---

6 August 2005
I can't add anything to Peter Oborne's excellent article in this week's Spectator. Read that and you will effectively read my thoughts on the British voting systems and an English Parliament

---

30 July 2005 - Terrorism Part 3
When I last made a post the media made it appear as though the immigration status of the Brazilian victim was clear. While much remains strange about the shooting, I must retract with reservations my comments made on the 25th.

While it is dull, I also feel compelled to congratulate the police on their work that resulted in such complete success yesterday.

---

25 July 2005 - Terrorism Part 2
It's been a long time since my last post. In that time we have been attacked again, the police have made impressive progress, maintained sufficient secrecy and provided sufficient information. They have also shot dead a Brazilian man who, we discovered later, was not involved in terrorism in any way.

The steady drip of information, though, has lead us now to know that he was running from the police because he had out-stayed his welcome. The "bleeding heart brigade", as I recently heard them so excellently described the other day, will say that this man died at the hands of an over zealous police force who are involved in political oppression by the state. Shami Chakrabarti, who so often misses the real target when talking about protecting civil liberties, and her ilk will continue to focus on so many non-issues while missing the more serious ones.

The UK is soft on terrorists. This is a fact.

At the same time, the Labour Party wants to imprison people in their homes without trial; while refusing to allow phone tapping to be used as evidence. When things appear obvious, the present government has an almost unnatural knack of missing them. People such as the Brazilian overstayer should not be here to be shot. A warrant for his arrest should have been issued already, the police should have known he was in London using face-recognising (and so not overly labour-intensive) CCTV. The fact that he ran from the police was because he had done something wrong. He knew he had done something wrong and while what he had done (staying longer than his VISA allowed) does not deserve the death penalty, this is what he so regrettably has received. My sympathy for him, however, evaporates when I consider that he is here illegally. If he were not, he wouldn't have been shot. The police involved should feel no guilt - they were doing what they should.

Predictions
It is always a dangerous game to predict the future, especially in a forum such as this where people will quote you again in the future. Regardless, however, I believe we are on the cusp of something more serious than most people suspect. In the UK we allow people to live among us who harbour such severe and twisted hatred that they would be willing to blow themselves up. At the same time the government acts in a draconian manner but refuses to say what it should. Blair should be saying now, in no uncertain terms, that Islamic fundamentalists are not welcome. He should not be repeating his mantra about Islam not being evil in and of itself (is he an expert in theology?) and should concentrate on the evil doers.

Key Issues
Anyone who suggests that Muslims, or those that look like Muslims should not be stopped and searched by the police on that basis should be immediately and loudly shouted down. It is nonsense and unambiguously so. If you were looking for an IRA suspect you would probably be looking for a white man - there's nothing wrong with saying that. Equally, if we are trying to avoid Muslim extremists killing any more of our people and giving Clarke more excuses to invade our personal freedoms in unrelated, but carefully timed Acts, we must accept that the police are going to be looking for people of African or Middle-Eastern origin.

Anyone who espouses the killing of innocents in the name of a religion should be instantly banned from visiting the UK and, if they live here already, should be deported or locked away.

Faith schools that are state-funded should be a thing of the past - religion has no place in education. Unfortunately, I know from experience that school inspections by Ofsted are a complete waste of time and money because the school has plenty of prior warning in which to paint walls, install new equipment and prep students. Therefore, at the moment, any private faith school (the existence of which I have no objection to) could be preaching dangerous and treasonous ideology whether or not they have been inspected.

The police have spent a lot of time since the 7th of July guarding Mosques. Crime in other areas has not stopped, but these buildings (for they're guarded at night when they are not occupied) must be protected in sleepy towns with low/no racial tensions while failing entirely to protect those people who they are there to serve.

What may happen
If Blair fails to address the things I have mentioned above, he will feed the flames of a conflict that will make the Second World War look like a playground scuffle. Iraq is a perfect warning to the West of what could happen if this so-called 'war on terrorism' is not fought with Churchillian resolve. I do not think Iraq has got as bad as it will and Iraq has only mobilised a small proportion of those that have some misplaced problem with the 'infidels'. If the West fails to address the 'problem' of Muslim evangelism by bomb, we could face a reversal of the enlightenment the West has experienced. Democratic elections in these backwaters of civilisation often elect conservative (not in the excellent libertarian sense that we know of here) leaders who do not believe in individual freedom. We must not allow the elecorate of England to think thus.

The protests in Pakistan against Bush and Blair and the US and Britain suggest a growing imbalance in the world between the West and a group of people who are convinced, wrongly, that the West is against them.

I do not think it is scaremongering to suggest that we need to stop importing bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants until we have dealt with those that we have rightly opened our doors to either through the asylum system or through legal immigration. Multi-culturalism is bandied about as if it is definitely a great thing. Multiculturalism as an ideal is a naive way of creating ghettos and increased racial tension. Being British is a cultural as well as patriotic thing, and the people of Britain of all ethnicities and religions need to embrace Britain as their country. The stoicism of Londoners that was so ably reported is a trait of the people of Britain and this trait will not continue if we end up with ghettos and isolated communities. So-called white-flight from London suggests a serious problem in the fabric of society which must be addressed (though I do not claim to know that answers!). Calls for Sharia courts and changes in law to allow Muslims (or other groups) to behave differently must be resisted.

I have written this post carefully and I have intended to avoid offence. If I have caused offence, please let me know and I will look at your comments seriously. I have read sections of religious texts from all the major religions and all, except Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism, contain passages that encourage barbaric behaviour. They were written in a different time and should be read in this context. I do not believe Islam is any more violent (though certainly more explicit in the Hadith).

Some notes
Canada: click here
UK: "The special poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law". A major part of civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance." Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004524.php

Gav says: Sharia law would be another way of telling Muslims that the UK considers its own institutions lacking when dealing with "their own community's" issues. This is not true and should not be entertained. Human Rights, despite assurances, would also be put at risk especially for women and gay people.

---

9 July 2005 - Hotel Profiteering
Anti-globalisation protesters' complaints that businesses do not care for anything but profits have their normally flawed argument made stronger by the actions of hotels following the bombings. Increasing prices is not reprehensible as consumer bodies described it, it is far worse than that.

If global capitalism has morality in it, I hope that the hotels involved in this cashing in on blood are sent bankrupt by boycotts. If I have missed any, please let me know:

• Thistle Hotels Group
• The Cumberland Hotel in Marble Arch
• Ramada Plaza Regent's Park

---

9 July 2005 - Terrorism
07/07 was shocking in ways that are hard to express. We knew it was coming, we may even have suspected that more would die, the police and other security services claim to have stopped other attempts, but we are still deeply shocked and appalled. I am thinking of those harmed, and I am thinking of those who have lost others.

There is no need to repeat the arguments that have been made about the reasons for the attack on London on 07/07 but it makes me sick that people so little understand the situation in the world at the moment that they think the Iraq War (also known as the "War for Oil") is the reason for this attack. Whether the war was justified or not, which I'll discuss later, and whether terrorism in the name of freedom from oppression is ever sometimes justified, or not, this act of terrorism and others like it made in the name of Islam cannot be justified.

Many of my readers will have recoiled in disgust at that last paragraph as true as they find the final assertion. Unfortunately, many people harbour an hypocrisy. They, on one hand, think that apartheid was wrong, which it was, but on the other they think that the anti-apartheid campaigners should not have resorted to violence against those who perpetrated it; they condemn the vichy government in France and condone the partisans in Second World War France; at the same time they condemn terrorism in its self, forgetting these examples that the vast majority would support. Of course, sometimes and extremely rarely, struggle, including violent struggle, is necessary and even acceptable.

This Islamoterrorism is not justified in Bali, Britain, Iraq, Russia, Spain, Turkey, or the US. Terrorism is never justifiable against civilians and, as Bhagat Singh showed us, change can be gained without resorting to violence against people.

Bizarrely in the recent terrorist incidents, there does not seem to be any effort on the part of the terrorists to enter into dialogue. Even if there were a just cause, and there isn't, without entering into any dialogue whatsoever over the higher level ideas of their campaign, what possible results can they hope to achieve?

The Iraq war was fought, I am reasonably sure, for several reasons:

• Saddam Hussein was not controllable
• There's a lot of oil in Iraq
• There may have been a genuine belief that Saddam still had WMD

The US and Britain knew that if Saddam had WMD he would not and could not threaten us with them. This means that the US and Britain had no interest in invading and, by implication, should not have risked the lives of their own soldiers.

The other two reasons, however, are in our national interest but have a smaller (ie. non-existent) moral basis. If we were to visit Ideal-World^TM, we would have finished the Gulf War of 1991 by finishing Saddam. This would remove the ridiculous ammunition of the liberal lobby (George Galloway etc. who do not stand for individual liberalism by the way) complaining that we imposed sanctions on Iraq. I doubt we would find a man alive in the UK who would oppose sanctions on Zimbabwe and yet somehow, sanctions on Iraq, which provided for feeding the populace in exchange for oil, were apparently evil!

We must accept that there is an element in the world today who have genuinely held, but wrong beliefs. These people of many religions would, if they followed their religious texts to the letter, be at perpetual war. I am not talking only of Muslims because there are other major religions who's texts condone protection of their 'one true' God.

We in the West must protect our national interests, fight evil in the world as we would have and not shy away from conflict because we are afraid of the terrorism-related consequences. Equally, we must not be seen to, and must not in reality be attempting to, impose a new form of colonialism in the world. I am quite sure that people living in Zimbabwe, Cuba or North Korea (to choose three better known countries) would rather have democracy. The Britons of the time from 1066 to now, could equally claim that they do not live in a democracy (for all the gradual and real improvements in democratisation that Britain has gone through) but I am quite sure we would have defended our nation had someone come along with weapons to tell us that we are not progressing quickly enough. The steady and gradual democratisation of Britain has been initiated by people in power seeing the need for change as well as by the imposition of the will of the people during the times of potential revolutions and now at elections. People around the world need to be persuaded and, where possible, assisted in overthrowing undemocratic governments but, as Iraq has shown, war should not be started by the so-called good guys.

My heart goes out to the people hurt and killed in the bombings in London. I hope that a fear of a backlash against Muslims living in our community does not result in overzealous political correctness:

The Old Testament is part of Christianity, Islam and Judaism and, in Christianity and Islam is only amended by newer prophets. If these are the bases of the world's major religions then deference to them in law (Incitement to Dislike of a Religion - or words to that affect) or, indeed, by those trying to understand extremist terrorism appears to be a mistake.

There is a problem of differing ideals between these religions and the UK's stance on terrorism: the UK won't extradite some really nasty people because the country requesting them (for just reasons) will use the death penalty. In the Old Testament God says the death penalty should be used for murder, homosexuality and cross-dressing, down to relatively minor transgressions such as disobedient sons and working on the sabbath. The modern countries that use stoning as a punishment are only repeating what God, through Moses, did to countless of his followers following the Exodus.

On subjects not related to terrorism, God undermines society's position on inheritance.

On food, God, when talking to Moses, is explicit about what can and cannot be eaten. He lists animals that must not be eaten, for reasons unknown. Equally, apparently, wherever an animal that is forbidden (such as a pig, mouse or camel) dies, whatever it touches is "unclean". Blood must not be eaten (causing the traditions of Halal and Kosher) and so, presumably, anyone who eats black pudding should be shunned. Surely Christians and atheists around the world should be suffering what God threatens in Leviticus?

A woman who has given birth to a son is also unclean for a week afterwards and, when a week has passed the child should be circumcised. A woman who has given birth to a daughter is unclean for a fortnight afterwards.

If all these things are upheld by the non-atheist nations of the West, why are we not following them? If Islam is true, are not the majority that Blair spoke of equally acting against God's will? In fact, very few of the religious people in the world follow their religion's instructions anything like to the letter. Ignoring the death penalty, the fact that we all eat lobster and other creatures of the sea without fins and scales and breach other instructions sent by God is a way of life for the majority of the world's people. And yet, at the same time, we criticise Islamic fundamentalists for going against the traditions of Islam when the basis of all three religions says, in no uncertain terms, that His people shall be victors in war if they are true to him: "And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword." Making false claims against the terrorists will not appease them and will certainly not help us understand them.

The terrorists and their potential future recruits must be taught that the world has moved on since these hateful texts were written. They must understand that the Crusades were fought by people as backward and misguided as the modern Bin Laden supporters. The solution to Islamofacism and Islamoterrorism is not to deny their religion's truths but to explain that their religion, just as Christianity and Judaism, must move with the times.

Some notes
I am by no means qualified to make theological assessments of religions and I do not believe in/subscribe to any religion. I refer the reader to interesting websites such as this and this. I would also make clear that the world has other religions most of which do not speak of their trueness in the face of others. Live and let live is an excellent way to live your life, in my opinion, and other religions which are worth researching are clear on this matter: Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism (google search) or Sikhism (good site).

---

2 July 2005 - New Web Hosting
Due to e-mail problems with my old web server I have now changed to a new company. During the change-over there may be some teething problems so please bear with me. If you notice anything go awry, please let me know at the following address so that I can keep an eye on things.


On the old hosting provider's storage I have added a different message today to this one.

---

20 June 2005 - A "cobbled together compromise"
This post has been moved to the new blog layout click here

---

---

7 June 2005 - Motorists thumped again
Just a couple of excellent links for you today:

• Road tax - another stealth tax
• The EU's influence on the road charging proposals

---

6 June 2005 - EU Constitution
The EU Constitution has been commented on excellently by the Spectator magazine this week. I strongly recommend that readers of this site read the article.

The EU is not a bad thing in principle, but the people who run the old European countries operate in an "elite quarantine" which is quite alien to British politics. These people have developed a method of governance for the United States of Europe which does not provide for explicit democracy and which does not allow the general population to propose legislation.

The Commission is the one biggest problem with the EU. The Commission is a group of people supposedly working for the benefit of the EU and with no deference to their home nation's needs specifically. The laughable aspect, however, is that the Commissioners are expected to work for the benefit of the EU over their own self interests. In my mind you would be hard pushed to find people who, given such power, would be so laudable - to find such people in the political elite is just ridiculous! To compound this, Commissioners are appointed by the Heads of State (the Council of Ministers) and so are, by definition, the political elite. In a token democratic effort, the EU Parliament must agree to the Commission but the Parliament does not have the power to remove individual Commissioners.

What we need is to replace the Heads of State at the Council of Ministers by a single representative from each Member State, elected directly by the people of the Member State. In countries such as the UK, the Prime Minister represents the Queen at these meetings and is, by definition, not directly elected. The French, with their Presidential system, vote directly for their representative, but this is still not good enough; the President may be elected for reasons aside from their European credentials.

Ideally, the EU would be democratic (and directly) in all institutions and would be limited to legislation in areas related to free trade. Harmonisation of pedestrian crossing paving slabs would be left to bureaucrats in Member State countries and, even more ideally, the UK would not legislate on such matters at all.

Libertarianism should be embraced by the new Conservative leader, the EU should not impose on Member States and the national government of the UK should not legislate on matters that could reasonably be left unlegislated, or could provide voluntary opt-outs for companies and organisations affected.

---

3 June 2005 - Electoral Reform?
Who Should You Vote For have changed their site post-election to include an interesting 'find-out-questionnaire' on electoral reform.

Here are my results with which, I have to admit, I do not agree!

---

29 May 2005 - France's Referendum
The French vote today. Whatever the result, it is good news for the UK (and especially England).

The French 'Non' voters think that the EU Constitution, that lamentably has a political agenda, is too Anglosaxon (free-market).
The British 'No' voters think that the EU Constitution is too anti-free-market, socially inept and, frankly (no pun intended), French.

If the French vote 'Non', the Constitution is effectively scuppered; if the French vote 'Oui' the British, who are already anti-EU in principle and anti-EU in its current format, must vote no!

---

29 May 2005 - Leadership of the Tories
It's been a quiet week in Politics-land. The Conservatives are in a semi-limbo, the Labour party is in a semi-limbo and the Liberal Democrats have returned to their normal wilderness. It's been quite a relief!

It is a shame that the media keeps repeating that the Conservatives' rule changes for leadership selection are needed because the membership selected Iain Duncan-Smith... They really didn't! The members positively did not select Kenneth Clarke who would sell this country to an undemocratic supra-national organisation that no-one asked for in its current guise - that is not the same thing at all. Ironically the rule changes currently look like benefiting David Davis who has celebrated anti-EU views.

Much has been said about getting the decision over with quickly, and I can see the benefit, but lets let things happen without undue concern from the media... If there's nothing that we can learn, tell us nothing!

---

21 May 2005 - Not welcome
This post has been moved to the new blog layout click here

---

17 May 2005 - Sky on 5 May 2005

I took this picture on the evening of the election and I thought I'd share it with you. Also, in case you did not notice the English Parliament 'tick' at the top of the page, I thought I would remind you to visit the Campaign for an English Parliament's website: The CEP

---

16 May 2005 - Companies to boycott
This post has been moved to the new blog layout click here

---

15 May 2005 - A new leader... (part 1)
The Conservatives have been looking at the prospect of a new leader since the election.

To me this is an exciting prospect... Maybe the Tories will choose a libertarian, a free-thinker. Maybe the Tories will select someone who will make the electorate sit up and think "What would the UK be like if we were free from taxes that, on the surface, appear to be there just for the sake of monitoring?". Maybe the UK of tomorrow would be one where there is a transparent tax system which enables tax payers to know what they are paying for. Maybe this UK will have low taxes that allow people to spend their money how they wish.

In this UK free-enterprise would be positively encouraged because people would see that in the early, lean years of their new business, the government would not take irresponsibly large chunks of their capital. The VAT man, who bankrupts more businesses than any other entity, would not be required at all. Taxes that cost to levy would be scrapped. Social policies that have laudable aims but questionable benefits and extreme costs would be scrapped. Tax take for the government would increase despite lowering taxes! And maybe, just maybe, the steady centralisation of the state since 1945 could be significantly reversed.

Consider for a moment that £600,000,000,000 is spent by the government each year. Consider that there are 60,000,000 people in the country and ask yourself what you would expect to receive were you to spend £10,000 each year on yourself and each of your dependents. The answer, I would imagine, would be far more than is acheived under the centralist state that we currently live under. If we were endowed with a libertarian Prime Minister we could expect the government to give us large chunks of that cash back.

   The Government's Responsibilities
A libertarian leader may believe that the government should run the following public services:

• Social security for:
• The elderly
• The disabled
• The temporarily unemployed
• Education from age 4 to age 18 See note below
• Healthcare See note below
• Defence
• Local services (refuse collection, recycling provision, planning, libraries etc.)
• Existing transport infrastructure
• Police
• Civil and Criminal Court costs

All taxes should be ear-marked when they are taken. Taxes that are not required by a particular family (such as a family that educates its children privately) could be removed from the tax-take and provide equity. This freedom from unnecessary expense would result in the creation of low-cost schools that ordinary people could afford (costing about the same or less than the state sector).

Foreign aid should be limited to the removal of foreign debt. All future aid can be given by the newly empowered, and naturally generous, British people.

Regulators that require companies to perform certain aspects of their business in a certain way (such as the FSA) should be optional for all companies. Companies that do not follow the rules laid down by said organisations must state clearly that they are not regulated on their literature but would have the advantage of being competitive.

The items listed above that can be controlled by enterprising individuals should be. To protect against possible problems resulting from this the police should be given greater powers including the enforcement of Court Orders. If people are unencumbered by the state when attempting to engage in enterprise, they are far more likely to succeed and less likely to be dragged into criminal or questionable trade when the looming prospect of VAT and employment regulation starts to threaten to damage said enterprise.

   A new choice at the next election
If the Tories can select a truly radical and libertarian leader during the next few months, then politics in the next few years could take an extremely exciting and interesting turn. At the next election, the electorate will have a clear choice between bloated, high-tax, low respect, hand-out-dependent government, and low-tax freedom.

Note
Everyone in the UK accepts that the NHS and free education are good things. However, there is no reason that the government has to monopolise these services. A low-cost private alternative running alongside the government services can only provide choice and better quality to the people.

Click here to go back

---

6 May 2005 - A strange few days
What a strange few days. From the highs of last-minute campaigning, to the peaks of Putney's result, down to the realisation that massive swings were limited to specific constituencies, to the low of Michael Howard's announcement today.

In fairness, Michael Howard has stood by his principles and cited 'Accountability' when he made his announcement. However, it presents a golden opportunity for the less-sympathetic media to portray the successes of the campaign as something other than a success - a smaller failure. It should be clear that this was not a failure; the election of 2005 should be remembered for two things.

First, obviously the Iraqi war has had some influence on the result. More importantly, however, the third election under Mr Blair's presidency (oops) has been influenced by a begrudging electorate voting the way the BBC and The Sun says they should. It is unfortunate that the electorate did not see through the emptiness and down-right danger of Blair's regime, namely the destruction of the second House, the destruction of private pension funds, and as a direct result, of the stock market and people's financial independence, the removal of cabinet government, the spectre of taxes that are already too high (and have been throughout all the governments that I have lived through due to expenses such as the EU's £30million daily cost, the £50,000 cost of renaming a single public toilet in Brighton & Hove from "Ladies" and "Gentlemen" to "Women" and "Men" in order to be PC and other, apparently obvious, expenses that have no place in an accountable government's expenditure plans), uncontrolled immigration and criminals who believe it is okay to commit crimes because "everyone is a victim sometimes".

What the country needed was a Conservative government. Instead it is saddled with up to five more years of the dire governance that we have been putting up with since 1992. The thin silver lining is that this gives the Labour party another four of five years to make it absolutely clear that they have not been the architects of the strong economy, just the benefactors of a strong world economy. It gives the Labour party four or five more years to make it absolutely clear that their plans for resolving the rise in violent crime, illegal immigration and associated illegal employment and their plans to improve our failing schools are not going to be realised. Finally, it gives the government four of five more years to over-tax middle-England and continue to provide too little benefit for that money (sometimes called "Value for Money").

If the electorate approach the next election with their eyes open, the 2009 or 2010 election should be a 1997-esque landslide for the Conservative party. I just hope that the correct leader is chosen at the right time and by the right method.

---

1 May 2005 - Who should you vote for V2.
Who Should You Vote for have updated their site to include a few extra questions. It is worth another look: click here.

---

30 April 2005 - I urge you

I urge you to vote Conservative at the election on Thursday. I understand that this will not surprise the reader but I will set out my reasons nevertheless:

• The Tories believe in freedom, freedom to go about your life and spend your money the way you wish; freedom to carry on your business without government interference; freedom to choose where your children are educated and freedom to choose where you are treated (private or NHS).
• The Tories understand that they were wrong in the '80s to oppose equal rights for homosexuals
• The Tories do not differentiate based upon skin colour (unlike the Labour party who actively support degrading positive discrimination)
• The Tories know that your money is precious to you and will not tax you in order to fill holes in their finances - your money should be treated with as much respect by the government as you would have for the money in your own care
• The Tories will not reverse Gordon Brown's only good action - independence for the Bank of England
• The Tories' rhetoric on the EU has grown to be more in line with the beliefs of the British populace and Michael Howard has promised to renegotiate power back to London
• The Tories can be trusted. The 1997 manifesto of the Labour party would be amusing were it not so shockingly ignored by the Labour party after their election (click here to read it). The Tories have been unambiguous about their promises and the Timetable for Action (click here to read the 2005 Tory Manifesto or PDF)

---

20 April 2005 - Defeat the Constitution

The French referendum on the European Constitution is the first chance the UK has had to "wreck" the EU.

I defer writing anything today and direct you, instead, to the blog of the metric martyr, Neil Herron: click here

---

17 April 2005 - Pensions, misrepresented

The Conservatives have today unveiled excellent plans for the future of Pensions saving: click here. Unfortunately, the media has deliberately understated the benefits to those currently not receiving their pension. The implication, it appears, has been that the Tories are focusing on the so-called 'grey vote'.

The Tories are actually unveiling the first policy for people who do not fit one of the "key demographics", namely: pensioners or those with children. The people have been crying out for policies that help those, say, who are in their 50s and 60s and the BBC is not helping the people realise that this policy is just that.

---

16 April 2005 - Newsgroups

If you are not familiar with newsgroups, consider visiting uk.politics.misc using a newsgroup reader. If you are not sure, use Google Groups in the first place.

---

15 April 2005 - Just a bit of fun