A problem of their own creation

Apparently with little else to do because the EU makes up most of our laws other than try and figure out how to sell an intervention in Iraq to us (not going to happen) our MP's are decrying the lack of action in dealing with tobacco smuggling. It's the usual 'something must be done meme' being advanced by those who don't realise that the problem isn't really a problem at all, but a self inflicted wound caused by their own actions.
BBC.

Efforts to tackle tobacco smuggling have been hampered by a "farcical" lack of action by the government and its agencies, a committee of MPs has said.
The number of illicit cigarettes smoked in the UK rose by 49% to a billion in 2012, suggesting a reduction in enforcement action, the MPs said.
The Commons home affairs select committee said the failure to deal with rogue products was "of grave concern".
HM Revenue and Customs said tackling tobacco smuggling was "a priority".
The committee was particularly critical of the failure to fine a single firm for deliberately oversupplying cigarettes to high-risk markets in order for them to be smuggled back to the UK.
Taxpayers lose out on around £2bn in unpaid duty because of the illegal trade.

If the idiots in charge of us hadn't made the price of the things so expensive in the first place then smuggling them wouldn't be a lucrative activity by those who do it. If it didn't pay to do it, then they simply wouldn't bother and as for those who buy them, well it's clear they couldn't give a damn who supplies them as they look at the price from a man in a van and the state price in the shops and it's simply no contest. This is the lessons learned by the USA during prohibition, if people want something and its banned or priced artificially high then the criminals will come in and start selling it to the law abiding. Essentially the government have driven a lot of smokers into the hands of criminals and are now bitching that its costing them £2 billion in revenue.
The answers simple, drop the price and regain the revenue, however that's never going to happen as there are others out there who hate the idea that people smoke and it is they who at root have caused the loss in revenue and are not willing to compromise so want crooks arrested not realising that there are more out there to jump into the gap (and our prisons are full)
Anyway, this is definitely one to sit back and get the popcorn out as neither side will admit they made a mistake and the loss of revenue will continue to roll into the pockets of the criminal classes. That plus smokers are getting a bargain too and that's going to rub the noses of the anti-smoking brigade right into the mess of their own making.

Arrested for quoting Churchill

Truly the UK is doomed if you can be arrested for quoting Winston Churchill. You'd think it almost impossible, however you'd be wrong, it can and has happened to Paul Weston the Liberty GB candidate for the South-East in the EU elections...
Liberty GB

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.
At around 2pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him "It's disgusting!" and then called the police.
Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.
At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

Now granted Churchill's message would be granted as beyond the pale in today's climate of political correctness, particularly by the likes of the political classes who have sought to emasculate the indigenous populations right to have opinions they deem subversive and frankly there's few more subversive than Churchill who was decidedly anti-establishment until they discovered they needed him after the establishment totally misjudged Hitler.
That said, giving a direct quote of Winston Churchill and finding yourself under arrest is likely to cause those who arrested you and complained about you to strongly backfire in their faces as I simply cannot see any judge or magistrate wanting to touch this one with a bargepole. Nor would I expect if it did go further any jury save one stuffed with muslims to convict.
Liberty GB are of course the same party whose member Tim Burton was arrested (and then found not guilty) of offending the Tell Mama organisations leader when he called him a ‘mendacious grievance-mongering Taqiyya artist’ and who do appear to be able to upset the authorities and get away with it simply by keeping to just this side of the law unlike some muslim preachers and demonstrators who hold sign up to behead anyone disrespecting islam and get away with it.
Still, it remains to be seen if charges will be brought, as it is if they aren't then the police have broken up a lawful and legitimate political gathering on the say so of someone who was offended by a Churchill quote. If charges are brought, it appears that quoting a great wartime leader of the UK is no longer legal in the eyes of the authorities or powers that be.
Freedom of speech? When it comes to quoting Churchill, apparently not...

Well you would say that wouldn't you?

There has recently been a spate of Tory attacks on Ukip, mostly down to nerves about the upcoming EU elections and Ukip sweeping the board where Tory seats are concerned. Still this one takes some beating in the histrionics stakes...
Mail.

Some members of the UK Independence Party are ‘literally akin to the Nazis’, according to a Tory MP.
In an incendiary attack ahead of the European elections, Robert Halfon said the anti-EU party had played a helpful role in ‘cleansing’ the Conservatives of people with extreme views.
Mr Halfon, an ally of Chancellor George Osborne and Tory chairman Grant Shapps, cited the example of UKIP immigration spokesman Gerard Batten, who believes that British Muslims should sign a special code of conduct rejecting violence.
Mr Halfon, who is Jewish, said: ‘To me there are two kinds of UKIP – the [former defence spokesman] Godfrey Bloom guy who’s like a cross between Sid James and Bernard Manning, and then there’s a much more sinister element, like the MEP who said every Muslim has got to sign a declaration of non-violence, which to me is literally akin to the Nazis saying Jews should wear a yellow star.
‘I genuinely find it abhorrent and frightening.’

You'd think a Jewish person would have extreme caution about citing the yellow star that the Nazi's made Jews wear as using it in this case is both derogatory to Ukip, but also dilutes the effect for Jews. Now I don't believe Ukip are right to expect muslims to sign a code of conduct, if only because their quran supersedes any document that conflicts it and the quran is choc full of violence and how to treat the infidel once you're on top.
It does seem strange that a party full of thieves would attack another party for its extreme views, most of which are misrepresented. The recent furore about a woman Ukip candidate being a case in point, trying to make her out to be racist and a bigot when at the end of the day she stuck up for freedom of choice of the individual in that people ought to have the right to refuse to serve anyone they like, it's their problem if they lose business, but underlined a basic freedom the state has removed in its desire to force us to comply with its own standards.
Goodness knows Ukip aren't perfect and some of its members are naive as well as ill informed about the EU, but the question that you need to ask is 'if not Ukip, then who?' No other political party has a hope in hell of breaking the hold of the big three and removing us from the EU.
The desperation of the Tories is evident if that's the best Mr Halfon can do....

Utterly illiberal

I often have a go at the left for its various illiberal tendencies, its generally a target rich environment as their anti-establishment beliefs often lead them into alliances with people whom most would regard as monsters. But the left are not alone in their desire to make the world a better place by enslaving or controlling us all, step forward Boris Johnson, a possible leader of the Conservative Party.

BBC.

Muslim children who risk radicalisation by their parents should be taken into care, Boris Johnson has said.
Writing in his weekly Daily Telegraph column, the London mayor said such children were victims of child abuse.
Mr Johnson said they should be removed from their families to stop them being turned into "potential killers or suicide bombers".
A "fatal squeamishness" had developed over intervening in the behaviour of certain groups in society, he added.
But he said there was a need to be "stronger and clearer in asserting our understanding of British values".
He warned that some young people were being "taught crazy stuff" similar to the views expressed by the two men who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby on a south-east London street.

And innocent until proven guilty goes straight out of the window and the spectre of a child catcher straight out of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang becomes a distinct possibility.
Dear lord, can't he see just how wrong this is and how likely it will turn other muslims from simply espousing their nonsense to actually carrying it out?
Certainly I believe that their is no place for islam in a civilised society and my preferred choice would be for them to make a choice to drop it or leave. But under no circumstances would I ever advocate taking their children off them, I cannot think of a more likely circumstance to switch them to jihadi mode and Boris would have given them the perfect excuse.
Remove them or convert them, but for gods sake do not antagonise them like this, you wouldn't like it done to your children and there's no proof that the children will accept the teachings of their foolish parents.
Honestly, it's an idea worthy of the illiberal left...

We don't need a ban

Why is it with politicians that their first response to a problem is to reach for the ban hammer? It never seems to occur to them that there are other solutions, solutions that would improve the rights of people. Then again giving people and companies additional rights is not on any politicians agenda.
Express.

MUSLIM women should not be allowed to cover their faces in public as there is no formal requirement in their religion, a Tory MP said yesterday.
Philip Hollobone was putting forward a Bill seeking to prohibit the wearing of face coverings, in particular the Muslim veil and balaclavas.
Presenting his Face Coverings (Prohibition) Bill, the Kettering MP expressed regret that his campaign had “come to this”.
Speaking during the bill’s second reading, he said: “But there’s growing concern amongst my constituents and across the country about the increasing number of people who are going about in public places covering their faces and this is causing alarm and distress to many people.”
During the debate, passport control officials were criticised for “waving through” a woman without asking her to remove her full-face veil.

What is actually needed is the right for people and companies to refuse entry and to serve anyone wearing a full face covering without having the race industry charge into battle in full cry. You see I don't really care what people wear in public, but when someone is on someone else's property then their right to see just who they are dealing with has to top my right to wear what the hell I want.
It should also be the general policy of the government vis its departments and local government with regards to schools, libraries and other services. Same with banks, building societies, shops, right down to peoples homes.
It's a simple right to give, the right to refuse entry to your premises of  anyone you cannot see the face of and it would soon resolve the problem of those who think their right to wear a face covering trumps all other rights, particularly as it isn't a religious requirement in any shape or form merely a cultural thing that is being used to advance the barbarism that is islam.
So Hollobone has it wrong, he's attempting to remove a right, rather than enhance them.
But that's typical of politicians...

An honourable man

Like many others, I chose to opt out of the NHS scheme to harvest my private medical data and sell it on to interested parties use it to identify poor care. If I trusted the NHS with my data it might have been a different story, however knowing the mission creep which happens in public bodies along with the NHS's recent history with 'clerical errors' I do not believe for one second my data is safe with them.
Still it comes as a surprise that two GP's (one remains anonymous) have decided that they too do not trust the NHS with their patients details.
Mail.

A rebel GP faces having his practice shut down after vowing to opt all of his patients out of a flagship NHS scheme to harvest their medical records.
Under the scheme, private medical information will automatically be extracted from patients’ records unless they opt out.
But there are growing concerns over the data collection project, with critics saying the public has not been properly informed about it.
And yesterday it emerged that Health Service bosses threatened to shut down Dr Gordon Gancz’s GP surgery because he pledged to keep his patients’ details off the database.
Dr Gancz, who has been at his Oxford practice for almost 40 years, accused the NHS of using ‘blatant bullying’ tactics to ‘bulldoze’ doctors and patients into complying with the scheme.
The GP told how he was sent a ‘threatening’ email warning him that he would be ‘in breach of his contract’ if he did not automatically opt his patients in to the scheme.
He said it also contained the ‘Big Brother-ish’ demand that he remove a statement on his surgery’s website which warned patients that he was ‘concerned’ about the scheme and told them: ‘We have decided to assume that all our patients wish to opt out of this data extraction.’

It's interesting that the NHS believes it has a right to such data and that they've chosen to go on the offensive over a doctor choosing to opt out his entire practice. Again and again we have learned that public bodies such as the DVLA  have on occasion sold details to private companies about those who use their system. Simply put, public services and institutions are like many private companies lax with their customers private details in that they see no problem with selling it to those who make an offer for it.
Now whilst the NHS will only use your date of birth and NHS number to identify the people on the database there are ways and means to get around this and sooner or later you just know that your area will be targeted by someone using the database as a statistically relevant fund of knowledge to sell you health aids. I did notice when I turned 50 that the sheer amount of junk mail selling me stuff for pensions and funerals went through the roof along with adverts for prestige motoring the insurer for over 50's.
Put it this way, if it's out there sooner or later the NHS will be tempted to sell it on and it will come back to bite you.
The record speaks for itself...

Unlawful? So change the law... oh you can't it's an EU law...

No surprises when the Tory rebels failed to add an amendment to the effects of the Human Rights Act on UK law, still it was interesting that so many came out of the woodwork and embarrassed the Prime Minister who said such an amendment was unlawful.The amendment called for the clause 'the right to a family life' to be illegal for judges to use as an excuse for foreign criminals including child molesters, rapists and murderers to remain in the UK despite being convicted of such heinous crimes.
Telegraph.

David Cameron’s authority has been called into question after he was forced to rely on Labour and the Liberal Democrats to block a Conservative backbench move to toughen human rights laws.
More than 90 Conservative MPs voted for an amendment intended to make it harder for foreign criminals to avoid deportation – even though Mr Cameron had said the plan was unlawful.
The amendment also split the Coalition, as Conservative ministers sat on their hands but Lib Dem ministers voted against it.
Mr Cameron was forced into his awkward abstention by the defiance of Conservative backbenchers over the Immigration Bill.
MPs wanted to use the bill to curb judges’ ability to block deportation because of a foreign offender’s family connections in the UK.
The “right to a family life” is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Many Tories want to restrict the convention’s influence in British public life.
Almost 100 Conservative MPs had backed an amendment to the Bill tabled by Dominic Raab, a Tory backbencher, which would prevent most foreign criminals invoking family life to resist deportation.
The Government had refused to support the amendment, saying that official legal advice suggests it was unworkable and could be challenged in the courts.

In one sense Cameron is right, the way the HRA pervades current law would mean such an amendment could be challenged as illegal, but that presupposes the primacy of European law over UK law via the European Court of Human Rights. As our legal system is undermined by this court, the best way around it is to change the law which gives criminals access to it which of course means scrapping the HRA and withdrawing form the EU.
Anyone here think Cameron, Clegg or Milliband will go for that?
Essentially it means that foreign criminals have the right to stay here if they can show a family connection and only a leftard or Lib Dem would see that as common sense, the rest of us see it as madness and believe that if the family are so enamoured of scum then they can bloody well join them if they are deported should they so wish.
The HRA is too complex and covers too much in the way of frivolity, it should have stuck to basics such as no incarceration without trial, right to a fair trial, protection from torture to gain a confession. The right to a family life is no right at all, it's just wishful thinking on the part of namby pamby libtards and has been twisted beyond common sense to allow scum to remain in the UK against the wishes of its people.
This is why a vote for the big three political parties is a wasted vote, they have no intentions of taking us out of the EU or scrapping the HRA, it's just words to get votes.
A vote for Con/Lab/Lib is a vote to maintain the current system, frankly they don't deserve them.

Rights and wrongs

I have often railed against human rights abuses when known criminals have used various clauses to remain in the UK, the most common being the right to a family life, which has even been used by a serial child abuser to remain, such are the soft touches that make up our senior judges today. I'm also aware that there are some out there who have committed no crimes yet are watched as the security forces know that they are a risk to the general public.
Mail.

An Al Qaeda-trained bomb-maker was last night free to walk Britain’s streets under a cloak of state-sanctioned anonymity.
The fanatic is one of seven men released from Government anti-terror control orders this month under rules meant to protect their human rights.
He undertook terror training in Pakistan and was named as an alleged terrorist by an American supergrass whose evidence helped to foil a massive UK bomb plot. The 41-year-old was part of a London group of Islamist extremists that included one of those who plotted to blow up the Ministry of Sound nightclub and Bluewater shopping centre in 2004.

Am I happy about this guy walking amongst us? No, I would have thought such a creature would have been banned from living here, however I'm not the one who makes up the rules.
That said, he does have a right to anonymity, if only because he hasn't actually committed a crime here and much as I'm loath to admit it in his case, it's a right I believe any decent society ought to have.
If however he does go on to commit some form of atrocity here, I will be amongst the first to be wondering why he was allowed to wander around unmonitored. But so far other than allegations, he hasn't been convicted of anything.
This probably need regulations for monitoring suspects with far more teeth than the T-PIMS but that is by the bye, until convicted or arrested then these people have a right to be give enough rope to hang themselves in anonymity.
After all, if it works to protect them, it works to protect us...

Rough justice

I'm sure the judge had his reasons, I'm sure the authorities have theirs, but unless there's something I'm missing here and let's face it, it is possible, but I don't understand this case at all...
Mail.

A stalker who has terrorised a young woman for two years has been freed from court and allowed to live next door to her.
Darren Blee, 22, plagued Pippa Dowson by following her day and night, hiding in bushes and jumping out in front of cars she was in.
Blee, who lives with his parents, admitted an ‘unhealthy fixation’ with the 20 year-old and told police he could not stop himself from following her.
He pleaded guilty to stalking but was given a suspended sentence and left to return to his home in Truro, Cornwall.

The Mail is its usual hysterical self, but what Blee got up too would be terrifying for pretty much anyone, particularly as he had a restraining order against himself for his stalking. You would think though that perhaps, just perhaps the judge might have instructed that he no longer be allowed to live next door to the woman? Or even in the same country? Sure he doesn't appear to be psychotic (yet) but we've seen what happens when care in the community goes terribly wrong far too many times, and no, lessons bloody well aren't being learned!
Sooner or later there will be a survey which will show that people are losing respect for and confidence in the law. There will be a lot of hand-wringing and questions asked by politicians, but in the end it will be down to cases like this, the two tiered nature of the legal system itself which has set itself against the indigenous population and politicians themselves who constantly meddle in peoples lives when there's no need too.
I keep hoping that one day those in power over us will come to their senses before the inevitable civil war.
It's still looking like a very vain hope.

No compulsion?

Whilst I am of the opinion that people ought to be able to dress the way they like whilst out in public, I'm of the opinion that when compulsion is used in the form of a religious mandate then it's very wrong. I'm ok with the likes of Mosques and Synagogues insisting on making visitors wear appropriate garb, but I'm not so sure on forcing non-believers to wear religious garb in a religious school, particularly if they are not of that religion...
Telegraph.

Staff at Al-Madinah School, in Derbyshire, say that they have been told to sign new contracts agreeing to wear hijabs and make girls sit at the back of classes.
The Muslim faith school, which caters for 200 students aged four to 16, also forbids the teachers from bringing in non-Halal food or wearing unacceptable jewellery, it is claimed.
Non-Asian staff have been seen removing the headgear immediately when leaving the building, but refused to reveal the extent of the school's demands.
Nick Raine, regional NUT officer, said: "We are very worried about the school and the education of the 200 children there.
"It's one thing to have a dress code which we can challenge and quite another to build it into a contract.
"The school is publicly accountable so there needs to be greater transparency."

Now whilst I'm mostly of the opinion that it's their gaff, their rules I feel that this is very different from the failure of that Birmingham college to try and ensure that faces will be uncovered for security (and honesty) reasons. This is a deliberate attempt to get staff to comply to a dress code foreign to this country and not islamic in any way shape or form.
As an imam Dr T Hargey who is the Director, Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford put it in a letter to the Times (paywalled)

For Muslims to claim that the niqab/burka is Islamic is not only deceitful, but disingenuous. At best it is an outmoded cultural convention and a primitive tribal habit. Many ill-informed Muslims have, however, been conditioned to conflate culture with religion and befuddle liberal Britain that this is a principle of religious freedom and human rights when it is neither. In fact, it is illegal for masked women to undertake the pilgrimage to Mecca or to perform their daily prayers. If women are prevented from hiding their identity at Islam's holiest shrine, why do they need to do so in the UK?

And as an imam, he would know.
No, this is yet another example of islamics trying to set themselves and keep themselves apart from society and enforce their weird and inappropriate dress sense on the rest of us. I suppose the staff could simply hand their notice in or refuse to wear medieval tribal clothing, but the point is as non islamics not in a religious building is that they simply have no need too.

Sue Arguile, branch secretary of Derby National Union of Teachers, said: "There are worries over practices concerning the discrimination between male and female pupils in the school, with the girls being told to sit at the back of the class regardless of whether they can see the board properly.

Perhaps we should simply close it down as they can't seem to follow civilised patterns of behaviour so that even the left wing NUT are concerned...

What about victims rights? Now there's a thought.

Another day, another immigrant scumbag being let off from deportation because it would breach his human rights. No thought whatsoever about the rest of us who have to live next too or come in contact with these wastes of space of course, it's all about 'their' rights.
Mail.

A foreign criminal jailed for a series of violent attacks cannot be deported because it would violate his human rights, it has been ruled.
Sanel Sahbaz, a Bosnian who now lives in Hertford, came to Britain as a child in 1993. Since 2005 he has committed a string of offences including common assault, handling stolen goods, theft, public order offences and assaulting police.
In one incident he attacked his landlord, pushing him to the floor, repeatedly kicking him and stamping on his head until the man fell unconscious.
Sahbaz, 30, qualified for automatic deportation after he was jailed for four years, and the Home Office told him he would be sent home. But he has now been told he can stay indefinitely after he brought a legal challenge under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private and family life.

The legal profession and the various groups that support human rights for these scumbags often point out that if their rights are protected, then our rights are protected. Thing is, most of us wouldn't do what this violent little barbarian does on a day to day business either. Nor does any excuse that he came from a Bosnian warzone cut any ice with me either. You either behave, or you go willingly or not. Certainly if his family are that in love with him they can go with him or sign some sort of waiver stating he's no relative of mine and I do not wish to be associated with him.
There really is no place for the likes of Sanel Sahbaz in the UK, the Home Office had it dead right to begin with. But we have to thank Tony Blair and the Labour party for signing us up to the Odiou Human Rights Act to thank for the fact that he gets to stay. Thanks for nothing you idiot leftards.

Sanctuary for monsters

There are some people out there who are in love with the Human Rights Act, they are usually lawyers, criminals or the left hard of thinking. What they have for the lawyers is a nice little sinecure making them millions off the backs of people we usually don't want here (the criminals) whilst being cheered on by the left hard of thinking because in some twisted way they see it as some sort of blueprint to bring down western civilisation and usher in the inevitable revolution despite evidence in all cases that socialism simply doesn't work... bit like a lot of socialists.
Telegraph.

More than 800 people suspected of links to atrocities overseas have been identified since 2005 trying to secure shelter or settlement in this country.
Even though most have had their applications to stay rejected it is feared the majority are still here because human rights laws means it is unsafe to return them because they could face ill treatment.
Since January 2012 alone, immigration staff have made “adverse recommendations” in 115 cases of suspected war criminals, of which 99 were already in the UK.
Of those, just three have been deported.
The figure is in addition to the 702 suspected wear criminals identified either living in the UK or trying to enter the country between 2005 and 2012.
It has fuelled concerns that Britain is seen as a safe haven for those wanted for crimes against humanity.
Many of those hiding in the UK come from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Rwanda, Serbia, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

I often wonder just when some politician is going to have the balls to go with the undeniable fact that most people in the UK don't give a damn about what happens if we send these people back. If those states want to kill, torture or generally muck their exported criminal class about upon their return, then it's no business of ours. In fact automatic deportation within a fixed time limit for immigrants/asylum seekers ought to be in the statutes if they commit a crime in this country after being allowed to stay.
The UK should never be seen as a soft touch or a soft option for anyone wanting to come and live here. In contrast though once you've passed a rigorous medical and written examination then you ought to be free within certain limits to live your life in safety here, no one wants to kick out the legally here innocent, but those who are criminals feet shouldn't even touch the ground once discovered.
The Human Rights Act ought to be called the Criminals Charter as the only people who benefit from it are the criminals.

My God a Tory gets it...

About legalities and lecturing hectoring the public about something that is no concern of the government whatsoever because it's 'legal' and remains for the moment a part of freedom of choice.
Unfortunately it's about porn, not taxation, alcohol, ciggies, health...
Telegraph.

Tories should not lecture adults about their "private enjoyment of legal pornography", one of David Cameron's ministers has suggested.
Nick Boles, a Tory planning minister, intervened in the debate about pornography in the wake of the Prime Minister's crusade against children accessing sexual images online. The senior Conservative MP strongly backed Mr Cameron's crackdown, saying the Government needs to help parents who seek to stop their children being exposed to "appalling risks and horrors" online. However, he suggested Tories should not go so far as to sound disapproving about legal pornography for adults. "As a Conservative, my starting point is that people should be free to live their lives as they choose," he said. "And I am not going to start lecturing consenting adults about their private enjoyment of legal pornography."

I don't know why politicians seem to feel they have a mandate to lecture those of us who simply wish to be left alone to enjoy our legal pastimes without having it taxed or made difficult to accomplish without jumping through some cretins hoops to obtain. I'm 54, I get asked by spotty teens in shops if I have proof I'm over 25 occasionally, because it's the 'rules' innit. It's usually the last time I visit said shop, anyone under 25 looking like me has had a hell of a hard life and would have my pity.
Yet not a day goes by without some sort of soundbite from a politician telling us what we should be doing, ban this, ban that, regulate this, regulate that. It's removing step by step personal liberty and personal choice. The fact that they are lecturing the wrong people never seems to occur to them either, they always opt for collective guilt/responsibility rather than target those who do abuse the pastime. Want to deal with drunks? Make it expensive for everyone to buy drinks. Want to prevent child abuse? Ban the internet rather than target pervs.
Whatever fixes politicians come up with it's always a blanket one and it always removes rights rather than enhances them.
Yet people still vote for the bastards...

Double standards

Isn't it interesting how the people who are supposed to uphold the law in our country react when the law is broken by one group or another...
BBC.

A man accused of making offensive comments on a social media website following the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby has had his case dropped.
Mohammed Mazar, 19, of Balmoral Drive, Woking, Surrey, was charged with improper use of the public electronic communications network.
He was due to appear before Guildford magistrates on Tuesday but a prosecutor said his case had been "discontinued".
Police charged several people over comments on websites after the death.
Incidents were reported to police across England with arrests also taking place in Lincoln, Bristol and Hastings.
On Friday, a 23-year-old woman from Hampshire who posted an offensive message on Facebook was sentenced to eight weeks imprisonment, suspended for eight months.

One would almost think that being a muslim makes one a special case under the law, after all, ask Rhea Paige about it...
Considering the complete over-reaction by law enforcement over peoples reactions to the death of Lee Rigby where an 85 year old woman was arrested for swearing outside a mosque, where other people like the woman mentioned were charged over facebook comments you'd think at least there would be an attempt at some form of balance?
Actually, I suspect no-one who reads this will be surprised. Time and time again people from minority groups have gotten away with far lighter sentencing, or charges dropped which if the roles had been reversed would have been dealt with severely by the courts.
True equality means that everyone is treated the same, we do not have any form of equality in our country anymore.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

George Orwell, Animal Farm.

No you won't

Cameron was blowing hot air yesterday by making promises that he simply can't keep, but look good on the pages of the newspapers.
Mail. (usual caveats)

David Cameron is planning new powers to muzzle Islamic hate preachers accused of provoking terrorist outrages such as the killing of soldier Lee Rigby.
The Prime Minister wants to stop extremist clerics using schools, colleges, prisons and mosques to spread their ‘poison’ and is to head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) made up of senior Ministers, MI5, police and moderate religious leaders.
The high-powered group will study a number of measures, including banning extremist clerics from being given public platforms to incite students, prisoners and other followers – and forcing mosque leaders to answer for ‘hate preachers’.

What's a definition of insanity? Oh yes, trying the same thing over and over in the exact same way and expecting a different outcome...
Appeasement doesn't work, you are not going to be able to get the muslim communities to rat out their fellow muslims when truth be told they are fare more afraid of the extremists than they are of the government.
Also the EU and the European Court of Human Rights have time and time again rapped the governments knuckles for attempting any such actions via our courts. Hell we can't even deport the scum, never mind get them silenced (Thank you Tony Blair)
Also, anyone want to take bets on any legislation suffering from mission creep? After all, if they somehow can pass it, you can bet that somehow or other it will be used to silence anyone the government don't like, though I suspect somehow or other the real extremists will get away with it.
It's the same time and time again, some atrocity happens and all we get are mealy mouthed phrases and legislation that takes away ever more of our civil liberties and nothing ever changes.

Sounds about right...

That word 'could' again.

Could and should are the most insidious words in the lexicon of those who would ban things or remove essential freedoms from us in the name of security, health and often enough crime prevention.
And so it is with the police crying out over plans to make them destroy DNA samples after six months...
Mail. (Usual caveats)

Police and scientists have warned that dangerous criminals could escape justice because of a ‘baffling’ Government decision to destroy six million DNA samples.
It means detectives will no longer be able to use a pioneering investigative tool – familial DNA testing – that narrows down suspects using forensic material from relatives.
Martin Bottomley, who leads a specialist police team which uses the technique, argues some cases will now be ‘impossible’ to solve.
And top forensic investigator Patricia Wiltshire, whose evidence was crucial in convicting Ian Huntley of the Soham murders, said: ‘It is a crazy, retrograde move. In forensic protocols and police procedures, Britain is respected worldwide, but this could damage our reputation.’
The process of erasing all existing samples began in December and is due to be completed this month.
In addition, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – legislation championed by Nick Clegg in response to a European human-rights ruling – all new samples must now be destroyed within six months.

Ah yes, familial DNA testing, just another tool in the armoury of the police which requires ever more of our DNA to be on record 'just in case' meaning that the police once they have it for any reason will want to keep it.
There are the usual nothing to hide nothing to fear arguments going on in the comments, though the consensus seems to be that somehow or other this is a mistake, though many admit even with such records, mistakes are made.
Part of the problem seems to be that the police have swung into the position that DNA sampling is their first and foremost tool in criminal investigations rather than the old fashioned method of asking questions and investigating. Mistakes can and have been made and the police know this, but still want as much of the population as they can on the databases they have.
There's an old maxim that goes somewhat on the lines of 'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted' something that the police and CPS as well as the powers that be seem incapable of understanding as they demand that the law is flouted in order to keep their precious databases. Sure you can argue that if everyone had their DNA on record certain crimes would be easy to solve, though I can think of a few examples where false accusations can be made of someone who happened to be there and did not commit the act they are accused of (Julia has a whole file full of false rape claims) Yet there are some of us who believe that our DNA is our own and that the state should not have it on record save only if we are previously convicted criminals, after all do you trust the bastards in power? Sooner or later someone would come up with another reason for such records if only to experiment on certain genomes who happen to be inconvenient.
Could and should does not mean will, no matter how hard the powers that be try to tell us it does.

They have a right, as do we...

The Thatcher legacy rumbles on in the press, on social media such as twitter and Facebook as well as in various blogs. What can certainly be accurately said is that the woman certainly produced strong feelings in many, from adulation to vitriolic hate, despite being out of power for nigh on 23 years.

Never forgive, never forget

There has been arranged a ceremonial funeral (rather than a state one) with a Falklands war theme running through it perhaps the one even which most find it in their hearts to believe in this Thatcher got it dead right. as for the rest, well it depends on your point of view...
Telegraph.

The woman behind an internet campaign to organise street parties to "celebrate" the death of Baroness Thatcher can be named as Romany Blythe, a drama teacher from Brighton.
Romany Blythe, 45, created a group on Facebook called The Witch is Dead followed by more than 5,000 people, calling for “demonstrations of disapproval” across the country. A number of places on the list were locations of riots and demonstrations that took place across the country on Monday, including Bristol city centre and George Square in Glasgow. Blythe is a drama teacher with a workshop company that visits secondary schools. She specialises in “facilitating workshops for young, excluded and potentially criminalised individuals and uses drama techniques she has developed to explore resolution of conflict and oppression,” according to the company's website.

Actually just reading her profile on there tells you pretty much all you need to know about a woman who doesn't really have any experience of the real world.
However she does have the right to organise her protests as do others who cannot forgive Thatcher for dealing with socialisms poisoning of the UK via the unions and militant tendency. Nor do I blame them for holding onto their hatred, it's their right, however silly it would appear to be to many others.
And that's the rub isn't it?
They have the right to trumpet their hate, yet many of them would attempt to stop others from going into mindless triumphalism 
One of the things we've lost in this country is a right...
That's the right to face up to the consequences of our actions. Now say this woman did hold a street party (Bet Brighton Council forego a elf n safety review) you can bet the police will step in if say such a party came under threat from a counter-protest. Same if it were vice versa, though the English at least don't tend to celebrate death as such which is why the leftist parties look distinctly churlish or even moronic.
The people holding such parties will be expecting to be protected if they come under threat because of their actions. These would be the same people who in the past tried to stop Nick Griffin speaking on Question Time, who attempt violence during their own protests, who issue threats on social media and generally believe that everyone should believe as they do.
They want their rights, but forget we have rights too. They expect the full protection of the law, but protest if the law protects others.
Hypocrites all.

 

Goosestepping into tyranny

The so called guardians of our society railroaded legislation through last night removing a key element to the justice system namely that of open trial.
Ignoring the utter scandal of the family courts which have been kidnapping children for a generation now, the authoritarian bastards in parliament appear to have taken that template as the basis for further removals of our liberties.
Mail.

Plans for secret courts were railroaded through the House of Commons last night despite angry opposition from all sides.
The move to hear cases judged to involve national security behind closed doors saw ministers accused of sacrificing British values and traditions.
Senior Conservatives – including Treasury committee chairman Andrew Tyrie and former leadership contender David Davis – led protests in last night’s debate of the final stages of the Justice and Security Bill.
Cabinet veteran Kenneth Clarke admitted he did not know how many closed hearings would be ordered under the legislation he has championed.
Mr Tyrie warned the Government was undermining ‘legal safeguards which we’ve had for generations’, adding: ‘These amendments may look technical but they are really about the kind of society we want to live in.
‘They are about whether people can get to hear the case that has been made against them… and above all they are about what values we are seeking as a country to espouse and export.’
Mr Davis suggested at least 15 cases a year would be held in secret, warning: ‘We have to live up to standards of accountability. That means open justice.’

You can pretty much guess as to what might be considered national security, though as for hearing about any trials involving it, well the bastards have made sure that you never will know. it means you may not even appeal to the public for support as that would be contempt of court.
Judgement should be open to scrutiny, you may not like the way a case has been presented, you may believe an injustice has been done, but at least you'll know and can protest. Now in certain trials you never will, people may end up in prison and no one will know why outside a small group, even then they won't be able to appeal for further witnesses as that would be contempt too.
This bill should never have been passed and all credit to those who tried to stop it. as for the rest, well I do hope that you'll get yours one day you utter bastards. But rest assured it won't be in a secret trial, I'd want the world to know exactly what you were and what you did.

We only need to get it wrong once...

I'm beginning to wonder if our security forces are becoming stretched, through no fault of their own, but rather by the idiocy of politicians inviting in an alien and hostile culture amongst us. I do have a great del of admiration for some of the work the security forces do, though I believe that the best way to deal with the threats they face is at arms length, they should not really have to be dealing with the likes of this...
Telegraph.

Britain faces a new generation of self-starting “Nike terrorists”, the security services fear, amid alarm over the speed with which a gang of home grown extremists were able to find and gain support for a 9/11-style plot from the “heart of the beast” of al-Qaeda.
The terror cell hoped to kill hundreds of people with eight suicide bombers, armed with guns, in what would have been the worst terrorist outrage on UK soil. The ringleaders now face life behind bars after yesterday being convicted of planning a terror campaign. But the security and intelligence services are concerned how two of them, with no apparent previous links to al-Qaeda, were able to quickly make contact with the terror group’s international arm in northern Pakistan to learn how to make bombs and poisons. The plot – which The Daily Telegraph can also reveal the plot was personally blessed by al-Qaeda’s number five, Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti, who was killed in a drone strike last year – was the most serious since plans to blow up transatlantic airliners with liquid bombs in 2006.

Yet it does strike me that if our idiot politicians hadn't invited them or their parents in from cultures which clearly cannot or will not integrate or adapt to ours then our security forces wouldn't have to be constantly on guard and infringing the rights of the ordinary man/woman on the street with various governmental schemes to further intrude into the tatters of our civil liberties.
Then again perhaps this is exactly what the government wants, or rather those in power over us which sometimes includes the government and politicians and sometimes not. After all, what a godsend islamics were to them, clearly deranged, clearly dangerous and hell bent on aggravating the indigenous population into accepting ever greater security measures simply to keep them contained. It's certainly one explanation for the deliberate appeasement of islamics and muslims combined with permitting known world terrorists to live amongst us and recruit from the islamic community. Add to this the constant attempts to increase their power along with abuses against the indigenous population followed up by heavy handed legislation in answer to the cries of 'something must be done' means that sooner or later the islamics will drive us into accepting something extreme one day simply to rid us of their idiocy. Of such nightmares Nazi type final solutions are born and I have a sneaking suspicion that might be the end game plan. Someone rising up after an atrocity and herding us all into making the sort of diabolical mistake that still haunts Germany.
If I'm right then the islamics are playing right into the hands of those who wish to have control over every aspect of our lives, they'll pay the price as the majority willingly accept the cost of ridding us of them.
I hope I'm wrong, but even I can see the problem here and can't think of a civilised solution, not one that will work now.

The kind of society some want?

One of the means by which the Nazi's and Socialists of the past (and in a few cases today) maintained their grip on those under enslaved by their system was that some people were prepared to report on what their neighbours were doing, in some cases whether they were doing it or not. In this instance kudos have to go to the police for deciding there wasn't a case to answer and no I don't blame them for having to check, it's their job if a complaint is made, it just makes a difference that they actually did bother to look. No I blame the kind of society who produced a person who could do this without checking all the details and simply assume 'fault' was to be found.
Mail.

A pub holding a competition to find the ‘Ugliest Woman’ got a visit from the police after someone reported them for sexism.
An unknown complainant demanded the competition be cancelled and wanted the owners of Islay Inn prosecuted.
However, when police arrived at the Glasgow venue they gave manager George Hogg the go ahead after discovering it was, in fact, a competition for men dressed as women.
Mr Hogg told of his disbelief of the complaint and accused the protestor of being ‘over the top with political correctness.’
He said: ‘I have no idea who made the complaint and the police wouldn’t tell me - but if he or she had bothered to read the advert properly, they would have realised that it was not ugly women we were looking for - but ugly men dressed up as women.

You have to wonder whether it was malice or misunderstanding behind the complaint, possibly it was a combination of the two with someone reading the advert without checking the small print and deciding to be offended by proxy, something which many minority groups claim is the bane of their existence.
Personally I have no problem if a pub wants to hold an ugly woman contest, I wouldn't even be offended if it were just open to women come to that same with an ugly man competition, after all they've been holding 'gurning' competitions for years.
No what bothers me is the political correctness that would make some person decide that this was their business to complain about. Rather than the libertarian view that what someone does is their business so long as it does not impinge on my freedoms. You should not have any right to be offended by any such thing, the most you should be able to do is ignore it, not waste police time on it.
Yet I have the feeling that this is exactly the sort of society that the powers that be want, a one where we imprison ourselves in chains of our own making. It would certainly save them the bother of paying guards, after all a society with people who complain about frivolous stuff will surely not spot them raking in expenses cash or robbing us blind whilst abusing our kids?
After all, that's why the higher echelons of the likes of Nazi's and socialists do...