Whither consent?

Writing in spiked! recently, barrister Barbara Hewson suggests that the age of consent for sexual activity should be restored to its pre-1885 position of 13.

Reducing the age of consent to 13 for all sexual acts would bring the UK in line with Spain, although Spain has a legal caveat that allows for prosecution where sexual consent is obtained by deception in the case of a person aged between 13 and 16. Until 1995, the age of consent in Spain was 12. Indeed, Britain’s age of consent is high by the standards of European countries, many of which have an age of consent for heterosexual acts of 14 or 15, although the age of consent for homosexual acts is not necessarily the same. Among other developed nations, Japan has an age of consent of 13, although this is subject to further restrictions.

An interesting note to this matter is that until 1993, English common law held that a boy under the age of 14 could not commit rape as a principal offender because he was irrebuttably presumed to be incapable of sexual intercourse. That a boy of that age is indeed so capable has been the subject of some publicity.

While there is some merit in arguing about the moral, physiological, emotional and cultural import of an age of consent, and the extent to which children need to be protected both from the attentions of adults and their peers, we should also consider all this in the context of what consent has come to mean in the implementation of the law. Consent is not, and never was, the same as a contract, whereby terms are mutually agreed and non-performance brings with it an entitlement to compensation. Rather, consent is a highly complex concept which is changing rapidly in its meaning.

How to win friends and impress America

Josie  M. Jordison (guest writer)

There could be trouble brewing, here in California. Someone called Joao Vale de Almeida has taken it upon herself to lecture the USA and this state in particular about the use of the death penalty.

There are of course libertarians who oppose it on fundamental objectivist grounds. There are moreover those who say it is jurisprudentially allowable in circumstances where sovereign individuals have the right of lethal force against intruders and those who would harm them and theirs. In this scenario they can delegate their right to punish lethally, to an externalised agency.

This interference in our businesses here will not go down well.

Addendum: Getting used to this dashboard. I now find that the Eudude is a man.

Anarcho-Capitalism versus Minarchism

David Davis

Interesting analysis over at CountingCats, of a problem which has been bugging me for some years: how to ensure Order becoming the inevitable daughter of Liberty, as she really is, instead of people thinking that Liberty arises out of imposed order.

The erosion of liberty in small cuts, or how to boil frogs

Michael Winning

I saw this on Devil’s kitchen just now, and really people should read the whole thing. Not us because we know, but pass it round.

Progress on decriminalising drugs?

David Davis

Somebody, somewhere, may begin to take such suggestions seriously one day.

Most libertarians have for a long time stated that the sale, use and possession of all drugs ought to be decriminalised. You can go either on the absolute objectivist argument that a human being’s body is his/her own, not to be interfered with by Statists. Or you can merely refer to the increased order and social utility gained by not having all the associated secomdary crime that surrounds the illicit dealing and supply of drugs at very high prices.

It is most unlikely that the UK’s political parties will be advocating anything like this any time soon. The generalised Puritan-Enemy-Class view of “drugs”, and indeed any other way of gaining simple individual or group enjoyment such as beer or wine or sex, still lies too far to the fascist Left for quick change.

Meanwhile, in the Nissen-Hut, working out the subtext of this message

David Davis

“Ministers will say” that “the professions” should “stop recruiting young people in private education”.

I’m not sure what the duty-Chimpanzee type writers dislike more: the notion that the governmentists will “say” that people who have paid twice for their children’s education must now get nothing at all, or that this “government” has decided that it is a set of farmers, who farm animals called “The Middle Class”, that can be farmed for taxation-revenue as required by varying the size of said farm.

Simple: close the bugger’s department and put them all on the street

David Davis

Some fellow called “Keir” (I thought that was a cocktail) “Starmer” has said that householders ought not to have more right to protect their lives and property. He is something called the “Director of Public Prosecutions”. Not sure what that is for. Employment in a big outdoor-relief-system for superfluous law graduates, possibly. I do not know.

No Parliament can be bound by its predecessors. Therefore, a libertarian Parliament could Bring A Bill (it would be popular) to demolish and close a number of “State Departments”. Terminally. The staff to be put out on the street with a binliner each, having been body-searched for data-devices: all entire computers, disks, files, CDs, sticks, paper-filing-cabinets etc to be malleted or burned with fire.

These “departments” will need to cease to exist. No trace of their operation, existence, activities, salary and pension records, personnel lists, and the rest, must be let to remain.

Including this one.

For example: “Some Say….that there was a government department which said it was in charge of farming and the countryside….but there does not appear to be any evidence in the records…”

When the Law is not on our side, hard cases make bad Law

David Davis

“Knife crime“

There are things which need to be said about the horrific murder of “Ben Kinsella”. I didn’t do it at the time, because we were diverted by expenses stuff and slaying GramscoFabianazis, for other and more global crimes. Stalin said I think that “one death is a tragedy, but many are a statistic” – I hope we are not getting like him. Now, as to people like Ben Kinsella, I often put these people’s names in parantheses, whether they are alive, or increasingly these days sadly dead, because I do not really know who they are. They get in the news via minor celebrity-connections, and tragically sometimes meet with misfortune: not that I’d wish misfortune on any human being, and certainly not being stabbed in a dark street, whether in front of people or otherwise. But what happens to them matters, as it throws up signals about what the Enemy Class are trying to do to us all.

For foreign readers unfamiliar, this poor young man was the younger brother of a moderately-famous “TV” “soaps” “actress”. He by all accounts had a bright future and everything going for him (…er…these unfortunate people always do…so why doesn’t everyone?) and got knifed to death in a London street some months ago. It was something to do with being on the periphery of, but in the line of vision of, some GramscoFabiaNazi-engendered-underthugs who have been created on purpose to execute acts like this, outside a “bar” in a rather exciting area of London, well after dark: he and his “mates” having attracted the afforesaid attentions and enquiry-facility of the said droid-underthugs, whose *.exe file acts as a caller-to-dll, to “demand respect”.

When you remove guns, major criminals will pile heavily into guns, and use them all the time, as is the case in the UK today. These people fear nothing, for they know that nobody except their turf-enemies (who will be dead) and the Police, who are (not dead but) bribable -  being Gramscian State-agents – has guns. Minor criminals, such as people with plangent and honourable names such as “Lee”, “Ricky”, “Winston”, “Leroy”, “Patience”,  “Praise-the-Lord-Small-Glass-Ball”, “Duane”, and the like, will take the low road, and will get more simple weaponry for otherwise inconveniencing ordinary people who are in the way. This can mean knives, for knives are freely available for lawful and incontrovertible reasons, and you can hurt people with knives if you know what to do (it’s not as easy as it looks on film.)

The solution to “knifecrime”, as with “guncrime”, is to allow individuals to carry concealed weapons. Being as old as I am, I cannot imagine any normal grown man going about without at least a sharp and multibladed pen-knife in his pocket, as we did as boys in the 1950s. It was what you did – it was your job, and you’d been shown how to whittle sharp sticks with it by your granfather: it was what our fathers and grandfathers did all day, after fighting wars. Students whom I teach are shocked and scandalised and in awe of the fact that this was what we did: if they did so much as go into school with a folded pen-knife in their pocket, they would certainly be “suspended” and possibly “excluded”. I caused a minor stir at the Liverpool office of the Passsport Agency nearly three years ago, when one (with a fortunately short blade, under the minimum length for summary arrest, having been so sharpened for so many decades) was lifted from me by the metal-searching-machine: I have carried it for 49 years. I would no more think of sticking this item into another human than I would fly through the air. But if in a sticky situation in the Small Hours, “in the wrong place at the wrong time” (terrible phrase used by Armed Police who shoot people) it might save my life. Similar items moght save others.

Poor Ben Kinsella was killed because of these things:

(1) He was in a silly place – as a teenager you do NOT go to interesting and exciting bars in shaky places, and _in the night too_ , specially if you have a sexy sister who is on the Wireless Tele Vision, and so you might be a bit known,given what GramscoFabiaNazis have done on purpose to create an agressive and uncontrollable subclass of orcs,

(2) He was unused to personal hand-weapons, probably having grown up in a culture where their very mention is taboo, and thus both unable not only to use them, but more vitally, to parry the blows without too much injury to himself,

(3) He grew up in a culture where you “celebrate” something, such as GCSEs (what’s there to celebrate?) by going to the very places where the gramscoFabiaNazis have put killer-droids masquerading as gin-traps for the unwary.

The Bad Law comes in when our “legislators” recommend huge prison sentences – or worse – for “knife crime”. The solution is threefold: (a) better people, and the elimination of deliberate Gramscian destruction of that fragile fabric of society which gives rise to “better people”, (b) remembrance of the fact that one has a duty to protect one’s own life and that of those one loves, since the State is currently so bad it this job, and (c) not to be railroaded by the MSM into meekly accepting bad abd draconian limitations on one’s own ability to protect against the temporary (hopefully) products of GramscoFabiaNazism.

Here come _die Sondergerichte_

Here’s the first one. Our masters have had effective teachers, and have observed their history lessons.

“Gordon…say something that’ll get a few buggers to vote for us…

…however irrelevant…”

David Davis

I would not be surprised if that was what Lord Rumba of Rio ordered the PM to do yesterday…

“Every schoolboy knows” (now) that poor clever tormented Alan Turing was gay, and that he perhaps helped to shorten WW2 by (3?) years (proper modern digital computing certainly shortened it) and that we have all moved on from outdated laws about “gross indecency”….so why bring it all up again now?

Could Gordon be feeling the pressure?

But let’s lighten up, and look at what Turing and others made possible, not forgetting Tommy Flowers:-

I would like to see…

…a political party that has the courage to say:-

WE  WILL  PUT  FEWER  POLICE  ON  THE  STREETS  AND  ON  THE  “BEAT”,

for the solution is Good People and NOT more police.

David Davis (not that one, Ephraim Hardcastle)

Everybody likes to throw rotten cabbages at poor, innately good, motivated Iain Duncan-Smith. But what else would you suggest right now?

“More Police” may look like a sign of success: their presence may indeed locally and transiently resist the rise in figures for acts of  bad-ness. But their existence is an effect of failure, and not success. People should think more, and so they ought to read more books – and I did NOT mean winners of the “Booker Prize” books.

There ought also to be a way for the Free Market to discover how there might be lots and lots of money to be made for James R Murdoch, by having less Wireless Tele Vision. Or preferably none at all for a few years.

Oh, and we could restock “Libraries” with a couple more books each, by having strong thugs on the premises who could lift wheelchairs full of the Disabled up to a height of about 8 or 9 feet.

What is Libertarianism, part 2: The Leg-Iron perspective

David Davis

While worrying about how – and worse: why -  it is now needful to //define libertarianism// , a discussion fortunately kicked off by The Last Ditch yesterday, I chanced on this. A simple and clear statement of what a libertarian civilisation would be like in terms of practical details.

Insofar as a powerful State has any meaning for libertarians, I would now make a request to the Queen to dissolve this Parliament.

David Davis

UPDATE1:- It seems that The Queen may “suggest” to Gordon Brown, some remedies, to his Parliament’s predicament. I can’t guess what those might be, but we live in hope.

ORIGINAL POST:-

Libertarians disagree in friendly ways all the time about the correct constitutional structure of a limited or minimal state.

Presently, here, we have what is increasingly inaccurately called a “Constitutional Monarchy”. I think most British libertarians are prepared to live with this arrangement, if it would merely deliver its supposed advantages. I have just been to The Last Ditch where I found an admirable call for The Queen to do what she is entitled under our constitution to do:

dissolve this Parliament, and call a General Election.

This particular Parliament, unprecented in nearly 400 years, has lost such meagre respect as it still retained after, among other sins, handing, entirely unauthorised and incidentally to the extreme detriment of The Queen’s own position as Head of State of the United Kingdom, nearly all its powers to a junta of unelected foreign potentates with which it has wished to make friends, for what are merely personal pecuniary reasons.

We here may quibble internally about whether the UK ought still to exist  - I know that Sean Gabb and I would not lose any sleep if it broke up tomorrow. But most libertarians would be on the same side about the modern inability of the people of these Islands – however they might wish to describe themselves – to arrive at their exiercise of their own sovereignty, by themselves.

(I have just hit “publish” by mistake, but have not finished….)

Mr Eugenides thinks (or perhaps his post implies that) the problem might be soluble merely by bringing about the resignation of the Speaker and his replacement by someone who believes in the idea of parliamentary authority based on the inherent morality of the individuals who (ought to be) in that institution. We here do not agree.  The rot has set in too far, and short of a Revolution, which might be destructive and would call down the ire of the present administration which is just _aching_ to invoke the CCA, the best solution is for The Queen to actually exercise the real powers that she has, designed for just this eventuality.

Afetr all, has not this government truly f*****d up? Has it not f****d up the Banking system (on purpose) so as to faux-nationalise it, and decide who gets money and who does not? Has it not f****d up British agricultural and fishery production, so as to hand over at least partial control of our food supply to others as a way of initiating rationing? Has it not f****d up “public education”, so as to deliberately create an uncurious race of compliant helots? Has it not f****d up the Armed Services, so as to eliminate – by calumny, depression and indignation –  from their ranks those who would not cheerfully agree to orders to fire upon their own people?

That lot is enough, for a start. Time the buggers went. I doubt very much that The Queen reads this blog, but perhaps someone who knows someone who speaks with her, does.

Please, Ma’am, just do what you were brought up to know how and when to be able to do.

Please also do it, sort of now. it can be combined with the trouser-ripping that’s already scheduled for 4th June. It’s also “Founders day” – David Cameron and Charles Moore will be pleased.

Anger at statists: thoughts for a Saturday night trying not to pay attention to Eurovision LOL

David Davis

It’s true. I lie awake at night sometimes. During this time one cogitates, and one wonders about the sort of people that want to become in charge of bullying others, via what they call “laws” or “statutes” , but which mostly bear no resemblance to Natural Law at all. The bullying is ostensibly promoted as being for “your own good”, but as J S Mill stated, this is “not good and sufficient reason”. But what motivates a human being to be a Statist, and then, worse an employee of the same? And then, n the end, what ought we do do to deter this kind of behaviour afterwards?

One day, far in the future but sadly not now and not in the waning afternoon of my life, some country’s electorate somewhere will elect a reasonable libertarian administration. I don’t think it will be here. This is of course despite the youthful ardour and enthusiasm shown by the admirable LPUK, which is eminently worthy of your support. Perhaps it will be somewhere in Chindia: I do not know. Or even Argentina or  Brazil, or parhaps Iraq or even Russia? (A long shot, that last one.) Miracles have been known to happen.

But there remains the problem of what to do about people, probably a large number, who  consciously and on purpose believed, and will continue to believe, in the role of a State being large and powerful. Many of these will not be persuaded in the slightest by the evidence around them of the superiority of Classical liberalism. Obviously, many if not all departments of State will be closed down, their rcords all destroyed, the buildings sold or demolished, and the “staff” turned out into the street to survive or starve as destiny dictates. But you can’t change the minds of some of these people overnight: they will suffer “We Wuzz Robbed” moments.

One would be willing I suppose, as Sean Gabb always advocates, the forgiveness of many – mostly those in very minor positions – who may well decide to publicly abjure their former beliefs, or as will often be the case, recognise their failure to self-articulate the case to themselves for what they were previously doing to others. But To save trouble later, the non-return of fascism as a meme has to be ensured. It must be associated with personal shame, deep perversion, unfathomable wickedness and shocking deviancy, for so long into the future that there should be no memory of it or wish to re-adopt it.

Here’s a draft list of measures to be appplied to the recusants:

(1) No appearance in public without a bright yellow, high-visibility-jacket of the type beloved of |Statists, which says on the back “Former Bureaucrat”.

(2) Must carry an approved form of identity at all times, which may be demanded summarily by  anybody at all who’s not obliged to wear one of the above jackets. Approved identity can only be obtained by not having been a bureaucrat previously.

(3) Must be made to sign the Bureaufenders’ Register for varying periods to be decided (Brown will be on it for life. Castro will sign the list posthumously, which can be done now.)

(4) Will not be allowed to venture within 150 feet of ordinary human individuals.

(5) Will have to inform the Police of any address change on pain of a fine (oh, sorry, I’ve just realised the Police won’t have such a range of powers any more…)

(5) Non-statist individuals will have the right to demand the addresses of former bureaucrats who live locally (for the children.)

(6) No puchases allowed without the presentation of approved identity. Special shops more than 150 feet from where people are present will have to be set up (see (4) above.)

(7) Any travel will have to be on “integrated public transport systems”, which of course will be not required, and must be applied for in advance in triplicate stating reason for journey. No cars, bicycles, motor bicycles or any air transport whatsoever will be allowed. They’ll have to go on the bus, but not with other people.

Letter to Gordon Brown

David Davis

I didn’t write this. Bristol Dave got it from Old Holborn. And while I was reading OH, I spotted this about “Sir” “Jonathon” Porritt, populations, and facilitated mass death. It is relevant to stuff ruminated upon by The Landed Underclass yesterday, where the comment thread is worth a read and a half.

UPDATE1:- You _must_  (please?) read this by Nightjack, tipped and praised also by The landed Underclass. It’s relevant to what follows:-

Gordon Brown
10 Downing Street
London
SW1

Notice of the People’s Reclamation of the land of Great Britain

Dear Gordon Brown

Please read this letter very carefully. It is a notice. It means what it says. It requires no response as its content is a statement and is not negotiable.

I did not write this. Who wrote these words is not important. What is important is what they say. What is important is that I feel them as though I’d written them myself. What is important is that I know that, as you read them, I know that I am one of many all joined in thought at this time. All knowing that each and every one of us feel these words and have come together in this way to show you who we really are.

I know that right now, you live in denial. Because you know, like I know, that something is terribly wrong. It matters not anymore. What matters, is that you confront your denial and admit to yourself that for all the good you may feel you can do, in reality you can do nothing. You do not really know what to do.

But that is of no significance because now you need not do anything. Becoming a politician was your downfall, because it has restricted you along with all the other politicians who, like you, can do nothing to stop what is and what will be. I know who controls you, dictates to you, funds you and owns you. They always will because you lack the strength to stand against them and join the ones who elected you.

It is us, the people who ultimately will show you that we elected you and all your colleagues to govern and protect us from the loss of our Natural Born Sovereignty. We elected you just like we elected all before you and they let us down just like you have. You possibly didn’t mean to, you just did. We elected you because you were one of just a handful we in turn were presented with. We had no choice but to elect one of you. That is not democracy.

You, like all the rest before you could not, and never will, be able to give us what we elected you to do. We elected you to abide with us in our freedom that we may live in a country of warmth, safety and prosperity. It is my belief that we as human beings deserve to live our lives the way we choose, in a responsible and respectful manner toward our fellow beings on this land, and to share our warm welcome with others from far lands, and to move freely in our own world in peace.

You and those before you care not for us. You care only for yourself and never listen to the real voice of the people you consider that you govern. So it is now time for us, the people, to take back what you have taken from us. Our Natural Inalienable Rights of the Common Law of this land which you and all those before you chose to take from us, and then offer back to us in the form of privileges. You stole our children from us, and kept us from the knowledge of how you did it. You used this knowledge and created us as legal fictions called ‘persons’, in order to entrap and enslave us in the debt which you have accrued over time with a privately owned corporation known as the Bank of England.

Fleet Law, the law of the waters, does not apply to human beings on the land. You have used this law and with sleight of hand, using meanings to words which only you and your society understand, in order to cheat us from our liberty and our freedom.

You and all those before you have created a complex inter twined society of secrets to which we are not invited. You use these secrets to cheat us and lie to us in order to keep us in fear and guilt and hate. You manipulate us that we may fight each other, police each other, resent each other, thus distracting us from what is real. And the truth is that we are real. We are conscious flesh and blood human beings with a living soul.

We abide by the Common Laws of this Land and never knowingly cause loss, harm or injury to another fellow being. These are the only Laws by which we need to be governed. Your fictional Statutory Rules are becoming an obsession for you, and all those who support you in them. We take the view that you have no soul, no compassion, no empathy and no love for your fellows. Therefore you either have no soul, or you live in the pain of not knowing who you are.

So here and now let it be known to you and your peers that no army in this world can stop us from taking back our birthright. We will not fight you with guns. We will not riot and thus give you the excuse you and your masters desire in order to enslave us further. We will not fight you physically at all. We will fight you with what we possess – knowledge and Common Sense. In doing so we will take down your agents and judiciaries, because we know their workings, and we know what to say to them and we know what to write to them. We know the right questions to ask. We know how to pose unanswerable questions to which Common Sense and the rule of Common Law are the sole answers.

We will now live our lives the way we wish, and you cannot stop us. You have twisted words and used them against us to gain your false power. We now take back those words and use them against you in their natural and most powerful meaning and understanding. False Statutory Rule will fall as it is fiction created by you and the ones before you, and all that it has created will fall with it.

We no longer accept your rule.

We will not fight you or cause chaos on our streets.

We will not fight each other

We will not join your armed forces

We will not fight beings from other lands on your behalf

We will not join your police force

We will not pay your taxes

We will not listen to your lies

We will not register our newborns

We will not force our children to do that which they do not want to do

We will not join another nations rule

We will stand by and protect our sovereignty

We will protect our land from the oppression of other lands and their leaders

We will force your system to shut down and fail

We will never allow your system to rise again

We will stop the cash flow through your privately owned banks

We will educate others of your secret societies and corrupt business of ruling

We will create our own freedom

We will remain peaceful at all times

We are implacable

We are honourable

Without us your system is nothing. Your system cannot function without the people who make it work. We are the people who work in your corporations. We are the people who work in your courts. The people who work in your shops and your offices and your transport network and your postal service. We are the moving parts of your machine and we will stop your system from working.

We have the power to do all of this and you know this is the truth. You knew this was coming all along. You were waiting for this. It releases you from your pain. If you have a backbone you will stand down from your position and join us. If you are true to your people you will do this. If you wish to lead us, then join us. Stand up to the ones who control you and tell them you believe in your people.

I am one of many and the many are growing by the day. Join us in our freedom if you will. The door is open to all human beings, if indeed you are one.

Sincerely without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,

 

 

Free

May we live in interesting times

David Davis

I don’t mind that. Not really. It keeps you awake, keeps the brain oiling over, and does what dear Jeffrey Archer says it does on the tin: “A Man is immortal until his work is done”.

My attention was drawn about five minutes ago to a change in the linkage of a post we did almost two years ago. Here it is. The original article to which I referred has “been withdrawn” (thank you Tony, old friend, for alerting me.) It irritates me only with my engineer’s hat on, since the main point of the post has been largely negated. You can get the sense of it by going to The Times (online) and seeing the comments which have been left on, but that’s poor fare really.

From now on, This Blog says:-

The interweb thingy has been severely corrupted by scumbag-sellers-of-technology-to-narks, GramscoFabioTrotskyists who want money for enslaving people, “private-sector-partners-in-IT”, and the like, to the extent that, functionally, whatever we write here or whatever I email to friends, or whatever websites we go to without exception, is “public” knowledge –  in that the State or the local Police Gauleiter can demand it at any time.

In view of this, I do really urge all conservative (which is to say, ordinary liberal and human) bloggerists, to remotely store _ALL_ source material taken off the MSM to which they would like readers to refer, somewherem er, else. Again, I could not say where: that is up to you.

But the cyberworld we live in is no longer like a paper library, where a book has to be physically burnt, by a Gramsco-Marxian Mob, to expunge it (and even then people won’t listen.) There may be only one chance to ref something the Enemy Class fears or does not like. Broken links in our archives will irritate not just us but people we want on our side.

So we have to be able to virally retransmit the stuff later.

Lord Ahmed – Was it Just?

Communicated to Dr Sean Gabb

Hi Sean,

Have you been following the story of Lord Ahmed?

He was jailed last month after admitting sending 3 text messages
and receiving 2 others about 10-15 minutes before a fatal
accident (2 minutes before he arrived on the scene) on the M1
near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, on Christmas Day 2007.

It is widely accepted that the accident was in no way Ahmed’s
fault and the court accepted that the texting and accident were
un-related events.

Ahmed had no fault in the crash, as it happened 15 minutes
before he arrived at the crash site.  The crashed car was facing
the wrong direction in the fast lane when he arrived and swerved
violently to avoid it but unfortunately clipped the open door.
It had already been clipped by 2 other cars.

Martyn Gombar who was killed, was found to be drunk, which
some believe caused the crash in the first place as well as him
standing in such a dangerous place, trying to retrieve his phone.

The impact sadly killed Mr Gombar and briefly knocked Lord
Ahmed unconscious. It also resulted in injuries to his Wife and
Mother who were in the car.

Ahmed then got out to help warn other motorists before the
emergency services arrived.

It seems that the judge sent him to prison not because of anything
to do with the accident – which was not his fault – but because
he admitted to texting while driving.

This is not the first time that someone has gone to prison for this
and it will certainly not be the last.

So the question is: Did Lord Ahmed deserve to receive a prison
sentence for texting whilst driving?

Take the poll: http://btst.co.uk/poll4/

Whether he deserved it or not, I never, ever want this type of
thing to happen to any BTST Member and for that reason I called
my Installer Ian Roots of Iris In-Car last night and agreed a price
for BTST Members to have a Parrot Hands Free kit professionally
installed in your car.

I’ll email you the link later in the week when we have the page up.

All the best,

Adam Blair
Founder, BTST

The ZanuLieBorg British State hates poor people….

….and it is probably privately still “utterly relaxed about people getting filthy rich”….(was it Mandelson or Blair said that? Does it even matter?)

…and “And There Was Me Thinking” has noticed what I have noticed too. She, however, views the interfering State medical-Gramsco-MarxiaNazis in a slightly less positive light than I do.

David Davis

…but we have, just in, “Price of Alcohol could double”.

It’s bad enough for wretched stalinised poor people, who are those who mostly smoke, being charged 25p (about 0.22 Euro or 16 cents US) for a fag, and who have little else in the way of worthhwile pleasures in life except horrible nasty lefty State Tele Vision (for which they also have to oay the BBC regardless.)

Make their alcohol – probably the only other thing that’s nice in their sad lives that they have left –  double the price, and it will do nothing but drive more petty crime in the direction of nicking the stuff.

Intelligent people, such as big crime bosses, will also get into the act of fermenting and distilling hooch on a large and untaxed scale. Does the Government really want that? Does the NHS really want the fallout from that – both in crimestats and secondary health effects?

UPDATE1:- The Landed Underclass explains trenchantly why the ZanuLieBorg GramscoNaziNannies don’t understand economics. It’s why their only pretence at a “Reich” failed, after all: RIP 1917-1991.

UPDATE2:- The Remittance Man demolishes the AlcoGramscoNazis mathematically. Do go read the whole thing.

UPDATE3:- Legiron does a comprehensive fisking job on Lamebrain Donaldson too.

Right said Fred (in “Harriet Harman, British State-Lynch-Mobdriver v. Royal Bank of Scotland plc Contracts Department”)

David Davis

It says in The Landed Underclass that The Telegraph says that the “government” is “prepared to change the Law” to stop Sir Fred Goodwin getting his contractually-agreed pension. Just look at this terrifyingly dangerous utterance:-

But Ms Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, said that all necessary steps would be taken if the 50 year old would not do the “honourable” thing. (my emphasis – ed.)

“Sir Fred should not be counting on being £650,000 a year better off as a result of this because it is not going to happen,” she told BBC1′s Andrew Marr show.

“The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law this contract but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in.”

Ms Harman declined to say exactly what action could be taken but reports this week have suggested a special Act of Parliament was being considered by Downing Street as a last resort.

It is a dangerous thing, that any government, after Magna Carta, does not have respect for Law. Talk of “public opinion” and “The People” is always a dead-giveaway about Nazis lefty tyrannical tendencies.  All outfits that behave in this way should be treated as deeply suspect nasty fascist lefty Nazis.

Sir Fred Goodwin, although probably as culpable as any trough-pigging banker who dined out for years on States’ funny-money, is entitled, as a Sovereign Individual, to keep what free contracts have allowed to him. Specially as Guido has pointed out that Lord Myners knew about it in advance and the sums involved are nugatory.

This is a clear case of shamelessly but unjustifiably trying to take the high-moral-ground, but the thoughpiggers of ZanuLieBorg – who have pissed away the money, and also incidentally robbed millions of people of hundreds of billions of their own, fully-legally-obtained, and paid-for, “private pension pots”, to pay for a clientariat-votariat for themselves.

We all now have to work till we die. Sir Fred’s £700,000 is the least of our worries. I hope he gets a highly-paid job with the IMF and screws Harriet Harman (metaphorically – I for one would not even “escort”  her, if she paid me.)

More on Sean Gabb speech to Conservative-Future: trenchant comment

David Davis

I take the liberty of using this comment (freely available on the thread for this post) as a new post:-

And here’s me been trying to impose a commenting moratorium on myself. Oh well, here I go again.

Sean’s prescription for what to do when power is gained, while perhaps or perhaps not perfect in the detail, is a good one, and is the kind of thought experiment which may bring one temporary cheer. However it does not (nor, one must absolutely acknowledge attempt to) answer the question of how such a position may be gained. As such it is much like discussing which stars to visit in a starship, while ignoring the hard problem, which is how to build a warp drive.

The problem is that by not discussing in the same breath the gaining of that position, we overlook the fundamentally recursive nature of the discussion. If a government of libertarians, or of “the right” (I dispute that label, but let us let it pass for now) or of “real conservatives” (I dispute that even more as I said before) has gained office in our thought experiment, then the war is already won. That which should be done by such government then becomes a trifle, as it will have the authority to do whatever it wishes.

Unless it has gained power by subterfuge, rather than gained office by honest campaigning, this imaginary government has already told the populace that it will slash government to ribbons, immediately leave the EU, abolish the BBC, hound the enemy out of local government, strangle all the quangos and so on. It can only thus gain office if it has the support of the majority of those citizens who care. To achieve that, it must have gained a cultural hegemony and, more significantly a moral hegemony.

It will have become moral to support small government and immoral to support big government. It will have become moral to support tax cuts, to despise the enemy class, and so on.

To achieve the initial conditions for such a libertian cultural revolution, the public morality must have already become libertarian, rather than the current secular evangelical statism.

This is the Hard Problem, and it would seem at this juncture to be entirely intractable, since altering the moral hegemony requires cultural hegemony, while the cultural hegemony is driven by the moral hegemony.

What is oft mistakenly believed is that the statists/Left/whatever invaded the institutions- government, education etc, from outside. This is not true. There were always socialists inside the elite; indeed it is an elite project and always was. We, on the other hand, have no insiders; and the defenders against whom we wish to move are entirely alert to the possibility of any counterhegemonic entryism and are thus able to nullify it before it gains purchase. The Hard Problem is thus profoundly hard.