Saturday, 28 November 2015

A letter to my MP, Simon Kirby, regarding David Cameron and Syria... Sexing up the case, or ill informed?

I've been writing to my MP again. To be honest, having been re-elected in 2015 he hasn't been as responsive as used to be. He has even closed his twitter account - where we used to occasionally have exchanges.

He is something in the Conservative whips office, and something in the 1922 committee I believe, so probably too busy with politics to keep up the fantastic record of communication he use to have.

Anyway I sent the letter based on an interview I heard and the subsquent BBC World Service 'More or Less' broadcast - that I included in the RadioFreeUK friday show

More than whether the figures were misleading (see the letter), is that the Prime Minister is currently trying to get authorisation to send UK RAF planes in to battle in Syria -- and it would seem the Prime Minister is either hopelessly ill informed about the state of ISIS, or is deliberately sexing up his claims...

Here is the letter:

Dear Simon Kirby,

I recently heard the Prime Minister in an interview say that air strikes had led to ISIS losing 25-30% of the territory it had gained.

However, BBC Security Correspondent 'Frank Gardner' was surprised by this claim and subsequently the the BBC World Service program 'More or Less' looked into this claim.

The conclusion was that it is not a meaningful figure - if there was such an figure (20-30%) it would only be of unoccupied, unpopulated land, and not at all reflective of a loss of power by ISIS.

If the Prime Minister is basing his strategy for air-strikes on this information he is either misguided himself, or he is deliberately trying to mislead the public.

Can you tell me which it is? and based on that (either way) how David Cameron can be trusted to deploy UK troops while he is either ill informed, or deceitful? Also can you tell me how you plan to vote on authorising Mr Cameron to deploy UK RAF aircraft to attack Syria?

Yours sincerely,

Friday, 16 October 2015

An army of #EUout Ambassadors - starts here.

You want the UK out of the EU,
We want the UK out of the EU.

You know your vote alone is not enough,
We know our vote alone is not enough.

You know you need to speak to others to get them to vote 'leave',
We know we need to speak to others to get them to vote 'leave'.

You are not confident enough to speak to others about it,
We are - and you can be too.

We will give you the information and tools you need to explain to others
- Why the UK is better as an independent country, outside of of the EU's control.
- Why the arguments used to keep us in the EU are flawed.

We are just like you - we want the UK out of the EU, and we want to tell others why, but not only that we want to tell them how they can tell others to do the same!

Don't just persuade others to vote 'leave', persuade them to persuade others to vote 'leave', and persuade those others to persuade others to vote 'leave'...

Leave needs to go viral and it needs to start now to be string enough come polling day to win a 'Leave' vote.

Most of the arguments for leaving the EU are not actually specifically about the EU, they are about the UK being a strong, successful, free country, and its people being strong, successful and free. They are arguments that every British school child should be taught, they are the essence of a modern, free society.

We aren't perfect, we don't know everything, but we have made a start, and it will develop. We aren't 'in charge', we are just doing this because we want to - and you can too...

Please visit this page, and add your comments - we can create a nation of ambassadors for a modern free society from the bottom up - sweeping the EU (and any future threats!) away while we do so.

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

VW Emissions - The state is always incompetent so needs to be as small as possible.

The state test cars because car makers can't be trusted. VW behaved as expected (untrustworthily), it is the state that has failed by not detecting this earlier.

Every single employee employed in the testing of vehicles should be sacked and any pay they received clawed back and given to the car owners, VW and taxpayers.

You have probably heard about the 'VW emissions scandal':

They have admitted that they programmed their cars engine management systems to run extra-clean while emissions were being tested so they were within the legally set emission limits, but that the engine management system ran less clean, but more powerfully when in use and being tested for power.

So all the blame is being put on VW... However what is it they actually did (apart from the academic offence of 'breaking the law')?

What they did is make a mockery of the US government. A government who introduced laws and expensive testing/compliance red tape, and testing regimes that completely failed to do what they said it would do... All this time, money, effort that the US government have expended on these laws and testing has been completely wasted - millions, if not billions of taxpayer dollars, down the drain for absolutely nothing... In fact, worse than nothing, for a false sense of security.

What idiots thought it was a good idea for the government to create unenforcible laws? And create a huge expensive regime to fail to enforce those laws?

The state test cars because car makers can't be trusted. VW behaved as expected (untrustworthily), it is the state that has failed by not detecting this earlier.

Every single employee employed in the testing of vehicles should be sacked and any pay they received clawed back and given to the car owners, VW and taxpayers.

Monday, 21 September 2015

The new House of Lords - Lets hound the dead weight Lords out today!

I am no fan of the Electoral Reform Society - I think they are worse than a nasty waste of space, they actually block real reform by claiming the ground and doing nothing worthwhile with it.

They ignore the nasty, unrepresentative, unelected EU commission (because they share its progressive, social democratic headline ideals of crushing the free individual) and focus on reform of our House of Lords.

The appointed Lords is quirky but it works - modern practice is to use what works even if the reasons for it working are as yet unknown (but do, of course, research why it works). We have test driven software development, evidence based medical practices etc... we start with what works, then work out why - the House of Lords basically works.

However, while the House of Lords does basically work, it is too big. And each time it is 're-balanced' it just gets bigger. It needs a mechanism for ditching its dead weight - while I don't make a specific proposition for this mechanism of ejecting the dross, I do, here outline where the dross is to be selected from.

Here is a table showing how many votes each party got in teh 2015 election and shows how many seats they should have in the lords by strict PR.

There are some lose ends - Independents, Bishops, Cross Benchers etc. But you can see that we can start selecting hundreds for the chop immediately - simply rank them by usefulness (attendance, contribution to debate etc) and top slice the ones to keep.

If someone does that ranking and names those who should go, the public can start hounding them out of office immediately...

PartyVotes 2015Lords ActualLords PRNew Size
Conservative Party1130010922328865149-74112-11174-149
Labour Party934732421123827123-8892-11962-149
UK Independence Party388109939996514838352623
Liberal Democrats241586210162-3932-6924-7716-85
Scottish National Party14544363737191914141010
Green Party1157613130291514111087
Democratic Unionist Party1842604512-22-21-3
Plaid Cymru18170425320201-1
Sinn Féin17623244222211
Ulster Unionist Party114935231201-11-1
Social Democratic & Labour Party9980933111111
Independent Liberal Democrat10-10-10-10-1
Independent Social Democrat10-10-10-10-1
Independent Ulster Unionist10-10-10-10-1
Independent Labour20-20-20-20-2

77 years on Merkel prepares for Kristallnacht 2015.

Saturday, 19 September 2015

The Big Brother House (of Lords)

A solution to the mass over population of the house of Lords is available right now with no new legislation required.

Euthanasia of peerages. Not (necessarily) euthanasia of peers, just of peerages. Set a size for the House of Lords and operate one in/one out. How the peer to be removed is selected doesn't really matter - as long as the new peer is more useful than the one leaving, the public win.

We can start right away - list all the peers, rate them, and terminate all but the top 200(?). If there is any dispute from the top losers they can debate to replace one of the top 200... Maybe put on TV and let the public vote them in/out.

Job done - could all be fixed by Christmas.

Tuesday, 8 September 2015

What is wrong with droning two 'British' ISIS fighters?

Cameron ordered a drone strike in Syria on two ISIS fighters who had once lived in the UK - both were killed, the justification was that they were planning some form of terrorist attack on the UK's VJ (Victory In Japan at the end of WW2) commemoration event in London that was to be attended by all the UK's 'great and good' right up to the Queen.

OK this is never going to be an unpopular thing to do - but there are some issues that need considering.

1) Isn't it pathetic that Cameron would rather have kept these terrorist leaders in the UK all along? He has worked hard to prevent such people leaving the UK!

2) Isn't it pathetic that Cameron won't strip those who join ISIS of their passports because this is too complicated legally, but can happily have them executed?!

3) If these two were to actually carry out the terrorist action, surely their well known faces on London streets would have been found in seconds? So why not let them come and pick them (and other accomplices) up? Seems a bit of a pathetic waste of an opportunity by Cameron.

4) If these two were just the planners, and the terrorist action was to be done by others, then who and where are these others? Presumably they are already/still here in the UK waiting for another plan to be given to them for execution? Bit pathetic of Cameron to have left them our there.

5) If killing British Citizens is now OK without any legal process - who is safe? Anyone?

6) Funny that this was so easy, but (say) deporting radical preachers/recruiters is so difficult - it suggests our 'due process' is far to complex and in favour of the criminal. Of course this suits our legal profession who make more money the more complex the law us. Surely we should completely review this and get the legal blood suckers back in their cages.

7) I'll add stuff if I think of it - or better still, add your own comments below!

8) Oh and one of the youngsters was photographed in the UK with Ed Balls (former Labour Chancellor) saying he wanted to be the UK's first 'Asian' Prime Minister - of course if he had made any effort in UK politics he would have been fast tracked ahead of any native youngster (like my kids or maybe yours) right to the top (brown, migrant, muslim ticking the progressive minority boxes!) - and he could be in the Labour leadership contest today... and we could be on our way to having an Islamic Terrorist as our PM.

9) Hmmm Michael Fallon in an interview on BBC radio specifically said it was about specific attacks that were planned - however this happened after the VJ day events, so the attack could *not* have been about VJ day...

Monday, 31 August 2015

Matthew Elliot - not fit to be part of EU Out - he really wants reform, not exit.

Matthew Elliot is pushing himself forwards to lead the EU Out campaign -

But he is actually a reformer! He is not fundamentally opposed to the EU - he just thinks it really needs improving:

He also called for the referendum to be delayed to maximise the chances of the UK staying in:

So given the right offer he could decide that the UK should stay *in* the EU after all!! He clearly can't be trusted.

His other claim is that he won the No2AV referendum... But even this is not true - Matthew Elliot did not win the AV vote - it was always pretty much a cert to go the way it did - and the Yes2AV campaign was led by the Electoral Reform Society who were on record as saying AV was a very bad system and only STV was worth considering - so there was no campaign support for AV anyway.

With the EU all the big money will be on 'in' - because the EU control 90% of the 'big money'. Elliot has also said he wants to see what Cameron comes back with - so further down the line Elliot could changes sides if the 'right' deal is offered.

Out need leaders who know there is *nothing* that can make the EU acceptable - so Camerons renegotiation is of zero significance.

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

Letter to my MP - 52 Olympic Athletes granted Asylum??


I was very surprised to read the following regarding foreign athletes who came to the UK to compete for their countries in the 2012 Olympic games in London:

"A total of 52 were granted refugee status while, of the thirty refused, two won on appeal but only ten were deported from the UK."

in the article posted here:

The headline was about the 18 who are still on the run from the UK authorities so have not been deported, however, my surprise was that 52 were granted refugee status.

We now know that government departments often make mistakes, are often run inefficiently and badly, and often try to cover up mistakes. So I am sure you will agree that it is essential that they can justify the actions they have taken, and justify them to the public that they serve.

Accordingly I would like to know how these 52 came to be allowed to enter the UK - supposedly representing their countries as the countries top athletes, when they actually made their applications, what each of them are claiming asylum from, and what evidence was gathered to support their claims.

I find it implausible that a competent government could be put in this position, I look forward to being shown to be wrong.


Paul Perrin

Monday, 10 August 2015

Kids Company - where oh where did the Church of England go so wrong? Jesus wept.

One of the stories Peter Hitches covers in his latest Mail on Sunday piece relates to the demise of Kids Company.

In his column he asks questions that I, myself, have also been asking - what actually did Kids Company do? What was it trying to do? How did it measure its success (or otherwise)? etc....

The bit that really jumped out at me was this:-
What do you think would happen to someone who set up a charity in the same part of London, offering abandoned children rules, morals, disciplined education, absolute prohibition of drugs, regular bedtimes, that sort of thing?

Isn't that exactly what the Church of England used to do (and is still supposed to be doing)? When did it stop? Will it now take the role back? Or will some other Christian organisation maybe?

He then says:-
Do you think millions of corporate and State money would arrive, or that Ministers and media figures would rush to its aid? No, nor do I.

Presumably forgetting that the Church of England are very wealthy, have Bishops in the House of Lords, their own publications etc...

The Church of England has dropped the ball - it is worried about its own internal gender equality and such tosh - and while it contemplates its navel, and focuses on the admin of the church that is simple a measns to an end, it completely fails in its end - that of spreading christan purpose, and doing so by example.

Jesus wept.

Friday, 31 July 2015

Radio Free UK - - 11th Weekly show out now.

We want to be 'News 24 for the EU Out campaign' - with the latest headlines and back stories - you can be part of it - as a consumer or creator!

The project is developing (the tech is stable!) and we have been promised more exclusive/first to air content!

You can listen to the whole show from the website or (better!) subscribe to the pod feed directly or via iTunes (links to both on the home page).

Theres a long way to go yet - and we can use all the help you can offer - researching content, creating original content or simply reading/recording other web content (we have permission, but not the resources!). - Week 11:


- Vanessa Coleman's new feature 'off the cuff' - introducing her guest Roger a recently retired police officer - who, in future will be here to answer your question, queries - use the comments section on the blog, or email
[Direct Link]

- Two Libertarian Features on Mass Immigration, both for and against(!)
[Direct Link]

- How a child protection worker in the US turned whistle blower, and still has a future.
[Direct Link]

- Police body cameras, some results for the US
[Direct Link]

- And two interviews with 'Carly Fiorina' (feisty lady) one on the Planned Parenthood scandal and one on Climate Climate
[Direct Link]

The site has an archive of old shows (in progress) and an improved interface - for desktop and mobile.

Have a listen, use the blogs comment sections, email us - get involved, ready for the EU Referendum!

Sunday, 5 July 2015

"ISIS are not Islamic" - the pivotal moment that inspired Theresa May to recast the Nasty Party the mould of the Pakistani People Party.

We have heard it a thousand times over from the Conservative top brass (the leaders of our country) - whenever an Islamic inspired terrorist event occurs, their first thought is not for the people of this country, instead their first thought is to protect Islam from criticism.

It was so obvious, and such an obviously inappropriate response, I thought there must be more too it, so did a bit of digging.

David Cameron has spouted many lines about the superiority of Islam to the British way of life - most well known his statement:-
I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around
(Remembering, of course, that Asian is the modern progressive way to refer to Muslims without mentioning religion).

While both David Cameron and Theresa May are very insistent on what is and is not Islamic (despite no formal training or study that they have declared), the impression that I had built up was that Theresa May was even more defensive of Islam that David Cameron - an impression from various speeches, statements etc she has made as reported in the main stream media - nothing private, no inside information, no leaks.

So I decided to look into Theresa May's background a little, wondering if there would be any clue as to how Islam could have made such a remarkable and enduring impression on her.

The first thing I noticed is that she is very austere, very po faced, very private and there is not much information in the public domain about her - quite remarkable for such a powerful figure.

However there was a reference to Theresa May first meeting her husband (to be), and it transpired that they were introduced at university by a friend - none other than Benazir Bhutto who went on to be the first female leader of a muslim state - being elected on two different occasions to the post of Prime Minister of Pakistan and being assassinated in 2007 when expected to win the post on a third occasion having just returned from exile.

At the time of her assassination (December 2007) which was after the 9/11 (September 2001) attack on the 'Twin Towers', but before Osama bin Laden the 'master mind' and leader of al-Qaeda had been found and killed in Pakistan (May 2011) where he is believed to have been living possibly since 2004, Benazir Bhutto was completing a book entitled 'Reconciliation: Democracy, Islam Democracy and the West.

In her book, Benazir Bhutto makes clear her view of Islam - a view given to her by her father - and while it is presented by, and in the language of a twice elected Prime Minister of a complex country, underneath it is a rather naive, child like view - were she a Christian you could imagine she would be thinking of God being an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.

Benazir clearly put her country, its people, their culture and democracy first - but then tried to weave a narrative for Islam (to which she was committed) that would make it fit - it is this narrative that seems to be the same one promulgated by Theresa May and then by David Cameron.

One can understand that Theresa May could well see Benazir Bhutto as a model for her own career - and to have a friend murdered in such circumstances, and then for her book to be posthumously published - this could well be the pivotal moment that I had guessed had to exist. And all just a couple of years before the Conservative party is elected to government, and although in government in a coalition, it was a coalition with a party who were themselves very anti-English, anti-British and in favour of diluting British culture with alien cultures, continuing the work done by the previous Labour administration over more than a decade under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to make the UK a 'rainbow nation' of 'multi-culturalism'.

Unfortunately Benazir Bhutto's attempts to spin Islam into a coherent model with Democracy and the West, as being peaceful and opposing the work of the jihads terrorists is laughable.

In the second chapter where she starts her apologetic for Islam, of the many failings, one of the most startling was her quoting part of the Koran calling for the subjugation of non-Muslims and then explaining:-
Although this verse may appear superficially problematical, a close reading shows that it does not advocate violence against people of the Book, only those who reject God and his teachings outright.

So even this most moderate of Muslims, seeking to reconcile Islam and the West, says that the Koran does call for violence against atheists - but Christians may be OK.

She also states that Jihad is not one of the Five Pillars of Islam - before qualifying that with a reference to Khariji theory - where (presumably) it is. Further on Jihad she states "If the duty is fulfilled by a part of the community it ceases to be obligatory on the others." - personally I do not find it reassuring that Muslims may only be restraining themselves from Jihad because someone else is doing it for them elsewhere...

Also (still only in the second chapter), she states that the Koran is against terrorism and the killing 'innocents' - but as the terrorists of ISIS claim they are at war, and non-Muslims are not 'innocent' they would seem to agree with her, but believe they are working within that 'rule'.

Regarding 'proof' that Mohammed values life she cites an edict that a Muslim may deny their faith verbally to save their life, as long as they keep the fail 'in their heart'. Again I am not reassured, as this suggests it would be Ok to kill someone if they didn't keep the faith in their heart(!).

There are many examples of this, arguments that may work in the mind of a girl who adores her father and his memory and dare not contradict his teachings, but not arguments that anyone would be foolish enough to present in a genuine Western Democracy - as they would crumble before they had cleared the speakers lips.

Unfortunately these are the arguments that have entered Theresa Mays head, and have been spread among the Conservative Party hierarchy.

This half baked misunderstanding of what was being presented and why may also explain the amazing rise of Sayeeda (Baroness) Warsi - presumably seen as a 'young Benazir' by the Conservative high-command, followed by her rapid fall when it was found there was nothing to her - but this would have been true even had she been a young Benazir, as the logic supporting Islam in the West with Democracy was always flawed.

UK MP's think Daesh "blues the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists" and that is good? - huh? - isn't English their first language?

UK MPs wrote to the BBC asking them to stop calling the new Caliphate 'Islamic State' and to call it 'Daesh' instead.

If you want the full background on where the word 'Daesh' comes from and why Islamic state may not like it have an item on this in this weeks broadcast (online till next Friday 10th July).

But the point of this blog post...

International Business Times have an article with a copy of the letter sent to the BBC by the MPs, and the BBC's reply.

I was stunned on reading the third paragraph where they promote the use of Daesh because it "blues the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists".

WTF is that supposed to mean? There is a common English phrase "blurs the line(s)" it could be they meant 'blurs' instead of 'blues' - but the point of the the phrase 'blurring lines' is that it makes things harder to differentiate/separate - and surely this is the opposite of what is intended! The idea is to separate Islamic State from other Muslims - not blur the lines between them?

What an insult to the English language that this letter should go out like this - and what a joke that it is trying to advise the BBC on the use of the English language!

Here are the links:

IBT article

MP's Letter to the BBC

BBC's Reply

Monday, 22 June 2015

The real reason purdah has uniquely been abandoned for the EU Referendum.

The 'for Britain' grouping are reformers. They don't want 'out' they want 'associate membership' that hasn't yet been publicly defined and can't be implemented in the time available before a referendum.

Matthew Elliott, leader of the 'for Britain' groupings, saw the 'Yes2AV' campaign fail because it was led by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) who were *against* AV, they wanted (and still want - the now obsolete) STV.

Matthew Elliott now wants to recreate this in the EUout campaign - by leading it to fail, by leading it as badly and half heartedly as ERS led Yes2AV.

Just before the referendum, if  the in campaign have not already clearly won, then the EU will offer 'associate membership' they will promise it as a 'vow' (as per the Scots independence 'vow' - the promise of Devo Max if scots voted 'in') and the reformers led by Elliott and 'for Britain' will switch from EUout to EUin - this is what they wanted all along (see

The reason purdah has uniquely been abandoned for this referendum is precisely so this last minute Damascene moment can be stage managed - in the last week or so this offer will be made and hugely publicised - and the UK public will be expected to vote 'in' in a promise (cast-iron no doubt). With (but this time) only UKIP still speaking up for out!

Sunday, 21 June 2015

You can't trust reformers to run the #EUout campaign - they may switch sides!

The EUout, Brexit, Brindependence whatever campaign to promote the Exit arguments in the EU Referendum has to be run by people who wanted out last year, want it this year, will want it next year and want it forever.

For instance the EU (rightly for its interests), if it had to choose, would rather have 110 new jobs in Germany than only 100 in the UK. But - I (in the UK's interests) would rather have the 100 in the UK - Germany can look out for itself. This kind of choice happens all the time and (obviously on a far greater scale, millions of jobs, millions of choices) each time the EU's interests is not the same as the UK interest unless by sheer chance.

The EU is a bad idea for the UK, no amount of reform will change the fact that its interests and our interests will often be different, and by being a member we will have to agree to go against out own best interest. This is the national and political equivalent of self-harm.
So clearly, no amount of 'renegotiation' can 'fix' the EU. Anyone who is waiting to see what Cameron gets offered is not really committed to ending this self harm and leaving, they want to know what sweeties they may be offered to keep harming the UK.

If these 'reformers' are allowed influence in the EUout campaign, at any time before the actual referendum they could be offered the right sweeties and switch sides to support staying in.

We can see two things from the Scottish Independence referendum - firstly that it is stupid to make such fundamental decisions based on short term issues, as can and do change, secondly that if you do so a 'Vow' of extra sweeties just before polling can swing the result. For both these reasons anyone who is or has waited to see what Cameron gets offered has ruled themselves out as credible leaders, organisers or activists of the EUout campaign.

The only credible politicians so far that could be part of EUout are #UKIPpers (present, and many former), Kate Hoey and Daniel Hannan.

Tuesday, 9 June 2015

Conservative MP's - Stitched up (un)like Kippers.

Conservative Eurosceptic MP's (if any exists) are now cornered. Either they stay quiet and so passively support Cameron until his renegotiation is complete, or they back Conservatives for Britain and actively support Cameron until his renegotiation is complete.

See whats been done there?

There is no space for any genuine EUout'er to show their face within the Conservative party - at least not until Cameron completes his renegotiation. But what then?

Cameron has said he will be supporting an 'in' vote regardless - he actually said following successful renegotiation, but he'd never admit his renegotiation has been unsuccessful, so it will be declared successful regardless of what it contains and he will back an in vote based on it...

At this point Conservative MP's will have a choice:

Either to back Cameron, close their eyes, cross their fingers and follow where ever Cameron leads them which will be a Cameron led government in or out of the EU.

Or they may chose to oppose Cameron - effectively saying they believe their leader, their elected Conservative Prime Minister is working against the best interests of the country! Whatever happens in the referendum, they will have no career under Cameron - and none in the Conservative party unless the vote was 'out' and one of their number replaced Cameron and followed this with an extensive night of the long knives against all pro-EU conservatives and supporters of Cameron...

The second option is not the Conservative way - anyone capable of such oppositon to the elected leader would have been weeded out well before being selected to run in the last general election.

This is why I believe Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell left the Conservative party - they saw these were the options and realised no Conservative MP would be going against Cameron.

As long as Cameron is the leader of the Conservative party, all Conservative MP's are #EUin.

Monday, 8 June 2015

Prepare for the EU Referendum to be postponed! UKIP will need to win the 2020 General Election to leave.

Cameron and the conservatives are making great play about waiting to see what 'renegotiation' delivers.

I have no doubt that, should an 'in' vote not look certain, then Cameron and the EU will declare treaty changes are required and will be made to meet some objective or other (the actual detail doesn't matter).

At this point it will be declared that it is stupid to have a referendum until the treaty changes have been formerly completed as we will not know for sure what in or out means. And so the referendum will be postponed until the changes are complete.

The treaty changes will not be completed while an 'out' vote is likely.

So there will be no referendum from the Conservatives until 'in' is certain.

Then the only way to get 'out' will be to give UKIP an absolute majority in the 2020 general election.

Sunday, 7 June 2015

Why the EU is fundamentally bad for the UK, and no amount of 'renegotiation' will make it any better.

The EU are acting rationally and sensibly for its own interests - but these are fundamentally different to the interests of the UK. 

'Greater Good'.

This is the core failing of the EU for UK interests.

Greater Good refers to the sacrifice of the good of someone/thing because overall it will be better for the group.

In a family, members may happily make sacrifices for other members of the family or for the family as a whole - although if what is asked/expected is too much then a member may leave or cut themselves off from the family or certain members of it.

As an independent legal entity/personality the EU operates for its own good - but this will often be at the expense of one or more of its members. In fact the only time it matters that the EU is a legal entity with governmental force is when it needs to make a member make a sacrifice for the greater good... otherwise no force/coercion would be required.

So being a member of the EU - instead of a trading partner - means it can oblige the UK to act against the UK's own interests because it benefits some other part of the EU. In fact the ability to oblige the UK to do so is the sole reason for the EU to have any power over the UK at all. As anything that benefited the UK, the UK would freely do anyway, whether or not a member!

The 'flip side' of this is that other countries may be made to act against their best interests to benefit the UK in some way.

Well, I don't want to force countries to do this. I believe it is fundamentally wrong for a countries government to force its people to act against their own interests. And I certainly don't want to benefit from the fruits of such evil coercion!

But even if I didn't have a moral stance on this - the EU is spreading into more and more disadvantaged countries - who have nothing to give up for 'the greater good', so the traffic/sacrifice can only be one way - away from the UK to other parts of the EU.

The EU are acting rationally and sensibly for its own interests - but these are fundamentally different to the interests of the UK.

This is why the UK should leave the EU - so we can act as we see fit for ourselves - not be coerced/obliged to act against our own best interests and be forced to make sacrifices that would not otherwise choose to do.

Thursday, 4 June 2015

BBC and MSM - Pavlovs news bell ringers. Go

It used to be people had genuine issues/concerns and they discussed them.

Then jounalists stepped in and recorded these issues, they got put into newspapers, other people read the newspapers and about the issues, some readers realised they had the same issues, some readers simply empathised with those who had the issues, some readers called for action on the issues. Often readers would discuss the issues they had read about.

This is how things were.

Over time some newspapers expanded, collecting stories from ever larger geographic areas, and were read by ever larger groups of people. Other newspapers didn't make the change or were squeezed out and those smaller, more localised newspapers closed.

With only big stories making it into the big newspapers people had more to discuss with people from a wider area - they shared the same news. Local stories were back to being only discussed amonst close groups of friends.

Around this time the newpapers realised that they were no longer reporting what people were already talking about, rather people were talking about what was in the newspapers. So  now, instead of the media reporting the peoples news, the media were telling the people what their news was.

People continued to react in the same way to the news they read - they discussed it, empathised with some of it and called for action on some of it. But they were no longer connected to the original issues, they were now connected with the newspapers storys about the issues.

Like pavlovs dogs drooling when they heard the bell even if there was no food - the newsreading public would react to a story even if there was no real issue behind it.

Monopoly or near monopoly on the media became a hugely powerful tool to manipulate the public - hence big media and poliitcs becoming intertwined. They choose the bell to ring and how loud, the public duly react as if there was really food to be had - even if there is none.

Despite the best efforts of the state and mainstream media, communicaiton has become partly democractised - particularly with the internet and the social media it supports.

There are some hicups - radicalisation and cultish activity has been induced in some by groups using the techniques once only available to the state/msm. But once communicaiton is fully open these technique will be useless, as people will be free to choose what influences they are (or are not) subject to - it will not be dictated or twisted by restricted access to news and communications.

My contribution to freeing people from the biased influence of the state, bbc and main stream media is the creation (still on going) of - an unregulated platform/channel for the free disemincation and communiation of information, education and entertainment with out the establishments so called progressive socialist agenda.

Monday, 1 June 2015

On 'EUSceptics' or EuroSceptics if you want to pretend EU is Europe.

There is no time for Cameron to get any treaty change from the EU.

Without treaty change there is no change worth the name - it can all change back again whenever the EU commission simply decide to change it.

So the battle lines are drawn right now.

In with the current treaties - including the hated Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

In light of this, anyone who isn't already signed up for 'out' cannot be trusted in the out campaign.

This is a reflection of the debasing of EUphile and EUsceptic - especially by the BBC - now an EUphile is 'In regardless', EUsceptic is 'In but could be improved'.

They have no word for anyone who thinks the UK should rule itself.

Sunday, 31 May 2015

Bored of Carswell spin - #UKIP are about straight talking - spit it out Douglas.

Douglas Carswell seems to be a principled man - however he does not seem to be a plain speaking man.

After various interviews (usually in interviews behind paywalls, not open to your average UKIP supporter) I am still not clear what he is saying.

I find this really bloody annoying as *plain speaking* has been the hallmark of UKIP under Nigel Farage's leadership.

So I want Douglas Carswell to make plain his views on a few issues...


1) Should the UK have border controls?
2) Should the UK have the ability to refuse entry to non UK citizens for any reason the UK sees fit?
3) Should the UK have the ability/right to use an individuals medical history when assessing whether to admit them or not?

Secondly (assuming all answer to the above are 'yes', so Carswell still in UKIP):-

4) Would you automatically excluded net 'takers' from entering the UK?

And I want *plain speaking* answers - I will happily interview him to get these plain speaking answers if necessary.

Douglas Carswell need to put up or shut up and leave UKIP.

How Times Change - "Alleged" and "Convicted" vs "Fact" and "Actuality" - this is tyranny.

Politicians, lawyers and judges now use the force of law to try to lead the public - this is tyranny.
Had a twitter exchange about Chad Evans - the footballer who was convicted of rape having had sex with an apparently willing partner who was later deemed to have been too drunk to have given meaningful consent.

Someone tweeted that Chad should not be allowed to return to football as it would make a rapist a role model. I wittily replied asking why would he not be a good role model showing rapists that there are better things to be doing? Like making a fortune as a pro-footballer. After all many ex-cons are held up as examples to other potential cons...

Anyway, a response came back saying that Chad was not a rapist.

It is clear that in the court of public opinion the jury is still out on this one, so I replied qualifying my use of the word "rapist" as someone convicted of rape.

Then the odd thing struck me that inspired this post... not so long ago saying someone was a "convicted" felon gave the accusation/claim more weight, it was intended too separate an accusation from a proven fact. However, now "convicted" is being used to give an accusation/claim less weight it is intended to separate fact from legal judgement.

Abuse of law by clever lawyers and politicians is destroying the credibility of our system - the law should follow considered popular opinion, that is what it is there to enforce - that is what a jury is intended to represent. However politicians, lawyers and judges now use the force of law to try to lead the public - this is tyranny.