Friday, 25 November 2016

The Truth About Jo Cox and Thomas Mair...

Their mistake was that Thomas Mair was more bitter and determined than they expected and the people present at the surgery - whilst massively brave - were not strong enough to subdue the shooter after the first shot.

What was the whole thing all about?

Grab that bacofoil and start folding, then start reading...

Thomas Mair was a loner and a bit unstable, he was easy prey to evil elements who may have need of a 'spectacular' at some point to give the public and politics a 'nudge' if they weren't going the right way... the 'right way' being what ever kept those evil elements supplied with wealth and power.

The UK was on track to vote to leave the EU - this was well known officially, while the usual fake poll results said otherwise, this was just to demoralise the leave camp and keep the remainers motivated.

Among Thomas Mair's personal library of Nazi related books there were some unusual items and some entirely out of place items. One such entirely out of place was a book on the assassination of JFK, of the unusual items was half a shelf of books on Nazi head wear and helmets.

Jo Cox gave every appearance of being a 'bright young thing' despite holding extremist and deeply oppressive and authoritarian political views - she was photogenic with a young family. Indeed, and ironically, the very model used in Nazi propaganda promoting their totalitarian master race.

Thomas Mair was pretty much the complete opposite, scraping through life having missed any opportunity that had come his way (assuming any had come his way). No proper job, a council house that the council wanted to move him out of, no friends and just a few relatives some of whom he was not on good terms with.

What better 'spectacular' than to have the bright young thing grievously attacked by the drop out - the dirty little Englander attacking the divine Europa. Associating Britain and the UK with failure, disappointment, poverty and violence and the EU with an angelic vision being torn down by bitterness from the past?

How might this mega-nudge (shove) help the remainers campaign to stay in the EU? It would be a landslide for them, as everyone not entirely committed to reasserting liberty in the UK would seek to distance themselves from this monster and offer their supplication to the angel - and do so by voting 'remain'.

That was the plan the evil forces hatched - they had a victim and a potential perpetrator, they simply had to persuade the perpetrator and then bring the two together.

There were two shooting incidents in the JFK assassination the shooting of JFK and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald with a single shot to the head at close range - the epitome of an assassination.

This is the vision Mair was sold as per the JFK book, that he would approach the MP fire a single shot and it would all be over, a 'clean' and decisive assassination - which he could then use to promote whatever message it was that he wanted to draw attention to, foolishly convinced that he would be helping whatever cause it was that he was promoting. Or maybe simply to go down in history, to finally make a mark in life - however dirty a mark it may be.

However, this scenario didn't entirely match the evil forces real intention. Their real plan was to make Jo Cox an angel on earth, the new Lady Di but still alive to wield her new found power indefinitely, she was not to die, she was to be grievously injured in the attack but to continue to campaign with all the new found power that the sympathy and disgust would bring to her.

So they armed Thomas Mair - with the least dangerous firearm they could devise - a tiny, .22, cut down, single shot, bolt action, 'pistol'. Difficult and slow to reload, smallest calibre, lowest power bullets available, and to top it off, cut down to such a length that the bullet would hardly have started moving by the time it left the barrel... Fully expecting any wound it created would be entirely survivable.

Their mistake was that Thomas Mair was more bitter and determined than they expected and the people present at the surgery - whilst massively brave - were not strong enough to subdue the shooter after the first shot.

When Thomas pulled the trigger he expected it to all be over - like the Dallas shooting, bang, victim down, job done, surrender and prepare for fame. But the bullet, so under-powered by the careful engineering on the gun and ammunition, bounced off her head - causing an external wound, but no penetrating damage, certainly not to the brain.

In the confusion this caused he had time to reload and shoot  twice more, to little more effect - but he also had a dagger with him and had time to use it, just about over coming his aversion to blood he made many small stabbing wounds,  rather ineffectually with no single decisive fatal wound but enough that his victim would eventually bleed to death after he had left the scene.

A disaster for all concerned it would seem - but not quite. While it is a disaster for the individuals directly involved with at least two lives thrown away, for the dark forces it was just a blip, a small set back, they still have others to call on (wittingly or otherwise), to block the referendum result and now we see them arriving - Blair, Campbell, Branson, Major and more.

And should the referendum result not be honored? They will still be there - Soros, Gates and others known and unknown to us... their power isn't disappearing anytime soon, not unless we seize the opportunity and take it all back...


This isn't a serious academic work - if you need to be told this, then get off the internet now!!
But, I don't want to mislead people - so...

1) Ruby did not kill Oswald with a single shot to the head, it was a point blank shot to the body with a .38

Saturday, 19 November 2016

No, parliament do not need to vote on #brexit #article50 - here's why.

When I first heard the result of the court case over invoking article 50, the courts position seemed pretty reasonable.

I set out my position in another post.

However, more information has come up and I am persuaded differently...

The basic case was that that only parliament can take away rights that parliament created. And that invoking 50 would lead a loss of rights, so parliament must be consulted.

However, the key here is that those rights were not created in our parliament! The law allowing the EU to create rights was passed on our parliament, but not the laws creating those rights.

If the EU changes its law to create or destroy rights out parliament would not get a vote on it because they are 'treaty rights' not 'statutory rights' and as such are under the control of crown prerogative (government) not parliament.

The governments legal team had a draft of this arguement, but never used it in court. It not clear why.

So I beleive the court was wrong, but the government let them get it wrong...

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

State of play #Brexit - what the judge lady let slip.

If this judges view is correct, then brexit may be delayed indefinitely unless we replace our MP's and government with one that is committed to brexit. Simply replacing MP's in not enough - this Conservative government under David Cameron and Theresa May are as much barriers to Brexit as the Liberal Democrats are - just more sneaky and underhand about it.

I get so fed up with the drip, drip from the media - giving half a story to support their headline but making no attempt to genuinely inform.

Anyway that is why I launched RadioFreeUK ( - to provide an alternative media channel for UK libertarians... or at least UK bods who aren't raving progressive (read: regressive) Social Justice Warriors. But enough of that on with the show (or blog...).

Under Theresa May Brexit has stalled because the EU Referendum Bill was very badly written for those who support brexit. As far as I can see this was a deliberate act of sabotage by David Cameron and his Conservatives to act as a safety back stop in case they lost the referendum - which they did. It is unfortunate that those we would expect to cover this didn't pick up on it... But now we are where we are.

The Government have been challenged in court over whether they can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and so give notice that the UK is leaving the EU.

In the first court three judged unanimously ruled that the Government cannot invoke Article 50, and that it must be explicitly agreed by the whole of Parliament (all our MP's), despite us having already directly said that we want it done.

An appeal is going directly to the Supreme Court (skipping the court of appeal as it is such an important case, it is going directly to the organ grinders) where the case will be heard by a dozen judges.

Despite earlier claims of 'confidence' in its own case, the government now appears to be less confident and if flapping around looking for other ways of appearing to support the invoking of Article 50.

As it happens I wrote to my MP (a front bench government bod) calling for a one line bill saying 'this house supports the government implementing the will of the people and invoking Article 50 at the earliest convenient opportunity' or similar, it would be a brave MP who voted this down... My MP suggested such a bill was unnecessary, we shall see...

The headline that prompted this blog post was regarding one of the dozen judges that will hear the appeal in the Supreme Court making comments on the case in a speech to students abroad.

Her comments are being drip fed to us by the media.Initially it looked like she only mentioned it in passing, but later drips show she went into some detail (I want a full transcript!).

The big issue she raised was that as only parliament can make and repeal UK domestic law. And while treaties don't usually impact domestic law, so can be entered into and broken by the government using royal prerogative, the 1972 EU Legal supremacy act apparently means EU treaties do impact domestic law so need parliaments assent.

She suggested the implication of this may be that the 1972 act may have to be repealed before Article 50 is invoked. Repealing the 1972 act itself is quite simple, but the consequences of doing so are potentially extensive. Theresa May's original plan was to move all EU law into UK law to mitigate these consequences (200,000 pages and growing of new law). However the Judge has suggested that each individual law may need to be itemised for debate by parliament before being accepted/amended/rejected - a process that could take many years, and as the EU creates new law endlessly (a reason for leaving), it may be a never ending process - and it may all need to be done before Article 50 can be invoked.

I suspect this was the plan all along - and the pro-EU establishment knew this when the 72 act was created and have lied to us all along about it being a simple vote to repeal it 'if we wanted to'.

If this judges view is correct, then brexit may be delayed indefinitely unless we replace our MP's and government with one that is committed to brexit. Simply replacing MP's in not enough - this Conservative government under David Cameron and Theresa May are as much barriers to Brexit as the Liberal Democrats are - just more sneaky and underhand about it.

Sign up here to get inspiration to write to your MP! And/or Sign up to get info on Brexit events! I run a load of lists - do sign up to at least one - having made contact, it would be a waste not to keep it!!
Join a list - keep in touch at

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Letter to my MP (conservative, junior governent post) - re #Brexit debacle.

I have started a club to help encourage and inspire others to write to their MP's - hints/tips/ideas - why not join the mailing list?

Tuesday 8 November 2016


I am very disappointed with the turn of events around brexit.

I wrote to you before the referendum decrying the fact David Cameron and his Conservative government had apparently been making no plans for the eventuality of the vote going for leave.

Now after much (avoidable) delay while such plans are created, the unthinkable has become thinkable. The small hardcore pro EU, anti democratic element of society have started openly talking about ignoring the result of the referendum.

The appeal has been based on the fact that further legislation appears to be needed before article 50 is invoked - a fact that was (apparently) well known to parliament and MP's all along (being explicitly referenced in the explanatory notes relating to the bill), a fact that Mr Cameron and his government would have been well aware of. From what I have seen and read myself this seems (to such a layman) an entirely reasonable interpretation of the situation (although it may well be subject to other law I am not aware of).

Mr Cameron was prime minister when the AV referendum bill was created and the issue of further legislation was clearly an important point and must have been much discussed. And he must have been aware of this fact when the EU referendum bill was drawn up and later when he falsely stated that 'the government will implement your decision' - as this was a promise he knew he could not make, and a false promise that no MP highlighted or brought to the publics attention to at the time.

It can only be believed that Mr Cameron and his Government deliberately included this flaw in the EU referendum bill as a 'backstop' in the even of leave winning against his own wishes. And the whole of parliament failed the British people in not removing this flaw before the bill was passed.

For the government and parliament to put this right at quickly as possible and avoid public unrest an immediate motion should be passed stating that 'this house unreservedly support the public's decision to leave the EU, and for the government to invoke article 50 at the earliest opportunity and no later than ....'.

I know such a vote was proposed in the recent debate on brexit, and dismissed out of hand, however while the government may be content to sit on their hands for now, the public may be less so.

Such a division would mean the public can be fully aware of where their MP's stand on this issue, and brexit can continue with no further diversionary fuss, and end this additional and extended 'uncertainty' which everyone agrees is a bad thing. Should the division fail the whole situation is no worse that it is now.

For your reference, I have written a short blog referring to the relevant documents and statements.

Yours sincerely,

Monday, 31 October 2016

Just a couple of facebook posts I made on Raheem Kassams 'Make UKIP Great Again' page... before he quit :(

The Brexit winning UKIP has done its job - 'steady as she goes', 'safe pair of hands' will just mean it drifts off into twilight years of gradual (or very, very rapid!) decline. Right now there is a huge backlash against the social justice warrior/politically correct malaise that has been sitting over us for years. Students starting at university are seeing where the previous generation of lefty minded debt laden students have ended up - and they don't want to go there... And they have seen Mizzou in the USA on social media and don't want to end up there (if you don't know it, google 'mizzou closing' or 'mizzou enrollment' - google hides it if you just google 'mizzou'... ). Now is the time to bridge the pre-PC generation with the post-PC generation - and create a movement for now, and the future. New blood is a risk - but its a risk you have to take to have a future. If UKIP is to be that bridge and create that generation spanning movement back to 'normality' and a bright new brexit future - I believe it has to have fresh new blood at the top. If Raheem wins, I may even rejoin UKIP - but don't let that put you off!

Raheem will do will with the online crowd - but off-line I am not sure anyone has heard of him! If people really want him elected, they need to evangelise to their branches - get those MUGA crib sheets and hymn sheets out there!

Theresa May? Socialist. She won't get a good #Brexit.

(I found this item on my computer, and couldn't see that I'd published it anywhere... so here it is!)

Theresa May's conference speech made pretty clear that she is a socialist - to the left of Tony Blair, somewhere in Gordon Brown teritory.

She called for government intervention in many areas - perhaps forgetting that government only has the resources and means to intervene if it has first taken those resources from us, the people who she now thinks needs state aid.

As Milton Freeman was keen to point out - pretty much every avoidable problem is cause by state intervention - if not by virtue of the state having taken our money so rendering us in need of its return!

So the centre and centre right cannot trust her in politics generally, and on Brexit having delayed the invoking of article 50 for as long as she could, she has now said that at the end of the two year Article 52 notice period, the 1972 EU Law Supremacy act will be repealed and all EU law in force at the time will be transferred en-mass into UK law.

She confirmed on the Marr show that this would include the law on bananas, sausages and all the other nonsense that is not only nonsense in its own right, but has no place in the law of land. Excepting the most fundamental of safety standards, there is no case for a national law on the shape of a banana or the recipe for a sausage. Keeping EU law would also keep the UK in the common fisheries policy a policy that has already destroyed many British coastal jobs and massacred our fish stocks. If we do not leave the policy on brexit, it is implausible to think the tortuous exercise of extricating ourselves piece by piece will ever happen - and our fishing industry will entirely disappear, as will all of our fish.

We have two years now to identify what specific legal changes we need post Brexit, if it cannot be done in these two years then it is foolish to imagine that it will ever be done - and the 200,000+ pages of EU law will sit in our law books for ever. You surely know of the Barnett Formula - it is the formula used to redistribute wealth between the nations of the UK - it was created as a bodge, a stop gap, pragmatically accepted as everyone knew it was a one off and would be reviewed before the next years budget was calculated... now about 50 years on it has not been reviewed despite everyone agreeing it is flawed. EU law will be the same - the government will never do anything unless it sees profit or benefit for itself in doing so -- it will have no incentive to review EU law unless there is pressing urgent business and even then it will have to happen alongside 'business as usual' and whatever madcap scheme it promised in its manifesto and is desperate to roll out.

This EU Red Tape is exactly what holds the EU back now, and so will hold us back in future if we keep it. The EU Single Market is actually a protection mechanism - it allows the EU to have its red-tape without being destroyed economically by leaner more agile economies. For the UK to venture outside the EU while keeping this Red-Tape, these EU laws it will be economic suicide. Like making a parachute landing behind enemy lines, then refusing to relase the harness and insisting on having the canopy dragging behind you as you look for safety.

It should also be remembered that the UK parliament has in fact had sovereignty all along... it simply chose not to use it -- the '72 act was entirely voluntary and could have been repealed at any time. But our MP's refused to so and blamed the EU for all our woes - but further refused to have a referendum on membership deliberately to frustrate the will of the people. It is our MP's that are called to heel by the EU referendum result. And having called them to heel we cannot let they run away again - we cannot leave any responsibility for action in their hands as we know from bitter experience they will neglect it.

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Shrugging off state law/justice - the sovereignty of a jury of your peers to nullify any/all law.

Jury activism must put an end to judicial activism and an end to stupid politically correct, victim-less crime.

We all like to pretend to believe that out parliament is sovereign (maybe some do genuinely believe this to be true!), however as long as we have trial by jury this is not actually true.

As long as we have jury trials, no law can be enforced other than by the consent of the jury - they have absolute authority to decide whether an accused man deserves to be punished or walk free. It is long established in English law that the jury is entirely unaccountable to the judicial system for their decisions. However courts, judges, the legal system and politicians are very keen to end this, an Englishman's ultimate appeal to natural justice as seen by a jury of his peers. It is vital that no free man lets this liberty go - only a jury can ultimately decide if you have done wrong - anyone else is simply guessing what a jury may say and is simply crystal ball gazing.

No juries decision is ever perverse - it is always correct (based on the information presented) if it appears flawed, then the flaw is in the person observing it!

Jury activism must put an end to judicial activism and an end to stupid politically correct, victim-less crime.

Shrugging off the states nasty sin taxes - Alcohol and Tobacco.

Tax is just tax is just theft. Spinning a story around it so you can save face by pretending to believe it is for a good reason is just part of the fiction of our current every day modern life.

Alcohol and Tobacco are used to justify huge extortion by the state, much to be fed to the tax parasites in unwanted and unnecessary so called 'public health' activities.

So, how do you shrug off this imposition on your freedom to pursue your own happiness (good call USA!)?

Simple - DIY.

Alcohol is not difficult or complex to produce, as any wine/beer makers shop will demonstrate. A bottle of top quality bottle conditioned bitter for around .50p a pint, Lager not far off the same - and no duty to pay on home brew for your own consumption (and your friends/family of course!).

I even posted a crash intro on how do brew your own beer a few years back!
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:

Wine, is no more difficult - actually is probably easier now that you can 'bottle' into 5L 'wine boxes'! The equipment can be had for less that £20 ( - a 5 gallon kit for less than £25 - and either save your commercial bottles for reuse, or pick up some (reusable) boxes (

Your own tobacco takes a bit more planning, as it will be over a year before you can smoke your own grown from seed! However it is possible even in the UK's climate, you just need a bit of growing space (as they are large plants) and somewhere to hang the leaves to cure once cropped.

I don't smoke, but grew a crop just to try it out - it was pretty easy, I got plenty of leaves, but I did fail to get any seed for the next crop, but it only costs a few quid - so that is not a disaster. You'll need about 50 plants to grown enough tobacco to feed a 20 a day habit.

Strictly (due to EU introduced law) duty is payable on tobacco even if you grew it an smoke it yourself - but it is not payable until it is cut/shredded to be a smoke-able substance, and there is no practical way of paying (or the revenue collecting) such small amounts, so you'll almost certainly not be getting a knock on the door.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Non transferable, zero cost, life time lease on a free Englishman's acre of land - Citizens Income.

It cannot be that man has to be immoral. It must be that a (self) blameless life can be lived.

An average man needs an acre of reasonable land to live self-sufficiently by his own efforts of about 20 hours a week.

If a man is not to be born a slave to others, it must be expected that even with impoverished parents, when he comes off age he can live by his own efforts without the indulgence of others (even his impoverished parents who have nothing to spare for him).

Clearly he requires an acre of land to set his life account balance to zero - so he may (if he chooses) live his life without having call or being a burden on others, nor they on him.

With technology it is clear that one man farming an acre (or more realistically) an independent family of five farming five acres may not be the most efficient method of farming, it may be that the land could be more productive if farmed on a larger scale.

However, it is for the current owners to decide if they would allow this - and it would be stupid to allow someone else to farm their land unless they receive at least as much produce as had they farmed it themselves, and shelter. The price of a perpetual supply of food cannot be less than the supply of perpetual food. And if land ownership is transferable, the price must reflect that it is for ever, not just the life time of the current occupants.

Each free Englishman should receive a non transferable life time lease on one (notional) acre of English soil. Which, if circumstances permit he may choose, instead, to receive the rent from - assured that this will feed and house him. His land generating his citizens income - no favours asked our received.

Who will give him this acre? The free people of England shall. As pointed out right at the start to deprive someone of this is to enslave them, and to jealously guard the tools of an others slavery can have no moral foundation. 80,000,000 people, 80,000,000 (notional) acres - one is yours for life, more than that you must rent from others...

(Note the possibility of one acre per person is a fortunate outcome of the size and population of the UK - and while many acres are not farm-able, other revenues have not been included, nor the seas and their sticks of fish).

In practice each free Englishman receives an equal share of the gross national rent - this would be a citizens income, meaning no centralised benefits would be required.

Existing 'land owners' would need to consider whether they will pay the rent for what they currently control or relinquish that control to others who may want to rent it and are prepared to pay more to do so.

It may be that little changes in practice, other than a rational, practical and moral basis for the citizens income being established..

Banking - Interest Free Loans - The End of Usury.

I am surprised I haven't blogged about this before...

Interest free lending is often misunderstood - and it is assumed that there is no return to the lender, so it must be a waste of time, subsidised or bogus in some other way. However, this is not the case.

Interest free lending means the lender is rewarded in a way other than with interest.

The best set-up I have come across is Jak Bank - the principle is that you can borrow money for a period, but in return you must lend money for a period.

So you may deposit £100 for six months - and this will give you 600 borrowing credits (less a little for admin) which entitles you borrow anything from £1 for 600 months through to £600 for one month.

If you have established a good savings record, you may borrow beyond your earned credits - of course this is subject to some risk/trust etc but that is true of all life - however as loans should not be for speculating, it would be expected that they would mostly be secured on some asset in case of default.

This is effectively giving you a 'time shift' to manage your cash flow, and no one is taking profit, just covering costs. What is not to like?

Friday, 21 October 2016

#Shruggers - shrugging off the state one shrug at a time.

I am not a fan of political labels - man has a tendency to start with a useful label for something, then they get lazy, forget where they started and start trying to fit the label...

I'd broadly accept the labels Libertarian, Ancap (Anarcho Capitalist), Georgist, Anarchist, Conservative, Capitalist, Humanitarian - but only because there are elements associated with these tags that match some of what I believe -- looking into the roots of such labels an be useful as there may be more information relevant to your views.

However, I'd make no effort to fit a label - the "you aren't a real..." or "If you were a real..." don't wash. If you think I am not, you may well be right in your own mind in your own terms... but so what? I have my own beliefs/positions generally (eventually) formed from first principles - I am unique, I am me, I am not trying to fit anyone else's mould, I don't have to consult a book to find out what I should profess to believe (or pretend to know!).

It is almost certain that no individual has ever failed to contradict themselves at some point in time - whether based on new information, a change in circumstances or just the passage of time - so how stupid would it be to cling to one version of what they said and venerate that above what they may have said at another time.

A label is a map, it may or may not be accurate, it may or may not be detailed, it is almost certain not to entirely fulfil all of your requirements.


I am now creating a label - the Shruggers, I am a Shrugger. Linked to Ayn Rands 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Going Galt'. Shrugging off the dead hand of the state one shrug at a time. And going until the state has no hold on me at all and simply withers and dies.

All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

There are many shrugs to make, And I don't have them all planned, but bit by bit they will be made - and on the last day the state will have to make the choice as to whether to destroy me or die.

Areas to shrug that I have thought and blogged about include: Parliament, Media, Money, Banking, Healhtcare, Military, Land, Food, Shelter - my thoughts can no doubt be improved upon - but good enough is good enough to get started.


People can create, now we can mix into a station. is the seed of a model.

Gold backed? Nah! Use gold directly!

Zero interest lending.




I am setting up Real Brighton Anarchists - - a group to get together and discuss liberty, ancap stuff - and hopefully get input on my ideas above - maybe there will be some more shruggers soon...

Sin Taxes (tobacco and alcohol duty)


State Law/Justice

Monday, 17 October 2016

Money - Real Money - Not the Governments Wothless tokens - Gold and Silver coins, it's time for a comeback...

Buying precious metals in small, precise units has an overhead compared to the raw metal price, and metals other than gold attract VAT, but that is payment for convenience.

Gold Bars

This represents about £1000 - 25, 1g gold bars.
Supplied in a sheet, they can be broken off individually (still wrapped) so about £40 each.

Silver Bars

1oz about £20 each.

Need less that £20 ? - there is always bitcoin or other electronic crypto-currency.

Worried about forgery? No need to try to bend it with your teeth, there are hand held units for checking now... 
Sell them as silver/gold for government currency? What would you want to do that for? Exchanging between crypto-currency and precious metals keeps your money away from the government... as it should be.

But what happens (say) down the pub when you get a round of drinks in?... Well just ran a tab and pay at the end, or go Japanese style izakaya - fixed price for a fixed time, drinks and/or food included. There are solutions to everything.

Why use a gold (or other) backed currency when you can use the raw material directly?

Gold and Silver coins - it's time for a comeback...

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Law, NAP, Socialism, Climate Change, No these aren't theories of everything, don't make them your god.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything .

G.K. Chesterton

Man is a problem solver - those that aren't have been naturally selected out of existence.

Man's thinking power is limited, to make the most of it man likes (find it useful) to reduce solutions to their smallest, most efficient, most widely applicable form.

Generic rules of thumb, generalised equations, ultimately 'theories of everything'.

While this is a useful (and successful) trait it does have flaws, in that man may tend to see pattern where there is none, or apply a rule beyond its applicable domain.

Applying a pattern beyond its applicable domain is a fault that can be very difficult to correct - as once the subject believes they are correct they will question pretty much every thing else first, leaving their simple belief or faith till the very last. This may take a very long time, or be impossible to complete in a life time.

Some examples jump straight to mind (I must have seen a pattern before I even knew it) religion, the non aggression principal, climate change, socialism and law.

Religion (towards a god) is such is clear example, it may be that all these things could actually be described as religions.

Law is probably the most damaging of my examples as it permeates all our lives, and is backed with huge force that is almost impossible to avoid. The acolyte of law is most easily identified by an unwillingness to accept that any right is above the law.

I consider the 'right life' to mean no self-blame can be attached to a man doing all in his power to preserve his own life - even if it means many others die as a result. So a man on death-row could not be blamed for killing all the staff in an attempt to escape.

I consider the right to 'free speech' to allow a man to share any thought that occurs to him and that he chooses to share. Literal speech (talking) live or in recordings, and written communications are included in this without reservation.

Where 'free speech' becomes 'freedom of expression' it is for others to define what they mean by 'expression'.

And while a man is free to offer his thoughts to be shared, no one is obliged to receive them (but equally should not be prevented from doing so should they so wish).

A legal acolyte will likely take issue with these two situations - while I believes the law (to be complete and consistent) should say rights are beyond its domain, they are not beyond its domain simply because they law says so, the law is reflecting this situation, not defining it.

Law is not a theory of everything, do not make it your god.

The Libertarians non aggression principle (NAP) has become a theory of everything to many, causing great harm by being so.

 The principle states that one should not initiate aggression - and by this alone liberty will prevail. However the problem then comes in defining aggression. Once linked to 'property rights' (the transferable right to exclusive control of an item) actions against ones property become aggression and so the theory of everything becomes that all libertarian human interaction is property/aggression based - so all negative human interaction must be a result of breaching the NAP, and we get the social justice warrior world where 'micro aggression' is seen in everything one does not like (words, deeds, colours, shapes everything is a candidate) and as an aggression is now on a par with physical assault and theft etc...

NAP/Property rights is not a theory of everything, don't make it your god.

Socialism is an imposition on others of a political and social system that denies individuals the right to determine their own lives - as any totalitarian system cannot tolerate competition it must stop progress and development - and if life is not about new experience then it is nothing.

Socialism not a theory of every thing do not make it your god.

Climate change... If you have read this far I hope I do not have to much expand on this. There cult of climate science - where it has been decided that man is destroying himself, and each must be micro managed throughout their existence. So evidence is gathered and it's quality assessed how closely it matches the conclusion already decided.

Climate change is not a theory of every thing, don't make it your god.

One of the highest achievements in showing your devotion to your god is to take what otherwise seems the most perverse, irrational, illogical action but which is apparently justified by your faith alone. Suicidal terrorism leaps to mind, none of these new religions have definitive books of rules, they are all works in progress, there is no limit to what they may lead, or what they may lead their acolytes to do.

It seems man needs faith and if God has been banned, will apply it elsewhere - I suggest God (at least the post Jesus Christian god)  was a far, far safer conductor with which to ground this human urge.

Friday, 14 October 2016

Step One to Liquid Democracy?

Step one to liquid democracy...

Let individual constituents cast their vote directly (or by proxy) in parliamentary divisions....

It might be that it could not be entirely anonymous - but a constituent, on any division, giving due notice should be enabled to indicate their vote directly.

For every (say) 60,000 individual votes cast, an additional 'MPs' vote maybe created and counted.

Without some thought it is hard to say if the voters MP's vote should be reduced in weight accordingly - this has merit and drawbacks, but given the arbitrary nature of support for MP's generally this may not be any issue whatsoever.

On the face of it individual votes may seem unwieldy - but in practice would probably resolve to a number of permanent non-geographic constituencies of like minded (but geographically separated) voters or resolve to MP's ensuring their constituents were well enough satisfied as to not bother to vote independently - or a combination of the two.

Worst case is the USA situation where representatives pander to stable majorities and energise them by beating up on the minorities - however with direct voting the minorities would not go unrepresented...

Looks good to me... comments/discussion welcome...

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Theresa May's #Bexit plans will sink the UK.

UK can fly outside the EU - but...

The EU Single Market exists to protect inefficient EU businesses from external competition - but it is not entirely the EU businesses who are at fault for their inefficiency.

Much of the inefficiency - and so over pricing - is due to EU red-tape and over-regulation. In decades when IT and tech should have been streamlining business 'business at the speed of thought' - the EU have been soaking up any such efficiency gains with evermore pointless regulation - much of which was then gold plated by the UK's own politicians/mandarins when being implemented here in the UK.

Leaving the EU gives us back control or our laws and trade and borders - but we will only benefit from this when the newly returned control is actually used to strip away the many, many layers or anti-competitive, bureaucratic red-tape, controls, directives, standards, that needlessly drag on EU companies.

Unfortunately, Theresa May has indicated that she is to do exactly the opposite of this - she has said that all EU law (over 200,000 pages of it) will be transferred wholesale into UK law, immediately added to - and then over many years is expected to be gradually reviewed.

This will kill the UK - we will have floundered and drowned before even a tiny fraction of the baggage has been removed, it will drag us down.

To get the benefit of Brexit, the UK must have a lean and agile economy - an economy as dynamic, flexible and imaginative as the people of the UK have always been when the state has got out of their way.

Theresa May must be made to change her mind - so by default all EU law should cease on Brexit. Only specific, new, necessary law, compatible with the UK's system of justice should be created - we have two years to specify this law, ready to come into force when Brexit is complete on the expiry of the Article 50 notice period. But this change of mind must be rapid, as time will run out if it is not started ASAP.

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

As Corbyn takes Labour far-left, May takes Conservatives mid-left. - all socialists now.

Don't know about you but this reads 100% Labour (pre-Corbyn obvs) to me...

LibLabCon? Can't get a fag paper between them as the hokey cokey leader of another party once said.


Dear Reader,

Today I set out details of my vision of a country that works for everyone.

The referendum result in June was not just a vote to leave the EU - it was about something much broader. It was about a deep, justified sense that for many people the world works well for a privileged few but not for them.

Our society should work for everyone, but if you can’t afford to get onto the property ladder, or your child is stuck in a bad school, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

Our economy should work for everyone, but if your pay has stagnated for several years in a row and fixed items of spending keep going up, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

Our democracy should work for everyone, but if you’ve been trying to say things need to change for years and your complaints fall on deaf ears, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

We’ve achieved a lot over the last six years to tackle this: the deficit down, more people into work than ever before, the lowest paid taken out of income tax, a new National Living Wage, one and a half million more children in good or outstanding schools, 3 million new apprenticeships.

But more still needs to be done to put government at the service of ordinary working class people – focusing on the good that government can do.

In practice that means things like:

  • Reforming corporate governance - to be announced later in the year – to ensure all businesses are run accountably and with the long-term interest clearly in mind.
  • A proper industrial strategy - identifying the industries that are of strategic value to our economy and supporting and promoting them through trade, tax, infrastructure, skills, training, and research and development policies.
  • Building more houses - meaning that more people have the opportunity to buy a home of their own and that less of the monthly family budget is poured into accommodation costs.
  • Strengthening workers’ rights - as announced on Saturday, we’re going to review our laws to make sure that, in our modern and flexible economy, people are properly protected at work.
  • Bold new education reforms - so that every child has the chance to go to a good, local school and that they are not held back by where they live or how much money their parents have. The Government will end the ban on new grammar schools – as well as a range of other reforms to create more good school places.
  • Getting immigration under control - leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to control the numbers of people coming here from Europe and the Government will be consulting over the next few months on steps to reduce non-EU migration too across work and student visa routes. 
  • Continuing to invest in our NHS - £10 billion extra over this Parliament, which is only possible because of the strong economic foundations we have built. We believe in public service. We believe in investing in and supporting the institutions that make our country great.
  • Protecting those who cannot work - we will end the mandatory retesting of work capability for those with chronic health conditions that only induces stress but does nothing at all to help.
While Labour remain divided and divisive, completely out of touch with the concerns of ordinary families, it is only our party who can make these changes happen. Political visions are not enough on their own - you need to put the hours and the effort in too. But if you do, great things can happen and great changes can occur. Let's rise to this moment together.

Please contribute to our campaign to build a better Britain.

Thank you for your support,
Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
Theresa May
Prime Minister

The #UKIP rollercaster - that was wild! Lets go round again!!

Dianne James has decided not to take up the Leadership of UKIP - a role she ran for and was elected to.

There are some oddities about the candidate list for the Leadership, but ignoring those for now...

Dianne's reasons for backing down are primarily cited around not have authority in the party, not having enough support from the UKIP MEP's and feeling threatened in public (she was spat at on a train shortly after being elected).

The things Dianne cites are exactly what Nigel Farage put up with for many years. Those are all aspects of being the leader of a popular but not yet 'mainstream' party. She should have been well aware of all of these things before putting herself forwards for the role.

It has been suggested (by Arron Banks) that these are also exactly the things that persuaded Nigel to step down (after many years) having achieved his main ambition of getting the people a say over their membership of the UK.

On those candidate list oddities mentioned earlier, it was reported that Dianne's payment and forms to be a candidate were received about 15 minutes before the deadline, this is after Steven Woolf's payment was made, but before his application arrived (20 minutes after the deadline, so excluding him from the contest).

My supposition is that Steven got cold feet at the last moment and decided not to run, his backers needed a new candidate and had Dianne lined up (an application needs something like 50 assentors from 20 different branches, so cannot be done at the last minute) so she was put into the contest and Steven put his papers in late to exclude himself with out losing face. So Dianne had not really expected to run (or though she was not running as Steven was) so was not fully prepared and was called up at the last minute...

However this suggests that pretty much no one really wants to lead UKIP! In fact the only person determined and thick skinned and ambitious enough right now seems to be Douglass Carswell (or his proxy) a man who is blamed by many for being a major and final straw that led to Nigel Farage actually stepping down...

I think UKIP is destined to split - but will the existing infrastructure will be with Carswell for his new model party, or with Faragistas (as a libertarian or soft labour party?) and will those who break away simply scatter, join other parties or form a new one?

If Carswell does form his party (and doesn't instantly fold it back in the conservative party) it may well attract many Conservatives (including Daniel Hannan) which would weaken the conservative party - no bad thing as boundary changes alone suggest they will get an additional 80 seats in the next parliament, and the melt down of Labour under Corbyn should deliver them yet more.

This would make Theresa May, the Snow Queen with unfettered oppressive power in this country - making an independent UK as sad and tragic place as Eire was under deValera when they got their independence, instead of a place of joy an happiness.

With a weakened conservative party - split between the Conservatives and Carswells New Model UKIP Party - and a split Labour party it would be prime time for a new party to emerge - something that Arron Banks is rumoured to have considered, especially as he has deep pockets and an email list of several million pro independence bods as part of his Leave.Eu organisation.

Unfortunately, from my point of view, the soft left would be the 'best' place for a new party to be positioned to ensure it picked up as much labour support as possible as they desert Cobyns Labour party, and reject whatever it is that Blair's cronies may have on offer.

But maybe somewhere in this new political vista there is space for a really libertarian party... maybe New Model UKIP will become so? Or Arrons new party? Or maybe started from scratch - but not a mash up of overgrown school boys wanting to talk 24/7 about cannabis, incest and necrophilia...

Here's hoping...

Monday, 3 October 2016

#Brexit Trade, Law and Sovereignty and The People.


The EU Single Market exists entirely for the benefit of the European Union Commission.

The EU Single Market is the mechanism by which the EU Commission restricts suppliers access to European consumers and restricts European consumers access to suppliers. The EU Commission sells access to suppliers, the Commission skim money in a variety of ways. But primarily it lets producers charge artificially high prices (which EU consumers have no choice but to pay) and takes a cut of this money raised through exploitation of the European people.

Outside the EU Single Market, UK consumers will have a global choice for suppliers - if the EU does have the cheapest suppliers, then UK consumers may chose to continue to use their current suppliers.

If, however, as is likely, produce can be sourced elsewhere more cheaply then the UK consumer can choose to purchase elsewhere. This will result in savings to the UK consumer, an increase in UK trade with 'the rest of the world' and a drop in UK trade with the uncompetitive, price rigged EU.


As a trade body and government the EU has produced a mish-mash of law and trading regulations/standards - this is something that should never have been allowed. Product standards (apart from the most basic safety) is no business of the law makers. A consumer is well capable of deciding what standard/specification of item they require and communicating this to a supplier. And as this specification will form the contract, the only law required is that required to generically enforce contracts, the specifics of the contract are irrelevant.

Whole swathes of EU Law are entirely unnecessary, and worse are damaging to innovation, development and progress - leaving the EU should remove these laws from applying in the UK.

However, Theresa May has already stated that all EU law will be adopted into UK law(!) Even specifically confirming that laws on (bent) bananas, sausages etc will be included. Theresa May has suggested that once transferred each law can be reviewed and a decision made on whether to retain it, repeal it or enhance it. But as we have two years before the EU treaties cease to apply, it seems odd that this work cannot be started now and completed by the time the Article 50 notice period expires. If it cannot be done in two years when it is the governments main focus, How can anyone imagine it will ever be done? It is worth remembering that even the broken, bogus 'Barnett Formula' was a one off temporary fix in the late 1970's that has been in desperate need of revision but now after almost half a century has not be changed, also refom of the house of lords - which has been in progress even longer to no good effect.


In truth the UK parliament has always been soverign - even with the 1972 EU Legal Supremacy act it was only bound to its own choice - it could have repealed it anytime.

The referendum result is not actually about the EU at all - it is about the UK parliament not acting in accordance with the wishes of the British people - for decades our parliament kept us as unwilling victims of the Brussels bureaucracy, and resisted our calls to be heard (by referendum) - now we have spoken and must ensure parliament never again think they can ignore our wishes.

Thursday, 15 September 2016

Free Market Health Care - scrap the NHS.

Really just a blog to get some links in one place!

State healthcare is a disaster - the NHS is an evil empire, the current batch of junior doctors show that it is near the end of the road. This is a very good, positive thing.

Look to the USA... no not their almost monopoly system (which is as bad if not worse than our nasty NHS), and not to their failing Obamacare system but to the free market some have just about managed to start to establish...

By opting out of the overly regulated medical structures (Medicare etc) prices have been put online and led to biding wars bringing prices down to where they should have been all along.

Their online price list is here - although I think sometimes it is not available outside the US - maybe US advertising legal issues? Here are some comparisons.

So by stopping waste and getting care down to the best price (which only the free market can do!) the next question is how to pay (note, we do already pay for the NHS, it is not free nor done for love). If we didn't have the NHS that wastes most of the money it gets we'd already be ahead - but this is one alternative...

I selected this one pretty much at random from google as an example - they are religious organisations - legally religion is the only way of getting out from under the dead hand of state regulation... But they just pay towards each others healthcare bills as needed.

So you pay the best possible price for your health care and 'self insure' by sharing your bills with others.

Minimal overheads, and all under your control. Whats not to like?

Sunday, 7 August 2016

The Race for the Leader'kip.

Keep up with developments in the UKIP Leadership competiton with

But it is very exciting - maybe a trial run for the democratisation of the UK? Sweeping in to remove an unrepresentative elected body NEC/Parliament and put in place a mechanism for the public to exert direct democracy!

For direct democracy the missing link on the practical side is electronic voting. The recent referendum shows the time, effort and cost of using our traditional, reliable and trustworthy (postal votes not withstanding) system. I have long opposed all the electronic voting systems I have seen, having been a candidate I would not trust them over our existing system.

However, I have since created a method of running electronic voting that is simple to use, and allows voters to verify the result of the vote as complete and accurate without having to trust anyone else on the collation and counting of votes (not even the vote organisers!).

So the battle lines have been drawn following the retirement of the revered emperor Nigel Farage who for many years, somehow, successfully herded cats while coping with deafening heckling and barracking from opposing spectators, and often from his own. Being cats, they could not be commanded to the level required for one man and his dog, but they were managed well enough to get into the pen marked brexit, which stunned everyone. Although, in practice the game is not technically over until they exit the other side, via the gate marked Article 50 (or through the tunnel marked 1972 Act).

But the emperor having now retired and the machinery to replace him having been dusted down (and wire brushed to remove the rust), two opposing generals have emerged, one Douglas Carswell MP and one Mr Arron Banks. They each have their loyal staff, but the warlords and foot soldiers of UKIP are free to choose which side (if any to join). Their battle is for control of a the UKIP party infrastructure - which may or may not include some or all of its current members/supporters, as they are always free to come or go as they please - as are officers and electees.

While the generals are not themselves competing to replace the emperor, they each have declared favourites in the race, alongside some independents and other contenders for the crown.

First, Douglas Carswell MP (UKIP). Douglas is a contentious figure in UKIP, as UKIP's only MP he gets a lot of media coverage, even though he has made clear he only represents the people of Clacton, and despite a large (winning) vote for him in the General Election, how many of those voters are UKIP'pers rather than his own personal following or just anti-EU'ers is not clear (I wonder if the local party membership figures are available?).

Douglas's set includes core members such as Suzanne Evans (former temporary leader, currently suspended) and Patrick O'Flynn MEP (UKIP), his team includes others who may (or may not) be on his side more to oppose Arron Banks and co, than to actively support Douglas - such as Neil Hamilton WAM (UKIP).

Douglas has several books to his name, produced over the years, often with co-authors, setting out a vision for a new structure for politics in the UK - one recent book, with many co-authors, Direct Democracy 'A New Model Party' is available as a free download on his website. He certainly appears to know what he wants from politics and from UKIP and for the country, unfortunately substantial parts of it don't match what many existing UKIP supporters want - particularly as Brexit is now seen as a fait accomplis.

His champion in the competition would almost certainly have been Suzanne Evans who he employs as 'UKIP Head of Commiciations - Westminster', but due to her suspension from the party cannot run. She was suspended for bringing the party into disrepute, and like Douglas himself has a record of attacking the UKIP party leadership and UKIP members who supported it.

So their champion is Cllr Lisa Duffy - while she is relatively (totally?) unknown nationally/generally she is part of UKIP history as the leader of the first UKIP group to lead a council in the UK - any UKIP'per who didn't know this should be ashamed!

On the opposing hill, astride his horse, binoculars out is Mr Arron Banks - a man who made his fortune in insurance (founding major companies, not just gambling!), and who now collects diamond mines as a hobby.

Arron's main notoriety in UKIP is as a major donor, friend of Nigel Farage and founder of Leave.EU which headed Grassroots Out the 'other' leave campaigners in the EU referendum campaign - and as an activist(!).

Arron's likely preferred champion, Steven Woolfe MEP, like Douglas's preferred champion, is not in the competition. In Stevens case he was excluded because the application forms for his candidacy were logged as being received by UKIP after the (well publicised) deadline.

It is thought Woolf  had been the most likely candidate to win the leadership (but who trusts polls nowadays?) with his hard core supporters having said they would leave UKIP if he was excluded from the race, which he now has been.

This has caused a lot of friction in the party - with one member of the NEC finally issueing a public statement on Steven's exclusion. This account is particularly interesting as it says that in the closing minutes between Steven's successful payment of his deposit and late submission of his papers, another candidate got their papers in(!). So he was not the only candidate to leave it to the last minute...

However, the dissatisfied supporters, rather then leaving the party are now in a move to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), a move strongly backed by Mr Banks. The broad plan for which seems to replace the existing UKIP constitution with a new one - which would remove the NEC (who ruled that Woolf's late entry was grounds for exclusion - as per the UKIP rule book) and put in place mechanisms to give members a more direct, hands on say in the running/position of the party, rater than relying on the elected representatives of the NEC.

Getting an EGM is a huge task - with many, many members needing to want it and get their branch to ask for it - but Mr Banks, has contact with a very large section of the UK membership via his Leave.EU organisation so has put this in train.

The timings around Steven Woolf's application are most odd - that a last minute entry came in, and then his application was late... could it be he was effectively bowing out and handing on the baton? The only real surprise candidate in the competition is Diane James - while she is well qualified to run, she showed no inclination to do so before hand, so one wonders if she is the late entry? It would also be interesting to see which 50 members proposed each candidate, and when! But I doubt that will be publicly available...

As I see it, people should have the leader they want - UKIP members should have the leader they want, if UKIP doesn't have the right leader, maybe they need a new party to have a different leader?

But it is very exciting - maybe a trial run for the democratisation of the UK? Sweeping in to remove an unrepresentative elected body NEC/Parliament and put in place a mechanism for the public to exert direct democracy!

For direct democracy the missing link on the practical side is electronic voting. The recent referendum shows the time, effort and cost of using our traditional, reliable and trustworthy (postal votes not withstanding) system. I have long opposed all the electronic voting systems I have seen, having been a candidate I would not trust them over our existing system. However, I have since created a method of running electronic voting that is simple to use, and allows voters to verify the result of the vote as complete and accurate without having to trust anyone else on the collation and counting of votes (not even the vote organisers!).

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

A Brighton #Brexit'eers War Stories

This is an email I sent to a list I am on - I keep meaning to write up the events mentioned, but probably won't get around to it - so put these here as a summary...

Well if you want to change things in politics you can.

But be ready for when the 'good on you for getting involved' turns to abuse for actually getting change.

Best event of the campaign was having to chase Caroline Lucas down the street to retrieve an item she stole from our brexit stall.

Or maybe the tipsy old west India lady who wanted to know how it worked once you were in the polling station as she had got her whole hostel (she was a drinker, the others had various issues) to register so they could vote brexit.

Many homeless had a chat - saying they had paid in in the past it was wrong they were on the streets while migrants were housed.

Or meeting the two veterans of DDay - glider pilot and paratrooper - who a young green remainiac decided to abuse.

Or just being a Brighton Brexit'eer - with a green, SNP, Ukip, labour, conservative educating the people of Brighon.

Six years on (from hove 2010) - liberty at last.

Bloody brilliant.
Paul /)/+)

Monday, 6 June 2016

Caroline Lucas MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green) - Naughty Girl - #Brighton #Brexit'eers

I was at the Brighton Brexiteers stall on Brexit corner - as I have been most Saturdays for a few months now...

Educating people how evil the EU is and promoting by Internet Radio Station - RadioFreeUK

Suddenly my mate and fellow Brexiteer, Wayne, exclaimed "Look it's Caroline Lucas".

And indeed there she was, with a male associate having just passed our stall. Wayne addressed her, and the couple headed back towards our stall...

Wayne opened conversation and it appeared that there would be a discussion - Wayne is quite a debater and had been entertaining crowds all morning.

Now, I have some laminated sheets of posters/quotes - used as talking points when people stop to discuss the upcoming referendum and the issues around it, and one was a poster from GO Green (Greens for Grassroots Out) with a quote from Caroline and her picture - which I showed to Caroline...

To my amazement she grabbed the item and made off with it! I was a bit shocked, but someone said I shouldn't let her just take it, which, of course is quite correct.

So I gave chase, and explained "Excuse me I know you get everything on expenses, but I paid for that."

Caroline wasn't happy and initially refused to return it. I said she couldn't just steal my stuff.

I was told the quote was out of context, as the next sentence said the UK should stay in the EU to fix TTIP - now, not only is this untrue (see the end of this post for the original facebook quote), but that doesn't change the context of TTIP being a bad thing! I actually have another talking point from Jeremy Corbyn denouncing TTIP...

Eventually, after some discussion her male associate persuaded her to give it to him but not before she first tried to tear it up - however the lamination was too tough for simple tearing... He then offered to buy it from me so they could keep it, but I said I just wanted it back and took it.

Wayne suggested that in his experience it was likely that an attempt would be made to take the poster again - so it should not be left too vulnerable.

Later a group of remain supporting Greens approached and engaged Wayne at length on EU related issues - however he became a suspicious, picked up the talking point and held it close.

He told me the lead guy among the Green Remainiacs admitted he had planned to take the item, and subsequently made a mobile phone call to someone regarding it...

Now, I am just a normal, law abiding, middle class guy - and not used to this kind of behaviour among adults - but it has been suggested that future attempts may be made to remove the item... so I have made up a load more just in case!

It is a great talking point as it shows how much the EU has done on TTIP, at great expense to we taxpayers(!), without any reference to our elected representatives and how bad TTIP is.

As a talking point I also contrast this with Caroline Lucas's work as an MP in our UK parliament at Westminster, not only raising amendments, but presenting a bill to the house to retract some existing government legislation -- not something any MEP can do in the EU Parliament where only the unelected EU Commission can initiate legislation!

Why so upset? I can't help wondering about EU Parliamentary pensions... which are only paid to those who don't criticise the Commission...

I did an item on for my radio station - RadioFreeUK

And Storify'd this -

Yet Another Letter to my MP... Cameron incompetent to have no #BRExit plan?

This is the text of my most recent letter - you can write to you MP, very, very simply by visiting


Our Prime Minister - David Cameron - has made clear that he intends to stay in office regardless of the outcome of the EU referendum.

The polls suggest that the outcome of the referendum is not certain.

However, I understand that Mr Cameron has absolutely no plans, and has made no contingency for the possibility of an 'leave' vote (which he opposes).

As Mr Cameron is the leader of our country, don't you think this is a complete dereliction of duty by him? To be approaching an uncertain event and to wilfully and deliberately refuse to consider the best interests of the country should the referendum vote go against his position?

If the UK public vote to leave the EU, it is the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, who will be negotiating the UK's exit - so it is his plan that will prevail post BRExit... but we are given to understand that he has no such plan, and has instructed the Civil Service not to create one, and further has called on a 'campaigning group' (Vote Leave) made up of unelected arbitrary figures to provide him with such a plan.

If Mr Cameron is not a bare faced liar, and genuinely has no plan should BRExit prevail - he surely must be removed from office immediately for gross incompetence in performance of his duties as leader of this country - don't you agree?

Yours sincerely,

Monday, 23 May 2016

Another letter to my (Senior Conservative) MP. #ShameShameShame


Another day of David Cameron and George Osborne saying what a low opinion they have of the UK, its people, its industry and its heritage - this, the country they are privileged to be the most senior political leaders of.

Their names will live in infamy for the way they have tried to talk down this country - and the Conservative party and its senior members will be judged alongside them.

At any other time, even so much as a whisper of the disrespect they have for this country and its people would have brought instant sanction, but now the Conservative party - and even the opposition - sit mute.

Can you honestly say you would have ever supported these men had they made such statements before? I hope not.

If 'remain' scrape through they may live out their shabby political careers, but there will be no glory only shame. However if 'leave' win, their names - and the name and reputation of the Conservative party - will be in the gutter, and will live there in perpetuity.

There is no good outcome for the Conservative party now - only the least worst, which has to be the removal of this pair of lord haw haws.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

Letter to my MP - BBC offering work to non-whites only.

Read this and write to yours... it really easy here ->

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Dear.... ,

I have recently read that the BBC are offering internships that specifically exclude white youngsters from applying.

I cannot adequately express my disgust with the BBC and other organisation involved with bringing this about - nor with the politicians who have created laws and brought about a culture where this can be considered acceptable.

Should white people of your age feel they have had an unfair advantage they are at liberty to hand over their wealth to others and surrender their jobs.However, a white youngster entering the jobs market today has has no such advantage - and is makes me sick to the stomach that guilt ridden middle-aged white progressives (in labour and conservative parties) would sacrifice the future and lives of our children to assuage their own guilt.

This is human sacrifice instigated and approved by those we trusted to govern.

Can you assure me that you will stop this racism by the BBC and sanctioned by your government?

Yours sincerely

Saturday, 23 April 2016

The EU Referendum is just a warm up for the 2020 general election. #EURef / #GE2020

Be prepared - UKIP are now more important to the UK's continued existence than ever - and will be for a few years to come. 

The EU referendum result is likely to be close (although I have a few quid on 70/30 for out) - this will make GE2020 the real show down.

If Leave win, there will be two years of negotiation and GE2020 will be a referendum on the result of those negotiations. I believe the parties will go into the election with very different positions on the negotiation:-

Labour and Lib Dem (what is left of them) will go into GE2020 saying the negotiation has failed but was unnecessary and that #BRExit should be cancelled.

Conservatives will go into GE2020 backing the weak renegotiation they will have managed which will amount to the 'associate EU membership' they wanted all along.

However if Remain win, Lib Lab Con will go in as same old, same old.

But whatever the result of the referendum Leave or Remain, UK Independence Party will go in on a full an immediate exit - content to go with World Trade Organisation terms if needs be.

UKIP cannot declare this as it would be used to exclude them from the two years of negotiations that would follow a Leave vote, and they must at least try to make it real 'brexit' (No EU Fees, No EU Laws, No EU Passports) - however given the comments made by the Conservative (so called) Leave supporters I have no doubt they have no real intention of leaving - just of manoeuvring.

Given a leave vote, GE2020 will be the EU's 'second referendum' - the one they always have when the people give them the 'wrong' answer.

Be prepared - UKIP are now more important to the UK's continued existence than ever - and will be for a few years to come.