Tag Archives: Law

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. Continue reading

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:-


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.


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

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,




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. 

Vaclav Klaus scragged by walk-outer-MEPs, while a guest in “his” own EU “parliament”

…amd a good plug for Sean Gabb’s speech to Conservative Future, from these good people over there.

There are no videos of Klaus himself being shouted at and with grasping, totalitarian, trough-pigging-socialist-scumbags walking out, but we’ll put them on as soon as possible if they appear.


Sean Gabb: Speech to Conservative Future

Groan:- I don’t know what that smiley is doing there, but I can’t remove it. It’s none of my doing.

UPDATE3:-Please read this response-post, and _in particular_ the comment posted thereupon by an informed member of the blogateriat.

UPDATE2:- Here’s Sean Gabb’s thoughts earlier this year on holocaust denial, a hot subject.

Earlier comment from Blogmaster just after main post filed:-

(1) A direct link from the young Conservatives, who were kind enough to report the event charitably, is here.

(2)  This post by Sean is not for the faint-hearted: that is to say, those who may quail when the real assaults finally come. The prognosis for liberty in the UK is not currently good, and may not get better.

I have just read this on another forum, and would have published it unilaterally had not Sean Gabb done so already. You will find, on reading down, that the floor-response to Sean’s address was not as positive as a rational person would have hoped from today’s Tories, in Britain, embattled as they seem not to realise – or else prefer not to know, and pretend that all will be well if only they take power.

I think we can expect that, on ZanuNewLieborg being thrown out, as they will be, but not decisively (as we fear) then the British Conservative Party will remain a less certain but still definite enemy of individual liberty. this was not always the case as Sean points out. But it is now.

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 181
16th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc181.htm

Text of a Speech to Conservative Future,
Given in The Old Star Public House, Westminster,
Monday the 16th February 2009
by Sean Gabb

I’d like to begin by praising your courage in having me here tonight to speak to you. I am the Director of an organisation that tried hard during the 1980s to take over the youth movement of the Conservative Party. The Libertarian Alliance provided a home and other support for Marc-Henri Glendenning, David Hoile and Douglas Smith, among others, when it looked as if libertarians might do the same to the Conservative Party as the Trotskyites nearly did to the Labour Party. Sadly, our efforts failed. Since then, the Conservative Party has become more watchful of people like us. It has also, I must say, made itself progressively less worth trying to take over.

I did say that I would come here and be rude to you. But that would be a poor thanks for your hospitality. Besides, while your party leadership has consistently ignored my advice during the past twelve years – and has, in consequence, been out of office during this time – there is no point in dwelling on what might have been. We are where we are, and I think it would be useful for me very briefly to outline my advice to a future Conservative Government.

Now, this is not advice to the Government that looks set to be formed within the next year or so my David Cameron. I may be wrong. It is possible that Mr Cameron is a much cleverer and more Machiavellian man that I have ever thought him, and that he plans to make radical changes once in office. But I do not think he is. I think what little he is promising to do is the very most that he will do. In any event, he is doing nothing to acquire the mandate without which radical change would lack legitimacy. And so this is advice that I offer to some future government of conservatives, rather than to any prospective Conservative Government. It may even be a government formed by the people in this room.

My first piece of advice is to understand the nature of your enemy. If you come into government, you will be in at least the same position as Ramsay MacDonald, when he formed the first Labour Government in the 1920s. He faced an Establishment that was broadly conservative. The administration, the media, the universities, big business – all were hostile to what it was believed he wanted to do. The first Labour Governments were in office, but not fully in power, as they were not accepted by the people with whom and through whom they had to rule the country. To a lesser degree, Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson faced the same constraints. A future Conservative Government will find much the same.

Over the past few generations, a new Establishment or ruling class has emerged in this country. It is a loose coalition of politicians, bureaucrats, educators, media people and associated business interests. These are people who derive income and status from an enlarged and activist state. They have been turning this country into a soft-totalitarian police state. They are not always friendly to a Labour Government. But their natural political home is the Labour Party. They will accept a Conservative Government on sufferance – but only so long as it works within a system that robs ordinary people of their wealth and their freedom. They will never consent to what should be the Conservative strategy of bringing about an irreversible transfer of power from the State back into the hands or ordinary people.

A Cameron Government, as I have said, seems willing to try coexistence with the Establishment. The Thatcher Government set out to fight and defeat an earlier and less confident version of the Establishment – but only on those fronts where its policies were most resisted. It won numerous battles, but, we can now see, it lost the war. For example, I well remember the battle over abolition of the Greater London Council. This appeared at the time a success. But I am not aware of one bureaucrat who lost his job at the GLC who was not at once re-employed by one of the London Boroughs or by some other agency of the State. And we know that Ken Livingstone was eventually restored to power in London.

If you want to win the battle for this country, you need to take advice from the Marxists. These are people whose ends were evil where not impossible. But they were experts in the means to their ends. They knew more than we have ever thought about the seizure and retention of power. I therefore say this to you. If you ever do come to power, and if you want to bring about the irreversible transfer of power to ordinary people, you should take to heart what Marx said in 1871, after the failure of the Paris Commune: �the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the precondition for every real people�s revolution�.�

The meaning of this is that you should not try to work with the Establishment. You should not try to jolly it along. You should not try fighting it on narrow fronts. You must regard it as the enemy, and you must smash it.

On the first day of your government, you should close down the BBC. You should take it off air. You should disclaim its copyrights. You should throw all its staff into the street. You should not try to privatise the BBC. This would simply be to transfer the voice of your enemy from the public to the private sector, where it might be more effective in its opposition. You must shut it down – and shut it down at once. You should do the same with much of the administration. The Foreign Office, much of the Home Office, the Commission for Racial Equality, anything to do with health and safety and planning and child protection – I mean much of the public sector – these should be shut down. If at the end of your first month in power, you have not shut down half of the State, you are failing. If you have shut down half the State, you have made a step in the right direction, and are ready for still further cuts.

Let me emphasise that the purpose of these cuts would not be to save money for the taxpayers or lift an immense weight of bureaucracy from their backs – though they would do this. The purpose is to destroy the Establishment before it can destroy you. You must tear up the web of power and personal connections that make these people effective as an opposition to radical change. If you do this, you will face no more clamour than if you moved slowly and half-heartedly. Again, I remember to campaign against the Thatcher “cuts”. There were no cuts, except in the rate of growth of state spending. You would never have thought this from the the torrent of protests that rolled in from the Establishment and its clients. And so my advice is to go ahead and make real cuts – and be prepared to set the police on anyone who dares riot against you.

I fail to see how you would face any electoral problems with this approach. Most Conservative voters would welcome tax cuts and a return to freedom. As for those who lost their jobs, they do not, nor ever will, vote Conservative.

Following from this, however, I advise you to leave large areas of the welfare state alone. It is regrettable, but most people in this country do like the idea of healthcare free at the point of use, and of free education, and of pensions and unemployment benefit. These must go in the long term. But they must be retained in the short term to maintain electoral support. Their cost and methods of provision should be examined. But cutting welfare provision would be politically unwise in the early days of our revolution.

I have already spoken longer than I intended. But one more point is worth making. This is that we need to look again at our constitutional arrangements. The British Constitution has always been a fancy dress ball at which ordinary people were not really welcome, but which served to protect the life, liberty and property of ordinary people. Some parts of this fancy dress ball continue, but they no longer serve their old purpose. They are a fig leaf for an increasingly grim administrative despotism. I was, until recently, a committed monarchist. I now have to admit that the Queen has spent the past half century breaking her Coronation Oath at every opportunity. The only documents she has ever seemed reluctant to sign are personal cheques. Conservatives need to remember that our tradition extends not only through Edmund Burke to the Cavaliers, but also through Tom Paine to Oliver Cromwell. We live in an age where it is necessary to be radical to be conservative.

But I have now spoken quite long enough, and I am sure you have much to say in response. I therefore thank you again for your indulgence in having invited me and the politeness with which you have heard me.

[A combination of silence and faint applause]

Comment 1: You accuse the Conservatives of having ignored you for twelve years. From what you have just said, it is a good thing you were ignored. Under David Cameron’s leadership, we have a Conservative Party that is now positively desired by the people. Your advice is and would have been a recipe for permanent opposition.

Response: I disagree. There is no positive desire for a Conservative Government. If there were, the polls would be showing a consistent fifty point lead or something. What we have is a Labour Government that is so dreadful that I have trouble thinking what could be worse.

[In a private conversation before my speech, I said that the Labour Party had turned out to be about as bad in government as the Green Party or the British National Party or Sinn Fein.]

There are two ways of doing politics. One is to listen to focus groups and opinion polls, and offer the people what they claim to want. The other is to stand up and tell them what they ought to want, and to keep arguing until the people agree that they want it, or until it is shown not to be worth wanting. I think I know what sort of politicians will run the next Conservative Government. What sort of politicians do you want to be?

Comment 2 [from an Irishman]: What you are saying means that the country would be without protection against obvious evils. With no child protection services, children would be abused and murdered. Without planning controls, the countryside would soon be covered with concrete. Without planning controls, cities like Manchester would be far less attractive places.

I will also say, as an Irishman, that I am offended by your reference to Oliver Cromwell, who was a murderer and tyrant. You cannot approve of this man.

Response: You have been taken in by the Establishment’s propaganda. This is to insist that we live with vast structures of oppression, or that we must accept the evils they are alleged to curb. I say that that these structures do not curb any evils, but instead create evils of their own. We have, for example, seventy thousand social workers in this country. They appear to have done a consistently rotten job at protecting the few children who need protecting. instead, they are taking children away from grandparents to give to strangers, and are setting the police onto dissenting ministers who allow their children to climb onto the roof. None of this should be surprising. The Children Act and other laws have created a bureaucratic sausage machine that must somehow be filled. I say let it be destroyed along with all else that is evil in our system of government.

[What I might have said, but was too polite to say: As for Oliver Cromwell, he was one of the greatest Englishmen who ever lived. It is partly thanks to him that we have just had around three centuries of freedom and political stability. When you refer to his actions in Ireland, you are repeating Fenian propaganda. What he did in Ireland has been exaggerated by the enemies of England, and in any event was in keeping with the customs of war universally admitted in his own time. If you want to throw an offended fit every time an Englishman in London praises an English hero to other Englishmen, you should consider moving to Dublin where all the letter boxes have been painted a reassuring green, and your own national sensitivities never need be offended again.]

Comment 3: All you speak about is winning and the destruction of enemies. Yet you are willing to consider keeping the welfare state. You are nothing but an unprincipled trouble maker. Thank God the Conservative Party no longer has any place for people like you.

Response: If we were facing the sort of Labour Government we had under Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, you would be right. However, we have an Establishment that has already given us the beginnings of a totalitarian police state. Today, for example, the authorities will start collecting details of every telephone call, text and e-mail sent in this country. Children are about to have their details stuffed into a giant database that will enable them to be monitored by the authorities until they are adults – and probably through their entire lives. We live in a country were privacy is being abolished. Speech is increasingly unfree. The police are out of control. Everything is getting rapidly worse, and it is easy to see the end state that is desired, or total control.

If a government of radical conservatives ever does take power, it will have one attempt at saving this country. That means radical and focussed actions from day one. Anything less than this, and it will fail. I am suggesting a revolution – but this is really a counter-revolution against what has already been proceeding for at least one generation. If we are to beat the heirs of Marx, we must learn from Marx himself.

Comment 4: You are wasting our time with all this radical preaching. People do not want to hear about how they are oppressed by the Establishment, and how this must be destroyed. What they want to hear is that taxes are too high, that the money is being wasted, and that there are ways to protect essential public services with lower taxes. That is why the Taxpayers’ Alliance has been so much more prominent than the Libertarian Alliance. We must have nothing to do with the ranting lunatics of the Libertarian Alliance.

Response: You may have a desire for electoral success that I do not share. But I am the better politician. All debate is perceived as taking place on a spectrum that has a centre and two extremes. If the Libertarian Alliance did not exist, the relevant spectrum would simply reconfigure itself with the Taxpayers’ Alliance at one extreme, and the centre would be still less attractive than it now is. Since most people consciously take centrist positions, it is in your interest – regardless of whether I am right – to say what I do. It makes you and your friends moderate in relation to me.

[At this point, some unfortunate woman began screeching that I was a fascist, and the debate came to an end.]

[I normally like to comment on these events once I have described them. I think, however, the above stands by itself.]

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

Modern Police-Britain and the Spanish Inquisition: astonishingly good article by Legiron

David Davis

I ought to ask The Landed Underclass to join the Libertarian Alliance’s 100-Chimpanzee-typewriting-and-Research-Nissen-Hut “team” 0f assistant executive liberty-promotional-associates, or whatever places like Apple retail outlets call their shop-staff these days.

He has, unlike me and the Chimpanzees, been “reading around”. He came up with this. Here is the ref, from Legiron, for the book in question. I’d buy it while you’re still allowed to:-

[Source: The Spanish Inquisition, a history, by Joseph Perez. ISBN 1-86197-687-9 in case anyone's interested. The English translation by Janet Lloyd, was published by Profile Books, London, in 2004.]

Legiron asks why the “Righteous” are incensed, and scream “racist!” about anyone who thinks of voting for the BNP. His point if I understand it right is that the BNP are only exactly as autoritarian and control-freakish than the Righteous parties (which is all of them except the LPUK) and also come without the baggage of unpopular foreign wars and the EU. The Libertarian Alliance has always made clear that the BNP is merely another corporatist/state-collectivist party just like the other biggies, and that the British left hates and fears it because it competes with it for the same part of the Franchise.

Sean Gabb on Carol Thatcher, Golliwogs and Jeremy Clarkson

UPDATE:- From the Blogmaster of the Libertarian Alliance:-

To editors/ compilers/bloggers

Please feel free to syndicate this post, unedited please, in its entirety, wherever it pleases you to do so.

To reproduce by permission of © Dr Sean Gabb and the Libertarian Alliance

(Oh, and you can repro this while you are about it.) Nothing to do with the below really, except we invented the thing.)

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 180
8th February 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc180.htm

On Golliwogs, One-Eyed Scottish Idiots
and Sending Poo Through the Post.
By Sean Gabb

In England, one of those weeks has just ended that define an entire period. This is no consolation for those who have suffered, and who may yet suffer worse. But I have no doubt that it is worth describing what has happened and trying to explain what it means.

Let me begin with the facts.

First, it was reported on the 3rd February 2009 that Carol Thatcher, daughter of Margaret Thatcher, had been dismissed from her job as a BBC presenter for having called a black tennis player a golliwog. She did not say this on air, but during a private conversation. Even so, the BBC defended its decision on the grounds that any language of a “racist nature” was “wholly unacceptable”.

Second, demands are rising at the moment for Jeremy Clarkson, another presenter at the BBC, to be dismissed for having called the Prime Minister a “one-eyed Scottish idiot who keeps telling us everything’s fine”. Various Scotch politicians and spokesmen for the blind let up an immediate chorus of horror that has resulted in a conditional apology from Mr Clarkson, but may not save his career.

Third, it was reported on the 2nd February 2009 that the comedian and Labour Party supporter Jo Brand was being investigated by the police for allegedly inciting criminal acts against her political opponents. While presenting a BBC television programme on the 16th January 2009, she rejoiced that the membership list of the British National Party had been stolen and published on the Internet. Her exact words were: “Hurrah! Now we know who to send the poo to“. The natural meaning of her words was that it would be a fine idea to look up members of this party and send excrement to them through the post. The British National Party put in an immediate complaint, using the hate speech laws made during the past generation. According to a BBC spokesman, “We do not comment on police matters. However, we believe the audience would have understood the satirical nature of the remarks”. It is relevant to note that Mrs Brand was present when Carol Thatcher made her “golliwog” remarks, and may have had a hand in denouncing her.

Fourth, In The Times on the 6th February, someone called Matthew Syed wrote how personally oppressed he felt by words like “golliwog”, and how good it was that “society” was taking a stand against them. Two pages later, someone called Frank Skinner defended the employers in the north of England who prefer to employ foreigners on the grounds that foreigners are “better looking” and “less trouble”. The possibility that he has broken one of our hate speech laws will probably never be considered.

This is a gathering of facts that occurred or were made public during one week. But if we relax the time limit, similar facts pour in beyond counting. There was, for example, the pillorying last month of one of the Queen’s grandsons for calling someone a “Paki“. Or, to give myself as an example, there was my BBC debate of the 16th February 2004 with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian immigrant who seems incapable of seeing any issue except in terms of white racism. During this debate, I asked her: “Yasmin, are you saying that the white majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces?” Her answer was “Yes”. It is possible she did not understand my question. It is possible she would have clarified or retracted her answer had the debate been allowed to continue. Sadly for her, the BBC immediately switched off my microphone and threw me into the street. Mrs Brown was allowed to continue uninterrupted to till the end of the programme. The hundreds of complaints received by the BBC and the Commission for Racial Equality were all either ignored or dismissed with the assurance that nothing untoward had taken place in the studio. I accept that Mrs Brown might not have meant what she said. Had I made such a comment about Asians or blacks, however, I might have been facing a long stretch in prison.

But let me return to the most recent facts. The most obvious reason why these broadly similar incidents are being treated so differently is that Jo Brand and Frank Skinner are members of the new ruling class that formally took power in 1997. They can vilify their opponents as freely as Dr Goebbels did his. Any of the hate speech laws that might – objectively read – moderate their language will be regarded as nullities. The police had no choice but to investigate Mrs Brand for her alleged offence committed live on television before several million people. But they made it clear that no charges would result. According to a police spokesman, “The chances of this going further are very remote. The idea that the BNP are claiming they are the victim of a race offence is mildly amusing, to say the least”. It may be amusing. The statement itself is interesting, though, as a formal admission that law in this country now means whatever the executive finds convenient.

Carol Thatcher and Jeremy Clarkson are not members of the the ruling class. They have no such immunity. Mr Clarkson may get away with his act of hate speech because he is popular and clever, and because the main object of his contempt is only the Prime Minister. Miss Thatcher may not be allowed to get away with her act. She used a word that borders on the illegal. And she is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. She is the daughter, that is, of the woman elected and re-elected three times on the promise that she would make the British State smaller and stop it from being made the vehicle for a totalitarian revolution by stealth. Of course, she broke her promises. She did nothing to stop the takeover of the state administration by politically correct totalitarians. But there was a while when the people who actually won the cultural revolution in this country thought they would lose. They looked at her rhetoric. They noted the millions of votes she piled up in her second and third general elections. And they trembled. As said, they won. Mrs Thatcher herself is too old to suffer more than endless blackening at the hands of the victors who now comprise the ruling class. But they still tremble at the thought of how her shadow darkened their 1980s. And if they can do nothing to her now, her daughter can be ruined, and that will now be tried with every chance of success.

It might be argued that what Miss Thatcher and Mr Clarkson said was offensive, and that they are in trouble because we have a much greater regard for politeness than used to be the case. Perhaps it is offensive to say that a black man looks like a golliwog. Perhaps it is offensive to imply that Scotchmen are idiots or that people with defective sight also have defective judgement. It might be. But it might also be offensive to millions of people that the BBC – which is funded by a compulsory levy on everyone who can receive television signals – broadcasts a continual stream of nudity and obscene language; and that it pays the biggest salary in its history to Jonathan Ross, whose only public talent is for foul-mouthed buffoonery. The British ruling class – especially through the BBC, its main propaganda outreach – has a highly selective view of what is offensive.

And it is worth replying that the alleged offensiveness of the statements is minimal. Let us forget about golliwogs and implied sneers at the blind. Let us take the word “nigger”. Now, this has not been a word admitted in polite company in England since about the end of the eighteenth century. Anyone who does use the word shows himself a person of low breeding. Whatever its origins, its use for centuries has been as an insult to black people. Any reasonable black man, therefore, called a nigger, has cause to take offence.

This being said, only moderate offence can be reasonable. Anyone who runs about, wailing that he has been hurt by a word as if it were a stick taken to his back, and calling for laws and social ostracism to punish the speaker, is a fool or a villain. And I can think of few other epithets that a reasonable person would greet with more than a raised eyebrow – “poof”, “paki”, “papist”, “mohammedan”, “chinkie” and the like. Anyone who finds these words at the very worst annoying should grow up. We can be quite sure that most of the Asian languages now spoken in this country contain some very unflattering words to describe the English – for example, goreh, gweilo, and so forth. There is no pressure, internal or external, for these to be dropped. And we know that there are any number of organisations set up by and for non-whites in this country from which the English are barred – for example, the National Black Police Association.

However, the highly selective use of speech codes and hate speech laws has nothing really to do with politeness. It is about power. The British ruling class may talk the language of love and diversity and inclusiveness. What it obviously wants is the unlimited power to plunder and enslave us, while scaring us into the appearance of gratitude for our dispossession. Because the tyrannised are always the majority in a tyranny, they must be somehow prevented from combining. The soviet socialists and the national socialists kept control by the arbitrary arrest and torture or murder of suspected opponents. That is not presently acceptable in England or in the English world. Control here is kept by defining all opposition as “hatred” – and by defining all acts or attitudes that might enable opposition as “hatred”.

I am the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. Not surprisingly, my own opposition to the rising tide of despotism is grounded on a belief in individual rights. I may occasionally talk about my ancestral rights as an Englishman, or about how my ancestors fought and died so I could enjoy some now threatened right. I may sometimes half-believe my rhetoric. Ultimately, though, I believe that people have – or should be regarded as having – rights to life, liberty and property by virtue of their human status. Anything else I say really is just a rhetorical device. This is not the case with most other people. For them, opposing the encroachments of a ruling class is grounded on collective identity – “they can’t do that to us“. Now, this sense of collective identity may derive from common religion, common loyalty, common culture, but most often and most powerfully – though these other sources may also be important – from perceived commonality of blood.

Now, this collective identity is not something that is seen at times of emergency, but otherwise is in abeyance. It is important in times of emergency so far as it is always present. People work together when they must because, at all other times, they have a mass of shared rituals and understandings that hold them together. These shared things often define a people in terms of their distinctness from others. Jokes beginning “There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotchman” or “What do you call a Frenchman who…?” are part of what reinforces an English identity. So too are comments and gestures and assumptions that assert the superiority of the English over other peoples. To change my focus for a moment, take the phrase “Goyishe Kopf” – Gentile brains! This is what some Jews say when they do something stupid. It can be taken as expressing hatred and contempt of non-Jews. More reasonably, it is one of those comments that reinforce the Jewish identity.

What Carol Thatcher said was part of this reminding of identity. Her exact words, so far as I can tell, were: “You also have to consider the frogs. You know, that froggy golliwog guy”. The meaning she was trying to convey was: “let us consider how quaint and absurd outsiders are. Is it not nice that we are members of the same group, and that we are so clever and so beautiful?” I am not saying that I approve of what she actually said. Indeed, she would have done better for herself and the English in general had she kept her mouth shut.  Calling someone “froggy” is neither here nor there. Calling him a “golliwog” is moderately hurtful. Saying this on BBC premises, and in front of people like Jo Brand, shows that Miss Thatcher is stupid or that she was drunk. Her words, as reported, do less to reinforce English identity than make the whole thing an embarrassment.

However – her name always aside – she is being punished not because her words were crass, but because they fell into the category of actions that must at all times be discouraged. Powerful or crass to the point of embarrassment, nothing must be tolerated that might tend to promote an English identity. I say an English identity. The rule does not apply to Scotch or Welsh or Irish nationalism. These are not regarded as a danger to the ruling class project of total enslavement. They are controllable by subsidy. More usefully, they are anti-English. The various ethnic nationalisms and Islamic identities are likewise allowed or encouraged. They are not perceived as a danger to the ruling class project of total domination, and may be used against the English. It is English identity that must at all costs be repressed. The English are still the largest national group in these islands, and will remain so at least until 2040, when there may be a non-white majority all through the United Kingdom. English national ways are the raw material from which every liberal doctrine has been refined. The English are an unpleasantly violent nation when pushed too far.

This explains why words and expressions are defined almost at random as “hatred”, and why names of groups and places keep changing almost at random. The purpose is not to protect various minority groups from being hurt – though clever members of these groups may take advantage of the protections. The real purpose is to hobble all expression of English identity. It is to make the words and phrases that come most readily to mind unusable, or usable only with clarifications and pre-emptive cringes that rob them of all power to express protest. Or it is to force people to consult their opponents on what words are currently acceptable – and whoever is allowed to control the terms of debate is likely to win the debate.

And look how easily it can be done. Also during the past week, we have seen working class demonstrations in the north of England against the employment of foreign workers. “British jobs for British workers” they have been chanting. A few raised eyebrows and warnings from Peter Mandelson about the “politics of xenophobia“, and the trade unions have straightaway sold out their members and are preparing to bully them back to work. Better that trade union members scrabble to work for a pound an hour, or whatever, than that they should be suffered to use words like “Eyeties” or “Dagoes”.

I should end by suggesting what can be done to counter this strategy. I suppose the answer is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. We must accept that certain words and phrases have been demonised beyond defence. Some of them are indefensible. These must be dropped. Others that are just about permissible – Scotchman, for example – should be used and defended on all occasions. We should also at all times bear in mind that political correctness is not about protecting the weak but disarming the potentially strong, and it must be made clear to the ruling class that its management of language has been noticed and understood and rejected. A strategy of apparently casual offence, followed by partial and unconvincing apology – of the sort that we may have seen from Jeremy Clarkson – may also be appropriate.

Another strategy worth considering is the one adopted by the British National Party. In a free country, Jo Brand would be at perfect liberty to incite criminal acts against unnamed and reasonably unidentifiable people. But we do not live in a free country. There is a mass of laws that criminalise speech that was legal even a few years ago. The response to this is to invoke the laws against those who called for them. As said, people like Jo Brand and Yasmin Alibhai Brown are unlikely ever to be prosecuted for crimes of hate speech. But the authorities will occasionally be forced to go through the motions of investigating, and this can be made a form of harassment amounting to revenge. Otherwise, it is useful to establish beyond doubt that the laws are not intended to be enforced according to their apparently universal working.

There is much else to be said. But I suppose the most important thing is not to behave like Carol Thatcher. It will be unfair if she is broken by her words. But if you stick your head into a lion’s mouth, you cannot really complain when you feel the teeth closing round your neck.

All told, this has been an interesting week. Understood rightly, it may turn out to have been a most productive week.

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

Dogshit street terror watch scandal shock new pictures


I adore dogs, really I do. Or at least they adore me (they do.) But it’s been some time since the last occurrence of this material outside Davis Towers, so I suppose the bugger’s come back.

It’s not for the Council Soviet to legislate, or even clear it up: it’s for the owner. Libertarianism faces a bleak Dark Age in a country where individuals are losing their sense of personal responsibility and Civic Pride. Libertarians ought to have no objection to the concept of Civic Pride, since it originated in the spirit of liberty to form voluntary institutions, the agreed job of which was to improve the world and people’s lives. Nobody had to join if theye decided not: fascism was still a world and a century away.

The dogshit will remian there until the owner returns for it. I will report periodically.

State camera blatancy: the gloves come off

The Landed Underclass published this yesterday. On the basis several other bloggers and we here think it’s astonishingly perceptive, it will probably go viral on the interweb thingy before long. But with Sir’s permission, we happily republish it in full and unedited here:-

The following:-

©The Landed Underclass,  http://landedunderclass.wordpress.com 2009

BLATANCY AWARD (live linked back in title, for originator)

One of the advantages of living in the country is that one is unlikely to encounter anything like this [the Times, found by the outraged Obnoxio]:

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has approved a new generation of cameras that are linked wirelessly and operate in clusters, meaning that speeding drivers will be caught whichever route they take across a wide area… they read numberplates automatically and transmit data instantly to a penalty-processing centre… They are harder to vandalise than Gatso cameras because they are suspended from arms on six-metre poles.

Quite apart from the vandalism aspect (ain’t any of you all heard of a lariat?) there is the usual difficulty.

Valley Bottom is a sedate bit of road, and only about six feet wide by the sheep field, but it is not a cul-de-sac. Once in a while one of the local youths drives along it, as fast as he possibly can, a rusty Citroën Saxo (or it might be a Fiat Punto; all this car talk is really rather soiling, isn’t it?), its intrinsic gasps, rattles, squeaks and waterpump scarcely competing with the exhaust, which instead of a silencer now has part of an euphonium attached to it, and the stereo, the alternator loading of which being the reason why the car can manage no more than 58mph (at 139dB(A)/10m).

Because the driver has (as is his wont) omitted such petit-bourgeois poltroonery as insurance, driving licence and vehicle registration, it will not matter if he is on every visit tracked from low Earth orbit by some huge American spy satellite. Nothing will happen to him; it never does, thanks, no doubt, to his customary precaution of having different number plates, stolen from different cars, on each end of his ungentleman’s conveyance.

The big disadvantages of speed humps as a ‘rat-running deterrent’, or whatever, are that they cost only a modest amount to install (and generate work only for council mateys, not for shadowy surveillance-and-security companies run as sidelines, via holding companies in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, by members of ACPO, as if policemen would ever do such a thing; for shame), they don’t generate a revenue-stream for anyone, and they might even impede official vehicles.

That the tired old chestnut of ‘global warming’ has to be trotted out to defend this desperate fundraiser probably indicates roughly how blatant it is.


More lamp-posts, more piano wire! Will there be enough?

If I may say so: typical young software chap; lives in a dream world. Just you try attaching anything, my lad, let alone piano wire, to any of this modern streamlined, aluminium, low-pressure-sodium type municipal street lighting. If it doesn’t slide straight off then the wretched thing will simply buckle. What we simian, brachiating, favourite-spanner-dragging hardware types call ‘not man enough for the job’.

If this lynch-mob thing is going to work someone is going to have to do one of those GPS-assisted surveys about where to find the surviving proper, traditional, ladder-bracket-equipped, cast-iron Victorian gas-standards, with, given the nature of the beast, an SWL of about 3cwt or so (as opposed to tacky, undersized imitations thereof made in China out of monkey-metal and sold in Bodgitt & Quickley’s to people with plastic Georgian porticos, self-adhesive bullseye windowpanes and fairtrade garden gnomes), and someone else is going to have to organise some kind of booking system, doubtless computerised, for their use, otherwise it’ll be complete chaos when the time comes.

Personally I’m opposed to capital punishment. Such a waste in a case like this, when many hours of harmless family televisual entertainment (and/or a very popular website) could be had from little cameras covering the Jobcentres patronised by our erstwhile ‘leaders’. Their answers to the inevitable questions about ‘aptitudes’ might even be worth putting on the side of a bus.

Gramsco-Marxian bastards destroy yet more glue holding free and liberal communities together…

in Bristol, near you.

David Davis

Just read this crap:-

Sports club removes ‘sexist’ word from name

A sports club in Bristol has been forced to remove the word “boys” from its name after councillors ruled that it was sexist.

Broad Plain Boys’ Club, which has gone under the name since 1894, faced the loss of funding unless it could show it was inclusive, so submitted an alteration.

The sports club, which does now have girl members, has changed the name to Broad Plain Working With Young People Group.

Club leader Dennis Stinchcombe MBE, 53, who ran the group for 33 years, said the rebranding was “a tragedy”.

He told the Western Daily Press: “There was a lot of history in that name and we are all very disappointed we’ve been forced to change it, especially the older lads.

“We need the funding so we have to back down. We haven’t even had any additional girls coming down – it seems another case of political correctness gone mad.” (NB he must NEVER NEVER SAY THAT – for PC is _NOT_ mad: it is directed on purpose.)

The club says it has helped thousands of youngsters since it began and relies on its £11,600 of authority funding. In 2004 Mr Stinchcombe was honoured for his efforts in helping the community.

The Labour-controlled council does fund single sex clubs including the Bristol and Avon Chinese Women’s Group.

Tory leader Councillor Richard Eddy said the club had simply been “bludgeoned into submission” by the bureaucrats.

The centre also had to recruit up to two part-time female club leaders, meaning more expense, he added.

A Bristol City Council spokesman said: “The criteria is that if you want funding, you have to show that you are meeting the needs of all young people, not a specific group of people. The name change was agreed some time ago.

“It’s all about being inclusive.”

The phrase “it’s all about…..”, as used by Gramsco-Marxians, will be listed, when uttered, as a War Crime. later.

Sean Gabb: Another Rant about the Recession

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 179
28th January 2009
Linking url: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc.179

The Car Industry Bail Out:
Are There no Politicians Now Who Understand Economics?
by Sean Gabb

The British Government has just announced what may be £2,000 million of subsidies for the car industry in this country. Responses to the announcement range from gratitude that jobs and manufacturing capacity are to be saved to complaints that the subsidies do not go far enough. My reading and viewing may not be comprehensive, but I have seen nothing in the mainstream media denouncing the subsidies as at best politically motivated – much of the car industry being located in constituencies held by Labour – and at worst economically illiterate. Since the first grounds of denunciation ought, after nearly twelve years of these people, to be self-evident, I will devote myself here to the second.

We are continually told at present – which is somewhat more than usual – how government spending had created, or will create, so many jobs. Therefore, the immense expansion of the British State since 1997 has created three hundred thousand jobs or whatever. Some deplore this because most of those employed can be expected to vote Labour. Hardly anyone denies there has been a net addition to the number of employed. The same reasoning underlies all discussion of how we are to get through the recession on which we have now started.

The truth is, however, that government spending does not so much create as displace employment. Every pound spent by the Government must first be taken from the people, who cannot then spend it for themselves. If the money is taken is taken through taxes, it exactly reduces the ability of the people to spend or invest it for themselves as they wish, or to save it for transfer, via the banking system, for others to spend or invest as they wish. If the money is borrowed, it again exactly reduces the amount of money that the people can borrow to spend or invest.

It is more complex if the money is printed by the Government – or, more likely nowadays, borrowed from the banks in a fractional reserve system. But if its effects are often hard to trace until after the event, inflation is no less a tax than any other means of providing money to governments. It may reduce the actual purchasing power of money left in the hands of the people. Given the downward pressure on manufacturing costs we have seen during the past generation, inflation will at best reduce the potential purchasing power of money that already exists.

This being so, the argument that government spending creates employment relies on a blindness to the concept of opportunity cost – that every pound spent on paying one salary is a pound less to spend on another salary. Put more simply, it is a case of what Bastiat described as “what is seen and what is not seen”. We see the jobs created by the Government in it “regeneration” projects. We do not see the jobs that would otherwise have been created to supply things that people actually would have bought had the money been left in their own pockets.

For the past six months, the argument has been reinforced by the claim that government spending is needed to make up for a disinclination by others to spend or invest. This being so, it will not be a zero sum game, but will create net employment. There is no doubt that there has been a deflation. People are borrowing less and saving more. The banks have been increasing their financial reserves. But it does not follow from this admission that government spending is needed to make up the deficiency. The fall in spending is not the cause of the problems we face, but is a symptom.

For perhaps the past decade, many central banks in the rich world have kept interest rates below the level needed to balance the supply of savings and the demand for loans. When other prices are forced below their equilibrium – rent control, for example – the result is shortages. In the fractional reserve system that we nowadays have, however, pushing interest rates below their equilibrium has simply enabled the commercial banks to create money out of nothing. In the past, this would have led almost at once to price increases. This time, with most consumer goods made in countries where supply curves are very elastic, and with exchange rates only loosely related in the short term to the financing of foreign trade, and with financial and property markets able to absorb what long seemed to be limitless amounts of money, the result was a speculative bubble, in which consumer prices hardly rose, and in which most of us were persuaded that we were growing richer.

These bubbles never last. The new money is brought into being through bank lending that cannot continue forever. There comes a point where people have taken as much debt as they can service, or  where they have invested on the basis of trends that stop rising. It is then that some event that would otherwise have been overlooked becomes the excuse for a panic. The bubble bursts. Net borrowing turns negative. Prices of overbid assets fall. Prices of securities fall to the value of their underlying assets – assuming there are any that can be identified. Much investment in new capacity is shown to have been unwise.

On this reasoning, the present fall in spending is not an event in itself that needs to be and can be cured by higher government spending. What we now have is really part of a cycle that began with the artificial lowering of interest rates, and that will end with the liquidation of the unwise investments and the correction in asset prices. The British Government’s policy of trying to halt the deflation with higher spending and even lower interest rates cannot do better than lengthen the cycle during its unpleasant phase. It also increases the size of the State – which already takes far too much of our money and spends it on things we would never buy given a free choice.

But I return to the bail out of the car industry. This is not a case of limiting collateral damage. The car industry is not a fundamentally sound victim of circumstances. It is instead one of those sectors in which unwise investments were made. There is no shortage of finance for businesses that really are considered sound. Even I still receive one or two pre-approved loan offers from banks I never knew existed. If the car companies cannot borrow to maintain their working capital, it is because no one believes in their fundamental soundness. Even at the height of the boom, it was claimed that there were too many car makers, given present and future demand for cars. There will now be several years when hardly anyone with an ounce of common sense will spend money unless he must on a new car. No one seems to care if estate agents all over the country are losing their jobs. If car workers are now to lose their jobs, it is for the same reason.

Of course, there are things the Government could do and ought to do to help the car industry. These are all negative. For the past twelve years, it has been running propaganda campaigns and piling taxes and regulations that have tended to make driving less attractive than it might otherwise have been. These propaganda campaigns should be ended. The road excise and petrol duties should be cut. The cameras and yellow and red lines should be taken away. The police officers now deployed to harass drivers should be dismissed – there being, in any event, more policemen than needed to enforce the laws of a free country.

I move back now to the general difficulties we face. With increasing desperation, Gordon Brown is denouncing anyone who questions his policy of inflation as wanting to do nothing. Well, doing nothing at all would be an improvement on what he has been doing. However, there are things the Government could do. None of it would take us back straightaway to the prosperity we have lost. But it would shorten and moderate the pain that stands between us and recovery. I suggest the following:

  • The Government should balance its budget – and do so not by increasing taxes, but by spending less. This would tend to restore confidence to markets that are presently working on the assumption of a soft pound, and where default on the national debt is no longer thought impossible.
  • The Government should force all banks that have limited liability to reveal their true financial position. This would not be an interference in their private affairs, as limited liability is a privilege bringing responsibilities that may be varied as thought reasonable. This would again tend to restore confidence, and it would do more than printing money has to persuade the banks to start lending to each other.
  • The Government should return to a fully convertible gold standard. Unless otherwise contracted, it should be regarded as fraud for a banker to take a deposit and not have sufficient reserves to redeem it at once on demand. This would prevent the periodic explosions of credit that are behind the trade cycle.
  • Of course, the Government should also abolish income tax, valued added tax and excise duties. If this does not cut the tax burden by three quarters, it should abolish some other taxes. To keep the budget balanced, it should also cut spending.

I could go on, making more and more claims unlikely ever to be conceded by the British Government or any other. But the first two, plus a few cuts, would go far to shortening the recession. Sadly, even these will not be tried – not at least until the Keynesian remedies everyone wants have been tested to destruction.

Further Reading:

Murray Rothbard, America’s Great Depression
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Credit Creation or Financial Intermediation?: Fractional-reserve Banking in a Growing Economy

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

Not a bail-out

No, not at all, at all at all at all.

David Davis

Lord Mandyperson of Rumba of Rio, who I cannot find it in my heart to like or trust at all, although Tony my old mate insists he is very bright and interesting and I’d be charmed to have the bugger (sorry) to dinner***, is going to not bail out the UK car industry. What he has just found out is that all the workers live in Labour constituencies Pocket Boroughs, and if the same fate befalls their firms as did nearly Northern Wreck, then he’ll have some explaining to do in front of the Gorgon.

Can’t have the electorate labour voters suffering from our polices, now, can we.

***I’m sure he’d be charming to have as a dinner guest. I’d dispute amicably with him till Kingdom Come. The trouble is, I don’t know anybody else who likes or who trusts the bugger or who – more to the point – would turn up, if Mandy was scheduled to appear. He and I and Tony would have to scoff the grub ourselves.

“Celebrity-ness” analysed….

….along with “Politician-ness”, on The Landed Underclass.

David Davis

When “Landed” and I were young fellas, not only did we not know each other but also civilisation did not really contain what we now call “celebrities”. It’s true, there was The King – only briefly in my case – followed by his daughter  The Queen, and her various children who began to appear, and Sir Winston Churchill, and possibly the Queen Mother, but that was about it. Pop singers didn’t really feature in the 50s, they only earned dosh in the rather princely band of about £50 to £100 a week, and probably it was the Beatles in about, er, 1963?…who got most close to celebrity status first.

Politicians, Mr Churchill apart, who we were taught was the greatest man who had ever lived as was indeed correct with the possible exception of Barnes Wallis, were sort of, er, nowhere. They were “men in grey suits”: they were little different from the town’s librarian who stamped your books each week – whom of course nearly everybody knew by sight and name (think about it.) They just went to Parliament, and has “our interests” at heart, for us. They weren’t even paid much either.

On celebrities, their making and their breaking today: one thinks of the Incas – or was it the Mayans? (who cares?) – who sculpted all those gigantic scowling stone heads to show how advanced they were, and who publicly butchered living young men and women in bloody ways on top of very large stone structures built out of whatever was to hand. Celebrities nowadays seem to occupy the same niche, as “the people” serially worship them and then trash them a few years afterward.

The problem that Landed tries to address is why the families and children of politicians and celebrities are going to be _not_ on various “databases” which are to be set up by the State the Stalinists who tyrannise us today, and are to be for our delectation, our security and our enchainment.

Is it that politicians envy the celebrities’ perceived status, power, wealth and ability to have whatever they desire (pace the Mayans or whoever!) and therefore automatically desire the same privileges? Or is it as Old Holborn says Penguin thinks, which is that politicians have been in control of the whole process of viral-mass-idolatry all along?

Are the politicians who enslave us, been Wireless Tele Visually artificially creating phantasmal celebrities out of the fabric of real people, for some years (it coincides with the Diana-Witch-Mania and the subsequent Nationalised-synchro-Grieving-Terror that was commanded to be visited upon us all, and the real rise of the “Hello!” culture too) as a cover for themselves to hide behind, later?

The comment thread which has been allowed on Old Holborn in regard to this specific matter is, I think, vituperative and unhelpful. The State watchers will target blameless white-van-men instead of us as a result. We should approach this strategic matter in an atmosphere of calm and reasoned and cold deliberation.

More moolah on “Cash for Laws” – see posting below.

UPDATE1:- Raedwald agrees, and says what the four buggers’ anticedents are.

David Davis

Guido Fawkes is of course right that (some) ordinary people assume that the  current British State legislature is entirely corrupt. The trouble is, there are not enough ordinary people to make much difference any more. Most people are extraordinary in that they watch the “News” on the Wireless Tele Vision at best (which as we know is Hello-magazine-like and unhelpful), read no News Papers – and so can get no non-centrist-cosensual-non-controversial-PC-views -  and indulge in no critical thinking as a result of that.

Reality-TV (an oxymoron) is too gripping.

We’ve been here before many times in our history. But it does not make this time any better. For your opportunity to throw rottin cabbages at the Hamiltons, please see the post below, where comments about them are accumulating and it will increase the value of the thread.

Used cars! Used cars!

Used cars! Used cars!

And this guy looks like he’s just out of “uni” – what does he know about the right behaviour when one is lording?

Cash for laws – and you thought “cash for questions” was bad?


David Davis

I was shocked by this, but I am a normal human and easily shockable. I live in Lancashire, you see.

The Nazis New Labour crucified people called the Hamiltons, in the 1980s and early 1990s, for this. And now, the same Nazis as did the first lynching, do this. They do it by themselves, with no direction from anyone else. What bad people, or c***s, they must be, for their hypocrisy.

Bad people. Bad.

Naughty. Repent.

Before it’s too late.

We are angry with you.

If I wanted to buy a Law, which said that all socialists and crypto-Gramsco-Marxians should be deprived of the Franchise – on account of how they would skew the distribution of resources by the market  in their favour, and thus inevitably to the detriment of liberty, then how much would it cost me ot get this passed?


The strong(er) arm of the Law

David Davis

Philip Johnston highlights the new problem of Gramsco-Marxian policing, by graduate, politically-educated-officers from the 70s and 80s, now in senior positions. I recommend we all ask formally for a list of the things we still ARE allowed to do, from now on.

Damian Green and Christopher Galley: let’s suppose DG “groomed” CG. What then?

David Davis

The Daily Quislingraph carries a “report” that Damian Green, arrested (and then bailed, why only that? What’s wrong with “release without charge” – as he has done freedom a service?) for allegedly being in possession of “leaked documents”, obtained them by “grooming” (ummm, what’s that?) a “civil servant”, allegedly the eponymous Christopher Galley, who is of course, still “disappeared” as of now.

If so, and if “leaking” is OK if the New Labour Government Stalinists do it (as they have been for years if not longer) then, under the principles of a level playing field in liberal pluralist democracy, it’s OK for the opposition to take advantage of “leaks”.

The problem arises when one side tries to upend the playing field , or do the equivalent of “rocking the table” in Billiards and Snooker. This of course is transparently what ZanuLieBorg is doing to our constitutional settlement, and what it has set out to do at least since 1997.

An administration which:-

(1) Creates one new crime a day, by arbitrary definition,

(2) Wants to bring in ID cards by force or stealth,

(3) Forcibly nationalises Banks for spurious reasons based on new and arbitrary definitions of solvency,

(4) Wants to not have its rotten and pocket boroughs in inner cities merged into fewer bigger ones,

(4) Fills the nation with CCTV camerae,

(5) Is creating a very very large and immortal DNA database by stealth, (mostly of young whilte males now, but you just watch what will happen in a couple of years)

(6) Has deliberately decimated and downsized the Farming Communities really quite early on (cunning move that was, before any of us really noticed!) (they are Kulaks and thus conservatives by and large) by burning their animals at the point of a gun, trampling their fields with “ramblers” (who are clearly mostly lefties or they would have better things to do), closing their shops and Post Offices, and allowing the EU to dictate what produce of theirs could be sold to whom at what price,

(7) Has removed the intellectual basis of anti-Stalinist opposition to wickedness, in the Lords, by gerrymandering it by force,

(8) Has passed what amounts to an Enabling Act, for ministers of this Junta,

(shall I go on? That’s all I could type in a minute flat.)

An administration which does all this, is Nazi. Plain and simple. Now, it bcoemes the DUTY, first of opposition MPs, and then the rest of us, to oppose it. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to share the fate of the poor miserable German people in 1945. As I keep on saying, it could be argued that they did bring a terrible retribution and fate upon themselves, by failing to reject what were ostensibly and frankly portrayed socialist/ultranationalist policies, clearly outlined to them in successive elections and publlications – not to mention violent events.

Any Conservative MP who thinks that he ought to suborn the Civil Service, directly or otherwise, to find out more about the nefarious things going on under the surface of this government, ought to do so – it’s now his duty. This is war. In the pursuit of truth, particularly in what passes for “government” and the things it tries to cover up, and if socialist (as this outfit is), then it is always and invariably a lot – bad laws should be broken. Publicly and often. While the “media” are still nominally free, this strategy will weaken the masses’ belief, in time – and it will take time – in the cases for their retention.

Simon Heffer can see through Barack Obama too…

David Davis

It is good to find that I am not the only one who thinks the Obama Presidency will crumble into the usual dust, to the great unweal of all the rest of us fighting the coming of the New Dark Age.

FMFT reminds us about Trafalgar, tomorrow.

David Davis

There are of course planty of accounts of the action, but as I was going to do a piece tomorrow anyway I will just flag up Free Market Fairy Tales now.

The astonishingly wicked and deluded dreams of Napoleon remind us, eternally, of the barbarian wishes of land-locked powers to subjugate, regulate and “codify”. I was taught that “Napoleon improved and codified the laws”…this was supposed to be good – it did sound so and got me 100% in history exams, but now we know what that means. It’s the opposite of Common Law.

How nice

Iran is in the throes of a judiciary-led discussion about whether to stop executing children.


“24-hour-drinking” is not the problem … the government is.

David Davis

Police “chiefs” complain about “24-hour drinking”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t tend to come across binge-drinkers blind-drunk at say 10.40 am in the morning. Or even 7.55 am. Or 2.14 pm. Do you, or I, or does anybody you know, or have ever seen, drink for 24 hours a day? No, I thought not.

No. The problem is not that this guvmint has relaxed the licensing laws. This is a sound move and takes away the smell of distrust of the British people, imposed on them since WW1, when it was thought that without these we would be too drunk to make shells properly. it is an unconscionable piece of farm-animalery to suggest that a sane man ought not to be able to buy a beer at 6.40 in the morning, or at any time it pleases him so to do….and drink it too. When I used to drive to what was then called Czechslovakia, one regularly stopped one’s fast car after about 16 hours from London, at a roadside caff in Plzen or Stribro in West Bohemia, and you could have a large Becherovka, or a Vyskov-11 (about a pint or more) with your coffee.

The autobahn probably goes round those places now…and I expect that the dear Czech Police would string me up for what I have just said…but it was 1991-92 and all was new and bright, and the West had won, and people were happy, and the girls just wanted to have us…..

No, the problems lie elsewhere:-

(1) This is a coolish and nearly-always-damp island, in which one surviving pleasure is to crawl into your mud hut in the late afternoon with mates, soddden and muddy and shitty after a day in the fields slding about in the cowpoo, and down a few beers or more and joke about how the Bail-Reeve fell into the worst and deepest pile. The British drink alcohol regularly in industrial amounts: it is our job.

(2) Sex is not that great any more as a substitute for alcohol, unless you are

(a) very lucky with one or a few wenches well known to yourself, or else,

(b) the Feminazi revolution has somehow passed you by.

(3) If this guvmmint wanted socialism in a post-capitalist-civilisation and therefore (it would have to create) a de-educated populace, which it has tried personfully to bring into being, and which it could push about like in 1984, then it has succeeded. This populace will behave like irresponsible farm-animals, because that’s what it has been forced to become (the responsible ones are all dead.)

If you treat people like children, and deny them knowledge and understanding, then unsocialised children is what you will get. (You will probably have to ban guns, knives…lasers ( a new one, to be advanced for a ban at a local newspaper near you, and soon…..see the Southport Visiter! And yes thatt iz how itt izz spelled!)…..airguns…..kitchen-knives, soon?…..to stop them murdering each other, let alone you and your apparatchiks……) (“Nobody hurt in milk float crash”)

(4) If it thought it could raise alcohol excise duty takes by lengthening opening hours, then it is probably right. The overall sterling value of revenue has probably risen – that’s poss why it can afford to nationalise the Banks (paid for mostly by poor-people – could not the National Lottery have done it? More appropriate….)

People who are going to get rat-arsed in public, are going to do it in the early-to-late-evening, as they always would have been and have been able to do. So I think the rozzers have got the wrong end of the stick somehow.

Do you think parents ought to be able to spank their children, or not?

David Davis

UPDATE: this poll has only been added to this post on 16th November 2008. Wish i’d done it before.

There’s yet another boring go at this nonsense in “parliament”. but some bit of machinery called “Sir” “William” “Utting”, pssibly another robodroid from Pol-Pottistan, which has got accidentally recorded as a human being via good prostheses having been applied, thinks otherwise:-

A recent opinion poll showed that seven out of 10 parents in this country admit to smacking their children – and would oppose a law banning physical punishment.

Sir William Utting, spokesman for the Children are Unbeatable Alliance, said: “This is one of those principled reforms on which politicians must make a stand whatever the pollsters might say.

“It is about being serious about equality and about the human rights of the child. The law must send the clear message that hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else.”

The problem about young anatomically-modern-hominids (Homo Sapiens and so forth) is that their pups are born and would continue to be, if not trained, functionally unsocialised. We could probably date the need to do something drastic with the little evil buggers as being about the time that “language” came into being. In order to be able to bring about not only post-capitalist liberal civilisations with technology and reason, but also even pre-capitalist barbarian ones (like what is vehemently proposed by some authorities) we need to be able to spank sense into our children.

Don’t get us wrong. We’re not suggesting that we will have to, or want the power to, spank other people’s children (not yet! Mr “Nobody” is currently suggesting it!) – although if socialism continues to triumph, then this measure will have to be agreed and will have to come – we only want to be allowed to spamk our own children for now. This is not “political correctness gone mad”, yet.

And….Sir William….. are the rights of a child REALLY the same as the rights of an adult? I don’t think so, do you? Think about it…….

The Pat Condell video that Youtube blocked…..UPDATED

…..is here.

And I just thought you’d like this comment-link from the blogateriat-thread on the Freethinker’s place. Make of ti what you will: I take no position.

“What is Treason today?” … by Robert Henderson

This article has already made several appearances on newsgroups, some in the last couple of days. It appeared again this morning on http://www.yahoogroups.com/eurorealist . It deserves wider circulation.

Libertarians often argue about this matter of treason. Whereas the definition could one have been cut-and-dried, as in the 1340s, in which you could be “being adherent to the King’s enemies, within the realm and elsewhere”, or “offering aid and comfort to the King’s enemies”.  Now in today’s increasingly-all-powerful Big State Environment, treason could merely be what the party-in-power, or even the County Police Chief-Superintendent, thinks it is at that time. We need opinions on this matter. Here’s RH:-

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>


Robert Henderson

Treason is a famously slippery word, not least for the reason
enshrined in the oft-quoted but, because it contains a
savage truth, eternally potent rhyme:

Treason never prospers,
What’s the reason?
For if it does
None dare call it treason.

Yet elusive as it is, treason clearly has an objective
reality, a reality, moreover, whose essence is changeless.
That quality is betrayal which goes beyond the personal.
If a friend betrays you to another friend that is not
treason. If a fellow countryman betrays you to an occupying
power that is.

As a legal concept, treason has been redrawn during the
past millennium. In a dynastic context, where the king is
king in executive fact as well as name, treason is the
betrayal of the sovereign by a person who owes him
allegiance. That betrayal may be through disloyalty or an
attempt to harm the person of the monarch (and generally his
family). By extension, the same applies to those to whom the
monarch’s executive power is delegated. Kill the King’s man
and you attack the King.

But treason in dynastic circumstances was not a
straightforward matter of simply plotting against the king
or attempting harm to the king’s person or doing the same to
his representatives. A great noble or courtier close to
the king might well lose his head through being deemed to
have given “evil counsel” to the monarch, even though that
counsel had been accepted and acted upon by the king. The
“evil counsellor” would be blamed (and probably executed)
to ensure that the monarch was not held to account.

The idea of “evil counsel” had an important effect in English
constitutional development and a consequent broadening of
the idea of treason. Evil counsellors were generally
identified not by the king but by others, most notably
Parliament. Thus the practical application of the idea of the
evil counsellor both reinforced the idea that the monarch
was not a completely independent agent and Continue reading

The metric Martyrs and the Constitution: Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication no-19, by Sean Gabb

Sean Gabb

By way of intro, der Überblogmeister writes:-

For the benefit of overseas readers, English people have been in the habit of being able to trade in – and buy/sell in (legally) “imperial” measures for as long as these have been commonly understood, which in some cases such as “a Pound” (weight) is about fourteen centuries. These measures were indeed widely used in Europe and other places in the Known World, until the advent of the Metric System, statutorily enforced throughout conquered Europe by Napoleon. Just doing that thing on its own did not make Napoleon a fascist pig, but a fascist pig is what he was all the same, for integrated reasons.

Indeed, it has ALWAYS been legal in the UK to buy/sell/manufacture ot trade in metric measures of any kind. Scientists almost universally use the MKS (and understand the cgs) systems, both of which are metric, and this is logical as it makes the use of Standard Form Numbers much easier, in conjunction with any metric unit.

The ZanuLaborg British Stalinist fascist political parties, including the Tory party, here have all colluded in the forced metrication of all aspects of British life and thought, whether this was asked for, beneficial, or not.

it is advantageous to be fluent in both the “Imperial” and the Metric systems, but libertarians do not see this as a justifiable area for compulsion or legislation, so long as the standards in each are defines and known.

Here follows a sad story:-


Permanent link at: http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc063.htm

Free Life Commentary,
an independent journal of comment
published on the Internet
Issue Number 63
21st February 2002

The “Metric Martyrs” and the Constitution
Sean Gabb

On Monday the 18th February 2002, judgment was given in the Court of
Appeal on the “Metric Martyrs” case (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council.)
These were appeals from four men who had in different ways been told by
lower courts that it was no longer legal for them to use the English
system of weights and measures for any purpose of trade.

The grounds of their appeal were that the relevant laws had been made
further to powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972, whereas
it appeared that their right to continued use of the English system had
been protected by the Weights and Measures Act 1985. According to the
doctrine of implied repeal, an earlier Act cannot be used to amend or
repeal a later Act. Instead, where any conflict arises between Acts of
Parliament that cannot be smoothed by judicial interpretation, the later
one always takes precedence: leges posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant .

What made this case so important was that it was brought to clarify the
constitutional status of our membership of the European Union. Either the
Judges could apply the doctrine of implied repeal, in which case, our
membership of the European Union was compromised to whatever degree the
European Communities Act had been repealed, or they could announce that
Parliament was no longer sovereign, and that we were now unambiguously
under the rule of a centralising, Roman Law despotism based outside this
country. In the judgment given last Monday, the four men lost their case.
According to Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane, the 1972 Act was
protected against implied repeal by the 1985 Act, and the English system
of weights and measures has been legally abolished to the degree stated
in the disputed laws.

Now, looking at the superficial aspects of the case, it is a defeat. As a
conservative, I deplore the legal suppression of weights and measures
which are an integral part of our culture. Whatever its merits considered
purely in themselves-and these are probably not so great as is usually
claimed-the metric system is an alien thing. Its imposition cuts us off
from part of our history, and makes it harder for us to enjoy that
intimate communion with the past that is part of any nation’s strength
and cohesion. As a libertarian, I deplore the imposition of anything. If
greengrocers want to sell bananas by the pound or the kilogramme-or
indeed by the ancient Athenian mina-that is a matter for them and their
customers, not for the authorities. However, if we look beneath the
surface, we can see that the judgment was not so much a defeat as a great
if conditional victory for both conservatives and libertarians. For while
it would not have been politically conceivable for the Judges to strike
down any part of the European Communities Act, they did preserve
parliamentary sovereignty to the extent that a majority of the House of
Commons will be able in due course to repeal that Act by positive
legislation; and that is, let us face reality, how we shall eventually
withdraw from the European Union-not by some clever legalistic trick, but
by full public debate followed by parliamentary repeal. And of equally
great importance for us, when the Judges squared the apparent circle
given to them, they did so by reviving the ancient doctrine of
fundamental law.

This is a mediaeval doctrine that last flourished in the rather strange
legal soil of the 17th century. Its most famous statement is in Lord
Chief Justice Coke’s judgment in the case of Dr Bonham (1610). Bonham had
been fined for practising medicine without a licence from the Royal
College of Physicians. The charter under which he was fined had been
confirmed by Act of Parliament. In giving judgment for Bonham, Coke CJ

“And it appears in our books that in many cases the common law will
controul acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly
void: for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason,
or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul
it, and adjudge such act to be void” (8 Coke’s Reports, 117-18).

By the end of that century, though, the whole notion of a fundamental law
that could be used to judge the validity of Acts of Parliament was in
decline. In the American colonies, the notion retained its hold among the
lawyers, and is preserved in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But in
this country, the very different notion emerged of the absolute
legislative sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. Our rulers were
restrained by their sense of right and wrong-or more often by their
caution-in exercising power, but were under no legal restraint so long as
they could rely on Parliament to pass whatever Acts they wanted.
Parliament was sovereign. Its Acts could be interpreted by the courts-and
frequently have been into senses that no Member of Parliament might have
recognised in the division lobbies-but could not be called in question.

The doctrine as a whole was elaborated to its full logical conclusions by
A.V. Dicey in his Law of the Constitution (1885). It was fully accepted
by the courts. “For us an Act of Parliament duly passed by Lords and
Commons and assented to by the King, is supreme, and we are bound to give
effect to its terms” said Lord Dunedin in 1906 (Mortensen v Peters, 8
F.(J.C.), 93,100).

The only limitation of sovereignty was its protection. It was held that
no Parliament could bind itself. Parliament could do anything, except
preserve its own Acts from repeal. An Act from the time of Henry VII, for
example, states that it cannot be repealed. An early 19th century
annotator of the State Trials refers to this as a void provision. A later
Act would always override an earlier one-and do so regardless of whether
that had been the intention of Parliament. Repeal could be intended or
simply implied. “The Legislature cannot, according to our constitution”
said Lord Justice Maugham, “bind itself as to the form of subsequent
legislation, and it is impossible for Parliament to enact that in a
subsequent statute dealing with the same subject-matter there can be no
implied repeal” (Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1
King’s Bench Reports , 753. 14.).

Now, suddenly, the notion of fundamental law has been pulled out of the
legal grave in which it had been rotting for three hundred years, and
declared part of the law of our Constitution. In one sense, it was the
only way out of the paradox that the “Metric Martyrs” case had apparently
raised. By announcing that there was a “hierarchy of Acts of Parliament”
- “ordinary” and above them “constitutional”, the Judges were able to
save the European Communities Act from implied repeal. Undoubtedly, they
emphasised, European Union law is supreme in this country-but only to the
extent given by the European Communities Act, which can be repealed
should Parliament explicitly decide to do. Even so, short of explicit
repeal, it is immune from any implied repeal.

But in another sense, the judgment is only an extension of the growing
impatience that Judges have felt for a very long time with the
constraints imposed on them by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
And, in spite of the status given for the moment to the European
Communities Act, these are constraints that should be regarded with
impatience by everyone who values freedom in this country.

“The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament” is a nice set of words. The
phrase rolls off the tongue and carries the mind back to earlier ages in
our history. But the phrase no longer describes what is at all a
desirable state of affairs. We are ruled by people who get an almost
sexual thrill from messing up our lives. Because they run the two main
parties, they are able to pack the House of Commons with a combination of
sheep who would vote black white and white black if ordered, and of
weaklings who know that something is wrong, but are controlled by bribes
and blackmail. Every so often, a few decent people get elected. But that
is because the control is not yet perfect; and its main effect, sadly, is
to keep alive in some minds the delusion that parliamentary democracy
still actually exists. The general result is tyranny mitigated by
recollections of a better time.

The Judges have been worried by this for generations. According to Lord
Wright in 1942,

“Parliament is supreme. It can enact extraordinary powers of interfering
with personal liberty. If an Act of Parliament… is alleged to limit or
curtail the liberty of the subject or vest in the executive extraordinary
powers…, the only question is what is the precise extent of the powers
given” (Liversidge v Anderson , Appeal Cases, 106).

Since then, things have grown worse. Bad laws pour out in a continual
stream. A well funded interest group only has to demand, or a media
campaign to start, and the politicians reach for their legislative
hammer. In the 1960s, the insurance companies complained about the level
of awards in civil cases where they were known to stand behind a
defendant; and so the politicians virtually abolished the right to trial
by jury in the civil courts. In 1987, there were complaints when some
defendants in a criminal case pooled their right of peremptory challenge
to secure a more sympathetic jury; and so the politicians abolished that
right. Around the same time, the authorities wanted to raise the
conviction rate or financial crimes; and so the politicians created the
Serious Fraud Office, and gave it the right to compel self-incrimination.
In 1991, a few children were bitten by dogs; and so the politicians
brought in a law that almost everyone now regards as mad. Arguments about
the rule of law drew at best a blank stare, at worst an exultant sneer.

Nor is it just that Parliament is churning out bad laws-though many are
very bad. It is that Parliament is churning out thousands of pages of new
law every year, supplemented by thousands more of statutory instruments.
No one has read or can read all of these. No one is co-ordinating the
process of their manufacture. Quite often, no one knows what the laws are
on an issue from one day to another. Not surprisingly, they frequently
contradict each other. This is what led to the challenge to the
metrication laws. The Weights and Measures Act does contradict the
European Communities Act. No one intended this to happen. No one noticed
it had happened for about 15 years. But it did happen.

Now, the politicians are being brought under control. Let me quote from
the relevant sections of the judgment:

“In the present state of its maturity the common law has come to
recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as
constitutional or fundamental…. And from this a further insight
follows. We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it
were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional” statutes. The two
categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a
constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship
between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b)
enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as
fundamental constitutional rights. (a) and (b) are of necessity closely
related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also
an instance of (b). The special status of constitutional statutes follows
the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna
Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which
distributed and enlarged the franchise, the [Human Rights Act 1998], the
Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. The [European
Communities Act] clearly belongs in this family…. The ECA is, by force
of the common law, a constitutional statute.

“Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may
not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a
fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this
test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual not imputed, constructive
or presumed intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the
test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words
so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the
result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied
repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to
constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words
could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant
amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in
Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart
[1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended
in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental
rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by
unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.

“This development of the common law regarding constitutional rights, and
as I would say constitutional statutes, is highly beneficial. It gives us
most of the benefits of a written constitution, in which fundamental
rights are accorded special respect. But it preserves the sovereignty of
the legislature and the flexibility of our uncodified constitution. It
accepts the relation between legislative supremacy and fundamental rights
is not fixed or brittle: rather the courts (in interpreting statutes, and
now, applying the HRA) will pay more or less deference to the
legislature, or other public decision-maker, according to the subject in
hand. Nothing is plainer than that this benign development involves, as I
have said, the recognition of the ECA as a constitutional statute.”

Some people, I know, are angry that the European Communities Act has been
given this special status. However, its protection against implied repeal
comes not-as the Sunderland City Council lawyers argued-because on
entering the European Union, we accepted a new legal order in which our
own constitutional arrangements were reduced to the status of a town
council, but because the Common Law now recognises a whole class of
special Acts of which the European Communities Act is presently one. If
we ever repeal the European Communities Act by explicit Act of
Parliament, it will drop out of this special class, but the special class
will remain.

And we can repeal the European Communities Act. That much is now certain.
The various judgments in the Factortame legislation left the position of
European Union law highly ambiguous-was it or Parliament supreme?. This
judgment make it clear that the laws of the European Union enjoy a
borrowed primacy in England. Parliament may have chosen to indulge a
foreign authority, but cannot subordinate itself to it:

“there is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice, or any
other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of
Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom. Not because the
legislature chose not to allow it; because by our law it could not allow

This is not the outcome that the supporters of the “Metric Martyrs” were
hoping for. It is not an outcome, I think, that anyone was expecting. The
point of fundamental law was not raised in any of the hearings, and it is
highly unusual for Judges to go beyond the points raised in a case except
for giving obiter dicta , which have no binding force as precedent. But
it is a not a judgment that the Government was hoping for. Its general
implications have yet to be revealed. But it seems reasonable that a vast
mass of bad laws can now be set aside as inconsistent with fundamental
laws that they have not explicitly repealed.

Therefore, the sections of the Road Traffic Act 1982, that allow the
Police to impose fines on motorists without going to court, may be
inconsistent with the guarantee of due process in Magna Carta. The
various Firearms Acts-especially the most recent ones, which are intended
to criminalise rather than regulate the possession of guns-may be
inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The Government’s proposed
Confiscation Agency, which will import the American doctrine of civil
asset forfeiture, will require the explicit repeal of Magna Carta and
parts of the Human Rights Act.

At a stroke, the Judges have put the politicians under a restraint that
may be as severe in practice as that imposed by the Supreme Court in
America. It means that they can carry on their game of stealing our
freedoms-but they must do so in the open, by spelling out what they are
doing in words that cannot be ignored by the courts. I have no doubt that
if they had known in advance the outcome of this case, the authorities
would quietly have connived at breaches of their metrication laws.

We have lost the right to use our traditional weights and measures. But
we may have gained the vast benefit of living again under a Constitution
that protects our fundamental rights. I feel sorry for the four men who
have taken on the considerable legal costs of getting this case into
court, and I hope that the public appeal will be sufficient to pay these
costs. But it was, most emphatically, a case worth getting into court. It
has given us, I repeat, a great and unexpected, if conditional, victory.

Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance
Tel: 07956 472 199


FREE download of my book – “Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How
Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back” -

Wikipedia Entry: http://tinyurl.com/23jvoz

Interesting new critique of Whig/liberal/anti-EU blogs

David Davis

Have a look at this here. (The Libertarian Alliance gets a rating…)

My machine now thinks it has no battery, so whenever anybody trips over the mains wire, I go right off and shut down. So you’ll all have to work out what the link is about for yourselves, as I now have other stuff to do.

More about capital punishment

David Davis

My esteemed LA colleague from Scotland wrote a piece the other day, here. This was, _inter alia_, referring to the issue of capital punishment as ought to be able to be inflicted on unfriendly intruders onto one’s property, none of whom can have one’s interests at heart while they are where they are.

He and I are both iffy about the possibility of the “State” being able to dispense such punichment. History shows that in almost all cases, we are right. This is of course, as everyone will agree, with the absolute exception of Britain and the British Empire and the Anglosphere. Elsewhere, this dispensation has been unsuccessful as the buggers-in-power have never been able to be trusted not to abuse such a delegated right. Or, indeed not to simply usurp that power unilaterally, for various spurious doctrinal Utopian reasons.

However, “polls” show a consistent majority of British people in favour of a return to capital punishment. This is all very well, but they want the wrong solution to the wrong problem, although they think currently that it’s the right solution to the right one.

The problem is that violent and “medium” crimes are out of control because the British socialist state does not want to reduce or control them. It is convenient for it to have a monopoly of force and power of arrest, and for no weapons of any consequence to be held by anyone who cowers in terror, which is most of us – excepting real criminals who don’t mind hurting people in the course of ordinary business.

This is excepting knives, which will be hard to eradicate and ban the possession of, given this British Socialist State’s obsession with forcing us all to eat what my wife calls “unprepared food” – that is to say, stuff that you have to peel and boil (without salt) or even grow, if you are unfortunate enough to be a farmer. Apart from knives, everything else has effetcively been cleared away from all those who most need the gear. I expect that compressed-air-weapons will be next. The number of staged “accidents” involving “boys” is rising.

The State made a contract to propect individuals from harm, crime and loss of property or llife, in return for us surrendering our right to exercise force in the defence of those rights. It has failed, and has signed away our right (delegated to it on our behalf) to kill serious evil-doers. I am therefore not (at this time) in favour of the death penalty returning, unless the reciprocal right to harm or even kill an assailant (vested in an individual) is returned to individuals.

Then, we can properly re-delegate the exercise of that right to a State, in absentia. but we can’t do that, unless we previously have that right ourselves. Discuss!


Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication No-16:

David Botsford

Why the Right to Armed Self-Defence Against Criminals Should Not have Been Suppressed in Britain, and How It Might Gradually Be Re-Established.

MAGNA CARTA, 15th June 1215 … let’s have a barbecue to celebrate, preferably on Parliament Square.

David Davis

On 15th June we should remember Magna Carta. As part of this blog’s objectives, one of which is to help bind back our history onto us as a society, to ensure our integrity, since this link has been deliberately chopped or undone by wicked British (sadly) Fabians and socialists in our midst, I choose to talk about it now. I also have stuff to do between now and Sunday.


Here’s the annotated Modern English text of the original 1215 document:-



Screed after screed has been written about Magna Carta, but not so much about the Charter of Liberties, which preceded it by 115 years. Yes I know all that stuff about these really only helping the “Barons” and not really the people, and that John had boxed himself into a corner. But you have to start somewhere when moving from autocratic tyranny towards a dim simulacrum of liberalism, by hauling yourself and your civilisation up by its own bootstraps. I am sure that your average English “Baron” (not so sure about continental ones though) was at least slightly mindful of the need to keep his peasants and so-forth reasonably happy and in an approximate state of good health: firstly, he “owned” at least some of them, and secondly, they did needful stuff for him which he had neither the time, the inclination nor the skills to do for himself.


Here’s the annotated text of the Charter of liberties of 1100:-



But it remains true that Magna Carta set an unheard-of precedent: that a ruler could publicly have his powers limited by Law, or (better) agreement, even against his will if his subjects felt confident enough. To my knowledge no other polity has ever done this, or not at least so early on in modern history.


I may have more to say about Magna Carta and its relevance to the rise of Libertarianism in England, in the next few days.


Here’s another, slightly prettier text of the Charter of Liberties, 1100 Henry I :-





Libertarian Alliance Showcase Publication No 10: The Rule of Law and its enemies.

David Davis

The Rule of Law in Britain: Some Editorial Thoughts on Why It Is Threatened and How to Rescue It, 1994, 4pp.
ISBN: 1 85637 267 7

Good paper for us by Brian Micklethwait, some years old now but prescient. No, I am not just promoting Brian in case some of you think so. (A) He writes well, and popularistically, and (B) he just happens to have done the stuff I’m interested in expanding on right now on this blog, in the twylight of the Coming Dark Age.

Here’s the paper, anyway. You’ll need the adobe pdf silly nonsense (why can’t everything be WORD?) as ever for most of our stuff. I want to get it changed.


Quote of the day: The poor are always with us (but in case they’re not, let’s get some more…)

Great Mark Steyn-ism, from The Corner (NRO.) Since, as soon as nobody is “poor”  anymore, then nobody will vote for stupid bloodsucking blood-drenched stalinism and utopian policies, or “redistribution”, then the buggers have to “go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in.”

So that’s why we’ve got all the, er, certain kinds of people we’ve got, then. They’re brought here to vote Labour, that’s all. No Statist dictocrat cares a stuff for them, or what becomes of them, apart from that thing…Libertarian Party, get your act together soon please! Then they can be released form their Marxist chains.

David Davis

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Re: Common Sense from Samuelson   [Mark Steyn]

Mark, Robert Samuelson’s argument is so self-evident no politician can ever state it. A couple of weeks back, Statistics Canada reported that, after adjustment for inflation, Canadian wage-earners are earning less than in 1980. For example, in British Columbia the median wage-earner earns 11.3% less than a quarter-century ago. The media flew into a dither about all the usual fixes — increase taxes on the rich, etc — until one lone columnist, Trevor Lautens, pointed out the obvious:

In recent decades immigration, especially in British Columbia, has massively swung away from Europe to the less-developed (awful phrase) world… The plucky (another vanished word) of any nationality can overcome anything, as many praiseworthy immigrants have. But any immigrants to Canada without English, notoriously hard to learn and internationally valued — see the April 28 New Yorker story on Li Yang, who literally shouts what he calls “Crazy English” to his students in China — or French, are likely to settle into ethnic ghettos where they are vulnerable to exploitation, including lousy under-the-table wages…

So it’s not surprising that, as a group, immigrants for decades have dragged down Joe and Jane Median’s income.

When advanced economies admit ever larger numbers of unskilled workers (plus a chain of relatives through “family reunification”), they are importing poverty. The President says this is to do “the jobs Americans won’t do”. For the sake of argument, take him at his word. So why won’t Americans do them? Because they’re a great way to ensure you live in poverty. So we import foreigners to be our poor people. Can we import just the right number to ensure that poverty doesn’t “grow”? Unlikely.

There are arguments to be made both for and against immigration, but you can’t be in favor of mass unskilled immigration and then pledge to fight the “war on poverty”. It’s like spooning out a bathtub with a thimble while leaving the faucets running.


Britain might still get a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/European-Constitution…

…..But I doubt it. HOWEVER…the guvmint is currently being trounced, even more heartily than predicted, in the “polls” (I nearly said “proles”.) It might yet back down, especially in the face of Ireland and the forthcoming referendum over the water there, which Our Brothers have been allowed.

The Irish ought to be our brothers and friends – I have always said this, here, on Eurorealist and on other places in the long past. They saved the world, after all.

David Davis

For the benefit of our overseas readers, who may not be familiar with governments that promise one thing aboslutely, and then brazenly refuse in public to do it, all three major parties here promised explicitly a referendum on our acceptance of the EU Constitution and its adoption officially by Treaty at Lisbon. (Our acceptance as a nation; that is to say, whether we the British wish to abolish ourselves and cause the UK to cease to exist…)

Here’s some stuff just come in:-

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 11:27 AM
First round to Stuart Wheeler – bless him!   

This is just about the first time that anyone has succeeded in any court in making any dent at all in the megalith that is the EU’s domination of all it surveys.
This is merely the first step and it should encourage every one of us to back Stuart Wheeler to the hilt – in words and deeds.  He, unlike some more hotheaded bretherrn did his homework and found a legal loophole in the government’s case.


Don’t let it be drowned by all the churning examination of the election results.

“Why I am suing the Prime Minister”  by Stuart Wheeler

On 22 April there was a hearing in the High Court of my action against the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in which I seek a judicial review of their refusal to hold a referendum on whether the Lisbon Treaty should be ratified.

Judgement was reserved. This meant that the judge needed time to consider the arguments and would give his decision later. 
2 May 10:00 a.m. – I am delighted to say that in his judgement delivered at the High Court this morning Mr Justice Owen decided that permission to apply for judicial review would be granted to me. In other words the result of the hearing last week is that we won. I expect to put more information on this website shortly.

Although I am the person bringing the action it is, in effect, on behalf of all those of us – well over half the population – who want our say in a referendum.  There are, I believe, two reasons why there should be a referendum:
1. The Labour Party, as well as the other two main parties, made an unambiguous promise that they would call one. They should keep that promise.
1. The Treaty is immensely important and so, irrespective of whether you think it should be ratified or not, you should be allowed a vote on it.
The legal case is enormously expensive and I need help to pursue it. I am very grateful indeed for those who have already given me financial support. If you would like to help please make cheques payable to Stuart Wheeler Lisbon Litigation Account and send them to me with this contribution form.
If you need to know anything else which is not covered by this website please e-mail me at litigation@stuartwheeler.co.uk 



More about dog shit on streets, and how not to fall into Nazi ways

…of dealing with it.

David Davis

Here’s what we do in cloggie-land, ‘oop-north….the yellow paint will persist for a number of days as it is acrylic-based.

Whoever it was who left it, forgot that is was bang in the middle of the pavement, right outside our property. I am sure this was an oversight on (her) part; I know who it is…I (er) think. The shit is the right size and general composition to be from a particular dog which I would recognize.

I think it was the poor woman at whom I had a go a few days ago, see this earlier post. The nazi thing to do is to invoke the Law as it stands and to call the state-dog-exterminators to go round to her, seize her computers, take her DNA (which ought to be her Copyright) and generally make her life miserable, but I don’t think that’s right, if we think we ought to live in a Free World. She should come and remove it herself.

And as the State owns the pavements, this means that “nobody” does, so if they have paint on them it is “nobody’s” responsibility…it’ll wash off in time, long after the dogpoo is gone, and will act as a reminder of civil behaviour.