Spotted at work Friday: -
Yes you too could have the distinct smell a thousand grill-jockeys have across the globe of rendered fat and ground beef products...
Sadly this is not a joke. Spotted at work on a cosmetics review paper (dont ask) talking about the counter release of "Gore", a fragrance being created by PETA that smells of rotten meat...
Oh and its spokesperson in the UK is Piers Morgan.
I'm going to lie down...
...that I post this message I have sent to members of a facebook group I belong to to my blog so more people can get involved (if your interested in joining send me a message); the group is concerned with entreating our monarch to dissolve parliament. Read on:
Hi all,
If you have a spare few minutes please have a read of this; it is written by the leader of the Libertarian Party, Ian Parker-Joseph.
Of most interest is the following line:
"There are now 7 unelected members of the cabinet - Mandelson, Adonis, Malloch-Brown, Drayson, Scotland, Royall, Kinnock. This is very quickly becoming the executive of a Dictator."
7 members. Constitutional law states that a cabinet can only have 22 paid members - nigh on a third of the cabinets paid executive have never been subject to a popular vote, never had the scrutiny of the electorate during a surgery nor had to give answer to anyone despite being responsible for spending not only 50+ PERCENT of our salaries, but, with unfunded pension liabilities (in a nutshell, they've been taking public sector workers pension funds, spending it, and expecting the public to fund them), PFI (buying services off the private sector which enables some clever Enron-style off-balance sheet hijinks) and the financial/auto/charitable (pick any) bailouts they've been stealing from your children and grandchildren.
This cannot go on.
You have all signed this and there have been several instances in the media and calls for the Queen to dissolve parliament without the "advice" of this unelected, unmandated cretin who deems to ruin this nation, deny its sovereignty, and worse, erode personal responsibility, autonomy and liberty; giving it all over to unelected beauracrats in Europe (NOTE: for those who voted for your MEPs please note: THEY HAVE NO LAW-MAKING DECISIONS THEMSELVES! they simply vote on laws passed down by "the coleagues"; an unelected elite group who formulate laws on the basis of "expert" opinion groups and personal conviction- IT IS NOT DEMOCRATIC IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD).
I ask that you do 2 more things:
1. Spread the word - promote this group to others via Facebook, word of mouth, carrier pigeon...any means necessary. If people are not willing to join then fair enough - get them to send a letter to the queen to show her that the silent majority would be with her in this historic decision.
2. Please join LPUK's fight to end this madness:
http://lpuk.org/
If you find the idea of politics boring, think of politicians as being venal, corrupt and destructive and government as not being your friend then this is the political party for you; I am not saying we will put an end to corruption or the government or those who occupy parliament, no; what I am saying is that there is a natural place for government, for parliament and for its politicians, and that place is to serve at the behest of the electorate, to make laws based on protecting the individual and to protect the efforts, the labours and the rights that you hand to government, but of late they have abused horribly.
LPUK is the only party that does not believe in forests, only trees; whilst the other parties are willing to let a few trees be cut down for the good of some imaginary forest LPUK is heartily opposed to the practice, and will fight them, oppose them and ultimately overcome; there approach to "rule" is like team figure skating; once a few object the whole troupe fail.
Join up, donate*, or better yet take part; we are a small party that needs butchers, bakers, plumbers, pie-makers who understand they are not economic units to be taxed and squeezed for the benefit of the elite.
If you want to know more send me a message.
God bless,
T
If you yourself are interested join here:
Better yet tell others! You are on this site because you are looking for an alternative to politics and the sham that is democracy - you dont want the current bunch to tinker around the edges of the current state machine; the machine is broken and will not work until we re-establish just what we want the machine to do and what we want ourselves to do.
Looking at the wiki page for Leeds West, the constituency in which I live, I come across a profound miscalculation - it states that John Battle (Labour) was returned with 55.5% of the vote.
This is profoundly wrong and misleading - this is only based on the number of people positively voting for labour out of the total turnout, as if those who decided not to vote somehow do not matter. If you weigh in the total number of available votes the figure looks considerably less impressive: 29.73%.
Less than a third of my fellow constituents returned the Labour party to power of their own volition at the last election.
Less than one in three people brought Labour back to power in Leeds West; less than a quarter brought them back country-wide at the last election - one in 4 people have empowered the Labour party to bring this country to its knees intentionally!
And all because 46.4% of you wouldn't, or couldn't, vote for those in power in my constituency.
There are 2 fatal flaws with democracy - the first comes when people stop voting consciously, allowing bad decisions to be made by flawed people; they cry "voting changes nothing" and make it true because nobody they deem to protect our laws is changed - that is how this present autocracy can rule with a mandate of 1 in 4 people. The second comes when those self-same flawed MP's foolishly forget that their primary job is not to create laws (bad or good) but to uphold just ones instead; I believe that if LPUK is ever to achieve any real positive change in this country it must not forget this; that we champion the individualist, and by association, laws that let him thrive, above all else.
It is my hope that at the next election - whether that be in 2 or 18 months time, depending on who you believe - I will stand for Leeds West as LPUK's PPC; I have just forwarded my details on to the coordinators to start the ball rolling. In the interim I ask the following:
Running a campaign for election is expensive; there are several candidates for LPUK so if you are interested in helping please donate here:
Better yet, join up to make a positive change for Britain:
And if you think you know someone who doesn't vote - tell them about LPUK, show them the website if you have any of the business cards hand them out:
Libertarians believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times. We don't say government is too big in one area, but then in another area push for a law to force people to do what we want. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from government—on all issues at all times.
LPUK: a party that speaks for the silent majority.
Cross posted here
Glad to see a member of the MSM doing something right for once, but do not think this is entirely down to their efforts; Guido offered some money to the chap who had the uncut expenses data which has no doubt led to the telegraph's "poop or get off the pot" actions, neither would it have been possible were it not for a few independent journalists hounding them, expecting answers as to how they spent other peoples money; our money.
I cant help but wonder what it is that most bothers me about this; for what we are paying MP's, ministers and their associated hangers on it must be tiring work - no decent employer would expect slave hours for slave wages, nor would they expect them to be transported hundreds of miles for long periods of time without sufficient compensation and provisions. No - what I think annoys me most is the lack of honesty in their dealings with their employers; and Young Mr. Brown appears to agree with me on this. Few employers would agree to such terms - "hand over this money for "expenses", no questions asked" - we are not given this ultimatum on such "civil" terms - "you will hand over this money for "expenses" and you will not ask questions or we will put you in chokey"...Now we've found out what they are spending our money on and you can be sure many of them will lose their job over this, come the election; there is only so many times that people will vote for the rosette when they are (finally) paying attention to the turd that it is attached to.
Many of these same MP's will use the other defence of "not being paid enough for the job" - I, as would most people say when they catch an employee with their hand in the till "supplementing" their wages, would tell them to seek alternative employment where there wage requirements can be realised.
They do have a point here though and this is what happens when you fix the price of something so that it doesn't follow the natural cost of that item; Wat Tyler covered this some time ago in relation to national pay scales and its consequences*. Which is why I offer the following idea up for scrutiny: in an ideal world wages would be set by the market in which they operate - teachers in education, nurses/doctors in healthcare, fruits scones in baking etc - MPs operate likewise in another type of market - the general election market - as such they should name their price (wages would henceforth be paid out of council tax) and terms of contract alongside their policy interests and CV; this would have the double blessing of focusing the MP's mind on local issues throughout the year and focusing the minds of the electorate on the true cost of their representative an thus worth. Better MP's who are shown to be consistently good at their jobs would be able to negotiate higher wages whilst moderate ones would be open to haggling and improving their behaviour in parliament and their contact with their constituents. Ministers would be paid a stipend on top of this to ensure compensation for additional work which would be fixed and paid out of central funds. Combined with a robust and open expenses scheme identical to private industry you would ensure competition thrived.
A worker deserves his wages, but let them examine their own self-worth.
This is what passports used to be for
...when your passport was primarily not a document used to identify you, lest you try to enter a country or plane under false pretences and commit a criminal act, but a document that illustrated your right to seek refuge, assistance or protection against injustice. Then, somehow, once Labour had cheapened the entire fiasco that was getting one, an event in which you were vetted fully, and allowed anyone and everyone to get one in the name of "inclusion" (read= vote buying, or worse, gaining political pull), the document was deemed useless, in fact, suddenly you could no longer rely on it being enough that security services could do their job in tracking down criminals or monitoring their movements; they had to pin your identity to a piece of paper, in the name of security.
Now they are pinning it down to plastic; do not be fooled for a minute - the scheme is being rolled out as "voluntary". Remember that word "voluntary" when they come to fine you over your non-conformance or ask why you haven't dont your "mandatory voluntary" work without a single hint of irony in how those 2 words just do not fit in the same sentence.
What is more sickening is the way that the media, especially the BBC have treated this story; radio 4's morning and afternoon presenters (and I normally quite like Eddie Mair) completely evaded the point regarding this huge slap in the face of our civil liberties, instead pointing out that the cost of the scheme is mainly rolled into the cost of the new biometric passport system - the "you've will pay for it one way or another" defence just doesn't wash.
It is a common theme for the left to turn the meaning of things on their head; to downright distortions if not complete inversions of the truth of things - journalists should remember that when they next ask a labour minister what a passport or ID card are for - our protection or theirs?
This*...
"Local government officials in China have been ordered to smoke nearly a quarter of a million packs of cigarettes in a move to boost the local economy during the global financial crisis....
...China has 350 million smokers, about a million of whom die each year from smoking-related illnesses. Despite anti-smoking campaigns, cigarette taxes form a major component of China's annual tax-take at local level."
with this....
"...Gordon Brown has said he wants to create around 100,000 new jobs through a programme of public works with echoes of the 1930s US New Deal.
School rebuilds will help struggling construction companies while investment in superfast broadband will be the modern-age equivalent of 1930s America's focus on road and rail links.
"I want to show how we will be able, through public investments and public works, to create probably 100,000 additional jobs over the next period of time in our capital investment programme - schools, hospitals, environmental work and infrastructure, transport," the prime minister told the Observer newspaper..."
What am I driving at? This. In both cases you have soft totalitarians taking money from the productive class and giving it to the unproductive; you think one penny spent on those 100000 new jobs will be for anything useful? Expect more "diversity coordinators" (read "bribed labour voters") and crumbling infrastructure.
Heed this warning; for every pound the government spends on public services it has taken £3 of yours to pay for it - actually its no longer spending your 3£, but your child's.
* I'm aware that the chinese authorities have "stubbed out" this rather elaborate means of burning money; let us hope that Gordo will do something, anything, likewise.
To:HM Treasury
Subject: Tax on drinks
I would ask you to protect ordinary people like myself, who are already struggling with rising prices in this downturn. Also, I would ask for your support in protecting businesses in Britain, many of which may suffer unnecessarily if drink prices are raised further.
All of us are aware that there are a small minority who misuse alcohol but it is not fair if all of us are punished. I would ask you to put pressure on other Government departments to ensure that existing laws to crack down on problem drinkers are enforced. This is far better than pushing through a blanket measure that will only sting ordinary drinkers and do nothing to tackle alcohol misuse.
(*and my own personal addition*)
Additionally I want an answer to the following: by what right do you take this money? Your ministers and civil servants tell us it is "a good revenue stream" like that is a legitimate reason, but then a burgler or common pickpocket could use the exact same phrase to describe his criminal actions - what are you giving us in return for taking money and threatening us with jail if we refuse to give it to you?
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you.
Send your own here
...If individual freedom to control your own life, your own liberty and your own property, is not something we should give people completely and wholy, with governments only task being to protect those infringements on those rights from within and ouside of the country, then what is the point of voting?
How can a socialist government (for that is what Labour is) be so intent on securing the right of the great unwashed that it has so intently dehumanised, infantilised and disenfranchised elsewhere?
Ask yourself that at the next general election when someone tells you we need to curb the behaviour of benefit scroungers or fat cats, yet considers their right to vote sacrosanct.
On my way home from work today I was listening to the Radio 4 PM programme; aside from President Ahmoud Ahminibiliniarbijhad saying that Israel was racist for "not lying down and being annihilated (I may be paraphrasing), some political correspondant telling us that MPs are worried about showing "perfectly innocent" expense claims in case they give the wrong impression (hint: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, you grubbing barstewards...) then came Eddie telling us that the General Secretary of Unison was warning the government "to do more for their core supporters or risk losing them" (you can hear it yourself here for the next week). Dave Prentis said on PM:
"Quite clearly the government has spent an awful lot of time bailing out the banks, bailing out rich people..and there is a massive cost involved and from our point of view the real victims are working people, the vulnerable people..."
Couldn't agree more.
"...we've got a government that appeals to big business, doesn't like imposing taxes on the rich..."
Most certainly agree - it likes gouging all of us.
"...which we think he should do - so where's he going to get the money from?"
I cannot possibly know where your going with this Dave but prey tell what you think...
"He'll get it, we think, from reducing public expenditure...at completely the wrong time."
And now here follows a not so thinly veiled threat:
"If the government isn't careful it will pay the price at the next election."
...what is most telling is the interchangability in David Prentis' mind between public sector employment and the more general threat to "workers"; Eddie never got round to really addressing this which left him to tie the 2 synonymously together - they aren't the same thing.
What is also interesting about this piece is the open threat to labour, that if they decide to go down the necessary route of cutting the public sector down to size they will face destruction at the next election. Such a threat will most certainly stop anything of real value being done; see here for reasons why.
David exemplifies the modern left - threatening, aggressive and all too familiar with power over others; he doesn't question the "requirement" for us to pour taxpayers money down the big gold plated hole that is the banking industry, only that the extent to which they are pouring the money down this hole is not being matched by a similar pouring down the public sector hole, whilst at the same time not realising that taking more money from the productive parts of the economy and giving it to the parasitical class that produces nothing is slowly killing the economy - the money has to come from somewhere, you tool, and the cupboards are empty!
As of 2006 the richest 30% of the economy pay 62% of the total tax contributions into government coffers - the middle 40% pay 32% whilst the poor pay the remainder, a meer 6%. This puts to bed his idiocy above methinks - there are only 2 travestie here in this statement in that the poorest pay anything at all, and the richest are paying for such poisonous rot as spoken by Dave here.
Darling will naturally fold - he likes his job, he think that the 25% of the populace they have bribed with non-jobs in the public sector will save him and his ilk - they wont. We need real change when it comes to taxation and our public services; let us hope for progressive changes - like these.
My brother pops in to take the film back. He leaves. I turn onto Sky News.
We catch the beginnings of a news article and part of the sentence "...David Cameron is said to be demanding an apology over the whole thing..." or some nonsense.
This is the picture displayed throughout the article:
Mrs. Tomrat says "That David Cameron has let himself go."
I nearly fell of the couch.
Reader, politics is a dirty, smelly business, and I thank God in heaven he's given me a wife who wants as little to do with it as possible.
