I give you…..the RSPCA!
Their “operatives” even wear paramilitary uniforms.
I give you…..the RSPCA!
Their “operatives” even wear paramilitary uniforms.
UPDATE: I forgot to include a link to the report – apologies.
Our Coagulation-PM has got into hot water, it seems, with certain nationalist elements in the Pakistani Intelligence Services.
Apparently this is what Cameron said:-
”But we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.”
The problem of interpretation centres on TWO WORDS…”able” and “promote”. If his advisers had said to him to say “unable” to “prevent”, or even “finds it difficult to prevent”, then I don’t think the ISI could have complained – for that would, as we all know, be substantively true.
Perhaps the coagulation is going to founder on the rock of the British Political Enemy-Class, which still owns the Terms Of Discourse, which wants our culture and civilisation dead, which believes what it is saying and thinks we don’t think that, and still, sadly, briefs Cameron’s speechwriters.
Pakistan is a surprisingly large place, like neighbouring Afghanistan, and it is difficult to police much of it, even had its government the strategic will and vision to supress “certain elements”.
“Johnny-Taliban” is clearly getting his gear (even if not his squaddies) from somewhere, and nearby – given his logistics-set-up – is the obvious place. I don’t think the Russians’ writ quite runs as well as it did in those parts in the 1970s/80s, so “north” is probably out: furthermore, ShootinPutin187 knows, to a nicety, how far to push us or not, and this is not something he’d go the the stake over.
France always makes trouble for the Anglosphere on principle, whenever it can. That’s how it is: it’s France’s job and has been for 1,000 years. So I’m prepared to believe that money might be coming from there, if not explosives and IED-technology. But Occam’s Razor does, sadly, point to our old chum “West Pakistan”.
If the ISI geeks want to flounce, let them.
The “authorities” have decided that there are too many wheelie bins. What a surprise.
But the strategic problem lies in the mindset that says there ought to be any in the first place. The notion that the State ought to be responsible for rubbish-collection, and (worse!) for its ultimate disposal (how do we know they-Gestapobuggers (who brown-nose Labour people, which is to say – socialists)) is not just going to tip it into the sea….or the WATER SUPPLY…?)
Here is what I said to the Daily Mail, which actually published it within five minutes which is a record:-
The entire contents of your dustbin (remember those?) can be burnt. This is what fire is for.
You just burn it. In your yard. This returns immensely-valuable carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, where it has belonged for the past 4 billion years, rightly, and is used by plants right away, for photosynthesis. The more photosynthesis, the more food for the world, and the more animals and the more life, and the more coal in 300 million years’ time. The place for a gas is in among other gases. Global warming is good. Geddit now?
The rest of it, what we call “ASH”, goes on the garden. It promotes plant growth. That’s what it’s for. You just spread it about and dig it in.
The scary-metal-bits, and molten glass, you give to “The Dustmen”. They take it away. They can recycle it if the GreenGestapo say so, but it’s better to send it to Nigeria. Which is the same destiny anyway.
… but it’s precious little cause for comfort at the moment. PC Simon Harwood will face a disciplinary hearing relating to his fatal attack on the late Ian Tomlinson in April 2009.
The most extreme sanction available to the panel is reportedly dismissal from the Metropolitan police. I can’t help thinking that:
1) If Mr. Tomlinson had struck down PC Harwood in a similar manner (rather than vice versa), he would have faced a judge and jury on a murder/manslaughter charge in rather less than 16 months.
2) PC Harwood would have faced more serious criminal charges more quickly (courtesy of the RSPCA and/or other animal welfare groups) if he’d similarly attacked a defenceless animal instead of a British citizen.
I therefore conclude that:
1) The nature of legal/judicial “business as usual” in the British state is plain to see. G.K. Chesterton’s criticism that the British governing class invariably omits itself from the laws it passes remains at least as true today as it was when Chesterton pointed it out no later than 1909. Nostalgic supporters of the rule of law here in the UK are badly in need of a large pinch of salt.
2) It would be advisable for libertarians to cease and desist from referring to the British populace colloquially as “sheeple”, if only because the lives of animals are now arguably worth more to the British state/media complex than the lives of British citizens.
Still, at least Attorney General Dominic Grieve has said he “understands” why people are upset, even as the Government and the MSM profess bewilderment at some people’s efforts to turn the late Raoul Moat into a folk hero after he shot PC David Rathband in the face.
…and you know the rest of that one.
It has now been about 80 days sicne the coagulation took power if that’s what you could call it. 6th May to 25th July is about that, almost 80 days exactly. Usually yu do this sort of stuff in 100 days, but today’s headline in the DT, that NHS managers are drawing up a list of “services” to cut, just emphasises how this lot are not really any different from the last lot.
Instead of cutting services, why not let the “managers” fire themselves? More money would be saved and you could have MORE hip operations, not less. The sale of their BMWs alone – and rights to their parking spaces – would pay for probably a whole new hospital.
This whole episode just shows that whoever you vote for, the government always gets in. Under this current dispensation at any rate. Something will have to be done soon.
Five years to the day after the Metropolitan Police shot dead an innocent Brazilian electrician named Jean Charles de Menezes in the wake of the 7/7 and 21/7 terrorist attacks, the CPS has announced that no charges will be laid against the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson to the ground at the G20 protests in April 2009.
Mr. Tomlinson died shortly thereafter either of a heart attack (per 1 post mortem) or of internal bleeding as a result of injuries sustained (according to 2 subsequent post mortem examinations). The CPS has therefore concluded that a successful prosecution for murder/manslaughter or even ABH is unlikely.
What’s more, the length of time it’s taken the CPS to investigate the matter (16 months) prevents even a charge of common assault being brought. There’s a 6 month time limit on such a charge.
In response to the CPS statement, the Metropolitan police has issued a public statement expressing regret over Mr. Tomlinson’s death and indicating that misconduct proceedings may yet take place.
My friend, the critically-acclaimed and international best-selling author, Richard Blake has revealed to me that his Conspiracion en Roma is now on sale in Chile, Peru and Argentina. His Άι της Ρωμης Συνωμοσιαι – or whatever it gets called in translation – will come out in Greece before Christmas.
It’s 41 years ago tonight that we walked off the Earth and onto the Moon for a few hours. By now all the Apollonauts are old men and soome are already dead. But we have not gone back. Perhaps we are not meant to and chaos will return to this planet and its affairs..
15.07.2010 20:58 – BRATISLAVA
Richard Blake: SPRISAHANIE V RÍME
Sex, intrigy, vrahovia, číhajúci v tmavých uličkách, temné konšpirácie a prekvapujúce zvraty deja – to všetko prináša svieži historický triler anglického spisovateľa Richarda Blakea „Spriahanie v Ríme“. Píše sa rok 609 a Západorímska ríša je minulosťou, na ktorej ruinách vyrástli barbarské kráľovstvá. Hlavnou postavou románu je mladý Aelric, ktorý vyrastá v anglickom Kente, kde sa o neho po smrti rodičov starajú misionári. Keďže si začne s dcérou miestneho barbarského kráľa, musí odísť do vyhnanstva a tak so starším kňazom Maximinom mieri do Ríma, aby spolu získali knihy pre britskú misiu.
Po ceste sa im však prihodí udalosť, ktorá ich stiahne do krútňav obrovského sprisahania. Rím samotný je už len rozpadávajúcim sa tieňom bývalej slávy. Nad pohrebiskom starovekých cisárov tróni vzmáhajúca sa sila pápežstva. No jeho moc je stále vratká a pohanstvu zostalo verných veľa vplyvných zástancov. Medzi Cirkvou, Byzanciou, barbarmi a pohanmi sa rozohráva gigantická hra, v ktorej ľudský život nemá takmer žiadnu cenu…
Tento šikovným perom písaný triler, ktorý vyšiel vo vydavateľstve Slovart, je zaujímavý aj preto, že jeho autor na začiatku 90. rokov pôsobil v Československu a ovláda český i slovenský jazyk. Zaoberá sa tu obdobím európskych dejín, ktoré doteraz autori historickej prózy obchádzali. A dobrou správou je, že na „Sprisahanie v Ríme“ nadväzuje séria ďalších diel, ktoré snáď časom vyjdú aj v slovenčine. Nesú také sľubné názvy ako: „Teror v Konštantínopole“, „Krv Alexandrie“, „Meč Damašku“ alebo „Prízrak Atén“.
Howdy folks, long time, no type. But alas life stops me from blogging as always, (just came back from RAF Cranwell, where I was undergoing selections.) However, during my morning peruse of the headlines, I noticed a rather good article by a columnist for the ‘Wall Street Journal’ which asked Mr. Cameron to come to America, look at what Obama is doing, take note, and to make sure he NEVER does what Obama has done.
What is wrong with wind power
Friday, 2nd July 2010
Some people tell us that we should be using wind power, because the wind is free. Well the wind may be free, but wind power is very expensive indeed. Currently the annual subsidy per turbine is nearly £150,000, and that’s paid by you, the consumer, and by British industry.
To add insult to injury, wind farm operators are even being paid extra to turn off their turbines when their power is excess to requirements — for example at night. Scottish Power were recently paid £180 per megawatt hour for switching off, which amounted to £13,000 for turning off two wind farms for just over an hour.
More generally, UK subsidies to wind farms topped a billion pounds last year. It is estimated that total renewable energy subsidies will reach £10 billion by 2020, as the UK struggles to meet the EU’s hopelessly optimistic renewables targets. In addition, the National Grid will need investment of around £10 billion to cope with this new world of intermittent and distributed power sources.
The cost of wind is further increased by the need to keep conventional back-up constantly fired-up and available, for when the wind drops.
Taken together, it is likely that the costs of our renewables objectives will drive a million more British families into fuel poverty by 2020.
Wind power is intermittent, unpredictable and very, very expensive. Shaun Spiers of the Campaign to Protect Rural England has said that we will come to see wind turbines as the “redundant relics of our compulsion to do something”. The Renewable Energy Foundation says that wind turbines are garden ornaments, not power stations. Wind power is simply about gesture politics — about salving the consciences of the chattering classes.
Meantime the turbines are continuing their march across of some of the UK’s finest rural landscapes. They are blighting villages, and homes, and lives.
I normally delete these things unread. This one almost alarmed me. However, I checked on Google, and it is a standard spam. I can’t be bothered with reporting it to the pigs, as it would only be a further waste of time. I’m interested to know, however, who else has got one.
You can ‘av’a'luff here.
Des res: Abdi Nur at the door of the £2million Kensington townhouse that he, his wife and seven children have moved into
A family of former asylum-seekers from Somalia are living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain’s most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.
Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in a fashionable area of London last month because they didn’t like the ‘poorer’ part of the city they were living in.
Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor, and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.
They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.
The family’s new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit, which is administered by local councils but funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The disclosure that a single family has been paid so much will embarrass Ministers, who last month pledged to rein in Britain’s £20billion-a-year housing benefit bill.
Mr Nur said his former five-bedroom home in the Kensal Rise area of Brent, which cost £900 a week in housing benefit, was suitable for the family’s needs but he said they had felt compelled to move because they did not like living ‘in a very poor area’ and were unhappy with the quality of local shops and schools.
He said he found the new house through a friend who knew the landlord, arranged to rent it through an estate agent, then approached officials at Kensington and Chelsea council who said ‘it would be no problem’ to move.
Rules allow anyone who is eligible for housing benefit to claim for a private property in any part of the country they wish.
The £2,000 per week is paid directly to Mr Nur and his family, who then pay their landlord.
Smart: The Nur family’s new home has five bedrooms, two bathrooms and a fully fitted kitchen as is nearby several celebrities’ London homes
Property sources say the house was being advertised locally at a cost of £1,050 per week.
The house is owned by Brophy Group Business Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company whose registered address is a post office box in Liechtenstein.
No one from the firm, which bought the house for £2.1 million in 2007, was available for comment.
Mr Nur said: ‘The new house is good enough and it is near the school and the shops. We need a house this big because we have so many children.
‘The old house was good but the area was not so good. It was a very poor area and there were no buses, no shops and the schools were too far.
‘The old house was four or five bus stops away from the primary school attended by two of my children.
‘Soon, all three of our younger children are going to be at primary school and we can’t take them all on the bus. Now they are going to a school which is just down the road.’
From September, his children will attend a school located just 20 yards from their new front door – which has been rated as outstanding by Ofsted.
They previously attended a school in Kensal Rise which was rated as satisfactory.
‘Bad area’: Mr Nur said their former home in Brent matched their family’s needs, but they didn’t like living in a ‘poor’ part of London
But Mr Nur said his neighbourhood also had other advantages. ‘I like the neighbours and there does not seem to be much crime.’
He added: ‘They have very full shops here and they are still open at 2am. Unlike at Kensal Rise, where they closed at 7pm or 8pm.’
Mr Nur, who lost his £6.50-an-hour job as a bus conductor 18 months ago, claims officials at Kensington and Chelsea council said they ‘didn’t care’ about his decision to move into the borough, which they said was ‘not a problem’.
The family’s three-storey property, which dates from the 1840s, has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a fully fitted kitchen and a garden.
The family’s living room, which boasts a large bay window, is dominated by a 50in LG flatscreen TV. It also has two large black leather sofas, two elaborate rugs and lush houseplants.
Neighbours of the family last night expressed their shock at the amount of housing benefit being claimed.
Nigel Melville, 65, a company director, said: ‘To be paying that much out in housing benefit is ridiculous – it’s too much. I suppose they had to be housed somewhere, but it’s an awful lot of money.’
Mr Nur worked for the Red Cross in Somalia and married his wife in 1993.
The couple subsequently fled their homeland because of civil war and were granted asylum in Britain in 1999.
The couple’s four oldest children, who are aged between 12 and 16, were all born in Somalia. The youngest three children were born in Britain.
Mr Nur last night acknowledged the family was lucky to have the new home, but he insisted his family ‘were no better or no worse off than anyone else’.
He also insisted he was doing his best to find a job.
‘I am looking for a job. I am taking a course to train me in how to get a job. I would like any job. Anything in food production or warehouses would be fine.’
The current housing benefit system was overhauled by the last government in April 2008. Labour Ministers introduced new caps on the amount claimants could receive, depending on the size and location of the property.
But instead of bringing costs down, the new system encouraged many landlords to raise rents to the level of the maximum allowable.
The new government has announced further sweeping changes to the housing benefit system, which will come into effect next April.
The new rules mean claimants living in a four or five-bedroom house will no longer be able to claim more than £400 a week.
The changes have led to warnings that thousands of families will be forced out of existing homes into cheaper properties.
But critics say the changes are essential because of mounting concern about the size of some individual claims, particularly in London.
Earlier this year, it emerged that Essma Marjam, a single mother of six, was being paid nearly £7,000 a month so that she could live in a five-bedroom villa in Maida Vale.
In December, Francesca Walker, a mother-of-eight who also lived in Kensington and Chelsea, defended her £90,000-a-year housing benefit claims for a £2 million villa in Notting Hill.
She said the family were completely justified in living there because the council could not find a big enough property.
The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea last night declined to comment on the specific circumstances of the Nur family’s claim.
The council said it had a responsibility to meet the needs of claimants who were eligible for benefits and was powerless to stop people moving into private accommodation in the area.
A spokesman said: ‘We have been saying for some years now that the way in which the maximum level of housing benefit is calculated is flawed and we welcome the Government’s new changes which begin next year.
‘The sums of money that many families claim for housing in the capital and elsewhere is an example of an unreasonably generous benefits system which is open to abuse.’
A spokesman for Brent Council said: ‘Households, whether they are claiming benefits or are in work, are able to make their own arrangements in terms of renting privately, as long as they can find a landlord with a suitable property.
‘This includes decisions about where they live.’
<font face=”comic sans ms” color=”#4040ff” size=”5″>Barry Reed</font>
Is it not comfortable in its skin?
My dear friend Richard Blake has found this review of his novel “Terror of Constantinople” in The Mail on Sunday for the 3rd January 2010. For some reason, this was overlooked by Hodder & Stoughton!
The Terror Of Constantinople
by Richard Blake Hodder £7.99
£7.99 inc p&p (08451550713)
The second title in Richard Blake’s superior series of historical novels sees his resourceful young hero Aelric dispatched from Rome to Constantinople on a top-secret mission. It’s 610 AD and while Rome may have been reduced to a shadow of her former glory, the eastern capital is bursting at the seams with wealth, exotic splendour ñ and danger. The emperor Phocas has instituted a reign of terror to rival Caligula’s and, with civil war looming, Aelric will need his wits to survive. Blake’s colloquial style sometimes makes his characters sound like football yobs in search of a punch-up but he knows how to deliver a fast-paced story and his grasp of the period is impressively detailed.
Titter ye not!!!
Tired Gay succumbs to Dix in 200 metres
I don’t think I ever met Mike. but I had various dealings with him over the years, and this news comes to me as a sad shock. SIG
Mike Keith-Smith was a former UKIPPER and PPC for Portsmouth North.
>From The News:
A prominent political figure has died after falling from the top of Portchester Castle.
Michael Keith-Smith plunged to his death from the top of the medieval castle’s keep shortly after it opened to the public.
The keep, which houses the main tourist displays, was closed for the rest of the day as police investigated the scene.
The 57-year-old, of Castle Road in Portchester, had been a controversial right-leaning political figure for many years – he was thrown out of the Conservative party in 2002.
And in 2005 he mounted a failed bid to win Portsmouth North for UKIP.
The Reverend Charlie Allen, the vicar of St Mary’s Church, which is in the grounds of the castle, lives close to the Keith-Smiths and has been helping to comfort his widow Judy.
Mrs Allen said: ‘It is an incredibly sad situation. Our prayers are with his family at this time.
‘It’s obviously a very traumatic time for all the family.’
His widow was too upset to speak to The News.
Mr Keith-Smith, who ran a rare book business from his home in recent years, is not believed to have had any children.
He died on Saturday morning, but police only confirmed the death yesterday afternoon when challenged by The News about reports circulating locally.
Police spokesman Neil Miller said: ‘Detectives are investigating the non-suspicious death of a man found in the grounds of Portchester Castle at 10am on Saturday. The coroner has been informed.’
Residents living nearby told that Mr Keith-Smith had been suffering from mental health problems for about the past 18 months.
He was also involved in local civic group the Portchester Society, giving a talk on military music to the group earlier this year. Ken Howkins of the society said: ‘It’s a very tragic event.’
Debbie Holden spokeswoman for English Heritage, which runs the castle, said: ‘English Heritage is saddened by the death at Portchester Castle on Saturday.
We would like to thank the police and emergency services and especially the visitors on that day for being so understanding about the early closure.’
The castle was open as usual on Sunday. An inquest has been opened and adjourned at Portsmouth’s Coroner’s Court.
SURVEYOR NOTORIOUS FOR RIGHT WING VIEWS
Michael Keith-Smith, also known as Mike Smith, was a chartered surveyor by trade, but attained national notoriety as a right-wing politician.
He was an active member of the Monday Club, a pressure group on the right-wing of the Conservative Party.
After the party severed its ties with the group in 2001 because of concerns over its anti-immigration policies, Mr Keith-Smith became a co-founder of the Conservative Democratic Alliance.
In 2002, Iain Duncan Smith expelled him from the Tories for threatening to stand candidates against the Conservatives. But Mr Keith-Smith responded with a High Court writ forcing his reinstatement.
However, he soon switched allegiance to UKIP, running as its candidate in Portsmouth North in the 2005 general election. Tory candidate Penny Mordaunt later blamed his intervention for allowing Labour’s Sarah McCarthy-Fry to win the seat.
A year later he became the first person to win a case for libel over the internet against a former schoolteacher who had called him a ‘nonce’ and a ‘Nazi’ on an online message board. He was awarded £10,000 plus £7,200 costs by the High Court.
It’s only 5 days since I asked in a post “Are you sure you want to trust the Police to save you?”. The question has a special, unwelcome resonance for my wife and I. We used to live first in Shiremoor and then in Whitley Bay, Tyne and Wear – only a short drive from the recent shootings thought to have been perpetrated by Raoul Moat. In fact, I’m pretty sure we often drove past the chip shop in Seaton Delaval which was robbed on Monday. And all this only a little more than a month after Derrick Bird shot 12 people dead and wounded 11 more in and around Whitehaven in Cumbria.
Perhaps most revealing in current news coverage is the complete lack of any appetite for further gun control laws, and the apparently deliberate downplaying of the death of Chris Brown, Samantha Stobbart’s boyfriend. No doubt this is largely because of the ongoing efforts to persuade Mr. Moat to give himself up peaceably, in which context it would make little sense to play up the one death to date in this sorry tale. But I can’t help noticing something else, too. Like Derrick Bird, both Mr. Moat and the late Mr. Brown are a great advertisement for the unwisdom of gun control.
On the one hand, can we doubt any longer that even the most rigorous psychological profiling can’t ensure that lawfully registered gun owners will never pose a threat to the general public? On the other, what good are stringent gun control laws which can’t be consistently enforced? Raoul Moat, a violent felon known to have possessed guns and other weapons in the past, seems to have obtained both an illegal firearm and ammunition within 48 hours of being released from prison.
It’s time to acknowledge that the so-called “war on guns” has been lost. We might also reflect on how much heartache, blood, time and money might have been saved if the late Mr. Chris Brown had been allowed to take a gun to a gunfight instead of an iron bar. True, one could argue with hindsight that he should have taken cover and then dialled 999, but such behaviour might be exceptional in a boyfriend of just one week who was also reportedly a martial arts instructor.
But there is one more tragic twist in the tale: on the same day the withdrawal of British troops from Sangin province in favour of their American counterparts was announced, the BBC mentioned the possibility of bringing a number of armoured cars over from Northern Ireland for deployment in the hunt for Raoul Moat. Never mind looking after us or the Afghans; it would appear the agents of the British state can barely protect themselves. To paraphrase Phil Zimmerman, the creator of the PGP encryption program, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”.
Perhaps it’s time to ask the Police a question: Are you sure you don’t want the general public to be able to protect themselves – or you?
PS. At time of writing, Northumbria Police seems keen to highlight that its officers, rather than the general public, appear to be the primary focus of Mr. Moat’s anger. Maybe so, but I’m glad I’m not an unarmed civilian trying to remind an armed man and myself of that on a face to face basis.
by David Webb
Filed under: conservative politics — admin @ 6:20 pm
I would like to reform the education system in a way that allows for higher standards without empowering new bureaucracies to monitor all schools. In one of Chris Woodhead’s books, he speaks of how inspections are carried out in triplicate. The inspectors come, and then the inspectors of the inspectors, and the inspectors of the inspectors of the inspectors—as there is more than one body involved with monitoring schools. I believe parents should buy the school education they need for their children, and have the right to sue the school if the school does not teach well. For example, if the school does not use the “phonics” method of teaching reading, a good case to sue the school is created. By putting power in the hands of the consumers, the fact that the teachers are in the main left-wing extremists can be circumvented. To sue a failing school is a very different approach to the regulatory regimes in place now: the quality of education should be a question between the school and the parents, without regulatory bodies involved.
I have some detailed policy prescriptions. I would close down all the LEAs tomorrow and enter the names of all their employees on a Bureaucratic Parasites’ Register (BPR)- and cancel their pensions for lack of interest. People on the BPR would be subject to a lifetime ban on working in the public sector. The BPR wouldn’t be a quango, but simply an Internet list of all those so banned. There would be no secret register to pay to search: the information would be permanently in the public domain on a website.
The whole education system should be privatised or handed over to existing management and the state should get out of the sector. Basically, vouchers should replace school funding, but the vouchers should be set at a level that requires every parent to pay something. Clearly the poorest would get a voucher covering 90% of the cost, but they ought to pay at least something in order to take interest in what goes on in the school. Teachers’ salaries are determined on a school-by-school basis. Schools that underperform simply have no choose other than to cut salaries.
Beyond that, every school would be selective, and there should be no national curriculum, and school inspectorates should be closed down (and their employees entered on the BPR). The state should confine itself to monitoring exam syllabuses and marking schedules. As long as the exams are tough, presumably the schools have to raise their game. By ensuring that real content is on the exam papers, ideally set to be similar to those of the 1950s, schools simply have to teach better in order to have their little charges pass the exams.
I would introduce a baccalaureate of 1000 points. Maximum 10 subjects of 100 points each. Pupils only entered for 5 subjects can only get 500 points and so are missing out on 50% of the marks to start with. This is so that those bright students who can do 10 exams get a higher overall mark. No one scoring under 700 goes on to A level and university. The Bacc would be as follows:
1. Latin 100 marks (to include Caesar, Vergilius etc)
2. Modern language 100 marks (to include an oral)
3. English language 100 (to include tough requirements on grammar). Children who can’t spell or use the subjunctive score very badly here.
4. English literature 100 (purely consisting of Shakespeare and the Greats – basically the syllabus would require knowledge of so many Classic works, there would be no time to teach PC works.)
5. RE – knowledge of the Prayerbook and one of the Gospels of the Authorised Version of the Bible required. No Islamic or alternative option available.
6.History or Geography – knowledge of facts required to pass. Geography is about geography and not about social exclusion. History requires much more than knowledge of slavery and the Holocaust. Exam questions like “imagine you are a slave; write down your feelings” are simply deleted from exam papers: the study of slavery has a place, but this sort of “exam question” is a nonsense.
7.At least one science. There is no such thing as “double science”. Biology, physics and chemistry are separate options.
8.Mathematics – at least as rigorous as the 1950s O level.
9 and 10 – a choice of additional languages, humanities and sciences, music etc.
Schools that did not teach Latin would see their children unable to score more than 900. Schools that didn’t teach any language, Latin or modern, would see their children unable to score more than 800. Schools that taught PC books would see their children fail the English literature component. Schools that taught Islam in the RE component would see their children fail on knowledge of the Christian tradition.
But it makes no sense to monitor what happens in each class. Set the exam syllabuses and marking schedules so hard that the only way of passing is to teach a traditional curriculum – but let the schools do what they like. The Baccalaureate league table would lead to parental pressure. Parents would have the legal right to sue the schools if they felt they were not teaching the good stuff. The idea would be to make it very hard for anyone not in the top 2% of pupils to score more than 900 under this baccalaureate. A criminal investigation of the exam boards would ensue whenever more than 2% of pupils scored more than 900. As I said, no one scoring under 700 goes on to A levels. The wheat is sorted from the chaff.
Let me add that the number of people with qualifications is too high in the UK. The certificates they have are often meaningless. We have seen graduates required for jobs that previously were done by those with A levels and now for jobs previously done by those with O levels. We saw recently how a girl with GCSEs and A levels committed suicide because she was unable to find a job. It is simply wrong to create a system where degrees are required for jobs that technically do not demand anything other than good English and arithmetic. Why is a degree required to work in a travel agents’ office? Indeed, why are A levels required? The job technically does not require any qualifications at all.
We need to substantially reduce the numbers with A levels and degrees, not in order to take opportunity away from people, but in order to restore it. Most of these degrees are nothing more than a detailed grilling in left-wing propaganda anyway. The teacher training colleges should be closed down (and their employees entered on the BPR) and schools required to conduct their own training.
* Compulsory education abolished. Home schooling and no schooling become fully acceptable—and no supervision of home-schooled children is carried out.
* All coursework for exams abolished. Everything is on the final exam with no appeal allowed. Pupils can sit the entire year again and then take the exams the following year – no public funding for repeating a year would be available; parents would have to pay the full tuition fee.
* Corporal punishment – 6 of the best – introduced in all schools. Parents are not permitted to object.
* Schools required to keep order and prevent bullying – the headmaster subject to criminal charges (abetting violence among pupils in his care) if he doesn’t. Parents can also sue the schools if the headmaster fails to keep order in the school.
* School league tables remain in existence: schools are judged on the exam results of all children in their care, including those entered for no exams, so the current bureaucratic fraud of labelling children dyslexic, attention-deficit and dyscalculic, comes to an end
* Hectoring the children on multiculturalism becomes a criminal offence. The Crown Prosecution Service plays no role in such prosecutions. Parents initiate prosecutions themselves on a “no win, no fee” basis.
* Hectoring the children on support for “gay” sexuality becomes a criminal offence (=Section 28 restored).
* Sex education criminalised.
* The child measurement programme is cancelled – measuring children’s weight at schools is defined as a human rights abuse.
* Normal food reintroduced in school canteens.
* Christian assemblies required in all schools, required of demographic composition.
* School uniform standards enforced. Parents of schools where girls are no longer required to wear skirts can sue the schools.
* The Criminal Records Bureau checks are ended. Schools are required to be open to the general public. Padlocking children behind locked doors out of a misplaced security panic is defined as false imprisonment—a criminal offence.
You should book now, as you may recall how, in previous years, we have had to refuse bookings in the last week before the conference.
The Provisional Brochure is here:
Christian Michel, the European Director of the Libertarian Alliance and President of the Libertarian International, has published two books through the Hampden Press These are:
Bricks of Freedom (in English)
First edition, July 2010, 411pp
Vivre Ensemble (in French)
First edition, July 2010, 367pp
Both books are highly recommended.
Secrets About Money That Put You At Risk (Paperback)
by Michael J. McKay
From Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/36fkxvh
Blood of Alexandria
“The greatest novel of its kind ever written!!!!!” You will be aware that Mr Blake has never been one to blow his own trumpet and bank his own drum. This being so, it is wholly fitting that I should undertake the work on his behalf.
From Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/356mwdr
Though the hardback has now sold out, Mr Blake would ask you to order even so, as this may prompt Hodder & Stoughton to go for a reprint instead of diverting the export paperback. The mass market paperback will be available at Christmas. But why not try for a hardback copy NOW of this flawless masterpiece of libertarian historical fiction?
What Is Needed to Run the Country?
There is also the question of running the country having been elected to do so. A future electoral victory may be registered with a majority at Westminster, or by a pan-European coalition of nationalists in the EU Parliament. In either case, the number of people required to represent and put into legislation the wishes of millions of voters would only be a few hundred.
But to apply that legislation would take several hundred thousand people. Whatever the constitutional fiction, the modern state is not run and directed by elected representatives. The real power to apply or frustrate the will of the majority lies with the civil servants who brief Ministers and put their wishes into action – or not, with the programme controllers and editors who decide what the public hear and see, or with the teachers who shape the minds of the next generation of voters.
This is why even a successful electoral takeover, in itself, cannot be enough to replace even the most disastrously bad internationalist puppet regime with a nationalist one. For if the real levers of power remain in the hands of individuals who remain ideologically committed to the old order of liberal multi-culturalism and corporate greed, then new laws will simply be ignored, much needed reforms will be botched or stalled, and even basic and popular electoral pledges are likely to be unfulfilled.
The Libertarian Alliance spokesman Dr. Sean Gabb has written persuasively on this subject in his must-read book Cultural Revolution, Culture War – how conservatives lost England and how to get it back, which includes some thoroughly practical proposals for dealing with this problem. This includes simply adopting a slash and burn approach to vast swathes of the machinery of the PC and tax-eating servile state. This would not only radically cut the tax bill, but also drastically reduce the number of positions of bureaucratic influence which the incoming nationalist government would have to fill.
by David Webb
Filed under: conservative politics — admin @ 9:37 pm
I am a convinced supporter of Dr Sean Gabb’s Libertarian Alliance, and will remain so. But I am not sure he is right to argue that libertarians should reposition themselves as opponents of capitalism, in particular, opposing limited liability companies, and the preferential advantages the limited company format gives to big business. It strikes me as a wheeze, an attempt to strike a left-wing pose, or what would be seen as one, in a context where many libertarian views are seen as either right-wing, or a cover for those who are right-wing.
Firstly, the UK in particular does well out of large companies. BP would have been a good example a while ago, but appears likely to fall foul of the US administration’s interpretation of US laws in such a way that BP, a limited liability company, is unable to pay what had appeared to be the maximum of US$75m in liability for oil companies beset by an oil spill. The City of London and large pharmaceutical, financial services and defence companies form the mainstay of British Big Business–to a large extent, we are still living off our former imperial glory (sadly one with Nineveh and Tyre these days), and the advent of a era of cottage industry small businesses would be profoundly negative for the medium-term outlook of the UK economy. Second, I would react with alarm to the idea that I should be held personally responsible for losses of a company I held shares in–another related point that Dr Gabb has encouraged discussion on. The joint-stock company format has allowed millions of small private investors to piggyback on the growth of the larger companies and make provision for their futures, and I think libertarians should see that as positive. The alternative is dependence on state pensions financed out of taxation.
Part of what Sean Gabb seems to be getting at is that the joint-stock corporation means that bourgeois capitalism is no longer with us. This fact complicates a lot of arguments that libertarians make: for example, where libertarians support freedom of association and therefore the right of a business to refuse the custom of anyone, for any reason (including race, sexual orientation, etc), what if the managers of the business do not personally own the business? What right is it of them to pursue these kinds of agenda when they do not even own the business concerned? If we supported freedom of association only where a business was owner-managed, as with a corner shop or a bed-and-breakfast guesthouse, we could end up supporting freedom only in certain circumstances, only at the margins of society.
I was impressed by the arguments of the late Sam Francis in the US, that a new managerial elite had effectively replaced the former bourgeoisie. In a development not anticipated by Karl Marx, the progression from feudalism to capitalism has been succeeded, not by a progression from capitalism to communism, but from capitalism to managerialism, obviating much of the Marxian doctrines. As corporations grew larger, owner management became rarer, and in fact impossible. Even where a business remains in the hands of the original family founders, they require personnel directors and many other similar managers to run the business for them. The joint-stock company further diluted the control of the original entrepreneurs, who in most cases sold up, to the extent that individual entrepreneurs no longer control significant parts of the economy today. There are no capitalists left.
With ownership so diffuse, managers control the economy today. This answers the essential question that Lenin asked of political economy, “Who, Whom?” The key point of political analysis is to work out who the elite is and who the governed are. The capitalist-style analyses of the socialist left are simply wrong, in that they give the wrong answer to “Who, Whom?” as there are no capitalists. What there are are managers in a technocratic economy-state. Sam Francis pointed out that all institutions are run by the same people today. A civil servant can leave for the private sector and take up a managerial job, and then move on to a managerial job in the church, and then move on to a similar job in the defence industry, and then into politics. The public sector, the private sector, the churches, the charities–these are run by a mobile elite flitting between them. Church finance directors are not deeply religious people who do the job out of faith, but rather finance directors who have had a number of posts elsewhere and demand six-figure salaries for running the finances of a church. Personnel directors of charities are not people who are seeking to work with the disadvantaged, but personnel directors who have worked elsewhere and demand large salaries and pensions, to be paid directly from sums raised ostensibly for charitable deeds. The same type of people are doing everything.
The bureaucratisation of the economy is aided by causes such as “anti-racism”, “multi-culturalism”, “health and safety” and “the environment”. These causes are the justification for the employment of technocrats. Even private companies have to employ large phalanxes of people whose jobs are essentially political. (In fact, abolishing limited liability would simply diminish risk-taking, and lead to the development of more technocratic jobs in the area of risk management. Whole departments of functionaries handling risk would be born in every private enterprise.) It seems that a large proportion of the private sector is directly dependent on government policy (not just companies that benefit from government contracts, but the semi-quangoized charities that depend on public handouts, and many other niche technocratic roles–think of the people who produce the Energy Performance Certificates for houses being sold or the people whose jobs depend on the exorbitant fees charged to check the criminal records of teachers and nursery nurses: their roles have been invented as an act of public policy, although performing no useful role).
It is worth asking what we can do about the managerial elite. Opposing limited liability seems to position libertarians as anti-capitalists, without addressing the argument that a new public-private managerial elite has replaced those capitalists. There are big businesses around today, but the problem is not that they are big, or even particularly predatory in behaviour, but that they have been captured by functionaries, technocrats who staff layers of middle and upper management that are strictly unnecessary. Big business needs to survive, because otherwise we would not be able to invest in these companies, and the average person would remain dependent on the state to provide for his long-term future. We need instead to think of anti-technocratic policies to cut down on the bureaucratic behaviour of functionaries in both public and private sectors.
I would like to severely cut down on the numbers going to university, as the universities have largely been remade as factories producing pro-managerial wannabe technocrats. The promotion of cultural agendas such as anti-racism and multi-culturalism should be criminalised–in the private sector as well as the public sector. It should simply be a criminal offence for companies to spend any money on political propaganda on cultural issues to their workers. There should be no public financial support for charities. There should be a clear distinction between the public and private sectors: I would argue that anyone whose livelihood depends on the public purse should not have the right to vote or stand for Parliament. This would severely cut down the pro-managerial electorate, and clarify that people who work in the public sector are our servants, and not the other way round. All consultancy work for the public sector should be banned, as should advertising by public-sector bodies. All public-sector workers should be limited to maximum salary of £50K. While consultants in the NHS and others should earn more–this should be facilitated by the privatisation of the health sector. If headteachers of failing schools hope to earn sixfigure salaries, they should do so in the private sector, where they would have to work to attract pupils. We could reintroduce annual parliaments (the norm in the Middle Ages) and ban political parties from funding candidates’ election campaigns. All policies should be designed with an eye on preventing control by the managerial elite.
The easy part is cutting down the public sector. The difficulty comes with the private sector: once the owner-managers of the bourgeois era have gone, are we condemned to technocratic management for ever? I would argue that many of the technocratic posts in the private sector have been created by government regulation, and by eliminating the regulation and reducing the availability of graduates, we could reverse the quangoization of the private sector. Countries like Japan and China have big businesses and limited liability, but have not seen the cultural trends of the Western countries, such as multi-culturalism, simply because there has been no attempt to delegitimize national identity in those countries–and if we economically disarm ourselves by opposing big business, we will find that the Far Eastern countries end up becoming our new masters. However, given that we have the cultural problem of self-righteousness among the middle class, and the Far Eastern countries do not, something has to be done to try to counteract it. Could we introduce compulsory John Lewis-style workers’ democracy into joint-stock companies, seeing as their managers do not actually own the companies? Maybe managers adopting a technocratic style could be “recalled” by their staff members? Ultimately, a society’s culture is not just a function of the size of its businesses or something like limited liability, but a product of political discussion, the broadcast media, the schools and the churches. It is these that are driving trends in the private business sector today and not the other way round, and so the restoration of our culture can only begin by sorting out the political parties, the media, schools and churches.
It’s good to know what Joe Public’s life is worth when duty calls
We can but hope this is an exceptional case; but then facing an imminent danger to one’s life is also pretty exceptional for most people. So the question remains: Are you sure you want to trust the Police to save you? It could be your final answer anyway.
by Sean Gabb
I am informed by Richard Blake, the critically-acclaimed and internationally best-selling author, that his novels are to be published in Greek.
All I now wonder is that, given these evidences of the universal accord in which he is held, where are those bleeding Hollywood people??????
the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer. Whether what they inflict is, in their intention, good or bad, they become equally frivolous. The case against the governing class of modern England is not in the least that it is selfish; if you like, you may call the English oligarchs too fantastically unselfish. The case against them simply is that when they legislate for all men, they always omit themselves.
Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (276). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
In 2010, for instance, most UK citizens live under such strict gun control laws that even the British Olympic pistol shooting team has to go abroad to practice. Meanwhile, members of the Royal family and Government ministers have armed bodyguards available whenever they appear in public.
Current gun control laws are a frank admission by our glorious leaders that the only ordinary British citizens who might carry guns near their leaders are would-be assassins. This in turn rests on an unspoken acceptance by the governing class that (no matter who’s apparently in charge) at least some of its policies are deeply provocative to a sizable number of British citizens and/or visiting foreigners.
I can think of no other way to explain the governing class’ obvious conclusion that the vast majority of law-abiding British citizens can’t be trusted to train and equip themselves to defend themselves, their homes, and their leaders. Tragedy, farce and gross insult are, in this case, aliases of our leaders’ (in)actions. The sensible political option remains what it has always been – to govern less and so cause less offence in the first place.
Good stuff on his blog. Interesting aside at the end, on the concept of “xenophobia”, as applied by Europhiles.
…from WhOOps, about whether the British are truly ready for a libertarian State (if that is not a tautology.)
I’d take the risk of riots personally.