Claims ‘R’ Us

Fred Bloggs.

Thanks to the telegraph for sharing these.

MP’s strangest claims

20 responses to “Claims ‘R’ Us

  1. Keep going. You’ve already achieved subjection of parliament to a new quango. A grand achievement, thar. The Enemy Class are really quaking in their boots at the idea that parliament will be entirely discredited and the reins of power handed to wise “indpendent” technocrats.

    Really, a fabulous job here. A great win for liberty.

    Oh yes.

  2. Ian, Your fighting the battles of the 1920’s. Our freedoms are long gone. Mostly got rid of by Parliament. Rule by experts on Quangos or committees such as MPC or NICE is a given. Policy is cooked up by campaigning bodies or fake charities. Most of the laws flow from the EU or flow from enabling acts. It’s been this way for a while. Since well before the Thatcher government.

    Parliament was never going to save us. It’s better now to smear them in shit. The less legitimate Parliament, the EU and the courts seem the better. What little freedom there is to be had now will be in the cracks, spare us a government that has some moral legitimacy.

    I don’t think the people will be fooled by some oversight committee (not allowed to touch gold or silver) at least not for long. That’s not to say that I see any prospect of freedom, just the avoidance of complete tyranny/mass death events. For now.

  3. To Ian B and davidncl:-

    I see both your points of view. First, like Ian I do lament the passing of the authority of a proper Parliament, manned by individuals who felt they ought to be there out of a sense of liberal morality and duty, who did not need the money, and thought that laws and taxes should be few and morally-based and well-understood. I also have to agree, though, with davidncl that we are now driven far, far further back into the hinterland of our own battle-lines and rear-areas than Ian thinks. What should have been our support-trenches are hundreds of miles in front of us.

    As things get worse, there might still, just, be enough people left to make a difference (a concept that the late Chris Tame lamented was lacking) in the way of dealing with such quangos and “regulatory bodies”.

    At the moment, I can’t quite see how or what would be involved, but in the end, Quangos, experts, bureaucrats and regulators are just people.

    I have more to sya but have just been shouted at by my dear wife for cooking the rice and chicken in the wrong order, at the same time, as this, so I will be back much later.

  4. The real point about the tragedy that has befallen Parliament is that, through GramscoFabiaNazism, it has come to contain mostly the wrong people.

    There is no possible reason why and how political careerists, aged from 22 to about 45, or even a bit more, with no experience of real life outside a University or some politician’s typing and phoning office, or some newspaper hack’s desk, ought to be in a position to tell what is good or bad law, or be able to exercise mature judgement.

    The right people to staff a Parliament in a Classical liberal democracy are old ladies, retired colonels, ex-managing directors of successful manufacturing, mining and retailing outfits, and RSMs. (The lattermost will be the Conservatives, as is natural.)

    Moreover, I don’t think socialists and GreeNazis ought to be even allowed into the building, let alone be able to stand, since they object to the whole concept of political conscience.

  5. Truth about ACPO — THE VERY REAL DANGER…

    NKVD ==> GESTAPO ==> ACPO ===> USSR


  6. Bodwyn Wook

    This Tory whp Wiggin fellow’s phize says it all, do NOT vote for people with these weak mouthes and rosebud lips.

  7. “At the moment, I can’t quite see how or what would be involved, but in the end, Quangos, experts, bureaucrats and regulators are just people”

    Operation Phoenix.

    The original operation mapped out the power structures of the Viet Cong and then killed (30 000) key individuals. It didn’t really work for all sorts of reasons. Nor am I advocating shooting thirty thousand quangocrats or any form of violence.

    But the intellegence aspect of building a complete and detailed picture of how the network of quangos, LEA, PCT, SHA function, who is on their commitees, and what their backround, friends, family are and so on remains a powerful idea.

    I’m thinking here of an on-line database with graphical representation of the links, locations, ties, funding flows and so on.

    Hosted off shore.

  8. The Libertarian Alliance states that it does not either endorse by virtue of third-party comments, or reject through disagreeing with the private beliefs of any individual members, shrill hysteria about ACPO, emanating from other websites (where there is plenty of other room to air them) and copied onto here.

    ACPO is not a major concern of the LA at this time, since we want to concentrate on discussing what constitutional arrangements might benefit the emergence of a Classical liberal minimal-statist democracy in the UK.

  9. Tony, if you put on any more comments about what a primary danger ACPO is, deflecting attention from the subject of actual posts, one of us will delete them when spotted.

    If you want to spam the internet about private concerns like this, there are plenty of other places.

  10. Truth about ACPO — THE VERY REAL DANGER…

    NKVD ==> GESTAPO ==> ACPO ===> USSR

    To silence very real concerns about the creation of a Police State in this our country is both craven and morally ignorant, if not wilfully blind.

    I will now post _ACPO_’s version of ACPO…

    Will you delete THIS???

    You delete it; others will put it straight back again.

    Silencing the Net is like removing piss from a swimming-pool: it’s hubristic even to think that you can do it! Address the issues! Is ACPO adversarial to libertarian values or not? In principle? In very real practice?

    [ FX: “Bring it on…” ] Smiles… Dave…. >:-{


  11. If you get anybody else to restore stuff I have deleted, you will be barred.

  12. THIS is our blog.

    WE decide what to write about.

    Any more of this childish nonsense such as

    [you delete it – others will put it straight back again], a

    nd two things will happen:-

    (1) Tony Hollick will be barred.
    (2) I will turn on comment moderation.

  13. David Davis:

    “… it was with less than six thousands that the Captains of the West came at last to challenge the Black Gate and the might of Mordor…”

    “‘Come forth!’ they cried. ‘Let the Lord of the Black land come forth! Justice shall be done upon him. For wrongfilly he hath made war on Gondor and wrested its lands. Therefore the Crown of Gondor demands that he should atone for his evils, and depart them forever. Come forth!…”

    [ FX: “The Eagles are coming!!!” ]

    [ The Return of the King; J.R.R. Tolkien [1955]).


  14. The thing is Tony, I’m well aware of ACPO and like you I think they are anti-freedom and significant. But your interupting the conversation – it’s just bad manners.

    btw one of the links you posted, seem to be … a little out there … “Holocaust Denial – The New Witchery”, “White Race – betrayed from within” . I haven’t time to read in detail but it didn’t look very credible.

  15. [ FX: Gandalf the Gray, Istar ]

    “Stand, Men of the West! Stand and wait! This is the hour of doom!”

    ———— * * * * * ————

  16. Dave:

    For Heaven’s sake drop the MordorSpeak stuff…

    Remember this???

    ©Philip Pullman 2009

    “Are such things done on Albion’s shore?”

    The image of this nation that haunts me most powerfully is that of the sleeping giant Albion in William Blake’s prophetic books. Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.

    We do not know what is happening to us. In the world outside, great events take place, great figures move and act, great matters unfold, and this nation of Albion murmurs and stirs while malevolent voices whisper in the darkness – the voices of the new laws that are silently strangling the old freedoms the nation still dreams it enjoys.

    We are so fast asleep that we don’t know who we are any more. Are we English? Scottish? Welsh? British? More than one of them? One but not another? Are we a Christian nation – after all we have an Established Church – or are we something post-Christian? Are we a secular state? Are we a multifaith state? Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?


    £34bn cost of state-run surveillance databases
    Former spy chief says UK is now a police state
    First ID cards are to be issued within weeks

    [ COMMENT: That’s a bit rich, Dame Stella! (but she should know)]

    The new laws whisper:

    “You don’t know who you are

    You’re mistaken about yourself

    We know better than you do what you consist of, what labels apply to you, which facts about you are important and which are worthless

    We do not believe you can be trusted to know these things, so we shall know them for you

    And if we take against you, we shall remove from your possession the only proof we shall allow to be recognised”

    The sleeping nation dreams it has the freedom to speak its mind. It fantasises about making tyrants cringe with the bluff. bold vigour of its ancient right to express its opinions in the street. This is what the new laws say about that:

    “Expressing an opinion is a _dangerous_ activity

    Whatever your opinions are, we don’t want to hear them

    So if you threaten us or our friends with your opinions we shall treat you like the rabble you are

    And we do not want to hear you arguing about it either

    So hold your tongue and forget about protesting

    What we want from you is _acquiescence_”

    The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream…

    “You are not to be trusted with laws

    So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

    We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

    You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

    You do not need to hold us to account

    You think you will get what you want from an ‘inquiry’?

    Who do you think you are?

    What sort of fools do you think we are?”

    The nation’s dreams are troubled, sometimes; dim rumours reach our sleeping ears, rumours that all is not well in the administration of justice; but an ancient spell murmurs through our somnolence, and we remember that the courts are bound to seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we turn over and sleep soundly again.

    And the new laws whisper:

    “We do not want to hear you talking about truth

    Truth is a friend of yours, not a friend of ours

    We have a better friend called hearsay who is a witness we can always rely on

    We do not want to hear you talking about innocence

    Innocent means guilty of things not yet done

    We do not want to hear you talking about the right to silence

    You need to be told what silence means: it means guilt

    We do not want to hear you talking about ‘justice’

    Justice is whatever we want to do to you

    And nothing else”

    Are we conscious of being watched, as we sleep? Are we aware of an ever-open eye at the corner of every street, of a watching presence in the very keyboards we type our messages on? The new laws don’t mind if we are. They don’t think we care about it.

    “We want to watch you day and night

    We think you are abject enough to feel safe when we watch you

    We can see you have lost all sense of what is proper to a free people

    We can see you have abandoned modesty

    Some of our friends have seen to that

    They have arranged for you to find modesty contemptible

    In a thousand ways they have led you to think that whoever does not want to be watched must have something shameful to hide

    We want you to feel that solitude is frightening and unnatural

    We want you to feel that being watched is the natural state of things…”

    One of the pleasant fantasies that consoles us in our sleep is that we are a sovereign nation, and safe within our borders. This is what the new laws say about that:

    “We know who our friends are

    And when our friends want to have words with one of you

    We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need

    It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law

    It is for us to know what your offence is

    _Angering our friends_ is an offence.”

    ———— * * * * * ————

    It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would ever have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.


    Phillip Pullman; author of “His Dark Materials” and much besides

    [ History: Posted in Rupert Murdoch’s “Times Online” last week, and ‘pulled’ two hours later, without leaving a trace… Truly Orwellian… ]

    ———— * * * * * ————

  17. The above comment brought to you courtesy of the Libertarian Alliance, Barking Branch.

  18. [ FX: “Woofers” ] Smiles… Smiles….

    [ FX: I don’t ‘suffer’ from insanity… ]

    [ I _enjoy_ it…]

    What other reason can there be for our being here, doing this? PROFIT??? Sheesh…. Smiles…


  19. I published it as a post some time ago.

  20. ‘Moreover, I don’t think socialists and GreeNazis ought to be even allowed into the building, let alone be able to stand, since they object to the whole concept of political conscience.’

    Aha, a /limited/ franchise!

    Philip Bobbitt argues that ‘consent of the governed’ being a sheer statistical improbability, what legitimates governments is their guarantee of the rights of the people — or, rather, that governments accept constraint.

    The way to a limited franchise then, in this case, and pacifying factions to be excluded as parties is to guarantee in any new bill of rights the freedom of private contract and private association, for example to co-operatives and other voluntary or familial socialistic economic enterprises, in an overall free market set-up.

    So much for the socialists, they famously compete in their offerings anyway, with guns whern the trinket of ‘governance’ is still at stake. Whereas, the real ones (our Hutterite farmers notably, socialists in fact if not rhetoric) do very well for themselves without being evangelical about it. The ecological crew are, however, not going to surrender easily to the idea that their remedy is in classical lawsuit.