Category Archives: Celebrities

What They Got Wrong In The Rolf Harris Trial


James Knight

A very interesting, but highly contentious, issue reared its ugly head yesterday as Rolf Harris was convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault.

What’s extremely contentious about the outcome is that he was charged under the sexual offences Act of 1956, because the offences happened at a time of old legislation. Basically, if he’d have done the same things now he would have received a heftier sentence, because cultural evolution has shifted people’s perspective and tolerance on crimes like paedophilia, with penalties now being severer.

Having had a night’s sleep on this, I don’t think it’s right that someone should receive a shorter sentence that has been matched to the legislative time of the crime(s). It seems clear to me that past crimes should be penalised according to the present legislation (and I mean this generally speaking, not just taking into account Rolf Harris’s situation).

Given that legislative measures and acts of jurisprudence are built on a cultural evolution of the increased wisdom and revisions of human beings over time, I’m of the view that sentencing for any crime should be administered according to the legislation of the time of the trial, not the offence – otherwise it rather undermines the perceived wisdom that went into the revision processes of jurisprudence over time.

My friend Mark made an interesting point; he warned that it could set a dangerous precedent. He says: “If we raised the age of consent to 18 we could then punish all those who had sex at Continue reading

British State Invents New Kind Of Porn. (New Law, number 014/3429456-254ngj-ftry-78923)


David Davis

There are no comments allowed on the Daily ToryGraph, on this matter. But I said this on facebook   instead:-

It will be intriguing to see whether, when the law that will be drafted and passed (as you and I all know instinctively that it will be) it will also apply to women posting pictures of their ex-boyfriends…for example, “doing this or that”, or “wearing something from my lingerie-collection”, and so on, and so on.
I bet you all £5,000,000,000 (each) that it won’t. Only “women will be protected” by this new, groundbreaking and far-reaching rectification of a crying injustice emanating from Tory Cuts, and that tragically and psychologically affects and damages millions of British women every year”….

You see…I can bullshit all the politically-correct stuff with the best of the Frankfurt School themselves. In fact, I can simulate the stuff better than they can, like Michael Caine imitating himself. He even sounded better than he would if he was acting… As indeed he did once on the “live” wire-less Tele-vision.

You can take the bet or not as it pleases you. (Form an orderly queue to drop your bank-transfer-notifications into my hat when the time comes, plus any “bearer-bond” Gold-Deposit-certificates that you care to adduce as part-payments.

I feel pretty safe making that monetary estimate of my takings.

Since human beings are Free Individuals, with Free Will (given by God of course…) nobody can force them to be deliberately photographed in any sort of position or act whatsoever. If they did agree, then it’s their lookout. If they didn’t and the photos were “made”, then a different crime, already very well understood and legally covered, was simultaneously committed, and there is no need for a “new law”.

I get worried sometimes when repellent people in other countries do repellent things, and we seem to have no power to prevent the fucking bastards from behaving in pre-capitalist-barbarian ways.


David Davis

My dear colleague Sean has had relayed onto his facebook a somewhat exciting post, by someone called Chris White (who I do not know) regarding some scumbags crucifying other people (who they might or might not know, for all I know).

I do not have any information about whether the victim, videoed, was also a scumbag or not, sadly. This might or might not have been the case, but at this time we cannot know if he was a scumbag or not, as he is unable to say.

My gripe with this situation is that, here we are, sitting in what’s really a fairly OK country, with most of what we want, and not really starving or wanting for much, most of the time. OK, you could rue the lack of a Bugatti Veyron or, if desperate and needy, a Range-Rover HSE Sport Overfinch, and perhaps you might be pissed off at not owning somewhere like one of these. But really it’s not that bad, quite yet.

Should we care if various unsocialized scumbags, arguably desocialized recently and on purpose when it wasn’t a requirement – by a “certain religion which has held their people’s social development back 1,500 years” -  are ritually-slaughtering each other somewhere else?

I think we ought to care. As the English People, we did actually teach the world how to live. I’ve been saying this off and on for eight years on this blog, and about 50, shambolically, elsewhere. This is not to say that the right thing to do is to “go to war in Syria”…and “for who or what? Also we have no vital British Interest in what goes on in Syria. But as a human being, one’s visceral response is to ” arrive in might, find the perpetrators, arrest and then (ideally) dispose of them in public (to make a point), and then _occupy the place, for perhaps decades or hundreds of years_ . This is necessary for mere years (such as the eight or so of Iraq) won’t do the job.

The GramscoFabiaNazis knew, even in 1884 when they began shagging each others’ wives and daughters, that they would have to occupy Britain for decades, and decades and decades, after their victory. The one which they have scored over us, gradually, between 1948 and the present day. They know their war is not over by a long chalk. I’m not making value-judgements about whether they ought to have engaged in those sexual past-times which I stated,

But having “gone into Iraq”, perhaps we should have stayed for 100, 200, 300 years. We stayed in India for just short of 350 years, for example, and even that was barely enough to turn a place like that into a semi-functioning pluralist democracy.

One day I’ll tell you stories about what my old dead father said, about stuff in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) when  he was there with the RAMC in The War, and what the African Tribesmens’ “big-men” said to him when their fears about “White Man Going To Leave Us After War” were sadly confirmed by him.

Perhaps we should have “intervened in Syria”. But :-

(1) Not this government

(2) Not in the way they thought they might.

It’s probably good Cameron was stopped, but then what do we do about this awful stuff going on?

Does it matter much if the LA blog is banned in Starbucks and people’s offices in large leftist corporations??


David Davis

I have read, indeed with some sadness, that the Director says that this blog is blocked in certain providers of “free wifi”. I doubt that this only because we show a couple of rather demure pictures of pretty young white women on our header photo. The Director thinks this is because of our, and our commenters’, use of naughty words.

There are no words naughty enough to convey the exasperation and – dare I say it? – sheer depression that comes over some of us, when we see the ongoing destruction of the entire civilisation that was kind enough to give birth to those that wish its death.

I do not know, but I believe that in many “firms” and “institutions” the use of the internet is very restricted anyway. A few years ago, I asked the Older Boy if as an experiment he could log onto the LA’s main site containing all our publications but not the blog, via school computers (this was a year-11 boy): he found that he could not.

The kinds of people that go to Starbucks to “use wifi” are probably not the sorts of people who we (a) either want to convert or (b) would even want themselves to give our worldview even a second of the time of day. Worse still are the ones with (a) no hand-luggage while also are (b)  knowingly carrying a cardboard coffeebucket about on the sidewalks of the the public roads.

On balance, I am not inclined to give in to these effing bastards. Once they have taken away the use of f***, c***, shitbag leftoid, scumbag fascist leftoNazi, GramscoFabiaNazi and the like from us, they will start taking other words from the hinterlands of these.

They stole “nigger” from the English Language last week while our backs were turned for five minutes: the scumbag thieving shoplifting moocher turds.

Subject nevertheless to a ruling in due course by the Director, I would say that I think we draw a line in the sand, and let them ban us.

The Chinese will be coming up with proxy-servers by which we can be accessed from universal wifi, which I am sure people’s phones etc will be able to get without having to lick Starbucks’ arses.

Spot the Hate Crime!


Article in progress!

This is the last thing we’ll say about Max Clifford


David Davis

I couldn’t resist this. Mainly because I have read all or most of the works of the Director’s dear and close friend Richard Blake. Blake writes in clear and disconcertingly-real and presently-verifiable ways, about the duplicitous political-classes of the various nations in his stories. Today’s subject is not really Clifford but the British-PoliticalEnemyClass, and how it views its servants and running-dogs and the like.

I wrote on facebook and in GUIDO:-

http://order-order.com/2014/05/09/nonce-watch-clifford-to-be-transferred-today/
It’s interesting to have watched the slow-motion-traincrash of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass, in the process of traincrashing one of their own creations in public.

Max Clifford’s “career” would not have existed in a classical-liberal-minimal-statist civilisation, in which was a high degree of citizen-curiosity and critical-analysis-ability of situations presented to them. Indeed, many such situations, such as “married footballist and “family-role-model” beds good-time-girl met in club” would not have _been_ presented to such a population: why? Because they would find it (a) unremarkable and (b) nobody else’s effing business, being a private matter between the footballist, his wife, and his pickup.

The pretty young woman, having had the footballist-family-man-and-role-model for-youth, for a little time, would have got nowhere in news terms, for nobody would give a stuff. Young footballist-males are chosen for their prowess on the “field”, which means also that, like Gladiators, they may well also have an insatiable appetite for pretty and submissive young women, to f***.

Islam may also have a take on this, but I cannot do it now here on this post, and that will wait for another time and an interpretation (carefully-guided by a “scholar” – I have one in tow for me to do it. He is a Hafiz, even – this one.) And it will be about what the Koran says about what gentlemen are allowed to do to ladies, and why, and under what conditions. (He’s memorised the entire Koran in at least one literary tradition: that is what “Hafiz” means.)

Therefore Clifford must have been created, as I argue on GUIDO (see paste below) to further the destroying-aims of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass. To see them therefore trashing him is almost funny, if it was not terrifying. I think of the scene in the great arena in Continue reading

Declare OPEN-SEASON on British GramscoFabiaNazis: “Practical tips for liberals in Britain”, no-1 in a series.


David Davis

The continuing BritishPolitical-EnemyClass tactical-assault-strike on UKIP is something I find increasingly annoying and , well, not even “low” but actually rather worse. (I say “Low”, as the Warnock-droidette once said about Thatcher – “just “low”) but, well, simply Nazi. It’s exactly what Hitler used to do in the press and in speeches and in his “apparitions”, to his enemies.

It’s only a “tactical assault”, for what it tries to do is boot over UKIP’s milk-pail each day. A “strategic assault” is the EnemyClass’s _effort to kill the cows_ … But I don’t think this has begun yet: wait a few days more.

So something has to be done. Since it seems to be open-season on UKIP, with the media hysterically and furiously trawling all social media going back for the last 100,000 years, for any slightly-non-politically-correct-stuff that some _nobody_ said about something five hundred years ago, I suggest a new smear-campaign.

It’s called
“SMEAR A LEFTY A DAY…KEEP THE STASI AT BAY!”

“MAKE SURE TO SMEAR YOUR FIVE-A-DAY,
AND THUS KEEP HEALTHY EVERY WAY!”

And the people can sing and chant to this one:- If you smear your-five-a-day…lefty bastards will all say…”let us now all go away.” Chorus: “UT! UT! UT!”

It’s slightly hard to know exactly what to do about this. But Continue reading

Breaking Britain, and the vote-rigging that will go against UKIP (RIG FOR VICTORY)


David Davis

You all know by now that a pessimist is some one who is an optimist but who is also in full possession of the facts.

It’s probably too late to make any sensible suggestions for preserving a nominally-conservative (and not more than harmlessly-and-merely-nugatorially-socialist) United Kingdom. The GramscoFabiaNazis have realised at least one of their strategic objectives, which in their hatred of English civilisation and culture is to, out of spite, break up our country. Whether or not the ScotzNazi-Party manages to rig a majority for Scottish “independence”  later this year or not, the cracks in the structure will takes years if not decades to repair.

Not only do the GramscoFabiaNazis hate us – and for this too they could be called _racists_ under their own terms of use of their manufactured word – but they want to actaully destroy a nation, in public, in the GramscoFabiaNazi circus-games, while _FORCING ITS CITIZENS TO WATCH_ . I believe that the celebrated author Richard Blake wrote about events of this kind, in the “public games” in his novel “The Terror of Constantinople”.

Let the GramscoFabiaNazis deny this charge against them if they will. But you and I, and we and they, know that they know in their hearts, that I have spoken the truth on this one. It is their punishment delivered onto classical-liberalism: delivered for showing how they, the looters and moochers, were always and everywhere redundant, leeching and mooching and looting, upon the living bodies of ordinary working people and other humans.

The current open-season on UKIP, the general-media-assault on anybody even _thought to have been seen or slightly-heard_ saying something sort of-vaguely-not-PC_ goes on. Here’s a quote off Guido today….or maybe it was yesterday, who cares? :-

Marina Hyde on the pious left and UKIP…

“…all right-thinking people to the left of UKIP – from Tories to commies – are supposed to regard it as a triumph each time a news outlet’s exposé forces Nigel Farage to outlaw some  //_nobody_//  (my italics – ed) for a vile thing they said on social media three years ago. This, apparently, is a win, even though the evidence suggests it simply calcifies the sense of asymmetric warfare against UKIP out there in the unreachable spaces where all those rising numbers of people who are going to vote for the party are living their unknowable lives.”

Can you imagine how, if polling so far is correct, and if you analyse all MSM comment-threads except the Guardian and the Independent, UKIP will not sweep the board in the euro-elections, gain hundreds of “council” (whatever those are for) seats, and possibly get one or more MPs in 2015? Will the Tories have any MPs left at all in “The North”?

The “pollsters” all bend over backwards (sorry…) to emphasise how very, very, very accurate they all are, even if they say (very very slightly) different things, very slightly…er…differently…

It’s not what the MSM and LiblabCon can’t say: it’s the way it can’t say it…RIG FOR VICTORY.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150592194757518&set=pb.662052517.-2207520000.1399239847.&type=3&theater

 

 

Thinking about witch-burning


David Davis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10571089/DJ-Dave-Lee-Travis-an-opportunist-who-assaulted-vulnerable-young-women-court-hears.html

It does not usually fall to me, to comment on such matters: this is because of today’s PuritaNazi “guilt by association” meme, as in what used to happen to people that even just _/looked at/_ Witches that were on their way to being burned.

I’m not sure that I ought even to be opening my mouth here, as any sort of comment can be so dangerous, and taken the wrong way can lead to death.

I’m hoping that I shan’t get dragged by the happily-screaming-mob into the fire-tumbril merely by referring obliquely to the bound-and-gagged man, as he is drawn past me on a ground-hurdle, spat on, and pelted with dogshit.

Being alive and a young man in the 1950s, 60 and 70s meant this thing, amoong others. You _knew_ (we all knew, we weren’t stupid you know) that to simply _be_ a disk-jockey, and (specially) _on the radio and the telly!_ was to be able to _get_ all the girls that you could possibly handle. They literally _threw themselves_ at these people. Being Men Of The World, we’d advise our teenage female counterparts “not to go with that fella” (I’m not implying here that it would have been Continue reading

Well, sorry about that one. Here’s Auberon Waugh to cheer you up instead.


David Davis

Reprinted from the Spectator, 1966…

Auberon Waugh’s Christmas Sermon

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/auberon-waughs-christmas-sermon/

18 comments Auberon Waugh 25 December 2013 11:00

Writing in the 23 December 1966 edition of The Spectator, Auberon Waugh considers the role of Christianity, in all its forms, in an English Christmas.

It’s not hard to see why most grown-ups detest Christmas nowadays. It is expensive and tawdry, a time for self-deception and false sentiment. It is a children’s feast, which is why we all pretend to be children and show gratitude for unwelcome presents and rot our fragile insides with poisonous green crystallised fruit. To crown all the meretricious jollity and make-believe, an enormous number of grown-up Englishmen go to church.

This has become as much part of Christmas as Continue reading

The Libertarian Alliance Christmas (sermon): I did want to say something positive, but I can’t. Sorry.


David Davis

Well, this is Christmas, I guess, and time goes around and comes around, and it seems like five minutes ago that I wrote the LA’s first Christmas Message on this blog, six or seven years ago. I’m not sure that there’s much else new to say from that time, but the Chimpanzee Type-Writors in the Blog’s freezing, damp Nissen-Hut must at least pretend to keep up appearances.

On every day and in every way, our rulers (do we need such people, really?) conspire to push us further and further down the outfall-pipe. It’s actually very depressing to be alive in Britain in 2013, knowing that one was being born some number of decades before, in a country which, while less blessed with the planet’s offerings, was at least less unfree in most ways.

All I’d really like to say to Libertarians this Christmas is that I think we are running out of time. It’s slipping by us all fast and I don’t know when there might be another time. I’m certain I said it before, possibly last year and the year before that and the year before that: it’s quite fortunate that statistNazis are rather inefficient and take longer than they might, to do what they need to do. Even Enoch Powell said once: “be of good cheer: for the rot has set in, but it will take quite some time”. There are some choices now open to us, as follows:-

(1) We can continue to try to “influence debate”, by publishing, by some of us (not enough to make a difference) going about having eggs and turned-off-mikes thrown at us in universities and on radio stations and in “Conservative” gatherings and meetings and stuff like that. We can continue to do that thing. But I don’t think anyone that matters, or is on our side, is listening. The ones not on our side will simply delete the file they got sent for airing, or turn off the mike when we get too near the truth.

(2) We can espouse “activism”, but all this will do is get us imprisoned, possibly for ever for we are right, and out families broken up, our computers “taken into local authority-care”, and our children “seized for hard-drive analysis”. As a strategy, this will therefore avail other people nought. The trouble is that we have been shown time and time again that “activism” pays, since people like Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, the dead pigs Castro and Stalin, the other dead leftist pig Hitler (he got lucky while young) and Ho Chi Mhinh “got into government”. But I don’t think any living Libertarian conservatives are willing to pay the price or are even young enough to see it redeemed.

(3) Each of us can build an “armoured library”. How you all do this is entirely up to you. It needn’t even be armoured, so long as you didn’t tell policemen, who’d of course tip off scumbag mobsters to come and accidentally burn it as soon as it was convenient for (them).

Sorry to be so depressing this year. It’s no use getting excited that “over 145 people” got to see the lecture at (somewhere or other) by “Dr Human Hope”, the really really articulate and perspicacious founder of the “freedom free thingy”, at some place or other, and which several hundred Libertarians from at least “20″ countries attended. Nor, even, that his lecture got “published on the internet.

Merry Christmas: the time has come to face reality. Nobody’s really interested enough in liberty – either for themselves or for others, and certainly not for others – for us to make a difference any more.

I’m not saying we should give up and die. Just that we must not expect victory, for we shall not get it.

Why should we care?


David Davis

This caught my eye earlier today. I sort of feel it could only be taken seriously in a polity where a lot of the votariat’s money’s proferrers came from the Nazi class of socialist GreeNazi greens.

the-23-most-wonderfully-scottish-things-that-have-1-16752-1382613214-5_wide

 

In 2010, we thought we’d bought a little time


David Davis

The disgusting Maria Miller is proposing state regulation of media, and, to cap it all, here in Britain. I have to admit that the only-narrow defeat of David Cameron in 2010 by the triumphant Gordon Brown – the real winner of that election – was seen by many of us as buying a little time, so that we’d not slide down quite so rapidly into the cesspool of socialism.

But it didn’t work out like that. I’d actually doubt whether even the foul Tony Blair would have put through such a measure. These sorts of things happen in Cuba and North Korea, not here.

I’ve not yet on this blog proposed my solution for people such as this. It is “voluntransportation”. It is for people that don’t like certain things the properties of free(ish) markets and free(ish) nations, and want to deprive others in those nations of the same things that they themselves disapprove of.

They are to be voluntransported to a place or places where there is nothing of what they don’t like and want to ban, regulate, ration or destroy. They can then be happy with each other. The first place suggested was the South Sandwich islands, where there is not much of anyting at all. So it would be very good and they’d have nothing to grumble about.

For mere regulators of the press, the penal-boats would set the voluntransportees adrift, about 100 yards off the “shoreline” (look at these) in boats made of newspaper. Preferably old unpulped copies of the News Of The World.

For GreeNazis, they’d be botted at gunpoint, off the gunwales of said boats, about 880 yards off (the boats will be very full and therefore large, and can’t “land” people in the full sense of the word there.) Some will make it, clinging to the frost-frozen corpses of those that didn’t.

I just thought all you people would like to see how the EU is allowing Nazis to say things about Britain and Gibraltar. Nothing about the fact that these are “minors” at schools then.


David Davis

http://order-order.com/2013/09/27/watch-spanish-school-children-stage-sick-gibraltar-massacre/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb9-2F0Npgo

There’s no point in trying to keep on buggering on and on, and on and on and on and on and on, about “Ceuta and Melilla” as the SpanNazi Government will simply unlisten as soon as its GCHQ get the syllable “ceu”. Apart from giving nuclear weapons to Morocco, there is nothing to be done about this one.

 

But this relates back to what I said in a comment on an earlier post: this was about whether, and how, or even if, we allow the expression of GramcoFabiaNazism after a victory.

My thesis is that we really, really, truly, madly, deeply, do NOT want to have to go through all this stuff all over again.

 

Queen Elizabeth-the-Useless failed in the execution of her Coronation Oath. But I expect we will all cry sincerely when she passes on.


David Davis

I am not always precisely in tune with my colleague Sean Gabb, regarding the failings of Elizabeth-the-Useless. Although he is quite correct in stating that she _could have_ blocked Rome, the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon at any time when these were issues. On any one of these – and the earlier the more chance of success – The Queen could have refused to assign her signature to any of this pretentious socialist rubbish, could have forced a General Election, and prevented the Franco-Collectivisto-Gramscian re-Nazification of Europe, saving her own subjects hundreds of billions of Sterling, not to say even trillions, in the process. We might even have got our managed-fisheries back before they were destroyed utterly (ask my father, who worked in the 70s for the MAFF, and who is now dead.). And at least up to Nice, she might also have got away with it. It would have been wise to resist early on.

But she continues to continue to soldier on, probably because she reminds the masses of their favourite great-aunt (I also have one, my aunty Betty who is actually a real aunt for I am rather old now and who even looks and sounds like the Queen a lot, and is only slightly older) or Grandmother.

As the Queen is old, and as she is a woman, and as it is not suitable to impeach or charge women for high treason – at least not “directly” – I would like to cleave to the position that “The Queen has been very, very badly advised, continually, for 61 years, in the matter of her constitutional dealings with the Continue reading

The end of Left-Wing-Conservatism: was it an “infantile disorder”, or just Alzheimer’s?


David Davis

Top Point:- Libertarians working in a statist “democratic civilisation” – which is to say: an imperfect democracy corroded by the presence, vestigial or worse, of socialistNazi components of allowed public discourse – regard political parties as advertising agencies whose job is to service, effectively, the “Liberty Account”. If they would not do the job adequately, then we would fire them and hire another one.

The Chimpanzee Type-writers have not been as active as they used to be. Perhaps, as a fellow I knew once in London said “it’s the heat” that affected their keyboard speeds. But we need to get things going again for the coming Arctic Winter, since warble-gloaming has ceased for the last 17 years, so we are now told by those who know the truth.

However, the Ukip conference is on, or was. I don’t really know if it’s more than a day. What does it matter how long Party Conferences really are? “Do all animals really fly?” is a more important question. They wree only charging £35 for a day ticket, compared with £520 from the Tories. I guess the Tory charge was that steep so as to deliberately keep out anybody who wasn’t a “lobbyist”.

You need to have money these days, to “access ministers”, I guess. I feel a “Piers Gaveston moment” coming on: ministers better beware I think.

Here’s what I wrote to the dully Tory-graph about the problem of Ukip for the British Conservative Party. I use the discriminator “we”, not because I am a member of Ukip (I am not – at least not yet) but because I think it is now speaking for the British working masses of people that live in that class that today’s MetropolitaNazi politicians find difficult to “relate to”. These are people that may not have “senior public sector, public-administrative and media jobs”.

They may drive 53-reg Ford Mondeos.  Or even older. I drive Y67LNE – that dates me…They may work in some smallish private business, a few or many miles from home, and thus have large fuel costs, mostly excise taxation. They may not have had “a pay rise” for years.

So here it is:-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100236803/what-the-hell-can-the-tories-do-about-ukip/
It’s actually too late to do anything aout Ukip. We may win the odd Parliamentary seat, or we may not. I’d guess one, or at a push, two. We’ll clean up anyway in the EuroNazi “elections”, and Ukip will e the largest UK party in StrasNazi-bourg or wherever the thing is “sitting” now, and it will be dedicated to getting arguably the most important caged-EuroNation our of the EUSSR.

You see, Tories, you have betrayed the People of Britain. You’ve tried to be a leftyparty, thinking it’d get you elected. And even that nearly didn’t work in 2010, and you’re saddled with LeftoNazi limpDemNazis who actually hate and despise you – the despising is actually worse than the hating – _Even More that the LabourNazis do_ if that were conceivable.

We in Ukip really, absolutely, don’t give a fuck if we Continue reading

UKIP and the Tories…what will the Toryawayday say tomorrow?


David Davis

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100236803/what-the-hell-can-the-tories-do-about-ukip/
It’s actually too late to do anything aout Ukip. We may win the odd Parliamentary seat, or we may not. I’d guess one, or at a push, two. We’ll clean up anyway in the EuroNazi “elections”, and Ukip will e the largest UK party in StrasNazi-bourg or wherever the thing is “sitting” now, and it will be dedicated to getting arguably the most important caged-EuroNation our of the EUSSR.

You see, Tories, you have betrayed the People of Britain. You’ve tried to be a leftyparty, thinking it’d get you elected. And even that nearly didn’t work in 2010, and you’re saddled with LeftoNazi limpDemNazis who actually hate and despise you – the despising is actually worse than the hating – _Even More that the LabourNazis do_ if that were conceivable.

We in Ukip really don’t give a f**k if we tip Ed Miliband into power. We know how bad he will be, and all the trolls and orcs he’ll let back into the farm to continue trashing stuff. You are no better so far.

We also don’t give a f**k if your party becomes toast permanently after a 2015 defeat. You had the chance in 2010 to give the Queen an ultimatum, and say that you were NOT prepared to go into government with either of the other groups of thuggish Nazi gangsters, and that you would _refuse_ to allow Parliament to be restarted until she called another election, which you would then have won. Of course, you still sere not going to give us our promised referendum on Lisbon and the EUSSR so it wouldn’t have made any difference, but at least you’d still have people’s respect to a tiny extent.

Face facts: you’re going to lose seats to Ukip, and probably to the LibDemNazis and Labour Nazis, because Ukip will make a point of targetting your marginals. If we get in, it’s a bonus. If you’re out, at least you’re punished. we’ll all be in the shit whichever Nazi party gets back in.

If you manage somehow to do, we’ll be only marching to the deathcamps slightly less fast than if one of the others was at the wheel.

Justice for Men and Boys, and for the Women who love them


David Davis

I was alerted to their site, and what is a new political party, by William Palfreman,

a fellow libertarian and commenter on our stuff here and on facebook.

It is very important that the influence of the GramscoFemiNazis, a sub-lethal but injurious branch of the GramscoFabiaNazis’ strategic assault on civilisation, should be exposed, and eliminated.

At this time, I cannot say if GramscoFemiNazis will “get” their “own island” in the South Sandwich Islands for themselves, as perhaps Laurie Penny, an evil and tormented Wadham-educated man-hater (It wasn’t Wadham’s fault I am sure), would wish, on the South Sandwich Islands when all the nasties will have been voluntransported from here so we that are left cannot be further harmed by them. But if they did, then they can set up committees to decide “food sharing issues in an environmetally-friendly feminist context in this day and age”, which is to say: “who is to be killed, butchered with these rough frozen stones, and eaten, first?”

The good is oft-interr-ed with their bones


David Davis

Since Margaret Thatcher is to be in-terr-ed tomorrow, I just thought we’d throw one last punch at her enemies and ours. I found this wonderful piece on The Last Ditch the other day, and one para deserves to be highlighted in our usual way:-

“If you want to know who freedom’s enemies are, mention her with approval. Mad eyes will light up all around you and foul sentiments will fill the air. Note their names and never leave them alone with anything you value; material, spiritual or ethical.”

Yes of course, I _know_ that we object to her having

(a) made the British State more efficient – as a recipe for disaster one would recommend this since the British-Political-Enemyclass is efficient already at making a powerful tyrannical state, and

(b) because she failed to absolutely destroy socialism at home and in the world, before members of that same EnemyClass destroyed her.

But I think that Tom Paine’s paragraph sums up who we are up against, whatever we as classical liberals think of Thatcher herself. I think we can lay her to rest now. May The Iron Lady Rust In Peace.

Jury Nullification: A Barrister Writes


by Howard R. Gray

Juries have a duty to try the case according to the law: this is trite. The judge is the tribunal of law, and the jury is the tribunal of fact: that is the simple rule of how criminal law works, and also just as trite. Judges in England are allowed broad scope to direct juries on the law and often put forward their views of the facts usually pre-seasoned with the exhortation that it is “up to you ladies and gentlemen of the jury” about any particular point they deem in need of comment.

That being said, there is a plethora of rules that they must use to put to a jury about particular points of law and about the standard of proof that must always be there in their directions. For example the “you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt” and “satisfied so that you are sure”, then they go on to give examples. There are the Turnbull directions on corroboration of witness testimony and so on. Each factual element that has a contentious nature must be directed upon in the judge’s homily to the jury at the end of the trial. Failure to adequately direct a jury can result in the verdict being set aside on appeal. Jurors needn’t be too worried that justice will be denied; appeals are often successful. Continue reading

I think we need to say things about these fellows


David Davis

BCBx168CEAAfSJr

“The Last Ditch” ventures inside The Door Of Hell, and manages to return


David Davis

The grand-challenge-cup award for brave man of the week is to go toTom Paine.

What is “Wireless tele-Vision” for? Discuss.


David Davis

[late edit...] [ I have suddenly wondered to myself what it's for, given that the global % penetration of small handheld (or not much larger) devices that can access news, comment, blogs and the opinions of millions, is approaching a majority. ]

One the one hand, the British Political EnemyClass has created what it seems to be admitting is a monster - this says “ban television for the under-threes” (or words to that effect.) Yet on the other hand a modern repressive police state would be a more difficult one in which to manage thought-control, regulate the opinions of, and generally farm for eliciting the “correct public responses” without this machinery. I have drafted a few of my own thoughts, rather fast this morning, in response to a typical Daily Mail mob-hysteria-inducing breakfast-article.

Of course, an invented device can’t be uninvented. The Wireless Tele-vision [WT] (and quickly also with post-receive injected sound subcarrier) was a marvellous development of the pure Sound-wireless, but like all technologies it’s been stolen and corrupted, Morgoth-style, by governments for their own purposes.

In the British State’s case,  WT’s purpose was to anaesthatize and render uncurious “The Masses”, over decades so nobody would notice except Continue reading

One down…only a few million to go


David Davis

The foul Marxist pig Hobsbawm is dead, I am advised. As the nominal “blogmaster” of this chimp-typist-filled nissen hut, it falls to me to write an obituary for the bugger. This thus brings a little cheer to an otherwise drizzly day.

What a seriously foul, repellent and wicked man this Hobsbawm bastard truly was. Basking in the uncritical, almost sexually-driven, adulation of his almost equally-repellent Marxist peers and (worse) his students, he sat on his butt in the West, looking and acting the superior intellectial “thinker: all the while pontificating languidly to all, about the essential rightness and morality of the gigantic Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist open-prisons of the Communist bloc.

It is such a tragedy, an abiding one yet, that his tracts are staple material for vulnerable British students at our universities, not to mention our (too many) “universities”. Worse still, he features prominently on the A-level Philosophy and Politics courses, a matter which I regard as promoting child-abuse.

I really am so pleased the bastard is dead. His departure gains me nought, but the planet is a cleaner place.
Actually, thinking about the disgusting old fellow, I just want to shout….”KNICKERS!”

The “Football Association” is now a “Court” – official.


David Davis

A private “Sports Governing Body” (whatever that is for) has set itself up as a “Sondergericht”. It has issued a “judgement – a Fatwah, if you like -  and attached a “fine” – a strange sum: £220,000….Makes you wonder how it was arrived at? No?

When I’m Principal Secretary of State For War, in the Democratic-People’s-English Revolutionary-Liberalist-Party’s*** first government (minimal-statist, conservative, libertarian) private institutions that have previously and triumphalistically-set themselves up as “judges and juries” under the current climate of rampant GramscoFabiaNazism, will find themselves “under investigation”.

I do not believe in amnesties for socialist behaviour, adopted and deliberately pursued with malice-afforethought, and in the face of all empirical evidence that such behaviour was designed on purpose to kill, destroy the effective lives of or otherwise harm as many people as possible.

The FootBallAssociatioNazis will be “hauled in for questioning” by the War Secretariat’s “Operational Services Department Personnel (Domestic Division)”. A version of a reverse-PPI-Claim will be applied to their staffs, who will be “invited to re-imburse John Terry the sum of £220,000 plus interest plus 8% plus a “sum to be decreed” for “damages”.”

I said something similar on Facebook a couple of minutes ago. In case any blogreaders here can’t read Facebook, I have posted the text of my piece there:- Continue reading

R.I.P. Gore Vidal, Enemy of the Empire « Attack the System


 

R.I.P. Gore Vidal, Enemy of the Empire Reply

by Keith PrestonAnti-Imperialism/Foreign Policy

By Elaine Woo

Gore Vidal was impossible to categorize, which was exactly the way he liked it.

The reading public knew him as a literary juggernaut who wrote 25 novels —from the historical “Lincoln” to the satirical “Myra Breckinridge” — and volumes of essays critics consider among the most elegant in the English language. He also brought shrewd intelligence to writing Broadway hits, Hollywood screenplays, television dramas and a trio ofmysteries still in print after 50 years.

Continue reading

How states set bad examples of behaviour


David Davis

I don’t follow foot ball, and I have had to be told who John Terry is. But this keeps on cropping up on my screen.

It is not for a State to decide what people can or cannot say, or think. Even I, who’d like to muzzle GramscoFabiaNazis – because they are _objectively_ wrong, not just misguided – cannot justify doing it, even under the auspices of the War Secretariat.

People ought to be free to think or say, things that might be offensive to others. There are Natural Rights: but there is no right to not be offended if someone says or thinks something that offends you – or worse – “may offend” third parties not even present at the time. This is utterly ridiculous.

Oh, and YOU MUST NEVER use the phrase “political correctness gone mad”. Doing that legitimises “political correctness” as a credible way of dictating the terms of public discourse in a liberal civilisation. You must not do it. Ever. (I know that no readers of the Libertarian Alliance would ever do such a thing, but you must tell others. We’re wasting our breath and time otherwise.)

The poor bugger will probably go down for £2,500, and then we will be forced to watch the Continue reading

Compensating the British for slavery


David Davis

I have had occasion, this morning, to get very annoyed over at Facebook about what some jumped-up-politicoWoman has been saying over in Jamaica.

It appears that the old lie, told often enough and being a big enough lie, about how the British have been the prime-movers of slavery, persists. Frankly I’m not surprised. Two reasons come to mind:-

(1) We as a people are far, far too busy keeping on doing what we do, which is to keep buggering on and working and doing stuff and inventing things and selling other stuff, to be able to devote much time and energy to defending our reputation. We sort of take that as read. We _/Taught The World How To Live/_  , as I never tire of saying. It should be utterly obvious to all on the Planet that we were, are and will be for always, good people. We are So Unlike GramscoFabiaNazis***, most of whom are British sadly and shamefully, and who do harm out of all proportion to their numbers, and who are axiomatically not good.

(2) Socialism, in its various strategically-morphing-disguises, as is natural for Evil to want to adopt from time to time, is a specifically anti-English phenomenon. To be anti-liberal, as opposed to be anti-English-Civilization-culture-and-thought, is a mere triviality, a mere minor generality by contrast. It’s the various modern forms of socialism that have most orgasmically-jumped, salivating and ejaculating, onto the antislavery bandwaggon, carrying anti-Englishness with them while nobody noticed they’d got it in their swagbags and could take it off them first. We were, as I said, too busy to notice.

Continuing to tolerate this level of libel, slander and malicious defamation without riposte is strategic ideological madness. It does two things:

(a) it causes onlookers to think there may be something in the charges against us. Mud sticks: you can’t help it. Sticking is, after all, what mud is for.

(b) it lulls the attackers into thinking they have kicked and booted us on a weak spot and that they are actually right, even though they know full well that they aren’t.

Does anyone on here, all of you being super-intelligent, have anything to offer about a solution to this problem?

***They will have to go, but it will unfortunately take quite some time, and there may be an Endarkenment Stage in which they’d have to prevent their stray children being killed and eaten by starving mobs who have re-learned how to operate in the dark with rushlights, while their searchlights are out and their Argentinian-plastic-mined gateways are temprarily down.

(Sir) Fred Goodwin: Forever My Knight in Shining Armour!


by Percival Glyde

Several years ago, I bought a car on what I later discovered was an unfavourable leasing agreement. I’d normally have whined about this, but got on with the payments. Then I changed my bank, and forgot to carry over all my standing orders. The car finance company immediately registered that I was in default just as I was trying to arrange a new fix on my mortgage. I did call the finance company to explain, but found myself in an argument with a youngish Scotchman, who shouted me down, and gloated that my credit was ruined for life. Continue reading

Murdoch is not a libertarian, the Devil


Sean Gabb

Murdoch is not a libertarianAccording to the BBC

Rupert Murdoch is a libertarian—against too much state control, and in favour of individuals taking responsibility.

For the record, I agree with everything that The Appalling Strangeness has to say on this—Murdoch may be an economic liberal but that is not the same as being a libertarian.

Economic liberalism is, in fact, only one half of the equation: a libertarian is also socially liberal and I have yet to see The Scum (for foreign readers less familiar with the British National Press, this is a liberal/conservative slang-word for “The Sun”, which is a mass-market-tabloid newspaper) for instance, backing the legalisation of drugs.

But worse than that—Murdoch is a corporatist. His rags back whichever party Murdoch thinks will enable his News Corporation to wield the most power. Further, he deliberately backs parties in a way that makes them grateful and thus more likely to serve his agenda.

In other words, Murdoch gains legal advantage for himself and his businesses through effectively buying the legislators—he is, as I have said, a corporatist.

And there is nothing libertarian about corporatism.

H/t The Devil’s knife
TheDevilsKitchen?d=yIl2AUoC8zA TheDevilsKitchen?d=dnMXMwOfBR0 TheDevilsKitchen?i=rrjcUnwWwW4:jnu4Gi8iB2A:V_sGLiPBpWU TheDevilsKitchen?d=qj6IDK7rITs TheDevilsKitchen?i=rrjcUnwWwW4:jnu4Gi8iB2A:gIN9vFwOqvQ

The GramscoStaliNazi long march to pre-capitalist-barbarism…


…continues.

David Davis

The Knowsley Soviet, here in North West England, gains the “Gramscian-Education-of-the-masses Grand Challenge Cup”, for aiming low, missing, and also coming bottom. Mistakes this big, as Ayn Rand said, are deliberate.

And whaddaya-know? Boys “fall further behind”. Anyone who looks at any part of the British GCSE “syllabus” will see that it’s designed to demotivate males in particular. For example, there is a “topic” in the “Biology syllabus”, occupying about one whole term of “BY1A”, about the female menstrual cycle (in serious detail including hormone levels day by day) and coupling it (sorry, no pun intended) with “aspects of the control of fertility”, going into the days for “safe sex” and how, whether and why to use “artifical methods of birth control” such as “The Pill”. Seriously, some female biology high-school teachers spend a whole term on it. The feelings of boys in the class can only be imagined. I refuse to teach it, saying only “ask your mum”.

http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/

I do hope not, seriously.

One day, art will take its proper place


David Davis

I never usually read movie reviews, not knowing or caring about movies apart from “The Dam Busters” and perhaps “The Lord Of The Rings”. But I just had to click on “Pay, Sit, Barf” – partly because I didn’t know what “barf” means and still I don’t.

But what this “movie critic” appears to be writing about – amusingly – is one example of the self-indulgent narcissism exhibited by some of the things called “movie stars”. I don’t know whether it’s the “stars” themselves who’d like to be thought of as thinking like what she describes a-propos of Julia Roberts: or whether it’s the generalised studio-corporate-direction, being as it is a projecting-part of the Western Political Enemy-Class, that causes films to be made that sound like the ones I would pay to _/not/_ watch.

However, Lindy West’s article is amusing and I wanted to share it.

Something Wonderful


Sean Gabb

The score is handy for telling me the piece is in Db. And it generally helps explain why my own efforts at singing it in the car have not so far matched those of Mme Callas….

MPs expenses…the new brief is to bankrupt the Tories (and UKIP as a side-order) while you still can, while letting the GramscoFabiaNazis off with a slap on the wrist


David Davis

Bernard Jenkin (I thought he’d died years ago, I really did, I thought he was some sort of B-movie-comedian or something) is the subject of the Daily GramscoMirror’s ire today***, over an “eyewatering £63,250″. Yup, it really is. Eyewatering I mean.

One law for them.

And Tony McNulty (who’s that? How can you give a job as a politician to someone called “Tony”?) can “keep the £60,000″.

Another law for us.

***Through a Glass, Dully.

Guido Fawkes to Speak at Libertarian Alliance Conference, 24th October 2009


NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International

Release Date: Tuesday 6th October 2009
Release Time: Immediate
Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb on 07956 472 199 or via sean@libertarian.co.uk

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr076.htm

“GUIDO FAWKES TO SPEAK AT LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE CONFERENCE”

Guido Fawkes -aka Paul Staines, aka “the most feared man in British politics” – will give the after dinner speech at the Libertarian Alliance conference in London on the 24th October 2009. His subject will be “Get Your Skates on for Liberty”.

[Guido Fawkes is the Web name of Paul Staines. As founder of and chief contributor to Guido Fawkes' blog of plots, rumours & conspiracy, he has done more to subvert the Blair-Brown regime than the whole of the Conservative Party.]

[The annual conference of the Libertarian Alliance will take place at the National Liberal Club in London on the 24th-25th October 2009. Click here for booking and other information: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conf09brochure.htm]

According to Sean Gabb, Director of the LA:

“I have known Paul Staines since we met at a libertarian conference in October 1988. I knew from our first meeting that he was a man of outstanding abilities and have always respected his uncompromising libertarianism. We have over the years published a number of essays by him. These we list at the foot of this release. They are superbly written essays, and have been consistently among the most frequently accessed publications on our website.
“We are honoured that he has agreed to give the after dinner speech at our conference. It will be the high point of the evening, and one of the high points of an already exciting conference.”

END OF COPY

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.

He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at sean@libertarian.co.uk
Paul Staines has written the following for the Libertarian Alliance:

Economic Notes 69. Paul Staines, The Benefits of Speculation: A Bond Market Vigilante Replies to Will Hutton’s ‘The State We’re In’, 1996, 4pp.
ISBN: 1 85637 338 X <http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn069.pdf>

Foreign Policy Perspectives 18. Paul Staines, Human Rights and the Inevitability of Politics, 1990, 2pp.
ISBN: 1 85637 001 1 <http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/forep/forep018.pdf>

Political Notes 055. Paul Staines, Acid House Parties Against the Lifestyle Police and the Safety Nazis, 1991, 4pp.
ISBN: 1 85637 039 9 <http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin055.pdf>

Libertarian Alliance News Release 76: 6th October 2009

Just look at the sad buggers


David Davis

Where are they now? Some are dead, some live in retirement and one or two partially redeemed themselves.

My God, the _dreadful_ suits....

My God, the _dreadful_ suits....

Libertarians recognise these guys’  ideological features, sadly, in the minds and hearts of today’s British and European bureaucrats. The fact that these seven called themselves “communists” is almost irrelevant to the ideological war we find ourselves in now.

Sean Gabb and Tim Evans will of course be able to confirm theories about their mundane and repellent taste in prime office furniture and decor.

The main struggle today is against the hold these dudes and their ideology has over the thoughts and actions of our home-grown apparatchiks and GramscoSalariat.

Food rationing coming soon: it will be called “choice-editing”.


David Davis

They’re after your children again.

Has nobody among these GramscoFabiaNazi “researchers” considered that children need to be fat in places like Stockton-on-Tees, because it’s effing cold a lot of the time? (So your children can, indeed must, be fat, or they will be uncomfortable.)

And that in wealthy, hot Sussex, way-down south of here, it’s just, well, hot? (So your children can, indeed must, be thin, or they will be uncomfortable.) They have successful vineyards, for f***’s sake.

Anyway, those effete southerners are too close to all those “Haute Couture” designers in strange places like London and Paris who seem to think all humans ought to be 3-meter-high-skeletal boys with a scowl, so they probably get to like thin children…

And of course, picking and treading the Sussex grapes, for the Political-Enemy-Superclass to crow about in venezuela and Cuba, in the traditional pre-capitalist-barbarian grape-treading-manner, gets you fit and thin.

“Is farming the root of all evil?” – the buggers are really having a go at us now…


….they’re ‘avvin-a-luff… gotta be.

David Davis

Having read a Jared Diamond book a few years ago, I began to think the bugger was suspect at the time (Guns, germs and Steel.) Now I know he’s a member of the Enemy Class after all.

MPs and expenses… Lavoisier was beheaded for less than this. Should we be happy or sad?


David Davis

How is it possible to overclaim for tax paid, whe you, er, had to pay tax?

I am beginning to be not able to figure out quite what these people think they are entitled to.

Patrick Foster, sorry, who?


UPDATE1:- Curly’s Corner Shop has done a masterful roundup of blogosphere reactions to Patrick Foster’s “outing” of poor old hard-writing Nightjack – whose output will grow in stature with time, unlike Foster’s which will crumble to dust and blow away… (apologies, it’s the Blogmaster butting in unannounced here)…and an excellent perspective by CarterMagna. Here’s mummylonglegs, which is why you are reading in the first place!

MummyLongLegs

Patrick Foster has just become a legend in his own lunch time. For all the wrong reasons. Enjoy it Patrick, it won’t last long.

The Times discovers something nobody is interested in.

Yep, top news story this. The Times has decided to disclose the details of Richard Horton aka NightJack. He tried to defend his right to privacy but The Times were so determined to ‘oust’ him they even went to court over it. They spent a lot of time, effort and money to do this. Why ?. Was he a kiddy fiddler ? - No. Was he a rapist ? - No. Was he a murderer? – No. Was he, god forbid, a corrupt MP? – Oh no, no, no.

So, Why?. Well, NightJack is a blogger. Not any old blogger (like Moi) he’s a copperblogger. And one of the very, very best. Last year he was awarded the Orwell Prize for political writing.  The Times reckon there was a public interest in non-compliance by a police officer with his obligations under the statutory code governing police behaviour.

Me, I reckon that Times journalist, Patrick Foster, is a nasty, lazy, bitter little so and so that would rather spend hours/days/weeks at his computer trying to mess up someone else’s life, rather than get off his useless backside and investigate something, in fact, anything, that the British public actually give a flying monkeys chuff about?. I think Foster and his ilk are more than a little jealous and more than a lot scared by bloggers. I wonder how many writing awards Foster has won in his journalistic career.

Let’s be honest, the likes of Patrick Foster know their days are numbered. More and more big stories are being broken by bloggers. Those that blog the serious shit do so because they feel a need to. They stick to their topics and plug away at them. They don’t publish a quick headline grabber then bugger off to the next Jade Goody/Jordan type tripe. Bloggers can choose what they want to write about. They do not get paid so they can keep going back again and again and again to their chosen area.

Why pay for a paper when you can scan the net, pick out what you are interested in and ignore the rest. Journalists like Patrick Foster know this. Their papers are losing readers and money, hand over fist. They don’t like it. They could of course start their own bloggs but they are too lazy and too greedy. Why write honest truthful opinions for free when you can get some dead wood manufacturer pay you lot’s of money for utter bollocks.

Bloggers care about what they write, they feel passionately about the topics they choose to focus on. They write about stuff that means a lot to them. For no real benefit other than getting their opinions out there for all to read. Journalists get paid to write stuff, so what gets written depends on who is paying the check. Journalists write to make money. Do they care about what they write about, I don’t think so. It’s just a story, write it, flog it, move on.

There is a difference between bloggers and journalists. A very big difference. People have to pay for journalists. They don’t have to pay for bloggers. I read approx 25 – 40 bloggs a day. I read them because they write what I want to read. I don’t buy a single paper. I read the MSM online to see what is going on in the wider world but I read bloggs to see what is going on in mine. The bloggs I read relate to me and my life and I suspect that a lot of blog readers are the same as me. I don’t always agree with the bloggers opinions but via the comments section, I have a way to air my views and discuss our differences.

Patrick Foster, I am sure you have gotten youself very excited over your ousting of NightJack. I bet you feel just fab. You ‘exposed’ a blogger. Get you honey, rocking along with your investigative journalism. Fuck me, I bet you reckon you could teach Sherlock and Watson a thing or two right now. I hate to be a party pooper and all that, but, I have to point something out. Who have you really upset. In reality. Have you pissed off NightJack – yep, a lot, but he took it on the chin, and so did his seniors. Written warning, he expected that and so did we. NightJack deleted his blogg. Who read his blog. Well I did, but I’m just a Mum. I reckon 70% or above (shoot me if I’m wrong) of his readers were Coppers.

Some advice Patrick. If I were you I would set up a savings account and not move from my desk. You grabbed a headline and made some wonga. You also fucked off, beyond all belief, just about all of the British Police Force. I hope you paypacket for this story was worth it. If I was a copper, right now, I would hunt you. And make you pay for what you have done. I would watch your bins, watch you parking, I would fine you to within an inch of your bank balance.

NightJack – I wish you all the best and I thankyou for your blog, it was fucking ace. I am sorry that some wittering fucking twat put you in fear of your job and I am sorry you have been exposed. I hope, one day, to see your writing again (write the book – WRITE IT!!!!!).

This is nearly a double post but I have removed most of the swear words, well, the really sweary ones anyway.

Mummy x

Will the first libertarian State (minimalist) have to be armed to the teeth against foreing Statists? Discuss.


David Davis

I do worry about this, really I do: and I lie awake at night and I do not know what to suggest.

It does occur to one that in the event of a truly Libertarian “government” – if that’s not oxymoronic – arriving in power somewhere any time soon – and I don’t somehow think it will be here in the UK – what will we do about the following?  

By this I mean the inevitable ire, fulminations, threats, missiles such as the Shithead-3, the Gramsci-VII, the Fabian-V, the Skcidpan-flying-dustbin-Mark37,478-people’s-sword (based as always on the V-2 and about as effective as seen in 1991) sanctions (you name it, we didn’t invent it!) outright attempts at piracy of out trading-ships on the High Seas by the “people’s spontaneously-arising-revolutionary forces of the” states-most-threatened, and the like?

And what is all this sword-iconography about, that “people’s states” seem to affect strongly? Like this stuff?

I do not mean to be churlish about people who sell us things, but why do that when others do or did this?

 

Must like swords, then

Must like swords, then

I confess that I don’t see the point. I don’t think even the statist forces of the UK do swords much on their badges. Swords are old hat (bad pun.)

Perhaps they still use them as machinery to behead people. Well then, personally, I believe that to be repellent and disgusting and (even) very very pre-barbarian, and I would put a stop to it in Westminster now  __in__  all those “nations” (Ha!) who do it today, and I’d go after the f****rs on the High seas if needed. As you all know, this writer does not favour the death penalty under the present cicumstances here, for this reason:-

For we cannot delegate to the Agency at Westminster any rights that we do not ourselves posess.

But to get back to the point of this post, as I have to go out and do orange-diode-stuff to the meters on the Steel Beast for a bit, a Libertarian Admministration would have hard choices: I don’t think all of them will involve domestic policy decisions – which will be easy as we can just fire everybody on the State-payroll, raze the buildings, and mallet the hard-drives of the State departments that will need to be “let go”.

I think some decisions will involve what foreign powers think of us, and I don’t think they will be initially friendly.

Really, I was just looking at this stuff, and thinking strategically. Obviously battleships are a no-no, as they are noe deadmeat, but you get the point.#

Going down Gordon – does Guido know something?


David Davis

http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/johnson-and-miliband-ready-campaign-teams/

I don’t know – do you? Please tell….

But the longer Gordon Brown stays as PM, the longer Labour (and GramscoFabiaNazis in general) will be out of power, and less able to do hurt to people.

I believe that Labour will do several things on 4th June:-

(1) Rig postal voting in rotten boroughs full of poor and easily-bamboozled people who will act as fall-guys,

(2) Stuff ballot-boxes,

(3) Procure the mis-counting of ballot-papers on the night,

(4) Lose much less badly than is predicted,

(5) Get the BBC to present it as “the public sending a message of support for this government’s overall strategic policy”.

Yesterday I said that Thierry Djanogly (a footballist?) whatever he is called, should have his gates, because in the coming socialist-driven-wished-for-endarkenment, then we all should, as this is “fair”. Here is another idea.


David Davis

Whoops has hit on what I’d say was an unlooked-for advantage of high-rise tower blocks, in the coming Endarkenment.

(Here’s what I said about Thanogly-Djanogly. Perhaps he ought to be a foot ball-ist, with a name like that, not a politician? Look, he needs his gates, ‘coz people don’t like him, or else he thinks they don’t.

But you’d better hope your assaulters have not got artillery of any kind, I suppose. That the lifts might be put out of action by it, is the least of your worries! What if the building falls “at terminal speed”? (Load of pilotsfortruth9/11.org crap). How will you get out?

How about a Motte-and-Bailey castle, or better, a proper one, or even the really really strategically-focussed ones, such as was built by Edward I, like this one? (It’s about two and a half hours down the road from here on Richard Brunstrom’s cameraed-roads.) This was his contracting-engineer.

There’s still time to buy something if you have the dosh. Sell your yacht. Now, and take it in cash, gold or silver bullion (not “money”).

Anna Bramwell (who he?), environmentalism, and fascism


David Davis

Scary, scary stuff.

It confirms all I have ever suspected about GreeNazis and environmentalists.

I am indebted to davidncl for pointing to it, somewhere else, I think on Mr Eugenides, somewhere on his comment thread for this piece here.

These mountebanks may have claimed when they didn’t need to (but what was allowed), but they’ve got more style than the new labour NKVD


David Davis

Here’s the link for what they had, for the “second homes” shown below. I can’t be arsed to type or copy-paste all the figures. Anyway, the takings by these clowns don’t appear to be worse than any other MPs’ claims, and certainly less shamelessly-vast than ZanuLieBorg.

But their houses are much more interesting, and quintessentially English –  almost like the sort I’d have loved to own, had I been luckier or more competent in my life. Oh well never mind.

And….

When they have “left Parliament”, they can always model for the Boden Catalogue. Or Hackett.

aduncanjohnroberts_1405501iahazelhurstuppadan_1405516iasteenapexrichardl_1405500idcameronjohnrobert_1405499idhamorytonyprimesw_1405495idhoggianjonesiil_1405493igeorgeosbornemikef_1405492ijarbuthnotjeffgilb_1405491ijmaplesgeoffpughjo_1405489imspicerpetermacdia_1405488ioletwin_1405523i

Sean Gabb on the Commons Expenses Row


Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 182
18th May 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc182.htm

A Political Class is Blown Away:
Cui Bono?
by Sean Gabb

My British readers will need no reminding of what has happened during the past few weeks. However, most of my readers are not British, and many will be coming on this article several years into the future. So I will begin by saying that The Daily Telegraph has “acquired” a disk that contained about a million pages of expenses receipts put in by Members of the House of Commons, and has been publishing its findings day after day. Many of the receipts show a scandalous indifference to the niceties of honesty and proportion. There has been one resignation from the Cabinet so far. Several other Ministers are at least tainted, and may not survive much longer even in Gordon Brown’s apology for a Government. Dozens of letter political careers have been blighted. The Police have now been called in, and we are waiting to see who will be charged and with what.

It is very funny to watch these creatures squirming – rather like bugs in the sunlight when the stone under which they were sheltering is pulled over. The general defence is either to blame accounting carelessness. Otherwise, when this defence cannot reasonably be made, they blame “the system” that never stopped them from slipping their hands into the till. That the sums involved have not usually been that great makes it all the funnier. These people have, since 1997, burned their way through about two trillion pounds of our money. Most of this has been used to buy Labour votes or to oppress us – often for both at the same time. If they are now on the brink of political oblivion because of a few thousand pounds here and there spent on tampons and television sets, it is because these are things that we can comprehend. A trillion begins with one digit and is followed by twelve zeros. Claiming back £65 for a summons for non-payment of council tax is much easier to imagine.

Various further questions arise from the scandal. The first and most obvious is how anyone could be so careless in his accounting – especially when he has spent decades advertising his peculiar fitness to govern this country. Then it may be asked how so many politicians can afford to write out repayment cheques for what the rest of us might think substantial sums of money. I am not poor, but would have to wait a while before signing a cheque for £20,000. Have these people additional sources of gain that have not so far been revealed? But the question I want to ask today is why has The Daily Telegraph seen fit to expose all this dirt?

One answer is that this is the sort of thing the media of a free country exists to do. But this is not a satisfactory answer. I have been watching the British media at work for about thirty years now, and I can say that – weather reports and cricket scores aside – nothing is published in the way of news that does not serve some agenda of the great and powerful. These expense claims show at worst rather petty corruption. There are much larger scandals that are not covered by the mainstream media – and certainly not by The Daily Telegraph. There is, for example, the former police chief who used his position to stop his mistress from being blackmailed. There is a senior judge who was arrested for exposing himself to little girls in a bus shelter. There is the whole background to the Dunblane massacre in 1996. There is much else that has never found its way into the newspapers. So why this?

Another possible answer is that The Daily Telegraph is supposed to be a Conservative newspaper, and that it should, therefore, do whatever it can to hasten the end of this Labour Government. However, it has done very little against either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. Most of the dirt published on this Government has been in The Daily Mail or The Independent. In any event, if the worst abuses have been by Labour politicians, these expenses claims have damaged politicians in all the main parties. Using them for party political purposes is much like using atom bombs to win a trench battle.

No – I believe that this wind that will blow away much of our political class was produced for – if not by – Boris Johnson. He is not currently in the House of Commons, but is Mayor of London. He has obvious ambitions to be at least the next but one Conservative Prime Minister. He is, so far as I can tell, the only person of significance likely to benefit from this expenses scandal. He benefits so far as he is untouched by it, and so far as many of those who do or might stand in his way will be discredited.

I have no direct evidence of this claim. But I can supply what I regard as reasonable inferences from past behaviour that stand beside estimates of present interest.

To begin with past behaviour, it may be recalled that, around the turn of the century, I ran the Candidlist Project. This provided information about the stated or likely views of Conservative politicians about the European Union. It was a very feeble thing compared with what has since been achieved by Guido Fawkes – or even by The Daily Telegraph. But it scared the life out of several hundred normally shameless politicians, and destroyed about a dozen careers. I may have unseated one Member of Parliament. During the approach to the 2001 General Election, I put the Candidlist Questions to Boris Johnson, who was at the time the Conservative candidate for Henley and a senior journalist at The Daily Telegraph and Editor of The Spectator. At first, he refused to answer my questions. Then he gave some very unsatisfactory answers. I made great fun of him, and this was picked up by several newspapers.

What I did next was to start pressuring the directors of companies that were funding a campaign for Britain to join the Euro. This pressure included a threat to publish the home addresses of directors who refused to stop funding what I regarded at the time as treasonable propaganda. Almost at once, I found myself on the front page of The Daily Telegraph, for two days running accused of what would nowadays be classed as terrorism. The journalist concerned managed to claim that publishing the home addresses of people like Fred Goodwin was tantamount to putting dynamite through their letterboxes. I was outraged by the claims, and it took me several days to appreciate the funny side of things. Back then, though, this was still a free country, and everyone else had a good laugh at me and then forgot the matter. It is unlikely that the Police even read the claims, let alone considered how many dozen officers they could fit through my front door before shooting me.

Now, it might have been some alarmed company director who had me done over. More likely, it was Boris Johnson, calling on his friends to punish me for what I had done to him. This was his newspaper. He has always had a reputation for bearing grudges and for a ruthless viciousness in advancing his own interests. If so, it may be relevant that the journalist who defamed me in 2001 was Benedict Brogan – and that it is Benedict Brogan who is now supervising the publication of the Commons expense claims. It may also be relevant that no claim submitted by Mr Johnson while he was in Parliament has yet been published or commented on. Perhaps Mr Johnson ran his finances as a Member of Parliament with more attention to the proprieties than he did his private life. We may one day learn the truth.

As for present interest, I have already explained this. At the beginning of the present month, Mr Johnson was an important elected officer. But he was out of Parliament, and had dropped out of competition with a leadership that growing in confidence with every downward step of the Brown Government. He is now the one leading Conservative who has not been tainted by allegations of fraud or allegations of having tolerated the frauds of others. It still looks as if the Conservatives will win the next election – even they cannot managed the incompetence and cowardice now needed to save Labour. And it looks as if David Cameron will be the next Conservative Prime Minister. But Boris Johnson has grown in public stature during the past fortnight, and he may be able, after the next election, to come forward with claims to preferment that cannot be denied.

I have no reason for not wanting Mr Johnson to succeed in politics. He is no worse than anyone else, and has given the occasional sign of being better. He was beastly to me a long time ago, and has almost certainly been beastlier to other people who have got in his way. I say what I have said because I believe it to be true, and because, if it is true, I might pick up some credit for having said it first.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

Cooperballs


David Davis

Would you want these people to be in charge, either of your child’s education, or whatever it is that the Yvetteball-ist pretends to be doing? And how can a woman who looks like that get called “Yvette” first of all,  _and_  second-of-all, acquire a job bullying other people?

“Yvette” is the sort of name of a nice pretty little French girl whom you liked to shag one summer when you were a penfriend, or your “gap-year” or something. This can’t be the same girl (but thanks to Guido for the pic anyway.)

triple_flippers

Pope Tank


Fred Bloggs.

I have just heard from a very reliable source that the Pope, during his trip to the potentially dangerous middle East, has, for his own personal safety, just got a new Popemobile:-

church-tank

Also, according to my source, the Police are getting a new patrol vehicle, which will be more suited to the environments in which it needs to operate, due to the fact that criminals are now beginning to use medieval weaponry:

t-72-120l

EDIT: I just found out,  that due to budget cuts, the Police will instead be using these:

pc

Big Mac University


David Davis

I suppose that libertarians would probably agree that there ought to be lots of Universities, since these are theoretically a _Good Thing_ (provided that they function according to the principles of fthe Free Market, and do what they are supposed to do, which is turn out Liberally-Educated human beings. Therefore the recent fungal morphing into “universities” in Britain, of numerous otherwise (I presume?) reasonably competent technical and remedial institutions, so as to meet some socialist “planning target for young people entering further education”, is to be criticised. All it’s done is turn out a whole class of the robbed, the indebted and the duped, fit for nothing except occupation of state sinecures in the gigantic unemployment-relief system known as the “Public Sector”.

It says over at The Landed Underclass that MacDonald’s, the Burger Chain that All Right-Thinking-People Love to Hate, is going to offer degrees, via itself, for the benefit of its staff. I think this a grand idea, and wonder why other outfits are not already filling the clear gap left by the uselessness of most orthodox “university degrees”. Such qualifications can’t possibly be worse and more useless than “golf Course Management”, or “Hospitality Studies with Criminal Psychology.

After all, about 50% of MacDonald’s employees are already graduates whom the ZanuLieBorg concept of further education has already epically-failed. Possibly these commercial degrees, filling an obvious need, if it gets off the ground, will be more marketable to other employers than the “real” ones?

Robert Henderson on Margaret Thatcher


Sean Gabb

          With  his  mixture  of  vaulting  intellectual  ambition  and
          howling  mediocrity  of  mind,  Lenin  is  the  MaGonagal  of
          philosophers.  (Connoisseurs  of   intellectual  incompetence
          should  browse through ‘Materialism  and  Empririo-Criticism’
          for an especial treat).   Nonetheless,  like Hitler,  the man
          possessed a certain low animal cunning and a complete absence
          of moral sense,  which qualities  permitted him to make a few
          acute  psychological and sociological  observations.  Perhaps
          the  most interesting of these is the concept of  the  useful
          idiot.

          For  Lenin  this  was the role to be  played  unwittingly  by
          simpleminded,  tenderhearted,  bourgeois dupes in preparation
          for  the   proletarian  revolution,   a  revolution   utterly
          antipathetic to simpleminded, tenderhearted bourgeois  dupes.
          But  the concept is of general political utility,  for it  is
          essentially  that of the political naif who believes  against
          all the evidence in the good intentions of those in authority
          or aspiring to authority and the rightness of their ideology.
          The useful idiot should be distinguished from the Uncle  Tom,
          the latter being a mixture of shrewd self-promoting  civility
          and  psychological  subordination.  The  useful  idiot  is  a
          self-deluding,  self-committed political adherent.

          In practice, all political movements seek their useful idiots
          and none more so than those operating within an mass elective
          system, for   no party standing for election  is ever willing
          to  tell the whole truth about its desired ends  or  intended
          means.  The best of all useful idiots are, of course,   those
          in positions of the greatest political power.

          Margaret Thatcher might seem an unlikely candidate for such a
          role of useful idiot.  Was she not the Iron Lady,  the Hammer
          of the Left, the slayer of the socialist dragon?  Did she not
          speak  of turning back the tide of coloured  immigrants?  Was
          she   not  the  rock  from   which  the  European   Leviathan
          rebounded?  Did she not ensure that Britain was respected  in
          the world as she had not been since Suez? Was she not a mover
          and shaker in the nationalist cause?

          In  her own rhetorical world  she was all of these things,  a
          veritable  Gloriana who enchanted some and banally  persuaded
          many  more,   but in practical achievement she  was  none  of
          them.  This  discrepancy between fact and fancy made  her  an
          extraordinarily   useful  idiot  for  the  soldiers  of   the
          ascendent ideology of the post-war period, the sordid bigotry
          that is latterday liberal internationalism.

          In  her the  Liberal Ascendency  found a massive shield  for,
          by constantly promising what she could or would not  deliver,
          she allowed the primary  corruptions of the  post war  period
          -  immigration,  multiculturalism,  “progressive”  education,
          welfarism,  the  social work  circus,  internationalism,  the
          attachment  to  Europe  -  to not merely  continue  but  grow
          vastly whilst she

          .  whilst all the time the general public was fed a rich diet
          of lies by the agents of the Liberal Ascendency,  the  Public
          Class – that  unwholesome melange of politicians, media folk,
          educationalists,  social workers and  senior public  servants
          who  have  come  to dominate our lives  -  about  the  savage
          deprivation of funds for  education,  health  and the welfare
          state and the damage done by rampant Thatcherite  ideological
          hooliganism in all important parts of life.

          A  harsh judgement?  Well,  at the end of her reign what  did
          Britain have to show for her vaunted patriotism,  her wish to
          maintain Britain’s independence, her desire to drive back the
          state,  her  promise to end coloured  immigration?   Precious
          little is the answer.

          Her enthusiastic promotion of the Single European Act  (“It’s
          a market and markets are good”),  which she ruthlessly  drove
          through Parliament,  allowed the  eurofederalists to  greatly
          advance  their cause under the guise of acting to  produce  a
          single  market;  her “triumph”  in reducing  our  subsidy  to
          Europe  left us paying several billion a year  whilst  France
          paid next to nothing; our fishermen were sold down the river;
          farmers placed in the absurd position of not being allowed to
          produce even enough milk for British requirements; actual (as
          opposed  to  official) coloured immigration  increased;  that
          monument  to  liberal bigotry,  the  Race Relations  Act  was
          untouched,  welfare  and  health spending  rose  vastly;  the
          educational  vandals were not only allowed to sabotage  every
          serious  attempt  to overturn the progressive  disaster,  but
          were granted  a great triumph in the ending of ‘O’ levels,  a
          liberal bigot success amplified by the contemptible  bleating
          of successive education secretaries that “rising  examination
          success means rising standards”;  foreign aid continued to be
          paid  as  an  unforced  Dangeld;   major  and   strategically
          important industries either ceased to be serious  competitors
          or  ended  in  foreign  hands;  the  armed  forces  were  cut
          suicidally; local government spending rose massively

          But what of her supposed triumphs,  what of privatisation and
          the sale of council houses,  the subjection of the unions and
          the winning of the Falklands war?  Perhaps this will have the
          most  lasting effect.  However,  that is a  different  matter
          altogether from saying it was an unreservedly good thing.  We
          may  celebrate the liberation of British Telecom and BA,  but
          is it such a wonderful thing to have no major car producer or
          shipbuilder?  The  trouble with the  privatisation  of  major
          industries,   which may either be greatly reduced,  go out of
          business  or  be  taken over by foreign buyers,  is  that  it
          ignores  strategic and social welfare questions.  Ditto  free
          trade generally. Both assume that the world,  or at least the
          parts which contain our major trading partners ,  will remain
          peaceful,  stable and well disposed towards Britain for ever,
          an  absurd  assumption.  What,  for example,   would  be  the
          response  of  a  future British government  to  BMW  if  they
          decided  to  move production of all Rover models  abroad?  An
          absurd  scenario?  I don’t see why it is for BMW  might  make
          such a move for financial reasons or be directed to do so  by
          a future  aggressively nationalist  German government.

          There  is  also a moral question connected  to  privatisation
          which was never properly answered by Tories:  what right does
          the  state have to dispose by sale  of assets which are  held
          supposedly  on  behalf  of  the general  public?  This  is  a
          question  which should be as readily asked by a  conservative
          as  by  a socialist for it touches upon a  central  point  of
          democratic  political morality,  the custodianship of  public
          property. The same ends – the diminution of the state and the
          freeing of the public from seemingly perpetual losses – could
          have  been achieved by  an equitable distribution  of  shares
          free  of charge to the general public.  This would have  had,
          from  a  Thatcherite  standpoint, the additional  benefit  of
          greatly increasing share ownership.

          As for the sale of council houses,  I have never been able to
          persuade   myself  that  this  is  anything  other   than   a
          socialistic measure,  a redistribution of wealth to the poor.
          It  is  also  inequitable because it excludes  the  poor  not
          living in council property and discriminates amongst  council
          tenants  according  to  the quality and  situation  of  their
          properties  – there is a vast difference between  having  the
          right  to  purchase a detached house which is not part  of  a
          vast estate and having the right to purchase a small flat  on
          the  twentieth  floor  of  a  tower  block.   Nor  will  many
          purchasers  of leasehold right-to-buy properties be  thankful
          that they made the decision to buy, for after five years they
          are  left  at the mercy of vengeful councils which  may  levy
          what  service and repair charges they like.  Nor can many  of
          such  leaseholders  view  moving with any  equity  for  their
          chances of finding a buyer at any price, let alone that which
          they paid, are minuscule.

          As  someone who is old enough to remember the  Wilson,  Heath
          and  Callaghan years I have no illusion of exactly how  awful
          the  unions  were when they had real power.  What  I  am  not
          convinced  of  is the prime position granted  in  Thatcherite
          hagiography  to  her union reforms. In 1979 two  things  were
          already apparent: full employment was likely to be a thing of
          the  past and many union members had a  sufficient   material
          stake  in  the country to not welcome frequent  strikes.  Had
          full employment returned in the Thatcher years it is dubious

          But what of her clients, the Liberal Ascendency?  Would  they
          not be dismayed by much of what she did?  Well,  by the  time
          Margaret  Thatcher  came to power liberals had  really   lost
          whatever interest they had ever had in state ownership or the
          genuine   improvement of the worker’s lot.  What they  really
          cared about was destroying  They had  new clients,  the  vast
          numbers  of  coloured immigrants and their  children,  women,
          homosexuals,  the  disabled,  In short,  all those  who  were
          dysfunctional,  or could be made to feel  dysfunctional,   in
          terms  of British society.  They had new areas of  power  and
          distinction,  social work,  education, the civil service ,the
          mass   media  to  which  they  added,   after  securing   the
          ideological high ground,  the ancient delights of politics.

          I can hear the cry,  but was not Margaret Thatcher undone  by
          circumstances?  In  some  degree  that  is  of  course  true,
          particularly in her early years as prime minister.   Had  she
          been  a single term prime minister it would have been a  fair
          excuse.   But the thing to remember about the woman  is  that
          she  was prime minister for eleven years.  Where she  can  be
          utterly condemned is in her failure to ensure that she had  a
          cast iron  majority of like minded ministers in cabinet.  Not
          to  have  done that by the beginning of her second  term  was
          stupid;  to fail to do it at any time in her premiership  was
          both scarcely credible and unforgivable.  To leave Europe  in
          1979  can reasonably be seen to be a pipe  dream  considering
          the  state  of the Tory hierarchy  and  indeed  parliamentary
          party  at  that time.  But to arrive in 1990 at  a  situation
          where  not only was Britain still being  taken for a mug  but
          to be forced into the absurdity of the ERM. Dear God! She was
          so  weak  that  she  was  unable  to  prevent  the  effective
          sacking  of  a  favourite  cabinet  minister  by  the  German
          Chancellor.

          Think of her major cabinet appointments. She ensured that the
          Foreign  Office remained in the hands of men (Howe and  Hurd)
          who  were both ardent Europhiles and willing tools of the  FO
          culture,  the Chancellorship was entrusted to first Howe  and
          then Lawson who was also firmly committed to Europe. The Home
          Office sat in the laps of the social liberals Whitelaw,  Hurd
          and  Baker,  Education was given to Baker and  Clarke.  Those
          appointments  alone  ensured  that little would  be  done  to
          attack the things which liberals held sacred.

          What would be a fair summation? She is that most dangerous of
          incompetents, a proactive incompetent.

          She is one of those strange creatures who appear  charismatic
          when  placed in the supreme position but vaguely  absurd  and
          curiously  insubstantial  in any other state.  I  remember  a
          Radio  4   interview  between Michael Chalton   and  Margaret
          Thatcher  in  which  Chalton  was  speaking  in   his   usual
          coherent  but intellectually sophisticated  manner.  Thatcher
          failed  to answer many of his questions but this was not  for
          the usual reason of political evasiveness:  rather she failed
          because  she  patently did not understand what he was  saying
          and  produced  some  extraordinary non sequiturs  by  way  of
          reply. There is also her performance at Oxford where she took
          a  Second in a subject (chemistry) which lends itself to  the
          achievement  of  a  first  by  any  undergraduate  of  normal
          intelligence. ?