Kevin Dale,
Make your vote count co-ordinator PCS East Sussex

James Ledward
Publisher/Editor G-scene magazine

University of Sussex students Union:
Tom Wills
President, Students' Union
Biz Bliss
Ethical & Environmental Officer
Ciaran Whitehead
Welfare Officer
Josh Jones
Education Officer
Michael Holder
Communications Officer
Riya Mary Al'sanah,
International Students' Officer
Kelly McBride
Chair - Sussex LGBTQ
Kirsty Murdoch
Women's Group Representative
Casimir Schauman
Community Engagement Officer
Simon Englert
Entertainments Officer

Brighton and Hove Community Seaside Homes - You can't trust the Green party.

2011-09-24T12:55:00.000+01:00

Probably the first blog of several on this subject...

Brighton and Hove city council have just sold off 499 council properties.

The greens have pushed this through, breaking all sorts of principles that they have claimed to support...
Some of the 'problems'...

1) It was expected to raise £45million - it actually raised only £30million.

2) Previously 70% of all council tenants voted against stock being transferred from council to housing association ownership but 499 figure means no re-ballot is required (500 or more would have meant another ballot!),

3) Exploiting a loophole - this was rushed through to avoid expected changes to legislation - it is not a well considered situation, but a dash for cash.

4) The business plan for the company taking on the properties depends on avoiding VAT and other duties that may otherwise be payable - simple tax avoidance which may be clamped down on.

5) As a private limited company the new company is not subject to FoI etc and other transparency measures expected of public sector organisations.

So a £15million kickback to a private company from the council taxpayers, avoidance of consultation with
tenants, sharp practices on legislation, tax avoidance - thats just for starters...

And as Brighton and Hove's Green council privatise council housing, nationally the Green party are calling for privatised services (PFI) to be nationalised! http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/23-09-2011-greens-say-nationalise-PFIs.html

This must be hugely disappointing for anyone who actually trusted the Greens!

Abuse of 'company' - how the rich stay rich - Part 1

2011-09-20T08:42:00.000+01:00

This is just to document one example of how 'companies' are abused by the rich to avoid taxes.

If you or I buy a property and sell it, we will be subject to a various taxes including stamp duty and capital gains tax - the average man in the street has no real scope to avoid these taxes.

However, the wealthy don't need to worry about such things. They will create a new company, and that new company will buy the property. As owners of the company they can use the property as their own (getting tax relief on all costs associated with the maintenance and upkeep of the property) and when it comes time to 'sell' the property they effect this by selling the company that owns the property to the new owner...

Because this is simply a sale of shares, there is no property stamp duty to be paid and all kinds of company tax breaks can be used to minimise (or completely avoid) capital gains and other taxes.

The 'company' is an artificial construct - an organisation with its own legal identity - that has enabled massive growth and development - however this privilege is being massively abused by the rich - as are trusts. Common people die, their estates are liquidated, taxed and redistributed - companies and trusts 'live' for ever they can acquire asserts and sit of them in perpetuity - depriving real, living, people of opportunity. And this is all for the benefit of the few mega-wealthy in our society.

Why don't politicians address this simple abuse/tax avoidance? Well where do you think their money comes from? Its a conspiracy/cartel of the rich powerful against the common man - and powerful politicians are not on the side of the common man...

"Fairness" the cabinets petard - let them be hoist by it.

2011-09-18T10:01:00.001+01:00

If Cameron, Clegg, Osbourne, Cable et al really believe tax is a 'fairness' issue then they must start writing those big, back dated, personal cheques now - or for ever be branded hypocritical liars and exploiters...

I pay my taxes because I'd be prosecuted if I didn't - the tax man is just a bully, viciously threatening people who don't do as he says. He is bigger than me, so for now I give in to the bully.

Politicians prefer to lie and talk about 'fairness' in taxation.

I don't know about you, but if I think something is unfairly to my advantage and someone else's disadvantage I don't wait to be 'found out' or 'told' to fix it, I just go ahead and make it fair off my own bat.

If I am given too much change, I'll say so - if I found a wallet/purse in the street I'd hand it in - I don't want to unfairly profit at someone else's expense - it would demean and belittle me. I don't want an unfortunate shop assistants pay to be docked to make up for the 'loss', or man/woman to go short through someone me being greedy.

How does this relate to tax?

Well if someone really believes that, as a rich person, they are 'unfairly' paying too little tax they have no reason or need to wait for the tax rates to change - they can write out a cheque this very instant and pay whatever extra tax they think it 'fair' for someone in their position to pay... Further, they can make amends for their 'unfair' excess wealth by backdating that payment - and paying any extra tax they have ever 'unfairly' retained in the past.

Our government, the condem'd cabinet are millionaires and are complaining that it is 'unfair' that they are not being taxed more - the solution is in their own hands.

Cameron, Clegg, Osbourne, Cable et al - start writing those big, back dated cheques now - or for ever be branded hypocritical liars and exploiters...

Schools - Artificial monopolies are always bad.

2011-09-14T12:12:00.000+01:00

For most people the state has a monopoly on providing education. The state has taken all our money and spent it as it sees fit.

Supporters of this monopoly often want to extend it to everyone by banning all private schools. Looking at the results from schools I suspect this is because state-monopoly supporters don't like us, the public, to have the solid evidence of state-school failure. But while we have private schools we can see for real just how bad state-education is.

It is true that kids in private schools will often be from wealthier families - but family money doesn't make a kid smart. It is schools that are responsible for getting the best educational outcome for an individual child. And time and time again we see thick rich kids reaching their potential, while clever poor kids are kept down. Clever, poor kids kept down so far that even the thickest rich kid has far surpassed them by the time they leave school. This is how social mobility is arrested and everyone is kept in their place. After all if social mobility means people can go up, then it also means people may go down - and the rich couldn't have that, could they?!

Most kids are well trained to play their role - both the 'snobby' kids who look down on the 'oiks' and 'chavs'; and the 'oiks' who play dumb and play up and hold others back so they can pretend to be happy with their lot - rather than striving and running the risk of failure and humiliation at the hands of the toffs.

Some of us think this must change, and often it will be those of us who did strive and take the risks and may well have alienated both the 'oiks' we went to school with and the 'toffs' whose bastions we seek to assault.

This is how it starts.

A basic private education costs in the region of £10,000 a year. Funnily enough the LEA's (Local Education Authorities) who run the state school monopoly receive about this per year for each child they need to educate.

So on cost it is even - private and state education can cost the same - it is only the quality (as evidenced by the outcomes) that differs. Given this - that 'we' already pay for private quality education for all - why do we allow the failed state-education monopoly to provide such rank service? More importantly, how does this get changed?

I say - let the money follow the child. Let the family (parents, child etc) choose where and how the child is educated and let the £10,000 per year go to the chosen educators. Send you child to a state school, private school or whatever, give them the choice.

Educational establishments will need to compete for the pupils/students that they want - they will need to attract them by offering the best quality educational experience, leading to the best outcome that they can.

If suitable educational establishments don't exist there will be no barriers to parents clubbing together to create their own. Maybe in new premises, converted premises or maybe subletting from another school, using their physical facilities but providing their own educational regime. Its not for me to dictate every available option - millions of parents and teachers minds are better than one.

If you take a sterile academic economic view you may not see how this works - but while soulless companies may work to mechanical rules on investment, return and profit - people have a human element that separates us from computer models, especially when dealing with children and extra-especially when dealing with our own children.

A company does not (and cannot get a 'buzz' out of any sense of achievement - but people do. A headteacher who is only interested in the cash they get in their pocket and would move in an instant to get a few pounds more is worthless. But such a person may do well in (say) Banking.

Let parents choose how their kids are educated, let the tax-man pay the £10,000 per year directly to their chosen establishment, remove barriers to creating new schools, and let parents and children be the quality controllers of their education.

Autophulephobia

2011-09-09T12:41:00.000+01:00

Auto-Self
Phule-Tribe/Race/People
Phobia - Hatred/Fear

Autophulephobia (auto-fu-lay-phobia) a hatred of ones own people, evidenced as anglophobia and cultural genocide that UK politicians continue to execute against the english people.

Cultural suicide - cultural genocide - if not, then where has everyone gone?

Anglo-phobia

Defining 'Englishness' or 'Britishness' is like defining 'inteligence' - simply not possible. The closest You are likely to get to apply a test similar to that created by Alan Touring (for artificial inteligence) - and simply ask!

Because while the meaning of these words cannot be precisely or scientifically defined, English/British people can pretty reliably tell you what is and what is not 'English' and 'British'. There are many clear cut issues - Fish and Chips are an English/British thing, but Kangaroos are not. But the border, the grey area, is fractal -- the closer you look the less clear it is where the exact divide is.

One thing that has been on the rise among the English recently is a determination not to be seen as 'superior' to any other nationality/race - the plain fear of being called a 'racist'.

This, however is where things are going wrong, very wrong. The fear of being called a 'racist' has led to much English self-loathing. English people very, very keen to do down the English, however, not being suicidal the loathing is directed at *other* English people - people who are also English, but different enough not to include oneself. It is these groups of 'other english people' who are then targeted, blamed and even sacrificed by these autophulephobes. You hear it all the time 'chavs', 'pikeys', 'feral underclass' etc.

Of course the place this really makes a difference and really matters is in the hands of those with real power - in politics. The UK political class is made up almost exclusively of people who hate the English. Either because they are from one of the other 'home nations', or because they are English autophulephobes.

If you are English, rich, powerful and feeling guilty about all three how do you compensate? Well you could give up your wealth and power - but that isn't going to happen! so you are left only one option, to punish your 'Englishness', but, of course, without hurthing yourself personally. In this way the rich and powerful English come to attack, punish and destroy the English people who aren't quite 'one of them' -- and if you are a rich powerful policitian that means attacking/sacrificing the English general public.

For every English person in poor housing, in poor health, with poor education etc the rich and powerful can feel that bit less guilty about being English, rich and powerful - after all don't the English suffer and have their burden too?

Far fetched? I wish it were - but the evidence is all around us. Politicians dragging down the English - we suffer for what they, themselves, consider their sins.

Brighton and Hove Greens - 'Ban Low Pay' (But No Pay is just fine).

2011-09-09T11:32:00.000+01:00

The Brighton Greens immorality and duplicity shows again - claiming support and success for their 'living wage' for people providing council services - but now confirming their support for making people they think aren't worth the minimum wage to work for NOTHING or to not work at all. Its disgusting.

Once again the Greens show their 'cuddly' image is nothing more than a cover for exploitation of the those who are already most disadvantaged.

They pretend to 'help' people/council workers by introducing a so called 'living wage' which they claim is the minimum anyone requires to be part of society (minimum wage is supposedly what is needed to just survive).

But as with minimum wage, a living wage just means any work that is not *worth* the minimum is either not done, or is outsourced to an organisation who can pay less. So salving the conscience of the 'green' employers by having someone else break their principles for them, and keeping those green hands clean.

If you should doubt the insincerity of the Greens then a look at their recently confirmed policy on the use of volunteers for providing some council services - this will clear any doubt, and show the green peril that everyone - especially the poor and disadvantaged - face.

The greens recently confirmed 'volunteers policy' linked with their 'living wage' - means anyone providing council services who isn't qualified/able to justify earning the 'living wage' must either do council work for NOTHING or not at all. So attacking those who are clearly least able to defend themselves.

The green 'living wage' policy says that no work or persons time is worth less than that amount, to the extent that people are banned from working from less, that working for less would be exploitation.

But their volunteer policy says that while low pay is evil, no pay is just fine.

Mr Cameron shows who is 'phoney'...

2011-09-08T09:56:00.000+01:00

Speaking about the recent riots on the 10th August Mr Cameron spoke of "phoney concerns for human rights" in the past not being tolerated in the pursuit of rioters.

I sent an FOI request to Number 10 asking specifically which occasions he was considering when referring to 'phoney concerns for human rights'.

It turns out that the day after my request, he was asked a similar question in a House of Commons debate and replied:

"The specific point that I was making was about the concern that is often expressed, and was expressed to me over the past couple of days, as to whether under the Human Rights Act "Wanted" pictures. as it were, could he published. I wanted specifically' to send a message to police forces and local authorities that they should go ahead and do that."

There are two obvious flaws with this statement:

Firstly who is Cameron to decide the lawfulness or otherwise of the actions of police or local authorities? He is an advertising man, at least Blair had a legal background!

Secondly this statement does not answer the use of the word 'phoney' - phoney suggests insincerity or dis-ingenuousness in the concerns about human rights - whereas his statement in 'sending a message' could only effect *genuine* concerns.

Then what can you expect from an adversing man? Their claims rarely stand up to scrutiny!

But anyway - thank you Mr Cameron, we know exactly what is phoney now.

(FoI Request: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/phoney_concerns_for_human_rights#outgoing-145482)

English Parliament? No Thanks.

2011-09-06T13:38:00.000+01:00

I am a citizen of the UK. Parts of the UK are now run by government/assemblies that I have no say over. As I travel around my country, I becoming subject to laws that I have had no say over, laws that have absolutely no democratic mandate from me.

This is simply wrong.

Just because I don't actually live in Wales or Scotland there is no reason that I should have no say over how I am treated when I am there.

As a citizen of the UK I should be treated exactly the same as all other citizens and treated exactly the same where ever in the UK I happen to be.

I only want one parliament - and that is a UK parliament at Westminster. If there is to be a different parliament, an English parliament, then it has to replace the UK parliament - no one needs two.

If this does come about, and we have an English parliament, then I would expect the English parliament to take full advantage of the superior size/wealth of England as compared to the other 'home nations'.

Just as Germany sucks all the wealth out of the smaller, poorer Eurozone countries and takes it to itself, I would expect England to drain as much wealth and power from the other 'home nations' - all English state funded services, functions, employees etc would be repatriated as would all military functions, bases. And as far as possible financial services should also be sucked into the City of London - no Scottish banks, building societies, insurance companies etc should fail to feel the red hot breath of fierce competition from England.

As I say - I prefer a United Kingdom, but if the home nations are to go their own way, England must show no mercy...

Why do ministers so like being seen in schools with lots of ethnic kids?

2011-09-06T13:18:00.000+01:00

Politicians see poor white kids as a reminder of political failure; and rich white kids as a reminder of their own privilege - so try to avoid both.

Under the former Labour government, when a minister appeared in a school, it was not uncommon for barely any white pupils to be seen. This happened to the extent that it got mentioned and discussed on a number of social networks.

Now just the other day, Nick Clegg (Deputy Prime Minister - Leader of the Liberal Democrats) appeared in a class of children in a clip related to his belief that holding back kids with good parents will help kids with bad parents (weird idea, but there you go).

In this clip Clegg is seen sitting in the middle of a row of about a dozen kids - with (as far as I saw) one while kid far away near one end. The child immediately next to Clegg - to whom he actually spoke before leaving was a little girl wearing a hijab head scarf (so very clearly and obviously 'ethnic').

What's all this about?

Well, undoubtedly politicians are very careful about their photo opportunities and leave nothing to chance, so this must have been carefully arranged and thought out - as must be the earlier labour school visits. But to what end?

My conclusion is...

UK politicians are embarrassed to be seen with obviously native poor (average) kids in school - it shows that the UK and UK politicians have failed these kids, failed their parents and probably failed their parents too.

UK politicians are embarrassed to be seen with obviously native rich kids in school - it reminds viewers of the obvious privilege our MPs have often experienced, and the privilege their kids will undoubtedly experience.

So ministers, MPs and politicians prefer to be seen with kids who look relatively new to the UK - obviously ethnic and not too integrated - because they are kids who actually have some hope of doing better than their parents. They are kids who may really be socially mobile.

This is in contrast to the native kids who either 'have it all' already or know that they are going nowhere and have no hope - a nasty reminder of what politicians should be focusing on but, for whatever reason, choose to avoid.

Could this same reasoning be behind the deliberate and huge immigration figures the UK has been experiencing for many years now? Our politicians find native citizens, the results of their policies, an embarrassment they want to ignore -- so by importing new, enthusiastic, people from abroad they have a fresh generation to let down - but by the time those results are seen the politicians will be long gone, tucked up comfortably with their ill gotten wealth and privilege.

Tuition fees and student loans - it must be all or nothing.

2011-09-02T01:44:00.001+01:00

In my gut I have always knows that 'state funded' student loans are disgusting, and have railed against them.

I think I now have a clear explanation of what my gut was telling me.

Many people - Lib Dems, Conservatives, some Labour and even some UKIP supporters have spoken out about the student loans being a *fantastic* bargain - too good to be missed. Such a good interest rate/deal that any sane person would *choose* to take the loan rather than pay up front.

I think the argument they present is nonsense, however to let them prove their case I put up this suggestion...

Make student loans for tuition fees COMPULSORY. If they are such a good deal, no-one could possibly object could they?

Oblige every person attending a UK university (regardless of nationality etc) to pay for their course on credit over the life time of their subsequent employment.

Why does this make sense?

Imagine (if you will) two MP's - one an old etonian whose parents paid for every thing up front so they could enter their adult life with no debt. Imagine another, who went through the state system, clawed their way into an through university and is now an MP with huge (student loan) debts to pay...

Imagine a government keen to 'improve their image' regarding frugality - so cutting MP's pay/allowances etc... Now who is going to suffer first and who is going to suffer most? It is the poor and middle class who will suffer (they have massive loans to repay) while the 'toffs' not only keep more of their pay an expenses, but have enough wealth behind them to not even need it anyway!

So one of my main points against student loans and the huge burden they will place on those taking them is that it tilts the whole playing field of viable careers *against* the middle and working classes and in favour of the toffs.

While I despise the LibDems already - I didn't take them for a party to support the aristocracy lording it over the masses - but clearly that is precisely what they are.

I believe tuition fees/loans are really a 20% additional tax on the middle class and poor - to be proved wrong, the either have to be applied to *everyone* or *noone*, there is no middle ground.

Iceland - doing what Moron Brown should have done.

2011-08-21T12:08:00.000+01:00

I read in today's Mail On Sunday that Iceland maybe about to repay the money to their UK savers that was 'lost' when their banks collapsed.

Iceland set to pay back British debt 'in months' following massive sale of retail stakes
www.dailymail.co.uk

How are they doing this? Are the Icelandic taxpayers going to be fleeced by their government to pay back this money? After all that is how UK banks 'paid back' their debts - Gordon Brown gave them a blank cheque that UK taxpayers will be working for years and years to pay off.

Gordon Brown not only make the UK taxpayer refund these gamblers losses - but also made us pay out as if they had WON their gamble !!

No, the people of Iceland are not so stupid as to follow Moron Browns example. Their government were actually very keen to do so, but the Icelandic people refused point blank. Threats of doom were ignored, and their government were powerless to force them to pay.

Now the Icelandic government are doing what Moron Brown should have done -- they are selling off some of the failed banks assets and using the money to pay back the UK investors. So who loses? The banks *shareholders* (bondholders) the people who undertook the gamble and *LOST*.

They lose their stake and get *NO* winnings - that is what happens when you back a loser in the normal world - it is only the UK's (and EU's) mad politicians that think when rich people lose a bet they should be paid out anyway. Not only paid out, but paid out from innocent taxpayers money - the poorest taxpayer paying out winnings on a bet that was not only lost, but the taxpayer was never any part of!

We - the UK taxpayer - owe the people of Iceland a huge debt, as they are *proof* that Browns solution was not the only choice. Not only that, but that Browns solution was the *worst* choice.

Luddites - maybe they have a point to make in the modern world?

2011-08-13T12:23:00.000+01:00

Why is human labour taxed, and mechanised labour not?

Why should the government take far, far more money from a company with a human manned production line, that it would from one with an automated production line?

This isn't about increasing tax, its about distribution of the 'burden' - companies with large workforces appear to be penalised, in favour of those with automation.

If a company uses IT to run payroll/HR/accounts (or any other activity) instead of an office of workers - why should their tax bill be lower?

By hobbling the human as a resource, anyone would think the government wanted to increase unemployment!

What the people of the UK really think about our recent Governments - WOW!

2011-08-08T13:04:00.001+01:00

A Recent Survey

A recent survey by YouGov is completely stunning.

It was done on behalf of the Fabians society who are a very left wing, big government, anti-individual, collectivist supporting organisation.

The Fabians have only been promoting one figure from the survey - the one that appears to support their cause. Pretty much every other figure on the survey completely destroys their cause, and so (unsurprisingly) those figures have been kept under wraps.

However they are now available - here:
http://www.yougov.polis.cam.ac.uk/sites/yougov.polis.cam.ac.uk/files/UK%20attitudes%20to%20government%20spending%20cuts.pdf

Spending...

Of particular interest are the facts that while only 23% of people said government is generally a force for good a massive 32% said the governments gets in the way and reduces the quality of life of them and their families.

Three times as many people thought government should cut spending and taxes as thought they should rise. Although even more said 'fariness' (whatever that is) is more important than whether they immediately go up or down.

Twice as many people thought that benefits should be cut as opposed to rising. While a similar number, again, said 'fairness' was the most important issue.

Government 'added value' on public services...

Only 8% of people said the services they received were worth MORE than they were paying for them. And while 15% said they got back what they put in, a massive 55% (an absolute majority!) said the public services provided by the government were worth LESS than they were paying in taxes for them.

A paradox?...

Given the above, it may seem strange that people seem to want the current 'cuts' to be temporary -- however I think there is an easy explanation for this.

Despite the inefficiency, burden and general contempt for the government and its provision of services - to most people the government is still a monopoly supplier. People don't want to lose the services, so feel obliged to pay whatever it takes to get those services, and not to give the government any excuse to reduce them.

Conclusion

Given the massive inefficiency and failure of recent governments to provide value for money, or help the public time for change cannot be far away.

Cameron openly confirms himself EU-phile and his contempt for UK citizens.

2011-08-07T13:01:00.000+01:00

THE LETTER SENT BY DAVID CAMERON'S POLITICAL PRIVATE SECRETARY
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/263461/The-letter-sent-by-David-Cameron-s-political-private-secretary

Cameron confirmed as a devious EU-phile - committed to end the UK. Here are a few choice bits of deception by Cameron.

we had a referendum on that issue in 1975

No 'we' didn't I was 10 in 1975, and the question was regarding a 'common market' not an 'european community' even less an 'european union'. A single market for europe is good, a single government for europe is bad, very bad.

most people in our country want to say neither ‘yes’ to everything from the EU, nor ‘no’ to everything

Outside the EU we can choose what we want and dont, in the EU qualified majority voting means we are told what we can and cant choose between.

we are not part of the Schengen Zone but have kept control of our own border controls

We do not control our borders - we keep out non-EU workers we don't require, but unwanted EU workers cannot be kept out. Outside the EU we would really have control of our borders and sort out our unemployment problems.

just as, crucially, we have kept the pound.

But being in the EU means we have had to contribute to Euro bailouts that are *nothing* to do with us - outside the EU we would keep the pound an not have to pay for Eurozone bailouts.

And we should not lose sight of the EU’s very useful work

The EU can continue doing whatever 'useful' work it wants for its members. But outside the EU, the UK can focus on doing what is useful for the UK.

The Government has also introduced a European Union Bill

What a government puts in place a government can remove - this offers the public no protection. And is so narrowly defined that it is still of no practical use.

ensuring that the lifting of regulatory burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses

Burdens put in place by the EU in the first place! Outside the EU these burdens to the UK economy could be removed completely.

the Prime Minister would never allow our country to slide into a federal Europe.

The risk right now is not of a federal Europe, it is of a centrally governed Europe. Claiming to be against the frying-pan but not the fire is no use to anyone.

I was asked what I thought of David Cameron's Big Aid Giveaway...

2011-08-03T13:46:00.002+01:00

Dear XXXXXXXXXX

Firstly I believe people are perfectly capable of deciding for
themselves where their money should be spent - to extract money from
the public through taxation for issues that the Prime Minister
considers 'humanitarian' or 'charitable' causes robs individuals of
the opportunity to choose what they do or don't want to support.
Compulsion precludes charity, there is no virtue in compulsion. You
chip away at the humanity of millions of UK citizens by abusing them
in this way.

Secondly I notice that the Ensus 'Bio-Fuel' plant in Wilton is
designed to consume around 3,000 tonnes of wheat a day - enough for
around 6.4 million loaves of bread. Maybe not top quality wheat, but I
don't think the hungry would mind second rate wheat in their bread.
This destruction of a food crop (and other damage done by 'bio fuels'
and 'green taxes') is made profitable by the Governments artificial
loading of the tax system, does this make you feel proud?

David Cameron's bleeding heart' abuse of the poor of the UK to
aggrandise his reputation abroad quite simply disgusts me.

Yours Sincerely

Paul Perrin

Personal Trading Accounts - Get Britain Working Again - Now.

2011-08-01T15:31:00.000+01:00

Let all all UK citizens trade (trade on ebay, run market stalls, do odd jobs etc) on their own account with a turnover of up (say) £12,000 with no strings/taxation/paperwork/red-tape etc.

This could be simply implemented by asking high street banks to setup a new type of account - to be linked to an individuals National Insurance number - the citizen/trader would put all 'business' transactions through their account, and in return the money withdrawn (up to a predetermined limit) would not be subject to tax or 'means testing' against any benefit.

This would legitimise a large part of the 'black economy' and 'benefit cheating' but also remove a huge barrier that many must feel when considering starting a small business. By enabling anyone to try their hand at running their own business so simply, to top up their income with the possibility of developing in to a full business (with VAT, tax, employees etc) - the UK could become a nation of entrepreneurs.

There would be savings to the state in the reduction of investigation and enforcement of low value tax dodging and benefit cheating, and the removal of barriers to 'help oneself' could invigorate an entire class of society to get back to work - generating tax raising opportunities as they succeed/grow, and developing a culture of work and industry to replace any culture of state dependence.

Currently there is little opportunity for poor people in the UK to 'help themselves'. Over the years every avenue of self-help, self-development, self-enterprise has been nationalised or outlawed. This nationalisation has brought overheads, red tape and bureaucracy to such a level that a whole raft of experts are needed to even understand the rules, let alone complying with them - to the extent that the government imposed costs are greater than the likely return of many small enterprises!

So here is a cheap, simple, quick proposal to cut through/sidestep the dross of the past and let people start to help themselves. A proposal that could be implemented in weeks and help millions boost their own incomes and set the UK on the road to be the land of entrepreneurs.

Many poor people (whether poorly paid or on benefits) are already enhancing their incomes by doing small amounts of business in 'the black market' - whether its trading on ebay, doing jobs 'cash in hand', running a market stall etc. I say it is wrong for these peoples enterprise to be crushed by the tax man.

So I suggest the government immediately create a new type of bank account - a Personal Trading Account - every citizen would be entitled to open one such account. Any money paid into and withdrawn from the account (upto maybe £12,000 a year) would be subject to no tax whatsoever.

Stop worrying so much about the 50p tax rate for top earners, first free the bottom earners to make this country great again.

Bits and Bobs from the Sunday Times.

2011-07-31T11:55:00.000+01:00

Universities to cut fees for top students

Some sanity in higher education - with a suggestion that students with top A level grades may have their fees cut. Quite right I say, people who really deserve to be there should not be penalised by their financial position.

But not all good - the article implies that students from EU countries get equal access to UK universities, and can apply for UK student loans. This is particularly bad as there is noway of making foreign students repay their loans, and any money lost through non-payment has to be made up by those who *do* pay! So UK citizens born and bred going to a UK university and going on to work in the UK will not only be paying for their own university education, but for those of any EU students who studied here too!!

That't it - our brains are full up

A report suggests that human inteligence is at its peak. It says the brain is already working as fast as it can so there can be no efficiency increase, and that the brain already accounts for 20% of energy used by the body, so there is no scope for the brain to get bigger.

However, I say, looking at all the stories about general obesity in the UK there is *no* problem with providing more energy to bigger brains - humans have access to plenty of extra energy.

Go-getter Asians flock to grammars

As everyone already knows grammar schools get better results that the useless comprehensives that were dumped on my generation. The only question is why the public let government after government do *nothing* about it - more selective schools are needed. There are specialist sports schools, specialist arts schools etc why oh why don't we have a virtual ban on specialist academic schools?!?!

Donor Plea

From now on driving licence applications will be rejected unless the applicant answers a question on whether they want their organs to be donated after their death. Until now the question could just be ignored, but now you have to say 'Yes' or 'Not decided' (funny you can't just say 'no').

I am not against transplants in general, but I am not prepared to let jumped up saw bones hold my organs to ransom for their own glory - I will only donate my organs if my family can decide who gets them. I will not let a surgeon take them to boost his own private surgery, nannying political agenda, and bank balance. If my organs were used, I'd want them to go to the people currently persecuted by our doctors and health service - i.e. Lungs to a smoker, liver to a drinker, heart to a fatty etc.

Veterans threatened by plan to scrap combat stress aid

I think it is about time that 'post traumatic stress' and related issues stopped being treated as exceptional. It seems clear that these are not unusual medical issues, but simply normal human reaction to war and violence related events.

So instead of treatment being seen as an exception, we should assume (and budget) for all soldiers to be look after in this way if they are ever sent into action. Its a cost of war - a cost that our Governments prefer to ignore as they go on their foreign expeditions in the hope of some kind of place in the history books.

Of course they will get in the history books for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc - but not in the way they hoped...

If you can't force adults to obey you, force the kids - thats far easier.

2011-07-30T10:59:00.001+01:00

I heard the Green Manifesto for Brighton and Hove described as half motherhood and apple pie (i.e. obviously good that no one would disagree with) and half aparantly written by Rik of The Young Ones while high on mind altering drugs (i.e. completely loony).

It seems the loony parts are now being enacted, starting with an attempt to prevent council workers eating any meat on mondays(!). This ridiculous imposition on grown adults who have probably never needed help with choosing their meals in the past is called 'Meat Free Mondays' and the loony Green councillor trying to impose it was given short thrift by the workers he was trying to nanny/mother.

Brighton and Hove binmen get “meat-free Monday” the chop
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9165595.Brighton_and_Hove_binmen_get____meat_free_Monday____the_chop/

However it seems that others, less able to defend themselves from inappropriate interference in their personal business (i.e. choosing what they want to eat) are already victims of this mad campaign.

In March last year Brighton and Hove Schools started forcing children to avoid meat on mondays

Brighton schools go meat-free for spring term... and longer with your help
http://www.meatfreemondays.com/news/brighton-schools-go-meat-free-for-spring-term-and-longer-with-your-help.cfm

As if schools don't have enough challenges, adding this entirely superflous requirement is more work - at our expense(!) that simply doesn't need to be done.

Lets hope the Green council can get their heads out of the clouds, put their wasteful, expensive loony policies to one side and start delivering on what the people of Brighton and Hove really, want, care about and are prepared to pay for!

(p.s. This is the Freedom of Information request I put in just before posting this http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ meat_free_mondays)

UKIP is the most democratic of the four main UK parties.

2011-07-26T11:01:00.000+01:00

I can never take it seriously when people talk about UKIP as an independent entity. UKIP is not a separate entity, it is its members. (Dare I say 'there is no such thing as UKIP there are only members and their families...').

Without its members UKIP has and is nothing. There and very, very few 'tribal' UKIP supporters, there are several issues that unite different large groups of UKIP supporters, but it is only the return of power from Brussels to the UK that truly unites all of them.

UKIP has to follow its members wishes, as they will have few qualms about leaving if they don't like the way the party is heading.

This is in strict contrast to the Labour and Conservative parties, who have vast assets both tangible and intangible. They also have millions of tribal voters - people who will support them and vote for them purely because of their name, regardless of their actual policies. These tribal voters are people who are loyal to the very institutions themselves (while I think such blind loyalty is stupid and dangerous, that doesn't change the fact it exists).

The Liberal Democrats are a bit in the middle, they have some such loyalty to their institution/name - but it isn't so ingrained - just look at their current collapse with their policy of supporting(?!) the conservatives in government, and backtracking on their tuition fees pledge - that has done them huge damage - much of it probably permanent.

Labour and Conservative leaders can set policy and their tribes will follow. Liberal Democrats also to an extent. UKIP, nope - policy has to reflect what the members want.

Ultimately this is a good thing, as it is reflected in the UKIP policy towards democracy - a commitment that governments should represent their peoples wishes, governments are not there to act like monarchs dragging their 'subjects' into pointless wars and into bankrupting vanity projects at the whim of some 'great and glorious leader' with his/her eye on their place in the history books.

If UKIP is a party of democracy when we oppose the European Union and its anti-democratic nature, then we must also be a party of democracy in our domestic affairs.
http://www.ukip.org/content/leading-articles/1336-why-we-need-direct-democracy

Why do I write this now? Oh yes - because the subject of the union and devolution is raising its troublesome head - any fix is going to be messy to implement, so ultimately it has to be for the people to decide, and when it comes to the crunch it is the peoples wishes that UKIP will support.

If anyone wants their view to prevail, don't try to foist it on the public by getting the party to back it, you need to persuade the public to back it. Then direct democracy will deliver one way or the other.

My view, for what its worth, is that all the British Isles should all be working together as a model sustainable society. We have a perfect geographical position and structure which we are completely wasting.

(NB: UKIP are the fourth largest party in the UK by size of national vote at the 2010 general election; UKIP are the second largest party in the UK by size of the national vote at the 2009 EU elections)

Will the UK negotiate over EU treaty changes or just roll over? (I think you know the answer already)

2011-07-25T10:26:00.003+01:00

The people of the UK were promised a referendum on any major EU treaty changes. They were also promised that the government would, in future, ensure that they put the UK first in all dealings with the EU.

Now there are major treaty changes, and unanimous support required to get the Euro out of its current hole. Will the government put the UK first and get us the best deal? or will the government roll over and simply give away whatever negotiating capital we have?

Clegg says roll over:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/21/nick-clegg-david-cameron-eurozone

Osborne pretends to stand firm for the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8656959/George-Osborne-Well-use-euro-crisis-to-boost-British-interests.html

But in fact Osbourne has already rolled over:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260558/Bail-out-shows-we-need-an-EU-referendum-say-Tories

While Cameron had rolled over along all along:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23972297-eurosceptics-in-referendum-call-after-pound-96-and-8201billion-greek-bail-out.do

So after endless "Euro is no business of the UK, cos we ain't in it" we get "We must help the Euro because the Eurozone is critical to UK interests" we are back to "Treaty changes for the Euro are none of our business because it doesn't affect the UK".

UKIP should be taking centre stage saying "There was only ever one way to avoid this Euro disaster. That was for the currency never to have been created. Now... who has been saying that all along? Oh yes! UKIP."

If it is in UK's interest to protect itself by protecting the Economies of all European nations, then it was our governments responsiblity to have prevented the introduction of the Euro in the first place. LibLabCon all failed in this, which is why we are now here.

Blair is still in favour of the UK joining the Euro, Clegg and Cameron call for more EU/Eurozone political integration - what drives their tunnel vision, that they can only see 'More EU' as the answer to everything? Anyone would think they didn't consider themselves competent to run the UK as an independent country, that they only saw themselves as middle managers in the EU organisation.

Brighton and Hove Greens say they respect PR - do they remember they only got 33% of the vote?

2011-07-24T16:11:00.001+01:00

In the Brighton and Hove local elections, for the parties with seats the votes went like this:

Party	Seats	Vote %age
Green Party	23	33%
Conservative Party	18	29%
The Labour and Co-Operative Party	13	32%

The Greens only got one third of the popular vote - they hardly have a 'mandate' for anything!

Personally I am keen to know what they are doing to ensure that council decisions are truly reflective of the popular vote.

With U-Turns they have already accumulated since taking power, I hope they are not looking to exploit the unfair advantage our electoral process can give - like 1/3rd the vote giving 100% of the power?

**edit**
Just for reference, turnout varied from around 35% to 60% - average maybe 45% - so greens got 1/3rd of less 1/2 the electorate - say 15% of the electorate...

Brighton and Hove - Four Green U-Turns

2011-07-24T15:14:00.004+01:00

Just keeping track of how Green promises in opposition get ditched once in power. (And you thought pledge reneging was just the Lib Dems speciality following their tuition fees about turn?)

I have covered a couple of these separately before, but thought I'd bring them all together.

1) Kicking travellers off their site.

This was right at the start of Green Rule - before the recent inward flood of travellers, their simultaneous occupation of many sites across the city and the 'toleration' policy.

Green councillors criticised for putting worms before travellers
http://newsfrombrighton.co.uk/brighton-politics/green-party/green-councillors-criticised-for-putting-worms-before-travellers/

Travellers lower than worms for Brighton Greens
http://collectiveresistance.com/2011/05/22/travellers-lower-than-worms-for-brighton-greens/

2) Keeping the Super-Director structure.
Before

Sack the council’s £125k directors, say Brighton and Hove Greens
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2011/03/sack-the-councils-125k-directors-say-brighton-and-hove-greens/

Green proposal to cut high-paid council officers blocked as alternative budget is published

http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/localsites/bh/news/proposal-to-cut-high-paid-council-officers-blocked-as-alternative-budget-is-published.html

After

Town hall sources stated the Greens felt it was better to work with the system
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9045393.Message_sent_to_Brighton_and_Hove_City_Council_staff/

3) Keeping a councillors allowance system that they previously described as excessive.

Greens accused of U-turn on councillors’ allowances

http://newsfrombrighton.co.uk/brighton-hove-city-council/greens-accused-of-u-turn-on-councillors-allowances/

Power corrupts... and oh so quickly for the Greens in Brighton.
http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/06/power-corrupts-and-oh-so-quickly-for.html

4) Restricting top council pay to no more than eight times lowest council pay.

Brighton and Hove Greens - breaking manifesto promises already?
http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/06/brighton-and-hove-greens-breaking.html

It seems that the Greens are bringing in their higher minimum wage for council employees (at the direct expense of many on lower pay that aren't council workers) and chief exec (John Barraddel) is taking a 5% cut that reportedly brings the highest to lowest multiple to 11 times - which still leaves either a 25% pay cut to come at the top, or another 40% rise at the bottom... Which still leaves an earlier question of mine unanswered:

John Barradell - do Brighton Greens think him greedy or simply not worth his pay?
http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/06/john-barradell-do-brighton-greens-think.html

What were the Norway/Oslo bombings really about?

2011-07-23T15:04:00.000+01:00

Its still early days, but this appears to have really been an attack on unrepresentative politics.

A voter decided that the political system was so broken that a violent attack on a political party was more likely to deliver a ‘good outcome’ than anything they could do at the ballot box.

Politicians are always terrified of terrorist attacks on them by those they claim to represent – but I guess this is the natural result of politicians savagely under or misrepresenting some people.

Because the left are committed to big government they will naturally be far more vulnerable (and scared of) attacks on politics.

But given Cameron’s conservatives only difference to Labour is the speed of deficit reduction (5 years rather than labours 10) they may well be just as scared by such events.

Camerons lack of representation of those that elected him was clearly demonstrated this morning – having spent months saying that the Euro and Eurozone was vital to the UK’s interests, he now says no referendum is required on EU treaty changes relating to the Euro and Eurozone because ‘it only affects Eurozone countries’ – he can’t have it both ways. In what way is he accountable for this duplicity?

#UKIP and so called "Ban the Burka" - debunked.

2011-07-23T14:41:00.000+01:00

The claim that UKIP want to 'Ban the Burka' comes up now and then - I wanted to blog to clarify this once and for all!

In the UKIP 2010 general election manifesto there was a policy to do two things:
1) Ban face coverings in government buildings.
2) Allow private companies to enforce face covering bans equally.

The first was based on security (allowing CCTV to record people accurately) and for effective communication (i.e. between staff and public, teacher and student etc).

The second was for instances such as banks where they could require people to remove motorcycle helmets etc, but could not ask for religious face coverings to be removed. The policy would have allowed everyone to be treated equally.

It wasn't a major policy, and I wouldn't have bothered to have it in the manifesto. But that is what it was, not a 'Burka ban'.

As a libertarian I don't think it is the states business what someone chooses to wear (or not wear) outside of protecting others safety - roll on the naked bike ride, naked rambler etc.

If women are being forced to wear burkas against their will, they need to be helped and empowered, not attacked from the other side too!

Phone Hacking - Meh! Police and Ministerial cover up, corruption and lies - Serious!

2011-07-22T16:04:00.001+01:00

Phone hacking is simply no big deal whatsoever - important message behind a default four digit code? may as well carry a written copy of the message near a photographer with a big lens...

However, the cover-ups, lies, and phoney denials -- especially Police and Ministerial - thats where the meat is.

How could the Met have to such flawed senior officers in charge? How can command pass to the idiot woman who oversaw the shooting of the 100% innocent Jean Charles de Menezes on the London Underground?

How could such unsuitable people be in charge for so long and no-one notice? or at least no-one have any power to call them to account?

ACPO - The association of chief police officers - a private limited company run by and for the benefit of top cops, but *selling* services back to the police/government, so not even subject to Freedom of Information requests, must be disbanded - NOW. These people flourished in its septic atmosphere.

BBC - Likely no better than News Intentional but has limitless funding from the taxpayer - must be broken up.

Any public servant guilty of corruption - dismissed with loss of all benefits - including pension. If already retired (sick or otherwise) claw back what has been paid as well.

Media, Ministers, the Met, Murdoch and Money (1)

2011-07-08T12:03:00.003+01:00

News of the World shutting down...

Rupert Murdoch, Boss of News International who own News of the World and other newspapers/TV channels, appears to have strong influence and leverage over the UK Media, UK Police and UK Politicians. Many people have worried about Murdoch's power for a long time, but until now there has not been a specific focus for the anti-Murdoch campaigners.

Now there is a focus for the campaigners - the focus is the voice mail hacking allegations made against the News of the World.

The first really 'nasty' hack appears to have been of Millie Dowler's phone where a journalist (or private detective) not only listened to messages, but deleted old messages so there was space for new messages to be left for them to write news stories about. Since then there have been allegations/revelations that the relatives of dead servicemen being returned from Iraq and Afghanistan had their voice mails listened too also.

There are so many loose ends, its hard to know where to start. I am starting with what I think is a clear issue over police competence or honesty - hopefully we will find out which it is, cock-up or conspiracy?

Millie Dowler's deleted voice mails

It is claimed that when Millie's old voice mails were deleted, this lead to her parents thinking that she may still be alive and checking her messages.

The first question is why, if the police were monitoring her voice mail, they let the mailbox fill up - surely they should have ensured there was space for new messages in case they could provide leads?

Secondly, once they saw that voice mails were being deleted, did they trace the phone that was being used to do the deletions? If they had, it would have led them to the hackers, and immediately ruled out it being Millie making the calls. If they didn't then why on earth not?

Thirdly, having established that it wasn't Millie deleting the messages, why didn't the then trace the source?

Whatever the *real* sequence of events, the story presented so far doesn't make any sense - either the police were incompetent in their investigation, or the story given so far is false.

I have put in a Freedom of Information request to start the ball rolling in finding out which it is...http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

Get the UK out of the EU in 2015 - Force Cameron and Miliband hands.

2011-07-07T09:22:00.001+01:00

March 2011: Cameron rejected a call for the people to be given an EU in/out referendum

I think we are better off inside the EU but making changes to it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12689607

June 2011: Miliband rejected a call for the people to be given an EU in/out referendum

Mr Miliband does not believe that a referendum on UK membership of the EU is appropriate at this time
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/253507/Ed-Miliband-rules-out-referendum-on-EU

The next EU (European Union) elections are in 2014, the next UK general election is 2015 - a year later.

Imagine if going in to the 2015 general election the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats had no MEPs (European Union MPs) at all! No incoming government could ignore such a message from us, the UK public.

So I have a cunning plan:

UK MEP's have no real power (All UK MEPs added together only make up 15% of the EU parliament - about the same as Lib-Dems used to get in the UK!).

So...

Love UKIP? Great! Vote UKIP.

Hate UKIP? So what? UK will be out of the EU in a matter of months after the election and will have no MEPs of any party! So vote UKIP anyway.

If any EU sceptic has any reason to not vote UKIP in the 2014 EU elections - lets get it out in the open and address it. This opportunity for removing LibLabCon from the EU parliament is too important to miss.

So is everyone in?

Green MP Caroline Lucas attacks Brighton's Green led Council

2011-07-06T11:01:00.003+01:00

Caroline Lucas has made a statement about the UK not meeting EU air-quality targets. She specifically mentions areas of Brighton and Hove that do not meet the targets, and she blames traffic.

Despite Brighton & Hove’s aspirations of being the UK’s greenest city, Caroline pointed out that standards for nitrogen dioxide are regularly exceeded at 20 sites across the city.

With much of this pollution being caused by traffic, Caroline urged the importance of long-term co-operational measures as opposed to short-term cheats.
(link: Brighton and Hove Free Press)

However, this is at the same time that the Green led council in Brighton and Hove are trying to reduce speed limits in the City from 30mph to 20mph.

Brighton and Hove City Council said speed limit reduction was a "high priority" and is planning to look at where they can force drivers to slow down after the Government announced it would cut restrictions on the use of 20mph limits.
(link: Brighton Argus)

Why is this an issue? Because research shows that a vehicle travelling at 20mph emits more pollutants per mile than when travelling at 30mph! Seems to be by about 15%...

(link: Department of Transport foot of page 3)

As this graph shows, vehicle emissions are much lower at the current 30mph (48kph) than at the Greens preferred 20mph (32kph).

Of course the Greens will have a solution to this contradiction they have created - I don't know precisely what it will be, but I am certain that it will involve us being further inconvenienced and charged more tax. I am certain of this because that is the Greens solution to every problem they create or imagine.

Angry over phone hacking? For gods sake, grow up. (and Hugh Grant)

2011-07-06T08:27:00.002+01:00

Eavesdropping is at the core of much journalism.

News of the World hacked phones and made no real secret of it at the time. Well its just a four digit code, hardly the way you'd protect anything precious.

Manipulating peoples messages (like deleting old ones to make more room) is a bit different but even so, it was only to make space for new messages, nothing malicious.

At the time, the News of the World even reported specific messages that they had hacked! it would be obvious to anyone at the time what they were doing - no one saw it as a big deal.

However, payments to police for information are a different matter... But there again, News of the World made no big secret of that, retaining emails detailing the payments.

Why has all this other information come out of News International now? is it the other side of a 'deal' - Police and Politicians haven't protected News International so they are being taken down too?

The other question is whether the police/news international information flow was all one way? Or did news international pass information from illegally hacked messages to the police? And if they did was it used for any prosecution?

If people have been convicted on the basis of police evidence that originated from illegal phone hacking, then I think we can expect a batch of appeals from those convicted on illegally gathered evidence.

ps. I'll single out the dreadful Hugh Grant for a kicking - he sold his soul to the public for his millions - he can't expect privacy, and jumping on the shroud tails of a murdered young girl to advance his own cause is digusting.

Preferring UK based companies is not protectionist - its value for money.

2011-07-05T15:38:00.001+01:00

Paying a foreign company £1.4bn for trains costs the UK taxpayer over £3bn, as compared to paying a UK company...

Or paying £1.4bn to a UK company would really have cost less than £0.7bn...

The UK government have just awarded a £1.4bn contract to a company based in Germany for the supply of train carriages.

A company with manufacturing facilities in the UK bid for the contact but lost out to the German company because their bid was more expensive.

Now consider this... a foreign company will take £1.4bn and it will be lost to the UK - lost to its people and the government.

However a UK based company would take £1.4bn and pay out a very large proportion of this to UK based workers as salary - salaries on which income tax and national insurance is paid.

Also part of the £.14bn will go to local suppliers for components that go into the final product, again part of this will then go on to the suppliers employees as salary and attract income tax and national insurance.

All the people receiving salary will spend a good part of that money on other UK goods and services, so paying 20% VAT.

On the back of an envelope, I estimated that half of the original £1.4bn paid out to a UK firm would go straight back to the government as tax!

An other part of this calculation is the loss of jobs in the UK - we don't have full employment, so it is fair to assume that many of the people losing their jobs (both with the main company and its suppliers) will end up on benefits, and so made a direct claim on other taxpayers. I don't know how much this would total - but I suggest that for a £1.4bn german bid to beat a UK bid, the UK bid would have to be around £3.5bn

Notes:

The Thameslink update programme was initiated about 20 years ago and was supposed to be completed by 2000... it is long overdue.

Bombardier (a Canadian owned train manufacturer, with manufacturing facilities in the UK) have recently lost out on a Government contract for new trains for the Thameslink Line.

The contract for the new trains has, instead, gone to the German company 'Siemens'

Bombardier have just laid off 1400 - at least 400 are directly as a result of losing this contract bid.

Bye-bio-fuel...

2011-06-29T10:29:00.004+01:00

Can man damage the climate? Probably not yet - but with all this money/effort being thrown at climate modificaiton technology it won't be long before we can, and probably will...

You know EU have legislated to throw *billions* of our tax-pounds to support bio-fuels? (Green MEP's must have wet themselves when that went through)...

Guess where those crops are being grown?

1) Displacing food crops

According to the report, biofuels consumed 20 per cent of sugar cane crops on average between 2007 and 2009, and 9 per cent of oilseeds.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/04bf4788-92b6-11e0-bd88-00144feab49a.html

2) Deforesting in Brazil

Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5369284.stm

And you know what? When comparing bio-diesel CO2 emissions to oil CO2 emissions - those genius green scientist sillies forgot to account for the CO2 generated from 'land use change' -- which means oil beats bio on that one after all - oops!

However, neither of these studies considered land use change, which can be very important to the total greenhouse gas emissions of the life cycle of a fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel#Greenhouse_gas_emissions

Never mind - soon get all that forest and all those species back eh? And it might still be made to work with some serious genetic engineering of the crops (I am sure those nice monsanto people will help with that).

Did you support Biofuel - promote it to others? Well, never mind, its the scientists fault, how were you to know? But at least you'll learn that scientists shouldn't be blindly trusted - Won't you?

For what it is worth - I am a big fan of sustainability, sustainability means personal freedom. But the greens and the Green parties endless goofs damage the cause and discredit the whole concept. You have to start wondering whose side they are really on!

Can man damage the climate? Probably not yet - but with all this money/effort being thrown at climate modificaiton technology it won't be long before we can, and probably will...

John Barradell - do Brighton Greens think him greedy or simply not worth his pay?

2011-06-27T16:39:00.002+01:00

The Brighton Green party want to limit top pay to no more than eight times the lowest pay.

(Priority pledge 13 page 3 brighton and hove green manifesto - see earlier blog)

I can only think of two reasons for such a philosophy:-

1) Greens believe nones work can possibly be worth more than 8 times that of another.

or

2) Greens think someone wanting more that 8 times the lowest paid maybe worth the money, but by wanting it is too selfish and greedy to be employed.

As there are council employees on more than 8 times the pay the lowest paid (John Barradell the chief executive for instance) how can the Greens not cut his pay immediately? as they must think either:-

1) He is simply not worth what he is being paid.
or

2) He is selfish and greedy and unfit to be employed.

Which is it I wonder? or have I missed an option?

** edit **
For more background, I have made a Freedom of Information request to Brighton and Hove City Council asking for information on the highest and lowest salaraies paid (link: What Do They Know?)

How the EU will take all power from the UK without any more 'transfer of sovereignty'

2011-06-24T10:26:00.001+01:00

The UK is on course to disappear as a country - our parliament is dying and most people haven't even noticed.

I write to my MP frequently, I get prompt replies - sometimes my letters are passed on to specific departments or even specific Ministers for reply.

How come I get this 'special treatment' from my MP? What is it about me that allows me to get answers from even the top members of the UK government? It is simply because I am a UK citizen, the government exists to serve we citizens, and our MPs are our representatives in parliament who handle the detail for us.

The people of the UK are very privileged - we elect MPs who go to Parliament at Westminster to run the country. We have a direct and immediate link to the people who govern us. This works because we chose the individuals who represent us - they want our vote, and if we don't think they can do the job, we won't elect them! It also works because despite all the power it wields, the UK parliament is small enough for each MP to count in their own right - so an individual citizens voice (through their MP) can be heard at the very highest level.

That's how UK democracy works - but it is already fading away.

You will have heard many phrases like "In Europe, but not run by Europe" and the such. These are phrases used by many UK politicians insisting that we can be a member of the EU without completely surrendering our democracy to theirs - but this simply isn't true.

The power of the EU is a ratchet - it only goes one way - 'More Power to the EU' is their answer to every problem. It doesn't matter how the problem came about or who caused it, the solution is always 'More EU'. And every bit of power the EU gets is taken from national parliaments - the EU's gain is the UK's loss.

A recent, glorious, demonstration of how parliament and our MPs can wield power was the debate and vote on the use of wild animals in circuses - there was a debate against the governments wishes and a vote to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. This all happened because one MP, one person, elected by his constituents stood up to make his point, and many other MPs elected by their constituents agreed with him - they represented their constituents, with no regard for the government, party or any other influence. This is pretty much as direct as democracy can get!

However, this is embarrassing for the Government - it shows how little power they have - because the EU in Brussels decide on this issue, not our directly elected government at Westminster. Our wonderful, powerful, historic parliamentary system is being trashed in favour of a system that most people don't even understand. If they did understand it, they almost certainly wouldn't like it. The EU is controlled by 27 unelected, unaccountable 'commissioners' - people whose names and faces you have probably never heard or seen.

Do you remember agreeing to obey laws set by some group of strangers in Brussels? I don't. But the current government have promised not to transfer any more power with out giving us a referendum so we can say no if we want to - that makes it OK doesn't it?

Unfortunately the EU (with the full knowledge and consent of the UK government) have come up with a great way of putting the EU in charge, without actually 'transferring' power. The end result is the same, but there is no physical transfer.

It works like this - first the EU identifies an area it where it wants to take control away from the UK (and other member countries). Then the EU then build up their own structures to duplicate what the member states are already doing. Finally the EU and national government come up with an excuse to shut down the national service/function - so leaving the EU to run it alone. A power transfer with no actual transfer to have a referendum on. We are being deceived and robbed.

I wrote more about this in relation to UK defence cuts (link: Defence cuts are a massive transfer of sovereignty to the EU.)

We are losing our democracy - we are losing powers and protections that were hard won by generations of english men and women. We must stop the rot before it is too late.

UK MPs vote to ban circus wild animals - man from #EU he say 'NO'.

2011-06-23T23:18:00.007+01:00

We are not governed by our MPs and Government at Westminster, we are dictated to by 27 unelected, unaccountable commissioners in brussels

Cameron is *desperate* to hide his (and the UK's) impotence in the face of the EU.

He knew that if MPs voted for this ban, then the UK public would see that their elected government at Westminster are the EU's servants - not our servants!

His objection to this wild animal vote was entirely based on the fact that he/we/UK *cannot* implement a ban with out EU approval.

Read about the inducements and threats offered to avoid a vote:

"I was offered incentive and reward on Monday and then it was ratcheted up until last night when I was threatened,"

"I had a call from the prime minister's office directly. I was told unless I withdraw this motion that the prime minister himself would look upon it very dimly indeed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13884165

Read about the real objection, delivered during the debate:

be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union Services Directive and under our own Human Rights Act

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13454403

This is ANOTHER issue that UKIP should be making a HUGE fuss over, and every UK citizen should too - to recognise the sovereignty we have already lost.

We directly elect our MPs to parliament - they should have the final say on all political matters. But while we are in the EU, the 27 unelected, unaccountable EU commissioners have the final say.

Some people like the EU because they think the UK can impose its will on other countries - but that isn't so - 27 unelected, unaccountable commissioners impose their will on us all.

Power corrupts... and oh so quickly for the Greens in Brighton.

2011-06-22T15:05:00.001+01:00

I have just been reading about Green Councillor Jason Kitcat meeting Grant Schapps (link: Jason Kitcat's Blog), a meeting held to see how councils could deliver better services to their residents.

However, Kitcat seemed less interested in what the council could for their (already squeezed) council tax payers, and far more interested in what council tax payers could do for the council and councillors. His suggestions included higher pay for council workers, and increased allowances for councillors - this time for childcare.

Of course council tax makes this kind of increase very obvious to the tax payer as there is a direct link - so there were also suggestions about moving away from council tax to a different form of funding - which would undoubtedly make it harder for residents to see where their money was going. Rather rich from a councillor who says openness is a priority!

This is all particularly interesting following an article on another Brighton news site about the Greens sudden change of attitude towards expenses. Particularly how this has changed having taken office (Link: News From Brighton). While in opposition the Greens said that an increase in allowances was 'Generous' - but nodded through the keeping of these smae 'Generous' allowances as one of the first acts of the new Green council!

If the Greens persist in making the public sector as comfy as possible at the expense of the fragile private sector, soon the private sector will be destroyed and noone will be creating wealth to keep the public sector comfy. So much for Greens supporting 'sustainability'!

Greens Plot to Nationalise Rental Sector - Creeping Nationalisation

2011-06-22T09:31:00.002+01:00

Here I present a few bits of the jigsaw that the 'brains' at the top of the Greens are putting in place to seize private property - the plebs who vote Green probably don't have a clue about this, the Green leadership just view them as 'useful idiots'.

1) Private property empty for more than 6 months will be seized/compulsory purchased.
(link: 2011 Brighton City Council - Green Manifesto see page 11)

2) It would be illegal for private property not meeting ultra-high Green standards to be let at all.
(link: Guardian 21 June 2011 Article )

3) Council controlled rent on private lettings
(link: 2011 Brighton City Council - Green Manifesto see page 11)

So if you are a landlord and can't afford to upgrade your property to the arbitrary standards set by the Greens you will not allowed to let it - and after six months they will seize it. If you can afford to pay to upgrade then it is at the whim of the Greens as to whether you will be allowed to recover the cost by upping the rent you charge - so maybe not a wise move. In either case, ultimately the Green council end up owning your property.

Funnily enough the new Green standards only apply to private rental properties - so they will be free to fill the property as it stands! And if it needs upgrading? Well having extorted your property from you, you will be coerced through council tax for it to be upgraded anyway!

Green strategy is all about making working in the private sector impossibly expensive (e.g. Green taxes) - as the private sector dies, they will step in to take over, financed by coercive taxation - creeping nationalisation.

I hope innocent Green voters wake up and realise what a monster they are actually maintaining - everyone should be scared.

Beaver Cub Scouts in Hijabs?! Think of it as integration in progress.

2011-06-21T18:33:00.003+01:00

An Arkala (cub leader) I know told me of a recent Scout trip she took her pack of cubs to.

Many packs attended this large group event. There were packs of Cub Scouts, and colonies of Beavers (pre-cub groups).

One colony was particularly notable as its members were all female, and all but one wore a hijab (headscarf). Not only that, but while one leader also wore a hijab, another wore a full burka.

I heard this story and think it is a wonderful example of integration in progress. For the children, muslim girls freely mixing with non-muslim boys and girls in adventurous, fun, scouting activities. For the leaders, despite the burka (clearly not being worn to isolate the leader from the rest of the world) also sharing in these activities.

It would be easy to imagine that muslims would not want this kind of mixing - either having their own youth organisations, or maybe joining the girl-guides movement (which remains unisex). But to me this demonstrates integration in action and should be celebrated. I am sure these youngsters will grow up with a full appreciation of the culture around them.

Some Real Democracy Now 19 June 2011 You Tube Videos #J19 + Misc

2011-06-20T16:27:00.005+01:00

J19 Madrid

Manifestación #19J Santander (alameda)

Convergencia columnas Lavapiés y Toledo. J19 AcampadaSol

Greek Protests

Portugal

Protest Paris

Flash Mob Zurich

Not #J20 but related...

Irish Protest Poem

A Compilation

Oh - And Brighton Camp - the other week

Who let down the Public Sector?

2011-06-18T11:10:00.000+01:00

No one likes to have their expectations dashed. So public sector workers protesting against pension changes, changes that will leave them worse off than they expected to be are not a surprise.

However you have to ask if they are complaining about the right target.

Payments to retired public sector employees are paid by the taxpayers of the day. The pensions of those protesting now will be paid for by our current generation of youngsters and our children. Public sector workers protesting about pension changes are protesting for the right to be a greater burden on people who owe them nothing.

The protesters may say that they have paid in large parts of their salary for many years so have paid for their pensions, but in that case they must look to where that money went and who made those promises. Who is it that has let them down?

In great part the answer to that question is the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown led labour government. The labour government gave the public sector money that they did not have, and made promises about even more that they must have known they never would have.

The public sector have already eaten their cake (and then some), maybe they knew it and maybe they didn't but either way the cake has gone. However unfair it may seem you can't have your cake and eat it.

Listen to the people? Only when they say what I want to hear! Democracy?

2011-06-18T10:33:00.000+01:00

Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party, has officially sided with Conservative leader and Prime Minister David Cameron on the United Kingdom's Membership of the European Union.

The United Kingdom (UK) is currently a member of the European Union (EU), which means much of the power to govern the UK is held by a panel of appointed Commissioners in Brussels.

There have been popular calls for all governing power to be brought back from Brussels to the UK parliament at Westminster. One proposal is for the UK to have a national referendum so the people of the UK can directly say where they want to be governed from.

But, in a recent letter Miliband has formerly stated that he does not want the people of the UK to be given this choice, and that no referendum should be held (Daily Express Story). This is the same position held by Cameron the conservative party leader who has also said that he will not allow a referendum (YouTube Clip).

Both men support the UK being a member of the EU and both men seem to share a reason for opposing a referendum, they oppose having a referendum because they believe that the UK public would vote to leave the EU. So both men put their personal view above that of the people of the UK - the voters they are supposed to represent.

Liberal Democrat leader (and deputy PM in the current coalition government) Nick Clegg, has previously stated that he would like a referendum on EU membership - but several times, when in a position to advance this cause, has shied away for dong so.

As actions are said to speak louder than words, it seems that the leaders of all three main parties agree that listening to the people is something that should only be done if they already agree with you - so much for democracy!

Is it Greek revolution, Spanish revolution, real democracy now, take to the streets or what?

2011-06-17T12:55:00.000+01:00

Greece seems to be descending into civil war, Spain has dozens of protest camps, some in the main cities, here in middle of Brighton there was a 'Spanish Revolution' camp for three weeks - what's going on?

One thing that is certainly going on is that the UK mainstream media (MSM) aren't keeping the UK public informed. But I will present what I know - maybe others can fill in gaps.

There seems to be mood across Europe, particularly in the EU, particularly in the Eurozone, particularly in the PIIGS nations that governments have disconnected themselves from the people they are supposed to be representing. So, to call government back to account people have taken matters into their own hands.

In Spain, thousands of protesters objecting to their government accepting European Union (EU) measures to change their economy established a camp in the centre of Madrid. This rapidly lead to other camps popping up all over Spain, and then to Spaniards in other countries setting up camps in support. One such camp was set up in the middle of Brighton in a park called 'Old Stein'.

The 'movement' had originally been called ¡Democracia Real YA! (Real Democracy Now!) and started as grass roots a non-party-political association of people with no leaders or central management so no single coherent message. But with the establishment of the camp the name 'Spanish Revolution' started to be heard. And with the establishment of foreign camps, 'Spanish Revolution' was joined by 'Greek Revolution', 'UK Revolution' and even 'European Revolution as disparate groups sought to link together in a common cause.

At the same time as this, there were protest in Greece against their government, the main issue appeared to be dissatisfaction with their government accepting EU measures that the people themselves did not want (just like Spain). I believe these protests started in parallel with the Spanish camps and weren't directly connected, although maybe were inspired by them.

The UK had earlier had some protests by unions and public sector workers joined by students under the name 'UK Uncut' against potential cuts to jobs - this was quite different in that it wasn't a grass roots campaign but a union supported industrial relations campaign. The UK had also had a small 'Rally Against Debt' march which was focused on the debt that the government was taking on in the peoples name with out public support.

Earlier still, in Ireland, there has also been huge public disquiet at their government accepting EU measures that the people themselves disagreed with - but not any protest, marches or camps that I know of.

It isn't clear where these groups are heading, particularly in the UK where the largest protest movement (UK Uncut) are campaigning in support of the former Labour government, while these new movements are campaigning against the political class in general. The new movements seem to have more in common with the smaller UK 'Rally Against Debt' group - who oppose government measures being enacted with out public consent.

UK Liberation - June 2014 : Lets make EU2014 a referendum on EU membership.

2011-06-16T10:22:00.000+01:00

The people of the UK want a referendum on the EU, we were promised a referendum on the EU, we were denied our referendum on the EU.

June 2014 will see the next election of MEPs to the EU parliament - we can make this a de-facto referendum on our continued membership of the EU.

In June 2014 UK citizens can use this election to tell the government at Westminster that they have had enough of the European Union, that they want their MPs (elected to the UK parliament at Westminster) to be answerable only to the people of the UK. That they do not want their MPs to be answerable to the 27 unelected, unaccountable commissioners who govern the EU.

Outside the EU, some things will change, our government at Westminster will be directly accountable only to us, UK citizens and voters, not to an unelected EU commission. Your directly elected and accountable MP at Westminster will be part of the top governing body of the UK, running the UK for our benefit. UK will not simply 'give' £130bn of UK taxpayers money to other EU states each year, UK will not have to give UK jobs to foreign citizens while we pay our citizen to sit at home unemployed, nor pay UK taxpayer funded benefits to foreign families back home in their own EU country.

Even with the UK outside the EU, many thing will not change, the UK will still trade with the countries of Europe and they with us, people from the UK will holiday in Europe and they here, and when there is work to be done we will still be able to work in Europe and they here.

Outside the EU, the UK will also be free to develop better trading relationships with the rest of the world - including our old partners in the commonwealth. We can reclaim our fishing grounds, stop tons of good fish being thrown back dead, and conserve our stocks for our long term prosperity.

Leaving the EU is not about ending cooperation, it is about increasing cooperation where ever it will benefit the UK, and doing this with out the millstone of the EU holding us back

The choice will be simple:

1) Vote LibLabCon... for

- 5 more years and £650billion of UK taxpayers money to be given to the EU in membership fees.

- 5 more years of £unlimited going to protecting the Euro (and vanity of the ECB).

- 5 more years of bowing to the ECHR against our own wishes

- 5 more years of unfettered EU migration (including from new accession states)

- 5 more years of UK fishing grounds being destroyed

- 5 more years of UK armed forces being assimilated under EU control

- 5 more years of UK decline

2) Vote UKIP for

- All UK governments to be made to run the UK for the benefit of the people of the UK.

Whether you are a far left, far right or in between, your vote in the EU elections makes no difference to your party in Westminster - EU2014 will only be about whether you want the UK in or out of the EU.

Vote UKIP to simply say that you want the UK to leave the EU now or if you want another 5 year or to vote for any of the other parties to say you want who want the UK to continue to participate in the EU.

We (the British public) can make the EU2014 elections the referendum that we want, that we were promised, that we were denied - and UKIP need to make it as easy as possible for all UK voters to support this.

Brighton and Hove Greens - breaking manifesto promises already?

2011-06-14T15:40:00.002+01:00

The Green Party won the council elections in Brighton and Hove. The Greens now control a minority administration because Labour, who came second, rejected any idea of coalition.

Green MP, Caroline Lucas, is reportedly very unhappy. The Greens ideal was to get a close second place to Labour, so Labour would be responsible for implementing the austerity cuts while the Greens could continue to make impossible promises that they wouldn't have to deliver on. The first Green administration overseeing 'swinging cuts' is the last thing that Caroline wanted.

One of the 13 headline priority pledges in the Greens manifesto is to ensure that the highest paid council worker gets no more than eight times the pay of the lowest paid worker. As Brighton and Hove City Council is a unitary authority with a well paid 'chief executive' with a raft of well paid 'strategic super directors' below him, top pay is very high.

From http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/09-06-2011-greens-cabinet-meeting-vision.html

The local media says that the Greens will ask the Chief Executive to take a pay cut to bring his pay to only ten times that of the lowest paid council worker. Which is odd because their manifest priority was for eight times, not ten.

Oddly enough, every time this pledge is mentioned now, it is stated as being 10 times - despite the clear pledge for 8 times at the front of the Greens manifesto. Even in the Greens report of their first council cabinet meeting the figure is mysteriously transformed from 8 to 10!

State non-intervention getting things done.

2011-06-10T15:34:00.000+01:00

I am a fan of a small state - as small as possible. However the state is needed and has some responsibilities - primarily national defence and administering the rule of law.

Here in Brighton there is a large student population and property is expensive so there is a substantial lettings sector. Many tenants and landlords seem dissatisfied with the existing lettings agencies, and with a new Green council who are keen to secure the student vote it has been suggested that the council should create and run an 'ethical lettings agency' or at least regulate the existing lettings agencies more.

As a fan of a small state, the less the council do the better in my view, and both options are interventionist and likely to be expensive and bureaucratic. So I present my solution - a solution that could address many areas - particularly where *legal* fees seem to make up an inordinate proportion of the expenses!

I suggest that a government agency produce sets of standard contracts, in this case a property rental agreement. It should cover most standard situations and be freely available for anyone to use. A national standard contract would be very inexpensive to produce and would mean the legal element of the transaction is commoditized. Almost all cases of legal dispute could be sorted out quickly and cheaply through local arbitration which would rapidly build up precedents for all likely situations. No one would be obliged to use these contracts, but their advantages (to everyone except lawyers) is obvious. The arbitration could be financed by the taxpayer (as courts currently are for legal disputes), or there could be a 'stamp duty' charged on the registration of a contract - the fee being used to finance a fund to pay for the costs of an arbitration service.

So for very little cost (and an overall huge saving) the state could perform one of its absolute duties (administering the rule of law) - with minimum intervention or interference in the market.

AGW or not AGW?

2011-06-10T13:09:00.000+01:00

AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming - Mankind's contribution (if any) to global warming (if any).

Please consider this point - If the world is heading towards catastrophic overheating, should our decision on whether to respond or not to such a threat dependent on whether or not mankind contributed to the warming?

I'd suggest it would make absolutely no difference what the cause was. I can't imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. If catastrophic global warming were on its way, I would expect people to seek solutions regardless of why it was happening.

However there appears to be a massive focus on mankind's claimed contribution to global warming juxtaposed with 'natural' changes - but man is as much part of nature as anything else on earth, our actions are not unnatural, we seek the best outcomes for ourselves and our offspring as do all animals.

So why is mankind castigated so?

Simply because there are people who like to bully other people, there are people who like to control other people, there are people who, really, don't actually like other people - these are the people who are obsessed with AGW. Like similar people thought the ages 'guilt' is their primary weapon - the seek to make others guilty about their own humanity. The seek to make us feel guilty to the point that they we submit to their will, so we stop seeking our own best outcome and, instead, work for their best outcome.

If we, as part of nature, have an impact on the environment - this is simply nature in action. If someone else would benefit from us having less, or a different impact then it is up to them to make a case for us to consider - and maybe offer compensation to us for what we are giving up in their interest.

However, such an approach would not suit those who seek control over us - a negotiation is among equals, and this does not serve their purpose. They seek control, and their tool of choice is 'guilt' (just as it has been for this type of person for millennia). By convincing people that it is their particular contribution that is causing a problem the controllers hope to generate guilt and maybe some shame, which then puts us under their control - to the extent that we not only cut back our seeking for our own best outcome, but we willing transfer some of what we have left to their best outcome.

Well there is nothing to be guilty about or ashamed of in our nature - we were made this way. Don't submit to self-censorship, self-loathing or self-flagellation at the instigation of others. If others want us to change what we do, then it is for them to ask and negotiate not to bully, cajole and oppress.

Is there AGW? who cares? its irrelevant - don't be cowed.

Is there Global Warming? Well that is a completely different question...

Government (un-)Accountability (Taxation, #TuitionFees, #EU)

2011-06-09T10:57:00.001+01:00

Citizens have to be on their guard against the 'political class'. Whether or not power corrupts, it cannot be denied that there are corrupt people, and they will be attracted to positions of power. This means there will, on occasion, be corrupt people in positions of power.

Knowing that positions of power will, on occasion, fall to corrupt people the public must ensure that the jobs/roles/positions of power that are created cannot be used by corrupt incumbents against the public. The citizens protection against such potential abuse of power is 'effective accountability', we need a rapid and effective mechanism to remove people who we beleive are abusing the power of their role. We also need to ensure that we have the same power to change, remove, defeat any policy, law etc that the abusers have introduced.

I could talk about various jobs/roles in the EU (including EU president) - these jobs are too powerful and unaccountable. When (not 'if' but 'when') a corrupt (or incompetent) person takes the job of EU President the result could be as bad as anything you can imagine.

However I am focusing on the UK right now - particularly drawing attention to a few 'tricks' introduced by NuLabour. Tricks that were used by them to reduce accountability, tricks that have fed through and are continued under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government.

The first is budget announcements. It used to be that budget announcements were made and implemented at the same time. The pubic could see a chancellor making changes to the tax system, they would immediately feel the impact and then hold the chancellor to account.

However, Gordon Brown introduced a new trick - budget announcements started to include changes that would not come in to effect for many moths - or even years. He started making announcements that made no immediate difference to people or their pay and taxes. This meant the public were left unsure of what the effect would actually be. Being unsure they didn't (and couldn't) complain or hold Brown to account at the time of the announcement.

Months or years later when the announced item (usually a tax rise) came into effect the public were told that it was too late to change as it had been planned for months/years and everything was in place. They were told that it was beyond the control of those currently in power to do anything about it. (even if those in power now were the same people who were in power when the announcement was made). And people were told that any objection should have been made at the time, any objections being made now were 'in the light of hindsight', hindsight that the chancellor did not have at the time of the announcement so he could not be blamed for.

So by separating the announcement and implementation of an item by months or years, the chancellor became almost completely unaccountable to the public for the decisions they made. Genius for the political class, a terrible day for the public.

This was actually a very old trick for the EU. In almost every contentious thing they do - first objectors are told that it is too early to object to any plans because nothing is finalised, objections must wait until the plans are announced. Then when the plans are finalised and announced objectors were told that it was too late to change anything. You can see from this that the time for objections never actually exists - it is always too early or too late.

A more recent, and to my mind more pernicious use of this delayed effect to remove accountability is in student loans for tuition fees.

Education was traditionally financed out of taxation - and traditionally (notwithstanding the practices I have mentioned above) governments of the day are accountable for the collection and distribution of tax-monies. There is no contract between the citizen and the state to pay taxes, we pay taxes when we are told to because we are told to and will be locked up if we don't.

However the move to Student Loans to finance university education changes this relationship fundamentally. The new loans are a contract between the student and the state - a contract that will probably last the life time of the student and says that they will pay and extra 9% of their earnings (over a certain level) to the government to 'repay' their loan debt. So a young person is signing a contract to agree to pay taxes, a contract that is enforcible by law and which the government of the day can deny any responsibility for.

Todays government claps you in chains and then passes you on to future governments to serve their wishes, and most importantly,when done on a contract for a loan, this is with the the courts and our judicial system to back them up. Taxation, an issue of democracy, legitimacy, accountability and representation has been reduced to contract law - with no accountability and no appeal.

If things don't change, soon government will be completely unaccountable - we will be serving previous administrations conforming to what they laid down long ago, while a current administration will be laying down legislation that makes no difference to us, but will bind our children.

Right now the wheels are in motion to impose trillions of pounds of debt on our children - the government are not being held to account because many people are greedy and happy to consume now what our children will one day produce, and to many others it doesn't make much difference to them right now, today, so they let it go. Meanwhile our children are too young, or may be not even born so can't hold the government to account for it either!

We are allowing ourselves and forcing our children in to servitude to our political class by letting our politicians remove accountability. It really has to stop.

Brighton and Hove Community Radio - Alan Moroney interviews UKIP activist Paul Perrin

2011-06-06T10:37:00.003+01:00

A general interview about UKIP, Brighton and Hove, Education and Scottish Devolution.

Brighton and Hove Community Radio - Talking Brighton - Alan Moroney, Paul Perrin, Ian Fennell

The failings of the official #Yes2AV campaign.

2011-05-25T10:00:00.003+01:00

The local campaign group had a post-mortem meeting last night - which crystallised my thoughts on the electoral reform campaign and the movement in the UK. I wasn't an official part of any campaign - just a supporter of democracy who did my own thing (tweeting, blogging and leafleting), and did a bit to help the local 'yes' group (stalls).

The referendum was not lost recently, it was actually lost over the preceding decades. The self satisfied, smug 'great and good' who have been doing 'very nicely, thank you very much' out of the various reform organisation have been sitting around preening themselves and not actually doing any thing that would actually make any difference.

The yes to av activists (and maybe take back parliament) were launching from a standing start. If the established organisations behind the official yes campaign had actually ever done any 'work' over the preceding decades then the activists would have had something to build on - but they didn't. Decades of time/money/effort spent on empire building, self promotion all to absolutely no effect regarding the mission/purpose of reforming the UK electoral system.

That was before the campaign - when the campaign arrived and some groups were already getting organised and getting things done, I think there was an unfortunate sense of 'deference' to the official yes campaign when it launched - the 'great and good' at the top expected it and many activists obliged.

Then the two most stupid mistakes in the use of volunteer/activist time/effort were made by the official yes campaign.

The first stupid mistake was to adopt a US style phone campaign, set it up from scratch and try to man it with volunteers - something completely untried in the UK. And as Andy May has highlighted it actually cost more to use set this up (even using volunteers time) than it would have cost to have got a commercial organisation to do it.

The second stupid mistake was to *not* use the freepost service of leaflets to every UK household. Again volunteer time/effort was used to deliver leaflets which meant very patchy coverage and delivery at random times.

Volunteers/activists spent time doing things that could have been done more cheaply by a commercial organisation (phone bank), or FREE by royal mail (leaflet drops). This was a double whammy - every minute spent by an activist on the phone, or delivering leaflets could have been done more cheaply by others but ALSO that activists time could have been spent on *useful* work.

The first part of a solution to this is the one thing that will not happen... The problem is the people at the top of these organisations - they are simply not up to the job. They will look to change things, and get advice and reviews, but they will not do the one thing that could make a difference in future, they will not step aside and let better people take over their jobs.

I hope activists will continue to campaign for reform - but I hope they have learnt that they, as the lions, should never have (and never should again) defer to the donkeys.

My message to the donkeys - just give us the money and let us get on with it.

Out the box thinking - Electoral Reform.

2011-05-16T17:35:00.001+01:00

Just a couple of ideas that people may not have heard of or considered when thinking about voting reform.

1) Weighted Voting in Parliament or Council.

This was suggested to the Jenkins commission on electoral reform but ruled out, out of hand. With electronic voting, it would be quite simple to implement now we are out of the technological dark ages.

Basically MPs/Councillors would not each have one vote, they would have a number/proportion of votes in proportion to the actual vote they (or their party) received. i.e. in the 2010 general election, the Labour party received 29% of the vote but have 39% of the MPs (substantial over-representation) so each of their MP's should only have 0.75 of a vote... Meanwhile The Greens received 1% of the national vote but received only
.15% of the seats in parliament (1 MP - substantial under representation) so she should have 6.5 votes(!).

There would need to be a few tweaks 6.5 votes is too much for one person, so there should be one or two top up greens, and UKIP got 3% of the vote and no MPs, so there would need to be top ups there to share out their 'power'. But I am sure you get the idea.

2) Non-Geographic Constituencies

My primary concern in UK politics right now is our government being subservient to the EU commission. Many people share this as a primary concern (920,000 of us in the 2010 general election) - but because we are spread across the country, our 3% of the national vote didn't give us 3% of the seats in parliament (20 MPs!), it gave us none. I would happily exchange my right to vote for my local constituency MP for a right for my vote to count towards a non-geographic MP... An issue specific MP!

So *instead* of voting for one of my local candidates, I would cast my vote nationally for a party that supported the UK leaving the EU - for every (say) 50,000 votes a party receives it should get a 'non-geogrpahic' MP! It would be for each voter to choose how to cast their vote - locally for a candidate, or nationally for a party/issue.

Brighton and Hove City Council - Electoral reform could start here, now.

2011-05-11T16:10:00.000+01:00

Brighton Councils largest party is the Greens - a party committed to Proportional Representation.
The votes across for the council totalled up as Green 33%, Labour 31% and Conservative 28%.
However the seats/councillors are split Green 23, Labour 13 and conservative 18.
Voting in the council could immediately be made to reflect the proportion of votes cast by the voters of Brighton and Hove (and Portslade and The Deans) if 5() Green councillors voted with Labour.
If Proportional Representation is a a matter of principle for the Greens (and not just supported for party advantage), I can see no reason that they could not adopt this as policy immediately - giving the People of Brighton and Hove the council they really voted for!
Come the next election, maybe all three parties could commit to continuing this arrangement until true PR is implemented...
--
() As the conservatives are slightly over represented, on occasion it may be more representative for only four greens to vote with labour.