Wednesday, 31 December 2014

The means or production is now freely available, but now state regulation enslaves us instead.

Production generally requires three intrinsic, physical things 1) Labour(/Skills) and 2) Tools(/Machinery) 3) Raw Material.

To liberate the plebs from slavery Marx banged on about who owned 'the means of production', meaning tools/machinery - but this was at a time when machinery was expensive, exotic and rare.

Nowadays, if you have a viable commercial proposition you can raise the capital to buy the 'means of production' the tools/machines will probably be available off the shelf for next dey delivery... and if not a subcontractor with the equipment will be only too happy to enter into a contract to supply you.

No, the game has changed, what limits plebs is not the machinery, nor the skill and almost certainly not the raw material. What really keeps the plebs enslaved now is *state regulation*.

You can setup your machines and use your labour/skill to process raw material - simple, no private individual can stop you. But will the state allow you to? Are there patent/licencing/tax/duty/inspection/registration requirements that the state will use to stop you? Can you afford the arbitrary taxes the state imposes on you for seeking financial independence? Are you prepared for the state taxes/duty on the energy you use, the state taxes/NI on the price of the labour you use, the states enforcement of artificial 'intelectual property rights', the states restrictions/regulations on you advertising, storing, transporting and selling what you produce?

'Capitalism in a free market' worked - it brought equality to all men in so far as money doesn't care who owns it. If you can 'create' then you can convert you creativity/creations into money that is the same as the money used by everyone else.

However the game has changed - people who oppose such equality, who want an 'unfair advantage' that ensures they stay on top have twisted the playing field so the rules don't do what they are supposed to. And the tool they use to tilt the pitch is state regulation - they create arbitrary, illogical new rules to stifle the equality capitalism produces. Whether it is taxes, licences, regulation, monopoly or laws, the markets are not free they are perverted to ensure the rules designed for free markets (the rules of capitalism) now deliver the plebs, just as enslaved, to the children of the same rich, powerful masters who enslaved their forefathers.

We are no longer enslaved by lack of control over machinery, we are enslaved by lack of control over our political masters.

Thursday, 20 November 2014

What is the Tragedy of the Commons? Authoritarian Propaganda.

The Tragedy of the Commons is mostly known as an economic theory regarding the over exploitation of common land leading to the destruction of its value - often presented as English peasants overgrazing the commons so leading to the loss of the entire grazing resource.

However this is not the most important lesson to be drawn from 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. The truth is that the English commons were not over-grazed to destruction - they were working just fine - but with the dissolution of the monistaries under Henry VIII the Commons that had been stewarded by the  People and Church were seized by the state/King and divided up among his supporters who went on to fence in the land, forming enclosures and banning the Commoners from using this usurped resource.

After the Commons has been appropriated in this way, the new 'land owners' did, indeed, over-graze them to the extent that commoners were excluded from using them and often starved. The land owners had also shifted their 'production' from corn to sheep, fleeces and mutton being more profitable than corn - but beyond the budget of the commoners - also contributing to the poverty and starvation of the masses. And later with the 'Corn Laws' (artificially forcing up the prices) leading to starvation among English plebs at the same time that the Irish plebs were starving from the potato famine.

The 'Tragedy of the Commons' has joined that body of 'fictional works' which often gets quoted as fact (Lord of the Flies is another example) when it is just a superficially plausible sounding story.

The real Tragedy here is that this fake, retrospective justification for the seizing of the commons from the commoners, leading to their poverty and starvation is accepted as truth, when it is just a revisionist fairy tale used to (falsely) justify the theft of the land of England from the English people to whom it truly belonga - in common.

We need to take it back - it is ours, it always has been and always will be.

Monday, 17 November 2014

An MP who doesn't make their party/whip clear is deceiving you.

You have an MP for one official reason only - to represent you in the House of Commons - in debates, but most importantly in divisions (parliamentary votes).

This is they only thing they have unique privileges/rights to do - this is what they are paid for.

Everything else they do - charity work, community activities, etc it entirely their own business - they could do this whether or not they were an MP. They are not councillors, social workers, community activists - at least not as part of being an MP. Any such activities they do on their own account and should do on their own time at their own expense.

With this in mind - the essential right to vote in the House of Commons - the biggest influence on any non-independent MP is their party whip. The party whip works for the party leader, to force MPs to support the party/party-leader on parliamentary votes.

Any MP who does not absolutely and clearly show which whip they obey is deceiving the voter, and hiding the biggest potential conflict of interest they have chosen to accept.

It should be a legal requirement (if not already, under the trades description act) for all MP's to declare their party loyalty/whip whenever the represent themselves as an MP.

Sunday, 9 November 2014

Arguments against Referenda - debunked.

The authoritarians in liberal clothing argue against referenda, but their arguments are flawed:-

1) Referendums are never about the question on the ballot - people vote one way or the other for all kinds of different reasons.

This is not an argument against referendums, it is an argument for more referendums - give people the referendums they want and they won't need to use the few they do get to 'send messages' about other issues, other issues that should have their own dedicated referendums!

2) Referendums never settle the issue - people just call call for re-runs.

Again this is not an argument against referendums, it is an argument for more referendums -  if the public mood changes over time (and why shouldn't it? we have general elections every 5 years to allow people to change their minds!), if the public mood changes over time just have another referendum! and do what the public now want to do - what is the problem with that?

3) Referendums are too expensive.

Democracy is expensive, war is expensive etc... but its the price of our 'system'.

But with more varied and more frequent referendums, there is every opportunity to establish infrastructure to make referendums much, much cheaper than they currently are.


Referendums are the first step to direct democracy and liquid democracy - they are a step that we must take.

Now which party support binding, public triggered, referendums? Oh thats UKIP.

Wednesday, 5 November 2014

Two amazing ideas to be shot down - open fire!

Loads of people know how they would like things to be, the hard bit is working out how to get there from here... so I present ways of getting to two of the outcomes I'd like to see...

1) Citizens Income/Flat Tax - 'Casual Labourer'

Ideal: Everyone gets a fixed payment from the state - it replaces benefits for the unemployed, and replaces the tax free allowance for the employed. All income is taxed at a flat rate from the first £ to the last £ - see elsewhere hear abouts for discussion of this.

Path: Introduce a new employment status to go along side 'Employee/PAYE', 'Self Employed' etc... maybe call it 'Casual Labourer', if someone opts in they get a dedicated bank account - state pays fixed benefits into the account, all earnings are also paid into the account - 30% of all earnings deposited go straight to the taxman. Job done - as everyone opts in, other taxation regimes whither and die.

2) Insurance based healthcare.

Ideal: Everyone has insurance for their healthcare - when they need treatment they choose where to go for it (private, state, charity, commercial whatever) , the insurance co pays for it.

Path: Stop new migrants using the NHS - require that they have health-insurance and waive their tax/national insurance accordingly - private services will be created to service them. After (say) 5 years in the UK they can opt in to the NHS or keep their insurance based scheme. Then allow UK citizens to switch to the insurance based schemes too if they want. Job done - eventually everyone will have opted out of the state run medical provider.

Immigration is good for the EU economy - cut out and keep refutation #2

Supporters of migration always seem to argue for open door migration rather than closed borders. But noone is suggesting closed borders! The option proposed is *managed* migration. 

1) Migrants pay in more than they claim in benefits.

Some do, some don't. Open door migration means we don't discriminate between good and bad migrants.

2) Migrants are less likely to claim benefits than Brits.

So I should hope! Any migrant needing benefits should go home to get them from their own government.

UK has to carry its own needy, we don't need to import any more.

3) Most migrants work, so aren't here for benefits.

What about the unemloyed Brit who could be doing that job? We pay dole to a Brit so a migrant can have a job??

4) Migrants are more likely to be employed than Brits.

Well as we have kids, disabled, elderly etc and migrants tend to be working age, what do you expect? Its of no 'credit' to them its just expected for that age profile!

5) Brits won't do certain jobs.

If you pay min wage to a Brit they benefit by min wage. If you pay min wage to a migrant they get to come to the UK - use the NHS, get housing benefit, etc *as well as* the min wage. All UK work is more attractive to migrants from poor countries - the pay has little to do with it!

Thursday, 23 October 2014

UK would be 'isolated' outside the EU? Fog in the Channel - Continent cut off!

Another cut out and keep refutation of more common pro-EU nonsense.

1) Outside the EU, the UK would be isolated.

If non-members of the EU are 'isolated' that applies to the entire rest of the world! Little old USA, Canada, Australia, Africa, China, India, South America, etc all 'isolated' outside the EU...

Saying the rest of the world are isolated outside the EU, is like that old joke 'There is fog in the Channel, the Continent is isolated'. This is the call of the 'Little EUer'.

2) We can't leave, the EU are the UK's biggest trading partners.

Well, even if true,  we buy more from the EU than they do from us - we are the net 'customer' they need us more than we need them.

If they want to upset EU/UK trade it will be their loss, we can go elsewhere if we choose to. We can source products from elsewhere in the world, or re-start manufacturing in the UK and create those products ourselves - there is no down side.

3) We can't leave, it would damage our economy.

Well, as we are members of the EU, it is not surprising we do a lot of trade with them - and as an exclusive, protectionist club it is not surprising our trade with the rest of the world has been suppressed.

However, despite our membership for all these years the UK has still kept trade open with many of its old partners - imagine the boost our 'rest of the world' trade could get from the freedom for the UK to cut its own deals directly with them, without the dead weight of EU vested interests trying to maximise their profits at our expense.

Leaving the EU would most likely result in an economic boom.

Tuesday, 14 October 2014

Refuting attacks on anti-open-door migration arguments. Cut out and Keep.

Often the same, tired, old arguments are put forward to support EU's Open Door Immigration policy, and to attack opponents of it - so this is a 'cut out and keep' refutation of the usual sequence of challenges.

1) Migrants contribute more than they take.

Well some may well do, but also many don't. Talking about *all* migrants in this way is rather stupid. It assumes that migration must be open door or completely stopped.

Controlled migration/controlled borders would admit migrants who would be of benefit to the UK, and exclude (and deport) those who are not.

2) EU means a Brit can go to 26 other countries - restrict their access, and they will restrict ours.

Well so what? If a particular Brit is of no value to another country, why *should* they let them in? If the Brit is of benefit they will still be admitted!

3) EU 'free movement' means that migrants have free movement, they are the rules.

Yes they are the rules - but stating them doesn't make them desirable! The point of the discussion is to identify what is desirable, not state the rules. No one disputes that they are the current rules!

This line is just a diversion (used when the argument for free-movement is being lost!)

4) You are racist.

Well as there is nothing here about race, just nationality (Brits and Rest of the World) - this line is again just a diversion.

I will add to this list as and when!

Sunday, 12 October 2014

Parris, Whips, Hannan and Cameron. #UKIP's perfect storm continues.

I haven't blogged much recently - just tweeted.

I wanted to blog - I want to blog - but... As UKIP's perfect storm has been running its course, 1) I don't want to jinx it and 2) I don't want to help the enemy by analysing their errors.

However, where damage to the enemy has already been done and is irreversible, its too late for them to be helped!

Matthew Parris - what a star!

Matthew Parris, the Gerald Ratner of the Conservative cause. If you don't know what a 'Ratner moment' is, google it...

Matthew Parris, a long time Conservative - once even a Conservative whip(!) - has come out and said that The Conservative party is nasty and crap, and those who vote for it either too rich for it to matter, or too stupid to realise it. Voters/supporters hear this from their opposition all the time - but when you hear it from those you are actually supporting... well that is game over. To say you are a Conservative now marks you out as an over-privileged, sneering, self-important toff, or as an idiot who has been fooled and played for a mug by those over-privileged, sneering, self-important toffs - just as Labour et al have said all along.

Matthew Parris confirmed the worst claims of those who were formerly accused of 'Politics of Envy' - no it wasn't envy, Conservatives really are over-privileged, sneering, self-important toffs who hate those 'below' them.

The Conservative Whips - show us their hands!

More Ratner-esqe moments - as the Conservative Whips declare that they have dirt on evey one of the Conservative MP's and will not hesitate to publish it if any show signs of 'disloyalty' to David Cameron (i.e. should any actually think for themselves, or put their constituents or the country first and think of moving to UKIP).

The important things here are that 1) It suggests that every Conservative MP is dirty 2) It undermines any claim to 'integrity' a Conservative MP may give for remaining in the Conservative party.

Daniel Hannan - why oh why? Now we can surmise, either a phony or the whips bitch!

It used to be that many UKIP supporters wanted Dan Hannan to switch to UKIP, and couldn't understand why he wouldn't. This has changed, and having not made the switch that seems so obvious and clear, he is now generally seen as a nasty siren voice - calling good anti-EU'ers onto the Conservative party rocks where they are neutered for ever.

In light of the Conservative Whips recent statements on enforcing loyalty, it seems the only explanation for Dan to have remained a Conservative is either 1) He is a complete phoney, and never has been anti-EU, and was always a shill, or 2) The Conservative Whips have some dirt on him that is so massively bad that he can never risk it being exposed - what can his secret be?

David Cameron - UK Democracy is a party leaders beauty contest!

'A vote for UKIP is a vote for Miliband, so vote for your Conservative candidate' - wow, just wow. David Cameron is pushing this line, as are his Cabinet and MPs. It shows how much respect they for Conservative candidates as people, individuals, politicians - absolutely no respect whatsoever.

Cameron doesn't care about Conservative candidates/MP's abilities and doesn't think you should worry yourself about them either - the only consideration when you place your mark (according to Dave) is that the cardboard cutout representing the Conservative party is that it won't help Ed Miliband.

The other thing this tells us about Dave, confirming the sneaking suspicion that so many voters have had, is that our political class see General Elections as a vote for a Prime Minister. Party, manifesto, candidate, issues are irrelevant, meaningless - to our political class General Elections are a simple beauty contest between the party leaders - this is what our democracy has been reduced to.

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Response to 'Small Steps: Immigration'

I replied to this blog on immigration, but it has been awaiting moderation for a few days so I thought I'd blog it here before I forget about it.

My reply:

If the UK has basic income for citizens and migration was only available to those who had jobs, immigration would pretty much take care of itself.

If a migrant worker can compete with a native worker (who receives an additional £12k a year basic income), then they are probably a benefit to the country…

To take home the same money, a native worker could accept a salary £12k less – unlike at present where native graduates need a salary 10% higher than a migrant (to cover university loan fees).

Reply to 'negative income tax and basic income are pretty much the same thing'

Original blog here:-

I commented (as follows), but its been awaiting moderation for a few days, so thought I'd blog my response here before I forget about it!

My reply:

Indeed they are the same thing.

And with flat tax on all income there is no need to phase out ‘basic income’. Pay it to everyone (who wants to claim it) for the unemployed it replaces benefits, for the employed it replaces their ‘tax free allowance’.

Better still – if all wages are taxed at the flat tax rate, it can be collected directly from the company as a %age of their wage bill – no need for individual accounting.

Align the flat tax rate with the corporate tax rate and companies get a single tax bill – a single straight %age of wages bill+profits.

Also most ‘public services’ can be pretty much eradicated, as every individual will have ‘basic income’ to fund the services they value (individualy or in groups if they so choose).

Basic income needs to be set at least at subsistance level (we don’t let people starve). Plus whatever is ‘freed up’ from abolishing public services (which would formerly have been available to them anyway).

Introducing the flat tax is the biggest challenge, as current salaries are set assuming current tax rates – if the tax rates are unexpectedly changed, salaries should be reset to take this into account – so no windfalls/hardship from the switch itself.

Friday, 27 June 2014

Eco Show Brighton Centre - Some Good Stuff.

Spent a couple of hours at the Eco Show at the Brighton Centre yesterday (the Landlords Show was on as well, so popped in there too afterwards).

I am looking at getting a small holding, off grid, in a few years so am keen to see what self-reliant renewable tech is available. I am also keen to see what bogus stuff is being touted too!

The best single product has to be the civilised composting toilet - it was there last year, and seems to have been on the up since then - with an even smarter stand this year. Waterless and with a solar powered fan, a completely isolated device for your 'convenience'. In fact they do a toilet cabin (complete with shed) that can be dropped off complete,  put anywhere, for around £1000.

Sussex Uni had a display - a product that caught my eye was a reservoir that catches the first cold water from your shower before the hot comes through (rather than letting it run straight down the plughole), and then feeds it back into the flow when the water is hot. A saving of 10pints of water per shower would mean an annual saving on a water bill of over £100 for a family of four. No power required, all done passively!

Rainwater reclaiming was interesting to - for the garden/car etc and can be used for flushing toilets. They all now seem to have mains 'top up' feeds, so no need for two pipes to everything - which is neat. We may well put  a big flat vertically mounted tank on the back of our garage...

Saving the best service till last...

The Green council have savaged our public transport to help their pet Coach company get a bus route, and have thrown millions at cycle lanes which help a few central Brighton cyclists but inconvenience all Brighton motorists... This means my wife and I have to give regular giving regular lifts to our lads, either to a better served bus stop (loads of short, inefficient trips) or all the way to/from college/work.

But at the show we discovered 'Wheels to Work'/'Wheels to Collage' - who rent fully serviced/insured etc electric bikes and motorbikes to victims of the Greens, like ourselves. Just need to check the cover the city, not just the county(!).

Thursday, 5 June 2014

Voting and keeping (resurrecting?) confidence in it.

English voting is kept reliable and secure by the physical security over the ballot papers - so simple a child can understand and be sure of the system.

The principle is that a single paper is issued to a voter, and is then monitored from voting booth to the count. It is either in sight, or in a box with a seal -approved by the polling staff and candidates (or their agents). So a candidate can be as confident as humanly possible that there has been no tampering to rig the result.

Postal votes are a different matter, as they enter the polling system by post - there can be no certainty as to who they were completed by, and no assurance that a ballot is even received by the polling staff - it needs complete reform.

I believe it should be a criminal offence with a significant minimum term (say 5 years) to mark or tamper with another voters ballot paper in anyway.

Any alternative voting system, must retain this simple, visible, security - electronic/mechanical voting or counting should only ever be considered if it can meet this same standard. A machine for counting ballots may be possible if it visibly cannot introduce, change or discard ballot papers, and its results can (could) be manually verified.

A voter must be confident that their vote has been accurately counted, and that only (and all) valid votes cast by other legitimate voters are included in the result.

Sunday, 1 June 2014

It is essential to resist a tyranny before it exists - G.K.Chesterton. Vote #UKIP

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

G.K.Chersterton, 1922

Monday, 12 May 2014

Crash Intro Homebrew Ale - How To - 101 - Part 3 of X


This isn't a masterclass of style - just a crash intro to get your first 40 pints down the necks of you and your mates!

Is your brew ready to be bottled?

Make sure your beer has finished brewing (about a week but maybe two if your kitchen is a bit cold!) - if you bottle beer that is still brewing, the bottles may explode, the beer will be way too fizzy and sediment will be stirred up as soon as you take off the lid.

To make sure mine is done, I push down the middle of the bucket lid and seal the lid. I'll check every half hour or so for the next few hours and see if it has puffed up - if not, its done.

You can check with a hydrometer, but if you stirred it right at the start, and it went a bit wild on the first day and is now flat then you can be pretty confident its ready to bottle.

Even when ready, it will be fine in the bucket for a while - so you can wait till the next week end if needed.


I brew in a bucket with a tap near the bottom - it twists out the way to stand on the floor - but don't accidentally undo the thread(!) - while brewing I put a plastic bag over the tap with an elastic band so it stays pretty clean.

In addition you'll need a bottling wand (a long stiff plastic tube with a gravity close/push to open valve on the end).

Bottles enough for your whole brew - I use brown plastic PET bottles - brewing bottles are special as they are laminated with a oxygen barrier membrane to stop oxygen getting through the plastic and your beer going off, and the brown keeps the UV out - remember lids!. I reuse bottles and lids - a rinse/wash as soon as the beer is poured out to drink and packed away (upside down in the original box) clean for next time.

Sterilizing Solution.

Sugar (preferably bewers sugar) say 100g for 40 pints.

Stirring Paddle.

Tea Towels.

Botting - Prep

First wash your hands and sterilize your kit. (not the bottles yet).

Carefully put your bucket on a table with the tap over the edge where you will sit to bottle - no shocks and don't stir it up.

Put the sugar in a pan with boiling water (enough for it to fully dissolve.. probably bit less than a pint).

Gently pour the sugary water into your brew, stirring to mix - but try not to get air in, and try not to stir up the sediment. This sugar 'primes' the brew - it will wake the yeast up enough to give your beer a bit of fizz after about about a week in the bottle - needs to be reasonably evenly stirred in, but no need to go mad!

While your primed brew settles (any sediment that got stirred up) sterilize your bottles.

I put the caps in a jug of sterilizing solution

For the actual bottles I quarter fill one with sterilizing solution give it a good shake around pour the solution into the next and put it upside down to drain, back in the box (with a tea towel in the bottom - so cardboard doesn't get wet!). Soon get through them all.

Make sure the bucket tap is clean, fit the sterilized bottling wand.

Put the caps on a tea towel to drain.


Turn on the tap (the wand valve should ensure it doesn't pour yet) - make sure the bucket lid is unsealed. Have a box of bottles to hand, then one by one, push them on the want 'till the brew is at the top, and take the bottle off. Moving the bottle off the wand will stop the flow, and as the wand comes up the level will fall slightly, so with a bit of practice you can go to the top without spilling, and then have a small air gap.

Pour yourself a small taster - it should taste OK - probably just a bit bland and flat.

Put a cap in the bottle (use a cloth - you can get blisters tightening 40 odd bottles!) - wipe the bottle of any spillage, put it back in the box right side up... repeat 40 times :)

To get the last few bottles out (just above the sediment), you'll need to tip the bucket and mess around trying not to stir up the sediment - improvise! Sediment isn't fatal - all bottles will have a bit anyway from the yeast that makes it fizzy.

Wash up the bucket - all that slimy sediment(!) and the crusty ring around the top from the initial brew... and all the other kit.

Wait a week - give a bottle a daily squeeze, you'll find it gets firmer as the yeast adds the fizz (and a bit more flavour) - try a bottle... another week try another bottle... once you find it OK, you (and your friends) can drink the lot - or it will keep pretty much for ever...

Pour carefully - there will be sediment - rinse the bottle as soon as its poured and it will all wash out with no fuss - when clean/dry store it upside down back in the box, ready for your next brew.

If your beer is too fizzy (overdid the priming sugar 85g won't but 100g+ might) it will fizz up and stir up the sediment... making it impossible to pour a clear glass - if this happens just go through all your bottles opening enough to hear the hiss then immediately closing... repeat this for a few days as required(!).

Friday, 9 May 2014

Crash Intro Homebrew Ale - How To - 101 - Part 2 of X

Get your brew on.

This isn't a masterclass of style - just a crash intro to get your first 40 pints down the necks of you and your mates!

You have all your stuff, and a place to brew so...

*Don't let your stuff get dirty in storage! - deep cleaning is a PITA, so store it where it (at worst) will get dusty, so only a quick wash is needed!*

Get your pan(s), kettle, bucket, lid, ale kit, tin opener, paddle, tea towels (or oven gloves) - WASH YOUR HANDS and make sure the equipment is are clean.

Make up some sterilising solution (half litre is plenty, but its cheap so 1/2 cap/two litres - meh). Put the lid on the bucket , swirl it all around.

Wipe everything else (except the tea-towels/gloves and kettle) over with sterilising solution - wait for 20 mins.

Tip away sterilising solution - ready to go!

- You need to heat the tins of malt so it pours - so put the whole tins in  a pan with water an heat them - take the tops off so there is no risk of explosion!
- Put the kettle (or other pan if not using a kettle on to boil).
- Once malt is warm and runny - pour it into the bucket.
- Fill each (now empty) tin with boiling (very hot) water swill it around (or stir with paddle) to dissolve remaining malt.
- Pour the hot solution into the bucket with the malt (holding with oven gloves/tea towel!)
- Add another tin full of boiling/very hot water to the bucket.
- Stir the malt solution in the bucket very, very well until the malt is dissolved. No sludge at the bottom!
- Add loads of cold water to the bucket, keep stirring and get lots of air in too.
- Make it up to 40 pints and a bit more (a pint or two) lo cover wastage/loss later
- (but less water means stronger beer, so it doesn't matter too much!)
- Sprinkle the yeast on the top, put on the lid (NOT AIR TIGHT)
- Cleanup your work area.
- Leave for a week or so (as per kit instructions)
- In the first day the bucket content will go a bit wild, then it will slow down a bit for the rest of the fermentation, and finally stop.
(the yeast is eating the sugar and making alcohol/CO2 - the yeast stops when it runs out of sugar or it gets poisoned by too much alcohol!).

About one week on and you now have a big bucket with 40 pints of very young, flat ale!

Bottling to follow!

Crash Intro Homebrew Ale - How To - 101 - Part 1 of X

Stuff You Need.

This isn't a masterclass of style - just a crash intro to get your first 40 pints down the necks of you and your mates!

You need:-

1) An Ale Kit

There are loads to choose from - different styles/types blah blah - choose an ale you think you know, this will allows you to verify your success or otherwise when it is complete just from the taste!

The kit will include 'malt extract' (concentrated sugary syrup - extracted from malted barley - with added hop oils) and a sachet of yeast.

The sugary malt is needed to feed the yeast - the yeast eats the sugar and converts it into alcohol and C02. The Hop oils flavour the final brew.

Good kits include two tins of malt, cheap kits include only one tin of malt and require you to top up the sugar content with plain sugar. Go for a good kit! Two tins, no extra sugar needed.

2) Brewing Equipment

A brewing bucket with a lid - for ale you can use one with an airtight lid and airlock, or just a lose fitting lid. I don't use an airlock unless I am using my wifes wine buckets, wine does need an airlock, so they have them fitted. For ale I have buckets with taps at the bottom - for easy/direct bottling - alternatively you can use a syphon.

A long handled paddle for stirring.

A kettle or a large pan to boil water for your brew.

A large pan to heat water to warm your tins of malt so it pours!

Sterilising solution - I recommend milton (as used for baby's bottles) it is quick and doesn't require rinsing - half a cap in two litres of water makes  a sterilising solution

3) Location

You'll need somewhere reasonably clean - average kitchen will do!

Water to wash your equipment and to add (in large quantities) to your kit to make your ale.

A hob to heat water

Ok thats your kit... next blog is what to do with it.

Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Charging for non-emergency NHS medical appointments.

This is an idea that may be promoted by UKIP - to make patients value appointments more highly, so be less likely to make frivolous ones and make non-attendance less likely. An extension to this is to only charge 'no-shows' - so making patients less likely to waste NHS time by not turning up.

If charging for no-shows is seen as a good idea, I would suggest a good way of implementing it would be to charge when the appointment is made, and then refund the charge when the appointment is complete.

This would mean a patient is asked for money when they have something to gain (an appointment they want), so are motivated to pay. Whereas trying to charge them after an appointment is missed will be asking them for money for something they never had (may even dispute), and wont want to pay. The number of unpaid fines, disputed debts and bad debts etc that we already have in the UK show how hard/expensive this is likely to be.

Payment could be made in a huge number of ways - even added to the phone bill of the person booking the appointment - so should be simple and automatically collected.

You could take this one step further - by charging different deposits for different appointment times - missing an appointment at a busy time could be *cheaper* as there will be plenty of people around to fill the space created, so no NHS time is actually wasted!

A further - and in my view vital - step would be for the patient to receive a refund greater than their deposit if an appointment is moved, cancelled, delayed etc. If a patient is being charged for wasting NHS time, surely it is only right that the patient should be compensated when the NHS wastes theirs?

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

The Spoof of #UKIP That Backfired. "Migrants create our jobs" (oops no, most don't).

I love it when people do try to present the case *for* the EU. They deliver all the data required to rip their case to shreds...

UKIP have a new poster campaign out - the usual anti-UKIP suspects have repeated their usual old, stale, incorrect, anti-UKIP creed.

However one thing did draw my attention...
UKIP Poster:

Apparently the figures for this came from here:-


Ok.. tell me more.

The Facts:

Ok... so UK has around 7.5million migrants ( and half a million have created a total of 1.16 million jobs... so that around 6 million who are taking (or trying to take) jobs that were already here...

Case Studies:
Ok... so three Indians and a Californian... hang on what has this to do with the EU? These people aren't European! Actually... there is an EU connection - because UK *cannot* control EU migration, UK is having to restrict migration from these countries! The ones where so many of the 'contributing' migrants have come from!

I love it when people do try to present the case *for* the EU. They deliver all the data required to rip their case to shreds...

I also note that (on average) this half a million migrants have only created an average of two jobs - enough for themselves and a partner but no one else. I wonder how many of these micro businesses are like this one:-

Making £100 a week selling The Big Issue and claiming £28,000 from UK taxpayers in benefits - yes she is very industrious, and doing well for herself (and those other Eastern Europeans she is training to emulate her) - but at a huge *cost* to the rest of the UK...

But remember - UKIP don't want to close UK borders - that is a LibLabCon straw man! - UKIP just want to control it! Let in the beneficial migrants!! Keep out the bad ones.

Saturday, 12 April 2014

The real problem with the public sector is that it doesn't know when to stop.

New projects are always a gamble.

You are going to put in effort in the hope of a more valuable return.

Private citizens have limited resources, so when a project doesn't workout in a reasonable timeframe they will cut their losses, abandon it and move on.

However, the public sector (making up about half the UK economy) have almost unlimited resources. If a project is not working out, they always have the option of doubling up - like a gambler betting on a coin toss, doubling his bet every time he loses so should he eventually win he will get back everything he has gambles so far, and the same again as profit.

The problem here is that projects are not coin tosses - there is no law of averages that says that a project will eventually come good.

So when a public sector project isn't working out, and it gets expanded (more money, more people, more scope) to double up the stake/(potential) return - it actually becomes less likely that any return will be had - but those behind the project will not want to lose face by admitting their initial mistake/failure so will keep doubling up, again and again until they find a plausible scape goat for a failure and then heap all the blame on them.

The risk of failure is what make businesses strive to succeed - in the public sector there is no such risk, there is always the taxpayers wallets to be raided.

This only goes completely off the rails when rank amateurs (the ilk of Gordon Brown) take it to a complete extreme and end up gambling the entire wealth of the country! At this point, only a war will divert attention from such in competence so we get dragged into foreign conflicts that are nothing to do with us - with our 'opponents' being the instantly created 'scapegoats' for the public sector failure.

'Good' is what is left when all 'bad' has been cut away - the public sector have no mechanism, reason or drive to cut away the bad. Quite the opposite, 'bad' has resources thrown at it in the futile hope that it can be made good - it can't it is precisely what stops 'good' emerging.

Friday, 11 April 2014

The Birth Control Pill - much better herd control than Vallium.

The most important human trait is personality, everything else about someone has been learned and comes from the outside. How they react to other people and the things they learn is all their own - it is what make them, them - it is what makes them human.

We have learned that our hormones have a strong impact on how we express our personality. But as long as it remains within acceptable boundaries society is much bothered. In fact if it modifies the expression of ones personality in certain ways, it may be of benefit to the state and so encouraged.

Valium was useful to control women for a while, but the better, safer, birth control pill has now replaced it. Instead of making women into dozy, dreamy stay at homes, they are thrusting, self-reliant, independent, selfish worker modules. Unfortunately, in neither case are they themselves.

What I have read about this clearly confirms that this is well known - even if not fully comprehended. Many women say the pill has changed their personality - but if they are concerned about a particular aspect of this they are advised to change to a different pill - not to return them to normal, but just to lose the bit of change they are concerned about.

Think, if men were permanently tanked up on artificial testosterone - as long as they didn't quite cross the line into being overly aggressive, no one would care much - but they wouldn't be themselves. Think further, if most men were in this state, common traits would simply disappear as they all tended towards this limit, away from normality.

Whatever else this mass medication is doing - good or bad - it is interfering with the most important trait that a human being has - their very own, natural, personality.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

Many anti government bods hate UKIP... they miss the point...Next Stop Liberty.

There is quite a swathe of people disillusioned with politics in the UK, all of whom you might think would support UKIP.

However this is not always the case, there is a substantial group who are completely anti-politics, and include they UKIP as part of that. Not only that, they go further and especially hate UKIP for (as they claim) preserving the illusion that politics can work. They are sure that UKIP is just another bunch of wannabes who want a slice of the political pie for themselves, and will simply replace the LibDems as the fleas on the LabCon rats who eat all our food.

Of course no one can be *sure* of anything in the future - if UKIP start getting power the usual, nasty, suspects will start infiltrating - the strength of UKIP is actually its leader - you can choose whether or not to trust an individual, but panels, committees etc are really unaccountable, unpredictable and untrustworthy.

However looking at the bigger picture, nothing beats *experience* in convincing a human about an issue. You can persuade people who don't have experience, they have to choose what to believe - however once they have experience, their knowledge is unshakable.

So UKIP is a win/win for those who don't trust our politics - if UKIP clean it up, everyone will be happy. But, if they *do* turn out to be more of the same then the entire population of the UK will, once and for all, have direct experience and proof that our politics cannot be fixed from within.

So if UKIP do turn out to be more of the same, then the ranks of those completely opposed to UK politics will be swelled by many thousands - and people will know there is only one way to 'take it back'.

UKIP brings the whole situation to a head - we will know (for sure) one way or the other - and either way we get liberty next...

How the UK constitution really works (and every other countries)...

Mans nature is to be free and independent. Free will is one of his defining features, a capacity to decide for himself what he would most like to do. However free will can only be manifest when it can be acted upon. To stifle a mans implementation of his free will is to stifle his humanity.

Man is a sociable creature, even ignoring the necessity for reproducing, our sheer numbers mean it can be no other way.

Free will and sociability are in direct conflict, when one mans free will meets anothers there will be disagreement. Ultimately superiority can be resolved by the death of one of the conflicting parties - but given the risks associated with this (both physically in the act, and the time consuming inconvenience of resolving disputes in this way) other methods of dispute resolution have come to the fore.

Of all the social structures that have been built to avoid violence and death (although these always remain as options - through policing, and war), the most obvious we see to day is 'government'.

Government, a body to whom men delegate their use of violence and death in the expectation that every man will have their free will stifled less than by any other method.

However, the delegation of such powers is a dangerous, risky business. Should the body decide that it has its own 'will' to enforce, it will conflict with those of the men who created it (after all it can only be said to have a 'will' if it is different to that of those who created it). And in resolving such conflict, it has been given the ultimate tools to ensure that its own will prevails, while man has surrendered his. Man will have built the mechanism for his own enslavement.

It is thus vital to a free humanity that no such body ever has a 'will' of its own. Man created government as his servant, as his tool, government owes everything to man, man owes government nothing. Clearly, government must never be allowed to become mans master.

In most countries now, there are written constitutions that restrict their governments power - however as is seen time and time again, these rarely work for long as people see the government overstepping the mark and need revolution to put government back in its place.

The UK has a different model, ultimate power in the UK is not held by government, but by parliament. 'Parliament is sovereign', the UK 'constitution' is whatever our MP's, on the day, say it is. For convenience and practicality, voluntary systems are in place which may make it seem different, but the fact is that our MP's are our defence against the (naturally, inevitably) tyrannical desire of our government.

MP's are there to ensure government remains small, to ensure that it has no will of its own, to ensure that the free will of each man is maximised.

Here in the UK this process has been substantially perverted - with MP's coming to believe that they are the leaders, that their will can be imposed on us via the government they are supposed to be regulating and restraining. Our MP's have been corrupted, the entire process by which they are even given a chance of becoming an MP is now designed to ensure their real loyalty is not to constituents they profess to serve, but instead to the idea that they are the 'rightful' power over us all. This corruption is seen  as strong 'political parties', and is spread by the corruption of our education system (and now social services) in grooming our children for servitude instead of self-realisation. 

The Americans have their written constitution - ultimately enforced by their right to bear arms, and a belief that they will use that right to protect it.

The EU have nothing.

The UK has its MP's on the day - they are all that protect us from tyranny. don't vote for a LibLabCon party stooge - vote for an individual committed to protecting your right to have, and to act on your own, individual, human, free will.

Thursday, 3 April 2014

EU, Crimea, EU, Ukraine and Russia - Governments use force against citizens, not states.

The truth about this matter is:-

States/Governments are happy to use violence against their own people, but wary of using it against armed foreign states/governments.

The people of Crimea did not seek independence from Ukraine earlier because they knew their government would happily use force against them. As protestors around the world know, states/governments real grip on power is maintained by force.

The Ukrainian forces (police and army) in Crimea would have been deployed against the Crimean people in a flash, had they sought independence themselves.

However, like all States/Governments the Ukrainian government, while holding their own citizens in contempt, think twice about such behaviour towards a fully armed foreign state. Hence, with Russian state backing, the people of Crimea could then act as they wanted, and get independence, without the threat of force from the Ukrainian government.

The willingness of states to use force against citizens is getting ever worse - and is actually the primary tool in the EU's totalitarian toolbox.

Many, many citizens of EU members do not want to remain in the EU - but their governments are groomed and encouraged to warn and show they are willing to use force against them. This is openly demonstrated every time a government are said to have shown 'leadership'... in this context 'leadership' means forcing citizens to act against their will/interest under the threat of force.

Government 'leadership' is self-evidently an evil that should be viewed with fear and disgust, not with pride.

Governments are not the saviours of the citizens, they are the greatest threat against them.

LibLabCon are 100% signed up to this agenda. UKIP are not (yet) we need UKIP to break this slide and put measures in place (direct democracy) so it can never happen in the UK again. Britons never, never, never should have been made EU/State slaves.

Saturday, 29 March 2014

Marriage - abolished in the UK

Yesterday was the last day it was possible to have a real marriage. The last time that a man and a woman could be recognised in law as representing the fundamental, human, animal and natural basis of the family.

Today that concept has no word in UK law - the word we used to use ('married') is now unconnected to family/reproduction etc, it now simply means BFFs (Best Friends Forever) and can apply to any two people.

Same sex couples have achieved 'equality' by denying any legal acknowledgement of the historic, natural form of the human reproductive unit of the couple/family.

The cry of 'Don't recognise any sex marriage? Then don't have one!' will almost certainly be observed - with couples who would formerly have got married rejecting this new, weird, institution of the same name.

If I were considering marriage today, I would not bother with this new creation. A 'nuptial' style legal contract/agreement for the practicalities (shared ownership of assets etc) and a non-legal ceremony to announce/celebrate with friends and well wishers would be fine. There will be some areas that the state will continue to make awkward - but I'd look at this on a case by case basis. As ever the states 'helpful contribution' to 'marriage' is just to reduce some of the penalties that the state itself imposes...

Marriage is dead, who would have thought that a supposed 'conservative' led government would lead its assassins?

Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Goodbye BBC, I spit on your grave.

The BBC are dying because they only ever existed because they were the states monopoly on broadcasting.

They controlled the messages that the British people heard. And they were financed by stealing the money that used to be earned by live entertainers, and cinema newsreels the length and breadth of the country. Instead of paying for these things as we saw fit, the TV Tax extorted this money and simply gave it to the corrupt institution that is the BBC.

Having such a powerful monopoly meant the BBC could not be challenged - upset the BBC and you would get nowhere nationally - so people had to pretend (or actually delude themselves) that 'auntie BBC' was a good thing. It was the only way they could live under such oppression.

But now this abusive relationship can end, because there is a way out for the public - the internet.

We can walk away for the vile, evil construct that is the BBC - personified by the likes of Jimmy Saville, Lord Patten and even Hughie Green.

Some people will remain attached and reminisce for it (as some people still do for the soviet union) - but that will only because they still fear facing the reality of the abuse they suffered, their lives have been built around it, and to face it would destroy them.

Goodbye BBC, I spit on your grave.

Saturday, 22 March 2014

The Legitimate Roles of Government, MPs and Civil Servants

The only legitimate purpose of government is to ensure the liberty of each person to whom it is accountable.

Liberty is the ability for an individual to have the widest and freest choices available at all times.

The power required to administer this duty - of ensuring liberty - is such that it is also the power to enslave the population.

To ensure that the government do not abuse or misuse the power they have, the people regularly have the opportunity to replace the government. Also, on an ongoing basis there are non-governmental MPs in place to ensure that the government only work within their legitimate purpose.

It is common for MP's in the UK (and other elected members in other countries) to be called 'law-makers' however, by definition, every law is a reduction in liberty, so law must be minimised, it must be as small and limited as possible. So while the government itself has the authority to make law, it is our elected MP's job to ensure as little law as possible exists at anyone time they should be law-slakers. This will include blocking new law that is non-essential or not in line with a governments only legitimate purpose, also of repealing old laws that are no longer relevant or non-essential. In each case where a law is so repealed, it should be clearly explained how and why the law was ever considered necessary in the first place.

I do not believe that free men should be subject to law that they cannot understand, or cannot know. Accordingly all law should be understandable to (say) 98% of 10 year olds - the age of criminal responsibility. Also, there must be little enough law that it can be completely read and understood by 98% of individuals by the time they are 10 years old.

I would propose a rolling 10 year programme of law review and renewal - whereby all laws are automatically repealed after 10 years if they have not already been directly repealed and have not been actively renewed. If this programme were started today, in ten years we would have a new, complete and exhaustive body of law, understandable and knowable by all, and all existing law could be dumped.

The problem with the civil service is that they are not regularly replaced or rewnewed, so corruption and abuse can run continuously, indefinitely - this must be addressed so that we (and our elected representatives) have the upper hand at all times.

Thursday, 20 March 2014

I despise the EU, as they took this as their model. LibLabCon joined them. #UKIP haven't... yet.

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

By P.J.Proudhon 1851. Cut/paste from

Friday, 14 March 2014

Evolution is about change over time, not about the start of life.

In the US the sides are pretty well defined - 'Creationist/Intelligent Design/Bible' on one side and 'Evolution/Science/Anti-Christian' on the other.

However, in the rest of the world there are other positions to be considered - you can't assume that someone not in one of these camps is automatically in the other.

Unfortunately when the Atheist Cult was picked up outside the USA it adopted the US arguments lock, stock and barrel - despite the fact there are few if any people who could be described as 'bible bashers' in the UK...

Anyhow, as I see it, the 'evolutionary' perspective starts here and looks backwards, but never actually addresses how it all started... it addresses 'development' not 'creation'.

Further evolution in using 'survival of the fittest' misses out on what I think is a rather important point - in a reasonably life filled environment, each new, fitter species will (almost by definition) replace at least one other species... So evolution is unlikely to increase the number of species, in fact as fitter species win, the number of species would tend to decrease...

This leaves a big question about where it all started and how many species there used to be and where they came from. We are back at 'creation' and evolution doesn't have an answer - it doesn't try to have... Oops.

If there was an initial 'creation' event (or events) I don't know what they consisted of, but the proposals seem to be 'intelligent design' or 'anything except intelligent design' -- but while anyone looking closer is attacked by both sides, progress is likely to be slow...

Thursday, 13 March 2014

Bible Stories, Creationism and Atheism

The roots of the popularity of atheism appear to be rejection of 'old school' christianity.

A negative comment about atheism will immediately draw a mob demanding that you show the bible to be true, that evolution is wrong, and that you prove god exist.

I mostly attack atheism for its own inconsistency nothing outside atheism is needed to show this... No reference to religion (other than their own), or to the bible or to darwin. Just their obsession with erasing other peoples faith to be replaced with their own arbitrary faith.

Outside the logical flaws with atheism, the worst aspect of atheism is the denial of humanity - the belief that there is 'nothing else' just atoms here and now.

Jimmy Saville shows where that leads - he enjoyed what he did, and got away with it for the duration of his existence on earth, every atheists dream surely?

His morality may have been different to other peoples, but so what? Morality is all relative to an atheist. On what basis does a devout atheist condemn free living Jim? Especially as he raised so much for 'good causes' - he didn't have to do that - most paedophiles/rapists don't bother giving anything back do they?

And before anyone decries his fund raising intentions, I haven't heard of any dodgy book keeping or similar, it seems his fund-raising side was squeaky clean.

No one need ask a non atheist why they would condemn such people - but an atheist needs to spell it out (I look forward to some doing so (one cannot answer for all) - preferably with out mentioning religion, christianity etc.

By denying humanity, that humans are not special, there is only one possible end game, that every thing in existence is treated equally - an averaging out of all respect for everything.

Unless you currently believe that humans are treated (on average) with less respect than everything else, this average will mean treating humans worse than now, with less respect than now. I'd rather see humanity on a pedestal rather than in a sea of grey goo with everything else. Is this based on self-interest? Does it matter? Most religions consider man special anyway, and an atheist would have to consider themselves my god to tell me what to think!

Also by denying humanity and promoting only science/logic you fall prey to 'incompleteness theorem' - this is a mathematical proof that it is impossible for any language to state proofs for every truth - a similar idea to "you can't prove a negative". If you can't prove something, you cannot pretend it doesn't exist, it remains a possibility (or maybe certainty, unbeknown to you) and you'd have to make a judgement, and hope (have faith), that you have made the right call.

Humanity has the ability to make those judgements - whether you like that fact or not.

Atheism is a faith indistinguishable from Religion.

Atheism is just as 'faith' based as religion is - so much so, it is indistinguishable from religion.

There are many people who like to say they are atheist who then deny that they follow any of its creed - but there are many people who call themselves catholic, christian, jewish etc but say they don't really believe in god or are 'non practising' - at least these people rarely claim that they are just as 'devout' as those that do follow their religion to the letter (Church of England excepted...). Whereas many non-devout atheists like to claim that their position defines atheism (as members of the Church of England like to claim their position defines christianity).

Why do I care/object? Mainly because atheists attack the religious (as they see them) and attack the areligious/agnostics. I am broadly libertarian and respect peoples right to choose - nowadays most religions are tolerant of those who don't agree with them - the main exceptions seem to be islam and atheism, both of which have high profile fanatics who have zero tolerance of dissenters. Intolerance can be amusing in small doses, but if it gets the upper hand liberty (per-se) is lost.

It is widely accepted that "you can't prove a negative", however this doesn't mean you don't have to acknowledge that you *haven't proved it*. If you believe you cannot prove a negative, how stupid would it be to create position for yourself that claims that you have?!

Atheists claim to respect science and logic etc - but then say their position is secure because it is impossible to for them to prove they are right (there are no gods), so there is no need for them to do so!

Atheism has become what it claims to despise - maybe faith is a common human need, so those rejecting it were bound to come around to it in the end - but (of course) would not want to admit their mistake so need to remain in denial.

Atheists you are not better, nor smarter than theists - you just have a different faith - get off your high horses, they only exist in your minds.

Monday, 24 February 2014

The NHS Constitution was supposed to generate benefits of £420,000,000!

I am blogging this, cos I keep having trouble finding it(!)
The NHS Constitution was supposed to generate benefits of £420,000,000
This appeared to be completely mad (the constitution was just putting existing documents into a single document!), so I looked into it a bit (back in 2009), but on the back of this huge figure, the government spent many millions to get it in place!

In summary the main benefits were seen as enabling patients to complain more, so drive up standards... however, there was already research in the public domain that said patient complaints don't drive up standards!

So this is what I did... My Freedom of Information request via 'What Do They Know'

Thursday, 6 February 2014

Free speech is Bullshit!

Bullshit - a natural product of the digestive processes of a Bovine having consumed food.
Free speech - the natural product of the thinking process of a Human having consumed information.

Bullshit occurs naturally wherever Bovines exist.
Free speech occurs naturally wherever Humanity exists.

To stop bulls shitting is an inhumane offence against nature.
To stop a human speaking freely is an inhumane offence against nature.

Now, once nature has taken its course and there is bovine manure and human ideas - they can be put to use.

This is the end of the shitters and the speakers responsibility.

Some people may collect manure and put on roses so they be nourished and grow.
Some people may collect ideas and apply them so humanity may be nourished and grow.

Some people may collect maure and throw it at you, this is wrong and bad of the thrower.
Some people may collect ideas and use them to justify aggression, this is wrong and bad of the aggressor.

Some people think free-speech/ideas that other people don't like are bad and the original thinker/speaker should be punished - which actually makes as little sense as punishing a Bull just in case their shit gets thrown.

Some people are so stupid as to throw the shit/ideas to get the bull/free-speaker into trouble!! Worse, some people are so stupid they join the thrower to attack the bull/free-speaker!!

These people are known as a 'mindless mob' or 'politically correct tossers', and they appear to form the main part of UK civil society nowadays (and in much of the world!) - they are the result of a poor, manipulative education system, and a warped sense of self. It is the duty of all remaining decent people to oppose them... so I do.

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

Cameron shows his contempt for the public and parliament - alcohol minimum pricing.

I just wrote to my MP via - may be you should too? (use your own words!)


I was very disappointed to see that the coalition government have brought in minimum alcohol pricing by the back door.

Some time ago David Cameron had made this a 'flagship policy', but (apparently) in the face of public (and so MP) opposition performed a U-Turn and dropped it. (

Now it is reported that rather than dropping it, a way was sought to bring it in with out allowing the public (or MPs) to have a say. (

I cannot express how disgusting I find this behaviour by the government in sidestepping the public and MPs.

David Cameron has a record of abusing his position, which he acknowledges - so much so that he sought to support an EU referendum law, as he knew his word alone would be trusted by very few voters.

This 'back door' introduction of law is a very EU method of working (as per working time directive being brought in via 'health and safely' because UK had an opt-out on 'employment' regulations).

I hope you are as mortified by this evasion of parliamentary accountability as I am.

Of course, by adding this to his record of deceitfulness and deviousness, the public will be reassured that any referendum promised by David Cameron will only ever deliver (by fair means or foul) the result that he wants.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Friday, 17 January 2014

My MP asked if I had any local issues, and if I thought council tax should go up...

Spontaneous scribbles...

The council do nothing for me that I couldn't do better myself.

We have one bus every hour and a half, its times are of no use to us....

I avoid going into Brighton any more, parking charges, the green 'hate' projected at me as a driver...

I opened a new bank account in Lewes - easy to get to, easy parking.
I moved dentist to Peacehaven - easy to get to, easy parking.

We generally holiday in the UK - we tow a folding camper, we need a big car to tow.
We have family, and extended family locally - to save using multiple cars on excursions we need a big car for transport.
My younger son gets the bus for most of his travel between home and collage, but we often need a car to get him to/from the bus stop.
We do a weekly shop, we need a car.
We do Aquarobics in Falmer, we need a car.
We do Kendo in Lewes, we need a car.
We do Ninjitsu in Brighton, we need a car.
We do Atheltics in Withdean, we need a car.
We help with cubs in Rottingdean, we need a car.

I work with clients all over the place, I need a car.

I guess Greens just sit around at home smoking pot *talking* about how great they make things, in their restricted, crippled little lives they can't really imagine that anyone actually *does* anything.

There is nothing the council does, that I wouldn't rather do myself - and do better.

Not going into the 'city' much any more I don't give to the homeless sleeping rough much any more - but what the hell, the way the council fleece us they should all be in The Grand!

A council tax rise vs a council tax freeze? Don't make me laugh, I want a huge council tax *cut*. Cut to *zero* and start justifying every sodding penny upwards from that!

Thursday, 16 January 2014

Jesus - Libertarian - Part 1 of...

I am a bog standard British bod. UK is a Christian country - with a culture based on Christian teachings (whether or not any 'god' is involved...). I am broadly libertarian - if you disagree, then you have a different definition of libertarian to me, and I don't really care! I came across some stuff on Jesus, Christianity and Libertarianism, and started doing my own rooting. I haven't got far, but got this far so far.

I am not arguing a religious case either way, just following a logical case to a logical conclusion from the story of Jesus as per the bible.

According to the bible:

Jesus, himself, sent out 12 disciples to spread his word, our knowledge of how they did this is made up from, and by, the four biblical gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John).

Jesus, himself, evidently considered the spreading of his word in this way, was all that the rest of mankind required.

Jesus would have known that, at the time, most people hearing a gospel would only hear one gospel, and it might be any one of them.

From this we must deduce that he believed each of the gospels is adequate in and of itself - anyone of them would do - because that is all that anyone at the time was likely to hear.

We know their lessons are not literal, that they are 'parables' stories meant to convey a message - a message that will be understood by those who they are meant for. Jesus said that an individual will be saved only through him, not through anyone else. So nothing can be valid unless you understand it for yourself, no one else can can save you, the message is accessible to every individual, if you don't understand it or 'get it' yourself then it is not part of the message intended for you - how could it be otherwise?

Old testament? And the rest of 'the bible'? Of academic interest maybe - but not something that Jesus asked to be spread, so clearly not needed for the  spreading of his message.

So the first thing seems to be only the four gospels matter - any one of them is all you need...

Here endeth the lesson so far...

Duggan sounds like a wrong'en, but we don't execute people for that in the UK.

On twitter I seem to be disagreeing with everyone... (whats new eh?!)

I agree that Duggan seems to have been a wrongen, I also agree that the police seem to have engineered the circumstances that led to his being shot.

I agree that they jury had more evidence than any casual observer would have and there is no reason to question their final conclusion on what happened at the moment of Duggan being shot.

However, there is more going on here. The story as I have heard it (and not disputed as far as I have seen).

The police were told Duggan would be collecting a gun from an associate, the police believed that this was true. They waited to let Duggan go to the meeting to collect the gun. When he left they believed he had collected the gun. Later they chased and stopped the car that Duggan was in, he exited the vehicle and was shot, dead.


1) The police believed the associate had a gun, however the didn't seek to seize it - this would have ensured the public were safe from it, and may have provided evidence related to other crimes committed with it.

2) The police only had any reason to think that Duggan had a gun because someone claimed he was going to collect one and did attend a meeting.

3) At the scene, Duggan was never armed, gun in hand, whatever his actions/behaviour they were not the actions/behaviour of an armed person about to shoot anyone.


1) Why did police not raid the gun owner and seize the weapon immediately?

2) Why did police let (as far as they believed) Duggan collect a gun and take it into public?

3) Evidently armed police cannot distinguish between the behaviour of unarmed and armed people, is this 'OK'?


1) The outcome would have been the same whether or not Duggan had a gun (the judge said there was no overwhelming evidence for him having a gun ot not).

2) He was ultimately shot for not behaving in precisely the way an armed police officer wanted him to.

3) If people can end up lawfully killed just because police believe a rumour - and the outcome would be the same whether the rumour is true or not - then this needs to change, or we are all in danger of (effectively) summary execution at the hands of the police.

4) Duggan himself is pretty much irrelevant to all of this. It just happened that he was the subject of the original rumour.

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

Health Nazis kill people and make us all poorer.

I was considering the current state of affairs over tobacco control and so called 'e-cigarettes'.

Smoking has been a useful stick for the UK's authoritarians to beat up the general public, and charge the public (via taxes) royally for the privilege of being beaten up.

The latest round of abuse of the public has been plain packaging fuss. However from left wing we get China supplying huge quantities of 'e-cigarettes'.

The argument against smoking is not about the nicotine in cigarettes, it is about the tar and carbon monoxide and other damaging by-products produced when you extract the nicotine by burning tobacco leaves.

The UK have spent billions of taxpayer pounds nagging, hounding, regulating and otherwise imposing on the public in failed attempts to stop them burning tobacco. Meanwhile China has created a profitable industry (with huge export potential) by letting its industry create an alternative method of consuming nicotine, a method that does not require the burning of tobacco leaves, and so avoids any damaging by-products.

The UK has followed the old discredited socialist approach to this, while China has followed the successful capitalist free market approach.

It is time for the authoritarian nazis to be put back in their box and banished from public life for once and for all.

Currently they know the days of being anti-tobacco are numbered, so they are seeking other items to ban - like sugar. These disgusting parasites must not be allowed to escape, they must be terminated now, once and for all.

There is no genuine argument in favour of the UK remaining a member of the EU.

The EU-Lovers keep rolling out the same, bogus, arguments - instead of repeating the well known answers again and again, I thought I'l blog them here, all in one place.

1) Why do you hate Europe?

- I don't hate Europe, I love Europe. I hate the UK being under the power of political institutions of the European Union.

2) If UK leaves the EU, the EU will refused to trade with us, or make it very difficult and expensive.

- Under the Lisbon treaty, the EU is obliged to negotiate free trade agreements with any leaving member.

3) Despite their Lisbon treaty obligations they will put up trade barriers.

- As part of the World Trade Organisation there are yet more limits on barriers to trade. If the EU ignored its own treaty (as if!) they would be answerable to the Rest of the World, under their WTO obligations.

4) Despite all that they would put up trade barriers.

- The UK buys more from the EU than the EU buys from the UK, in any trade war, the UK would end up keeping loads of cash, and the EU would be left with unsold products.

5) We can't eat cash, we can't drive cash.

- But with cash we can buy from anywhere else in the world and/or we can use it to develop native/domestic manufacturing.

6) Even if they did negotiate a free trade agreement, the UK would end up having to conform to all EU laws/standards/regulations but not have any say over those laws/standards/regulations.

- For products exported to any country/area, they must (of course) meet that areas standards. This is an issue for exporters everywhere, already. It has no impact on any activity not related to export to that zone, nor the daily lives of citizens.

7) No, if it impacts trade, it will impact everyone.

- China, USA and the Rest of the World trade with the EU without needing to join it, nor to apply its rules/laws/standards other than to products specifically for export to the EU.

- UK trade with USA and China, we don't apply their rules/laws to everyone, just to the exported products/services.

8) Millions of UK jobs are dependent on the EU.

- Yes, millions may be dependent on the EU, but few are dependent on the UKs membership of the EU.

- Productive jobs in (say) trade, tourism etc will continue virtually unchanged.

- Unproductive overhead jobs (mainly political and bureaucrat) will disappear, saving the taxpayer millions of pounds in administrative overheads.

9) OK so why are we still members?

- Remember what I said about political and bureaucratic jobs? It is the people with those unproductive, comfortable, well paid jobs that keep us in, it is they who endlessly deny us a say.

10) But it that were true, they would know they couldn't keep the public in the dark for ever!

- They don't need to do it for ever, every year we stay in the EU, more and more of our wealth, resources, sovereignty are transferred to the EU, very soon now, it will be hugely expensive and complicated to leave the EU.

11) But the government have said that there are no more transfers to the EU - if there were we would have a referendum.

- That is what they said, but only if it required treaty changes. Existing treaties already allow for many more transfers, they have only scratched the surface of actually implementing the terms of the Lisbon treaty.

12) But we would see the transfers happening, it would be reported.

- Often no physical transfer is needed, the EU can expand its work in an area, while the UK runs it down. If the EU expands its embassies and the UK reduces its own then no physical transfer has occurred, but power has been silently transferred.

13) If the established political parties benefit from the EU - even though the people and country don't how can we ever escape?

- Vote UKIP, if UKIP win the 2015 election the UK will immediately start to terminate its membership of the EU.

14) OK!

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

Are the British public wrong about neary everything? and if so what does it mean?

The Independent has a story entitled "British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows".

It highlights are:-

Benefit fraud - Public think its £24 in £100- Government claim its 70p in £100.
Migrants - Public think its 30% of the population - Government claim its 13%
Teen Pregnancy - Public think its 15% of teens - Government say its 0.6%

In each case the public were asked to second guess government stats (I am not sure how useful this even is as an exercise - Government stats are only estimates...) however given that people see the impact of these things in their everyday lives, and are basing their estimates on the damage they see done maybe something useful can be extracted...

The conclusion implied (usually by the left who hate the public anyway - and decry anything that is wanted by many as 'populist') is:-

'things are not as bad as people think, they should stop complaining because its all OK really'

However I think this is flawed - people know how bad things are, they see it in their every day lives - the flaw is in their estimation of how many people it takes to make things so bad. They think such damage and expense must be the result of many, many more people than it actually is - and just imagine how much worse things would be if these figures were allowed to climb to where they public think they already are!

Also, given the actual figures, if the public are asked about targets for benefit fraud, migration, teen pregnancy, they could well say (for instance) £15, 20%, 10% - and then be truly shocked at the results(!). So any targets currently in place need serious review with an expectation that they need to be hugely reduced.

Monday, 6 January 2014

UK Government gives migrants a monopoly on millions of UK jobs and subsidies them with tax breaks!

National suicide - liblabcon have slit our national wrists and we are bleeding to death.

I don't know why it hasn't come up before, but the situation in the UK right now is...

To employ a Brit an employer must pay them at least minimum wage, pay NI to the UK government, the employee pays income tax and NI to the UK government.

To employ an EU migrant an employer can pay as little as they can get away with, pay no national insurance to the UK government, while the employee pays income tax to their home countries government (and at a lower rate than UK government charges).

So an EU worker costs an employer less than a Brit does, takes home more money than a Brit does and pays no money to the UK taxman, while a Brit would pay the tax man and the employer would too!

It is actually illegal for a Brit to offer to work for the same as the migrant! Our own government have given migrants a monopoly on millions of UK jobs!

Of course there are a whole raft of 'in work benefits' available to the low paid too - so rather than just not paying anything to the taxman, they collect a big cheque from him too... while we also pay for the excluded brit to sit at home doing nothing!

National suicide - liblabcon have slit our national wrists and we are bleeding to death.