Liberty is for 'Eccentrics'

I've been reading the Economist for a pretty long time, in preference to the usual pithy rags, and frankly I've rarely noticed an unequivocal statement from them. Every assertive sentence will be quickly moderated by some counter-statement. But their latest effort* includes an article about the Convention(s) on Modern Liberty (taking place tomorrow); and rather than the usual formula, they've gone for a subtle support for liberties (easy now - mustn't offend our sponsors!), coupled with repeated reference to 'eccentrics'; mocking those attending the Convention.

The Economist proudly calls itself liberal, even in front of its American audience - who most abuse the meaning of the word. The best description of the Economist's position is - and always has been - 'KISS-ASS'; a phrase which has the same meaning on both sides of the Atlantic.

Here's whose 'ASS' they are kissing; this published one day after the latest edition of the Economist:

I hope that in the final reckoning even some of our harshest critics will concede that this Labour government has done more than any before it to extend liberties and to constrain government.**
~ Jack Straw

OK, so I may have spent some hours today in the British Library glancing over the Magna Carta and related abolished-declarations-of-British-rights; and yes I may have clipped an LPUK card to the comments board on the way out; maybe that makes me eccentric. But that quote above from Jack Straw should illustrate amply to anybody - eccentric or otherwise - which of us has the firmest grip on reality.

*The price of freedom (The Economist)
**Jack Straw: Our record isn't perfect. But talk of a police state is daft (The Guardian)

Chris Huhne's 'Freedom Bill' is merely tinkering

It seems that we are to write yet again on this blog about the enigma that is Chris Huhne. Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, we challenged him last week to change the name of his party to the SDP to better reflect his illiberal views after he publicly backed the Home Secretary in banning from the UK an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, Gert Wilders.

 

Now we see that in a show of publicity, he is back in the news launching what he calls his 'Freedom Bill'.

 

Where do we begin to look at Mr Huhne's efforts, which on the face of it are a step in the right direction, which LPUK applaud, however, and with the LibDem's there is always an however...

 

I read the 'Freedom Bill' that was published on the LibDem site, then I re-read it because I thought that their published version was only a précis, but no, there it was in its entirety. Not once, not a single time does it mention the word Liberty.

 

This is not repeal being presented by Huhne, this is not winding back the injustice, this is just tinkering for political gain.

 

That indeed then prompted me to post the following comment on the presentation site: (which at the time of writing this post was still in moderation).

 

A start yes, however, simply removing 1 or 2 clauses in a number of Acts does nothing to remove the underlying evil behind much of this primary legislation, and can easily be put back in by a subsequent government.

I fear that this is merely window dressing in order to catch media and voter attention rather than a genuine Liberal attempt at restoring the Liberties to the UK population.

It is noted that it does not once use the words Liberty or Liberties, but Freedom. A strange choice of wording or perhaps not, as we know full well that the Acts will never be allowed to be repealed by the EU, of which your party is so fully supportive.

 

One item that I found both annoying and amusing was that it was so clearly obvious that the copy of 1984 that Chris Huhne received from the Libertarian Party had struck home. It had found its target as we had intended, as he used the very phrase that we placed on each book in his press briefing, when he said "George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a blueprint".

 

I suppose we should be flattered at the impact of the 1984 campaign, but the way in which Huhne is exploiting that targeting by delivering such a poorly constructed Bill just reinforces my view of him as a mercenary with statist ambitions.

 

My posting on the LPUK blog last week indicating that the Libertarian Party are leading the debate was spot on, definitely on the money. It is clear that Huhne is only FOLLOWING, but he is playing to the crowd with this gimmick bill, as he knows full well that he will not be able to implement one jot of it without also undertaking to leave the EU.

The EU will block every single item in Huhne's bill. I will reiterate again for the avoidance of doubt, the LibDems, or any other party, will not be allowed to undertake the repeal of liberty stripping laws whilst they support the EU.

 

Nearly every clause that Huhne was to remove through this Bill are included in the original Acts because they are fulfilling EU Directives. The only clauses that I am certain did not eminate from the EU is sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (c. 15) (which regulate demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament) which were only added to the Act in a vain attempt to silence Brian Haw.

At this point I am happy to boast that The Libertarian Party is the ONLY party to promise to undertake both the full repeal of such liberty stripping laws, and to extract the UK from the EU.

Moving on, several things have also crossed my mind at the timing by Chris Huhne of this particular proposal. Firstly we know that the Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London, so Mr Huhne obviously wants to present the LibDem's as a party that is 'doing something'. This only serves to hoodwink the voters who are starved by Government and the media of any general knowledge of the EU and how far it now has its tenticles into the UK and its government.

 

Secondly, the recent civil war going on within the party over Liberal Vision has reached a stage where they are losing members, so this is a sop to try to win back those disaffected members with strong Libertarian views, and prevent them from abandoning what is essentially a very social democratic party where their views are neither heard nor acted upon, and he desperately needs to repair the damage he caused to himself over the Gert Wilders affair.

 

Lastly, it is an attempt at one-upmanship. David Davis will be the politician carrying the Keynote speech of note at the Convention on Modern Liberty, therefore Huhne wants to grab the media attention to water down whatever it is that Davis will be delivering.

 

Overall, whilst I would have hoped that the right intentions were there in the presentation of this Bill, I cannot see it. It delivers far too little, it is much too late to be merely tinkering, and provides no more safeguards on the Liberties of the population of this country than the current Government have deprived us of.

 

If this is the best attempt by those perporting to be Liberal at 'Modern Liberty', if this is the very best that is likely to come out of that Convention, then this nation still has much to fear for its future.

 

 

.

 

Gordon Brown tries to break the Rule of Law

I hear that Gordon is aiming to sue Fred Goodwin, ex of RBS and receiver of a mighty £650k/year pension. I suspect it may be to act as a diversion over the Right Royal pasting Gordon has been getting from Mervyn King of the BoE at the Treasury Select Committee hearings. This, coming hot on the heels of a similar slippery-slopey-shoulderation from the FSA's Lord Turner.

As far as I can tell, to force this issue is to break Rule of Law - contracts. 

Gordon &Co are to blame for a lack of due dilligence...which about sums up the entire "toxic debt" debacle. THEY should pay, NOT the taxpayer.

One angle I would suggest is to see if the Remuneration and Compensation Committee acted improperly, THEN the contract could be deemed a fraud, THEN it could be torn up. Otherwise it will be sheer Robber Baronacy.

Apart from that, it will be interesting to see who comes out in favour of upholding contracts and who is in favour of the State in a fit of shame/envy/hubris tramping on the Rule of Law, and thu unlibertarian.

This event will sure flush out the fake Liberals and Libertarians for sure, who will be very happy to trample on the Rule of Law in a fit of pique.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! 
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? 
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! 

We have enough laws laid flat in the pursuit of terrorists, money laundering and the convenience of bureaucrats in Westminster, Town Halls and Brussels.

Can you spot the errors in this picture?

Ok, so this isn't actually a picture, but I'll give you a few moments.

Finished? Let's see how you got on.

Number one;

Michelle Keiller was shocked to receive a £120 fine with a picture of a white van bearing her Toyota estate car's registration number illegally parked in south-east London.

Now she has to prove her innocence or pay up.

Number two

Now she needs to send identification – and her car registration documents – to Lambeth Council, to prove that she does not own the van bearing her registration number.

(duplicate omitted there, obviously)

The DVLA said: "Vehicle cloning is something we've come across in the past, it's not as widespread as you think but is something that does happen.

which is in combination with something earlier in the article;

Michelle Keiller was shocked to receive a £120 fine with a picture of a white van bearing her Toyota estate car's registration number illegally parked in south-east London.

To recap;

• In the good old days (let us say 20 years ago, and for scores of years before that) the state had to prove guilt rather than the individual having to prove their innocence.
• As the issue here is regarding the accuracy of a recorded registration mark, i.e.is it a van or a car, why is the state demanding other documentation, such as ID? If XX123XXX is a car not a van, who gives a monkeys who owns what?
• If the state is aware of this cloning, why are they providing the details of a Toyota estate car to a third party when requesting the details of a white van?

Don't worry, folks. ID cards, DNA databases, Phone and Email details databases, Foreign travel databases. You have nothing to fear.

Terror stalks the land

Britain appears to be in the grip of terror. The threat of terrorism is so worrying, that we are going to need to do more about it, according to Sir David Omond, a leading architect of the government's national security strategy. He has warned that more "intrusive methods of surveillance" are needed to tackle the threat posed by modern terrorists. In a new research paper, he sets out plans for the state to mine data held by public and private bodies, such as emails, phone records and travel information. He said that the new methods would mean "breaking everyday moral rules" in order to track criminal organisations.”

“Breaking everyday moral rules"? I think he means “doing what most people would regard as wrong”.

Sir David said: "Modern intelligence access will often involve intrusive methods of surveillance and investigation, accepting that, in some respects, this may have to be at the expense of some aspects of privacy rights. "This is a hard choice that goes against current calls to curb the so-called surveillance society, but it is greatly preferable to tinkering with the rule of law, or derogating from fundamental human rights.”

It is good to hear that he doesn’t want to tinker with the rule of law or derogate from fundamental human rights, but the record of the current government in Britain leaves me unconvinced. If we go down the road suggested by Sir David, how do we know that an increasing number of fundamental human rights will not be set aside?

The actual fact is that the number of terrorist attacks in mainland Britain in the past 12 years stands at twelve (though Sir Ian Blair claims that the police have foiled another 15). Of these twelve, seven are believed to be associated with Irish republican groups. Most of the 12 have caused no serious injuries. Other than the July 7 2005 bombings, none has had a significant impact on the life of the nation. And yet the Home Office website says “Following the terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005 in London, everyone in Britain is acutely aware of the threat of terrorism in our country.” (It adds, “One way we are tackling this threat is by introducing new, stronger laws against terrorism.”)

I’m sorry, but this is not true. I, for one, have not become acutely aware of the threat of terrorism in our country following the July bombings. The fact is that the United Kingdom suffered far more terrorist attacks in the 70s, 80s, and 90s than it has in the past 10 years, with hundreds of people killed and injured. But the way the Home Office talks, one would think that terrorism in Britain is a new thing, needing new laws. (And let’s not forget that most of the actual and attempted terrorist attacks in Britain in the past 5 years almost certainly would not have happened if our country had not been involved in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - two countries that had not attacked us.)

It seems that the events of July 2005 have put us in the grip of a fear of terrorism, with the result that we have had a rash of legislation eating away at our liberty - and more can be expected.

We are right to be fearful. But it is not terrorism we need to fear. The big new threat in 21st century Britain is not terrorism - it is the erosion of our basic freedoms. The Libertarian Party is committed to halting that erosion, and to restoring the freedoms that have been lost in recent years.

Mr Cameron

The Libertarian Party extends its deepest sympathies to Mr David Cameron and his family,  on the sad news of the death of his son Ivan earlier today.

 

Ian Parker-Joseph

 

 

 

 

What is seen and not seen

Via the Austrians, we have another campaign that we can take to our political overlords: let us send them all a copy of a very accessible essay by Bastiat called "What is seen and not seen". And your local councillors. Send a copy to your local newspaper, or even to your favourite national, as well.

It's time to start spreading a bit of economic literacy.

(Originally blogged here.)

Transition

Longrider posted yesterday on why he's feeling pessimistic on Libertarianism, and I admit to feeling the same sensation when reading the transcript of the speech that Dr. Sean Gabb gave to the Conservative Future recently. In both cases they are discussing the problems that such a government would face if it came to power. Dr. Gabb said:

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.

Longrider also pointed out:

We live in a society that has been dumbed down and indoctrinated by the righteous. It takes a degree of maturity to trust others to behave according to conscience and to behave so oneself; to refrain, not because it is illegal, but because the outcomes would cause harm.

I believe that Longrider is perfectly correct and and as consequence the prospects for LPUK are extremely distant right now. The nub of the problem is implied in the speech. Imagine for a moment that at some future election LPUK gains a majority of seats, forms a government and immediately starts shutting down the State*. I don't suppose for a moment that 50% could be slashed in a month but no doubt lots of cuts could be achieved early.

It was recently revealed that there are parts of the UK where public spending in various forms represents close to 50% of the economy (more in NI). Under our current arrangements there's a significant proportion of our population who are partly or entirely dependent on the state for their livelihood either in the form of direct employment, or benefits.

Problem 1. The turkeys won't vote for Christmas.

Problem 2. Present enough turkeys with a fait accompli and there will be public disorder problems - remember the poll tax riots ? Now imagine a huge overnight jump in unemployment in some regions combined with cuts in benefits.

Problem 3. There's another segment of the population that would be significantly concerned with problem 2 that they won't vote for Christmas either.

There's also the point that there are quite a lot of people here now who have had nearly all their self reliance educated out of them. That's hardly their fault - a child can't educate itself in the modern world - but it certainly presents a nasty ethical dilemma. It's like gently chiding a puppy that widdles on the carpet for the first six months of its life and then in month seven, taking it outside and shooting it.

The issue revolves around the transition from the current situation to the place where we want to be. I don't believe I've seen an election credible plan for this yet.

*On that happy day, could someone please, please, please, put me in charge of disassembling quangos.

Man of Straw

The Independent reports that Jack Straw has been persuaded to rewrite his Coroners and Justice Bill.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/

Of course we'll need to see the detail of the amendments before we can be sure but, at face value, it sounds like a major victory for the civil liberties lobby.

Congratulations to all who took part in the fight to sink this appalling legislation, particularly Ian Parker-Joseph who led a spirited campaign on behalf of the LPUK.

Mum and Dad - The State

If you want change, the Tories aren't it, especially if this load of authoritarian rubbish which has been spewing from the mouth of Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling is anything to go by:

"Young troublemakers could be confined to their homes, outside school
hours, for a month under plans being unveiled by the Conservatives.

In his first major speech as shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling said
those who break curfews "should expect to find themselves in the cells".

Police would apply for a court order to "ground" youths for up to a
month."

What the bloody Nora is this about? As if the government hasn't gone way too far in interfering into our private lives already, the Tories would intervene into the lives of families by displacing the authority of parents. I've waxed lyrical on the theme of the State as all our parents before, infantilising us all, and taking responsibility and authority away from adults and parents, but this is something new, something even more meddling and extreme and authoritarian.

Questions: how the hell is this enforceable? Are the police going to spy on people's homes? Tag the kids? How is this going to do anything other than inspire the loathing and sense of alienation from society and the law in the youth?

This is possibly the barmiest idea the Tories have had to date, and there's some stiff competition. People of the UK: the onus is on you. Don't vote for these buffoons! And by that, I mean the lot of them. The buffoons in power; the buffoons in opposition; the buffoons who call themselves "Liberal Democrats" for some bizarre reason - to put it simply. they're all rubbish, they're all liars and they'll say and do anything for some good press and some votes. Our party system is merely a three-headed dragon.

The LPUK is your knight in shining armour, ready to defend our liberty to live our own lives, manage our own families, and earn our own livings from this beast of statism. Because the Tories have shown, once and for all, that they represent nothing significantly different from the disaster of a government we presently have.

Austerity Britain ?

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

- Mark Twain

Two recent stories that have been much noted have struck a chord with me. The 'we should all start growing our own food' by Monty Don et al, and the well attended march in Dublin in protest at the Irish Government's 'Austerity Measures', which is how they've described a levy on public pensions.

The phrase 'Austerity Measures' is particularly redolent since we have only recently stopped paying America for the post war loan that triggered the austerity years in the UK, between 1946 and 1954. There was a fascinating documentary in 2006 where Sir Christopher Meyer described the history behind the loan. It's still available at veoh.com and is well worth watching again because in the light of our multiple trillion deficit, the 3.25 billion dollars that the the Atlee government negotiated, around 124 billion pounds in modern terms, now seems laughable.

In fact, the period may be our best guide to the UK post credit crunch, and I'm beginning to wonder if one or two people in Whitehall have reached the same conclusion. Dig for Victory style campaigns are entirely logical if food imports start becoming too expensive. The period saw extensive rationing (rather more so that during the 2nd world war), tax increases, and a general deterioration in infrastructure.

You can get a glimpse of what life was like by reading the earlier sections of Orwell's 1984 where Wiston Smith's environment is an excellent description of 1948. Other good sources are the film 84 Charing Cross Rd, and this peculiar little number I found in the national archives. It's worth watching for the pub scene alone - with a man slumped in a corner in front of a sign with 'The end is in sight, prepare for death' written on it.

The ID card was another feature, and despite Conservative promises to drop the plan I wonder if it will be quietly rebranded instead when they arrive in power and confront the situation. It also explains why I'm feeling less of citizen of a free country and more like a chicken on a farm regularly giving up my eggs for a greater economic purpose. I expect that impression to become rather firmer over the next few years.

European banks might need a £16.3 trillion bail out. We're not supposed to know that however

Essential reading here from Lew Rockwell - this one appears to have passed the UK Libertarian blogosphere by.

Please do go and read the whole article. There really isn't much to add, except to mark a few key excerpts. Particularly notable is the Telegraph's behaviour in immediately amending the story online so the £16.3 trillion figure did not appear (though it is still in the browser page title, they must have really been in a hurry).

The original February 11 story was a shocker. The author claims to have seen a secret European Commission report. The report estimates that losses (write-downs) by European banks will be in the range of $25 trillion.

In my view, the European public still has faith that the governments and the central banks will successfully intervene to restore commercial banks. But if the original article was correct, that 44% of bank balance sheets have disappeared, then the public is living in la-la land. The entire structure of Europe's capital markets is at risk. Or, I should say, what remains of the capital markets is at risk.

How are governments going to replenish lost capital? It's gone. It's missing in action.

The West's economy really is at the edge of a leveraged disaster. The politicians know only one answer: deficit spending. The central bankers have only one significant tool: monetary inflation. The speed of events is increasing.

The markets don't reflect this yet. This gives time to a few people to get out. But the vast majority cannot get out. There are too few escape hatches open.

Alex Hilton- An Apology

I have found out this morning that Alex was admitted to hospital with bacterial meningitis recently and this was the reason for him pulling out of the the panel programme ' How corrupt are our politicians ,

Personally I regret my knee-jerk posting that he had bailed out of the programme.

I am sure we all wish Alex a speedy recovery.

The Latest Thought Crime - BNP Appeaser

Over at the OH site where I am a regular contibutor, invited to write on Libertarian matters, Leg Iron has come up with the best analysis of why people are voting for the BNP that has not been in the Sundays.

Read it here

I am regularly attacked over there, as is Leg Iron and OH for not being BNP supporters, despite constantly saying we cannot support any party that is Left Authoritarian, Racist and wants the State to have the power to hang and flog its citizens, the BNP trolls keep coming back.

Now however the other left authoritarians are joining in. The central part of leg irons thesis is that if the Righteous keep telling people they are racist at every turn, you degrade the term (Draper being a typical example, when intellectually outgunned, he uses the term immediately, so it happens on an hourly basis), the thread runs that somebody is told enough times they are racist why not vote actually BNP. Leg Iron develops the theme that the BNP is in touch with the mood of the British people, and that the Lab/Con/Social Democrat political coalition are elitist.

This has now brought forward the new thought crime of BNP APPEASER, in crude terms from the Righteous if you are not with us you are against us.

1. i am aware that you are not a bnp supporter, you have mentioned this twice already today - but you are an a1 bnp appeaser.

They are justified..........

The LPUK then gets a mention

The BNP are a racist party - read their manifesto; they want a white-only Britain. I do disagree with that. As for them being right-wing, that is simply not true, they are a left-wing authoritarian party.

I am absolutely all for control of our borders and immigration, and I want us out of the EU. I also want to see the end of ALL religious control, no one should have a voice based on their superstitions.

If the Libertarian Party can get their message out to enough people then it's certain they could take A LOT of these votes.

Hibbo


Hardly anyone who votes BNP is racist. They have not read the manifesto. They think they're voting for 'British jobs for British workers' and no more than that.

What is worrying is that if the BNP or any other authoritarian party do get in, the structure for a police-state is all there ready for them. Courtesy of Labour.

Libertarian ideas need to get out of the internet and into the pubs and community centres. I can do a little of that but I'm not the most mobile of people.

I'm not a party member but if it comes down to it, Libertarians are the best bet for most of us now.

If I ever did stand for an MP slot, I'd join and stand as a Libertarian but not here. Here, I'd be up against the Oily Fish himself and he can't be topped in this constituency. Ol' Salmond is a certain winner here.

Never thought about it, you know, until Spark-Up forced me to.

Leg Iron

Far from just standing as a Libertarian candidate, in my eyes anyway, you'd be it's natural successor to Ian P.J. as party leader.

I do imagine that you'd have to join the party first though, so I am getting ahead of myself somewhat.

Dazed and Confused


Led Zep fan though I am, there is an issue with me being leader of anything and it's that people like a leader they can bear to look at.

So I might become a member (and the Righteous are pushing me into it) but I'm unlikely to ever be leader.

Besides, I read Ian PJ's posts and have not disagreed yet. So I'd support him as a leader if I did join, rather than compete.

Leg Iron




It is good that people see that the Lab/Con/Social Democrat coalition is failing, the LPUK have always taken a calm view that the BNP is a party that thrives on fear, the problem is that their policies will engender even more fear.

What is equally true is that the LPUK, has to get out of the internet- we have made a start with TV and Radio interviews, and the regional groups are starting to meet.

I am not really interested in how many thousands of members we have got, what I am really interested in is how many activists we have got.

Officially Half-Way to Full Communism

This from John Redwood's Diary

Now the government is taking more than half our incomes

The government’s stealth taxes have slowly but surely taken more of our incomes. Tax Freedom has crept later, from May into June.

Now the UK government takes financial responsibility for a very large bank with a medium sized government attached, Tax Freedom Day will advance still later, beyond the half way point of the year.

Rejoice Comrades, Utopia is just over the horizon!

Alcohol Tax Escalator

In between the rushing around of a pretty busy week, one story slipped past me relatively unnoticed. The Consumer Prices Index was announced to be hovering at around 3%. The CPI is of course, a not very helpful measure of inflation that replaced the Retail Prices Index some time back on the grounds that CPI tended to be less than RPI and therefore less embarrassing for the government.

For most people, the news would have been greeted with a big Ed Balls style 'so what'. 3% is hardly scary even if the bank of England's target is 2%. During the seventies inflation nudged 25% and the price of a Mars Bar (my main concern at the time) was changed on a more or less daily basis.

However, tucked away in the Chancellor's last budget was a nasty little trap. Unless the Badger of Doom comes to his senses in April, beer duty will go up by 2% above inflation automagically. As I've blogged occasionally before - we actually pay VAT on this duty so the final result will be closer to a six percent rise in costs overall. This is on top of sharp rises in some other costs such as diesel and hops largely because of a weak pound.

Bottom line ? Expect a sharp increase in the price of a pint in April.

There's nothing that can be done about any of this, short of obtaining a majority in parliament, bringing some kind of sanity to the public finances, and cutting public spending to a fraction of the current burden. This will take time, so my entirely unbiased advice as a brewer is that everyone should drink a lot more over the next few weeks whilst it's (relatively) cheap.

Are you a confused Liberal Democrat ?

Social Democracy is a political philosophy of the left or centre-left that emerged in the late 19th century from the socialist movement and continues to exert influence worldwide.

The concept of social democracy has changed throughout the decades since its inception. Historically, social democratic parties advocated socialism in the strict sense, achieved by class struggle. In the early 20th century, however, a number of socialist and labor parties rejected revolution and other traditional teachings of Marxism and went on to take more moderate positions, which came to characterize modern social democracy. These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy. This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of capitalism altogether. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.


Hands up I used Wiki for these broad definitions.

See if you can spot the difference between the two philosophies ? They are mutually exclusive.

Chris Huhne describes him self as a 'Liberal Democrat', yet supports the banning of a Dutch MP making a speech on the Parliamentary Estate, therefore does not adhere to the principals of 'freedom of thought and speech'. He is therefore not a 'Liberal' but of the collectivist Socialist Left. He is in truth a Social Democrat. His party is wedded to the notion of an undemocratic Institution called the EU. This organisation is openly corrupt and has not passed an Audit in fifteen years.

I am a passionate European, but I cannot and will not subscribe to the notion of an Imperial EU, with its elite cadre with the likes of Kinnock and Mandelson at the helm.

Chris Huhne will be a speaker at the Convention on Mondern Liberty next weekend, what is he defending, what is he proposing after the Wilders debacle ?

Being truly free, is to accept things that you do not want to hear, or even be offended by. Libertarians sheltering in a Collectivist,Reformist, Statist Social Democrat Party are deluding themselves.

The LPUK is anti EU to its core because of the Imperial Project that is the EU, unlike UKIP whose leader I admire, we have a central classical Liberal tradition to uphold, and it does not mean being totally focussed on the EU to the exclusion of everything else. UKIP sits uneasily with an amalgam of the Authoritarian Little Englander and those who fear the loss of Liberal UK to the European super state.

The Classical Liberals have to regroup away from all three Statist parties, at the end of the day they are all telling you how to live your life, whilst living off your money which in the eyes of the LPUK is just mental slavery and theft.

This State of affairs has only existed in its current extreme form since 1945, before that Liberal Britain had its foundations laid down in 1688.

Its a long road we have set out on to reclaim the word Liberal, but the first steps have been taken.


UPDATE

Nick Clegg, like Cameron does not understand what a Liberal is either, is that because he is a Social Democrat like Huhne

Your lost liberties - listed

Back in November 2008, the Libertarian Party decided to mount a campaign highlighting the loss of liberty suffered by the citizens of Britain, taken away slice by slice with each new law introduced by the current Labour government.

The campaign centered around the delivery for each and every MP (646 of them) a copy of George Orwell's 1984, along with the message that the book had been written as a warning, not to be used as a blueprint for society.

The campaign whilst widely reviewed and well received by the blogging community, received no Press attention whatsoever, and the silence from Westminster was deafening.

It was not until 1 MP, Tom Harris decided to pass it off as a 'ripping yarn', that the underlying anger of the general public was truly exposed.

I decided at that time to compile a list of the legislation that in particular stripped away our rights, and published it here on PJC Journal on 31st October 08, it being reposted on the Old Holborn blog and reposted again on Tom Harris blog on 2nd November.

It is gratifying therefore to see that the Convention on Modern Liberty in conjunction with UCL have put such a list into a more substantial document form, to be presented at the convention at the end of this month.

It is clear that whilst the report was released by Convention Co-Directors Henry Porter and Anthony Barnett yesterday at a press conference with David Davis, there is silence from the Conservative Party in terms of actions required to either repeal this legislation or to put safeguards in place to protect public rights.

As in the case of the ACPO expose, it takes time, the main stream press and politicians do catch up eventually, but it does highlight that the Libertarian Party is leading the agenda, on which the others are only following.

You can link to the document here, or via the Convention for Modern Liberty's website.

.

 

 

 

Labour Morale Collapses

Over At Guido's site even the Labour supporters are waving the white flag after the collapse of their vote to the BNP.

Swanley St Mary’s, Sevenoaks District Council
BNP - 41% (+41)
Lab - 34% (-21)
Con - 25% (-)

BNP gain from Lab



I'm a Labour member and have tried to ask LabourList to allow some free talk. Most party members (I'm in Tower Hamlets) outside Scotland think Brown is a total liability and that we risk the party being ruined at the next election. That's not even healthy for democracy, yet alone Labour. But LL just won't allow any talk about whether Brown and others in the parliamentary party are fit to lead us. Until we confront these weaknesses, we're doomed.

Face it, Cameron is a lightweight but he's able to get a 20% lead just because Brown is going didlo.

But no-one I speak to in the Labour party seriously thinks we have any chance at all in the next election (nor the one after that, unless Cameron turns out to be even worse than we fear). That's why there's so little energy around at the moment - what's the point?

Frank Field MP

This failure can be seen in the increased number of Neets (“those not in education employment or training”). There are now 1.1 million in Britain, more than when Labour took power in 1997.

There are many young people in my Birkenhead constituency anxious to work. But others have never worked and tell me that, as they are given £100 a week or more (with housing benefit) as a right, they wouldn't take a job for less than £300. When I suggest to them that no employer will offer them that kind of money because they can barely read or write, they tell me to take it or leave it.

Ian Parker-Joseph, LPUK Leader, Sky TV

To be broadcast on SKY

Forum- How Corrupt are our MP's

Tue, 24th, 8:06pm, Channel 515 Press TV

repeated

Forum
Wed, 25th, 2:06am, Channel 515 Press TV

Panelists

Alex Hilton – Labour Candidate for Chelsea & Fulham (Bailed Out)


Matthew Sinclair - Tax Payers Alliance

Ian Parker-Joseph – Leader, Libertarian Party

Ian Senior – Author, Corruption: the world’s big C

Michael White – Political Editor, The Guardian (1990-2006)

Host- Nick Ferrari

Quantitative Easing: A translation.

It is as if you are a beer-maker and the Government pitches up at your warehouse in the dead of night with a truck of water and a truck-load of barrels. It breaks in without permission, waters down your beer and takes away barrels of beer for its own use. Because it gets first dibs on the barrels, those least diluted will be taken away. You wake up and count your barrels and all seems ok. When you come to sell your beer you find there is more in the marketplace and what you have is weaker, so the price you get is lower. Your beer is now less valuable yet the State has beer - money - it never had. 

It is theft, pure and simple.

Invitation from the Convention on Modern Liberty

Received in the last ten minutes

Thanks for the link and for carrying our button on your blog. Much appreciated.

I can't claim to speak for the whole Convention team, but I too was disappointed by the judgement of Chris Huhne and others in the Geert Wilder's affair. The whole thing was ridiculous.

I'm not sure there has been any actual 'invites' to the bloggers' summit, so you can't really blame Sunny. But you can consider this your official invitation.


The programme is pretty full, but if anyone from LPUK wanted to speak at the Open Session that would be good and we could list them on the programme on our site.
http://www.modernliberty.net/programme/open-session

Tatchell and a few others are already up there.

Also, if anyone from the LPUK alternative convention wants to come along to the last sessions in the evening we can let them in for a fiver. There'll be a pay bar.

Cheers,

Guy Aitchison (deputy director of CML)

Test posting

For some quirky reason, the blog was looking blank from IE7 and Chrome but OK in Firefox.

This is an interim post to see if it is due to errors in the post below.

UPDATE: Fixed it for me, I'll leave this in place rather than risk others see a blank blog until the next real post comes along.

Convention on 'Modern' Liberty

I will be attending the Convention on Modern Liberty on the 28th of this month in London along with other members of the LPUK. When I was first alerted to this event I was quite excited that at last we have a cross party consensus and pressure group that will campaign against the surveillance society created over the last twenty years.

The NCC of the LPUK offered to put a speaker up alongside the raft of speakers from the Left, the Social (Lib) Dems, the Greens, UKIP and the Conservatives. The offer was not actually declined but just ignored, but thanks received for advertising the event on our various websites.

After travelling in hope about this event I am now as 'Tom Paine' has put it now only travelling in curiosity as I have been drawn to a number of disturbing indicators of the drift of this Convention and some of the chosen speakers.

First was Shami Chakrabarti CBE's signal failure to take a stand about the Geert Wilder's affair. As a keynote speaker at the Convention, her silence then is going to speak louder than her words on the 28th.

If she of all people cannot understand that allowing somebody to speak does not equate to agreeing with them,then this is going to be a poor showing.

Chris Huhne MP of the 'Social' Democrats, also somebody who actively supported the ban of a Dutch MP speaking on the Parliamentary Estate, and even entering the country to the fury of the Dutch Government, even though Wilders had spoken there last December. Huhne is also a keynote speaker.

David Davis MP (Con) is a keynote speaker, yet the Conservatives silence as a 'Champions of Liberty' was palpable on the same subject.

The Conservatives also seem to be just about tolerated at this Convention
this from Sunny Hundal who is running the bloggers corner on the day,( LPUK Site has not received an invite despite being in the top third influential political blogs)

The mainstream liberal-left has become far too accommodating of encroaching state power in recent years, justifying it simply because a supposedly left-wing government was in power.

For me, the left should always be suspicious of state power because it is usually biased towards powerful vested interests against the rights of the common woman or man.

The main organisers: openDemocracy and Liberty, have also brought in partners including NO2ID, Amnesty UK, Unlock Democracy, the Guardian and more. There are even organisations on the right such as the Countryside Alliance and some Tories. I think its time we accepted that in order to win the battle on civil liberties, we have to involve everyone, not just the left.

(My emphasis)

Fairly clear where he is coming from, that it is the Left that will stop State encroachment, whereas the LPUK believes that it is the left in the form of a Stalinist Labour Party that has led the growth of the Surveillance and Police State.

The Left have subborned the Charitable sector with 'gifts' of money if they will toe the party line. They now call this the ' third sector'. For Christs sake they even want the WI to be the Anti Prostitution Police.

Control of the Police, Anti-terrorism and counter insurgency has passed to a private limited company ACPO, with the blessing of the Home Secretary and HM Loyal opposition.

Innocents like Jean-Charles De Menezes are gunned down in the street, nobody is prosecuted, the Police lie on oath in Court to cover the incident up, and Cressida Dick is promoted.

As from last Monday it is illegal to take photographs of the Police and security agents (protests outside New Scotland Yard, not covered in the Mainstream Media). However the Police are empowered to film you and keep records of your movements.

The BBC is now a byword for the Ministry of Truth since the ousting of Chairman and CEO after Hutton.

The Government have actually proposed smart cards to be installed in cars to monotor where they are.

Despite the protests and continual loss of Data, they are still pushing ahead with ID cards.

Stella Rimmington ex Head of MI5 says we are in a Police State, McNumpty in the Home Office derides her expert opinion. Why has Dame Stella not been invited as a guest speaker.

I could go on and readers of this site will be continually aware of where we are coming from-

The full programme is here

As we are going to be denied a voice at this Convention let me tell you what the Libertarian stance is on this Convention.

We will actively support the aims and objectives of the Convention as long as it is inclusive of all political thought and belief. We will not support it if it is yet another attempt by the State and its supporters to actively control and contain the rightful protest of the people of this country against the intrusive and ever growing State.

We hold that a large State that seeks to provide the solutions to every social problem and directs what is and is not acceptable behaviour, and to those ends maintains a large public sector through punitive taxation, is the very cause of a repressive and intrusive State.

For those who are financially excluded from attending through redundancy,unemployment and subsistence wages caused by over taxation, and generally not being one of the Righteous, LPUK South East are organising an Alternative Convention on Modern Liberty at The Friend at Hand Pub, Russell Square at 12 Noon.

The very name 'Modern' Liberty fills me with the same dread as 'New' Labour. If this means subscribing to a top down affirmation of you will be allowed Liberty as long as you give undying support to the State, that is not Liberty, that is doublespeak for slavery.

....governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whatever form of government becomes destructive of these ends; it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Jefferson

UPDATE

Some of the SW Libertarians are attending the Bristol Satellite Convention

I have just been sent the Birmingham Satellite Discussion

In Birmingham

11.45-12.45 – workshop
Preventing Violent Extremism? State surveillance and community organisation

In April 2007 the Government launched its action plan ‘Preventing violent extremism (PVE): winning hearts and minds’, identifying four key responses: promoting shared values; supporting local solutions; building civic capacity and leadership; strengthening the role of faith institutions and leaders. At least £76 million has been earmarked to “support local authorities and community groups in improving the capacity of local communities to resist violent extremism” with initiatives including: developing leadership programmes for young people; strengthening the capacity of women’s groups; local projects to build citizenship.

Birmingham has been identified as a priority area for this work and many community groups have been approached to participate in the programme. This workshop considers the background to PVE as a government intervention and asks what are the risks and opportunities for community organisations.

Speakers from local community groups and campaigns, including discussion of the history of state interventions in Irish, Black and Muslim communities, a critical account of government funding of PVE initiatives and linking to debates about ID cards and database Britain.

This is coming over to me at least as a poorly disguised advert for PVE

They really are desperate

I spent most of yesterday working for that nice Mr. Brown. I did the two TENs notices we need for our farmers markets in March and the beer duty. The latter was a day late mea culpa. I do these on worksheets by hand at the moment and then fill out the 'Beer Duty Return Form' that HMRC sends me each month.

This month's return came packaged with a three page note warning us that from the middle of the year, all calculations must be done to 4 decimal places.

We are a pretty small brewery of course, and I calculate duty on each batch (gyle in brewspeak) individually since there's some variation each time. January was as quiet as expected and in one instance we delivered the last few cases of a gyle to a customer. The upshot was that that particular customer got less than a litre of pure alcohol in his order (mixed into rather more beer of course). Doing this sum to four decimal places resulted in me calculating duty to the nearest one hundredth of a penny.

They've also stopped including prepaid envelopes; we have to buy the stamp ourselves now.

Sec 76 Protests 16th February 2009 New Scotland Yard

A Home Office spokesman said: "For an offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists. Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence

If you believe this you will believe anything

How Could This Have Happened In The First Place ?

BBC4 is re running Malcolm Bradbury's The History Man, if you want an insight into the idiots that are currently running this country, watch it. I was at University in the seventies and saw it close up.

The 'trendy' left wing radicals spouting absolute psuedo-psycho babble Marxist-Gramscian bollocks. Their desperate need to out leftwing each other, browbeating anybody who failed to see any merit in their cultural Marxism of which they were going to be the vanguard elite showing us the 'correct' way to think.

OK so they were only kids, shagging their brains out justified by femminism, smoking pot and generally having a good time. However whilst the rest of us grew up, forged careers and had kids etc, this lot carried on playing at being Marxists, whilst accruing the titles,honours, upper middle class lifestyles and milking the system for every penny, whilst telling us that they had the 'correct' way for the rest of us to live.

Not having had jobs, just being professional Marxists, running the country has not turned out quite like they hoped it would. Much the same happened with Agrarian-Marxism taught to Pol Pot in the fifties by trendy Parisian Left wing 'intellectuals', when transposed to Cambodia.

Graduates of the 'University of Watermouth' of the Seventies



Gordon Brown Author of a Parasites Guide



Jack Straw Man of the People




Jacqui Smith in Charge of Drugs Policy




And our beloved next leader of the Labour Party- Harriet Harman


An ultra-feminist gender warrior trapped in a student radical time-warp. Her Orwellian 'equality' agenda is not just sinister - it's unhinged - Melanie Philips


I could go on, but what I am hoping is that we have had enough of this faux-student Marxism, and that this controlling, corrupt, banal version of the Labour Party is going to be cast into the outer darkness forever , and that its advocates rot in the House of Lords that they once so despised whilst sitting around the Students Union.

The unfortunate thing is that this crowd are next in line



Be afraid! One of these men could be the next Prime Minister. God help us.( Which one though ?)


2) David Cameron
8) Boris Johnson


I wonder what their student politics were other 'than bash the oiks and vote for me'

Take The Test

Libertarian Party member Rob, of ReDWesign, has pulled together a nice little quiz that aims to find out how liberal you really are in your attitudes.

The ten question test only takes a few moments to complete, so why not take it right now?

British Banking - Holed Below The Water Line?

[First post here. I'm a libertarian involved in a few small businesses - including a brewery. This is copied from the brewery blog.]

Like any company, big or small, we depend on banks for a variety of services including a line of credit to finance day to day operations. This gets used for example, to buy things such as bottles which we have to buy in large quantities in advance. Then we fill them with beer and sell them, recovering the cost of the bottle in the process. If there's only tuppence in the account because we've just paid an inflated tax bill, a line of credit allows us to keep going anyway.

I have relatives (by marriage) in Iceland. I've been following the terrifying situation over there closely, partly because it may offer a clue as to the likely effects of the credit crunch here. Iceland is somewhat further into the abyss than London. The crisis in Iceland was precipitated by the government here using terror legislation to seize Iceland's banking assets that were located in the UK. In effect that nice Mr. Brown declared all of Iceland a terrorist state late last year.

So it was extremely interesting to read this at the ASI:

Gordon Brown emphasised at this week’s PMQs that foreign banks that normally invested and managed funds in London had contributed to the ‘credit crunch’ by suddenly withdrawing their money back to their own countries, which severely reduced the funds normally available for British lending.

....and why were foreign banks doing this ? Apparently just after Iceland was declared to be on a par with North Korea...

Many foreign bankers did the sensible thing; they moved every last penny of their London deposits immediately, or as quickly as possible, just in case the same government seized their assets under one political pretext or another.

Oops. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Help wanted - A chilling landmark for civil liberties in the UK

On Monday 9th February this week a friend and work colleague found police at his door at 7am in the morning. They searched through his house, took all of his computer equipment and then arrested him. He was then grilled for several hours before finally being released on bail.

His "crime"? Allegedly he has been arrested under "suspicion of incitement", or more specifically, "inciting people knowing a crime is going to be committed". This is under sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. The fact of the matter is though, he has done absolutely nothing wrong and is simply being set up as the fall-guy for someone else's misdeeds. And all of this on the basis of some painful abuse of recent legislation.

My friend rents co-located server space to a number of customers. One of them happens to be Indymedia. Activists involved in SHAC (animal liberation group - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) had used Indymedia to discuss and post information. A Judge involved in legal proceedings against some SHAC members, a one Justice Neil Butterfield had his personal contact details posted up on Indymedia twice by anonymous users. Shortly after the contact details had gone up, they were deleted by Indymedia administrators. All of this was completely unknown to the hosting provider as - unsurprisingly - his role is to rent hosting space, not moderate user activities on the various sites that use it.

Kent Police (being the police force involved in the recent SHAC investigation and trials) decided to investigate however. Unable to track down the posters of the Judge's details they then decided to go for the person providing the hosting space for the site. Indymedia, as a matter of stated policy, on sites across the globe, do not keep IP logs. Despite a common assumption to the contrary, they are not obliged to either (and given the current climate and government attitudes, this *could* become law at some point). Police physically seized the server in January.

It was at this point my friend started receiving hostile, accusatory phone calls from Kent police, and when he decided to contact me for advice (for what little I could give). It was clear from what he related that the officers involved initially had absolutely no clue about internet, or server technologies. They simply could not understand that without a log of IP addresses, they could not track down the anonymous posters from the information on the server's hard drive (never mind trying to explain to them that IP addresses, even if they had them, can be faked....).

I said then, as I also believe now, that the police have absolutely no case against him whatsoever.

This will not stop them pressing ahead however as it is clear that they're desperate for a scapegoat, especially as they have invested plenty of time and energy in this now (Kent police came all the way up to Sheffield in order to question him, though South Yorkshire police carried out the actual arrest, search and confiscation of property).

He said the officers have wisened up since then though, at least those who were interrogating him in Sheffield had some smarts. They're determined to make this stick, with or without evidence. It appears they're engaging in something another friend of mine has been on the receiving end of recently - what he calls "evidence construction".

This is potentially a landmark case for all of our civil liberties. Despite there being no causal chain of culpability, it appears my friend is subject to having his house turned upside down, property taken, arrest and worse for mere association. And it is important to spell out exactly what association means here: He has never, I repeat never, attended any meetings, or had admin access or any involvement with the indymedia users and contributors, never mind the animal rights activists. His only association has been to rent out co-located hosting space to multiple users, one of whom happen to be indymedia.

The case the police want to make appears to be based now on this vague woolly idea of association, and psychological support to a cause (as in, you personally hold the opinion that certain activists are doing a good thing, irrespective of whether you act on that). They are probably going to try presenting this as one instance of a pattern of sympathetic support to people they consider lethal to our national security. Just to be clear, the description of Indymedia they laid before him made it sound like the nation's terrorist network centre (who knew they'd been looking in at GCHQ?) - people bent on death and destruction. Well, that's not the Indymedia I know, nor I'm sure many of you reading this. It's almost as if the police have constructed their own phantom monster to justify complete overreaction. Our upright and honourable police and security services would never do that though would they?




As an aside, it's also worth noting that while the coverage in the Register says that the RIPA legislation was not applied (e.g. to demand the keys for encrypted data), it is also an offence to reveal that they have been demanded, so we don't know for sure either way. I think you know which way it is likely to be though.....

Bigger issue

This is a bigger, and separate issue to animal rights activists and to Indymedia. The fact is that he has been tied to a crime using zero evidence. Even if he had had casual association in person with anyone running indymedia, this still would have been highly spurious, however, he has not even had this much contact. The police want blood though, and who can forget that they have "targets" to meet. Activists are easy targets and if they can't get the activists they get innocent people who provide business services to said activists. Perhaps they might also want to arrest staff at the local supermarket for selling them food, as they might be "inciting people knowing a crime is going to be committed".

Not only does the police "case" rest on ignorance of technical issues surrounding the internet, it appears that Kent police also require training in epistemology. My friend can't predict the future after all. Who knows what comments anyone might post in response to this post I'm writing for example. Am I to be held culpable for them? Is the - otherwise invisible - web host of the server this is being displayed from culpable for what I *might* say? The whole affair is farcical beyond belief. And the fact that it has even got this far is deeply worrying and directly implies that the police's main interest is in sowing the seeds of fear amongst those of us who use the internet to speak out. It's something that concerns ALL of us.

The implication is that sites have to be monitored constantly and a train of accountability has to exist for every single comment online. This is something the government (and the ignorant members of the police who support them) would dearly love of course. So while there is a dearth of precedents to rush through such legislation, they'll happily construct an "incident" from scratch. Without being hyperbolic at all it is clear we're careening into police state territory here.

As others have already noted, it is entirely possible that the posters of the Judge's information got his contact details from easily accessible sources, including 192.com and the local library. A great many people, police included it seems, do not realise how much information about us exists and is easy to legally access with a little effort. (By all means sign up to 192.com, buy £5 of credits and do searches on yourself and friends via the electoral roll - you might be shocked)

The comments on the Register are well worth a look to highlight the idiocy of this case. Here are a few choice ones:

"incitement to communicate? wow, we really are screwed. When will they pull up the BBC directors for inviting people to comment on HYS when related to contentious issues?"

"Can I now hold the Department for Transport responsible for assisting me to get a speeding ticket?"

"Suspicion of incitement" is pure Thought Crime law. Now we don't even need to commit the crime, just thinking about committing a crime is enough to be punished.

Using this law, they could even take down newspapers and news web sites (e.g. TheRegister!). For example, the Guardian paper has a whole section on the growing Surveillance State. This could very easily be considered "suspicion of incitement" to protest against the government. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/surveillance

The UK is no longer heading towards a Police State. We are now in a Police State. From here on out, it just gets ever more scary. This law is the end of Democracy as we can no longer speak freely, as they can now choose any Thought Crime they wish to punish and so silence."

How to help
My friend does not wish to be identified; his main concern is protecting himself and his family. However, he has given me his blessing to help publicise his plight and solicit any help that people may be willing to give. At the moment this takes one particular form:

Building a counter-case
- Initially my friend has asked that we help him prepare his case for court should it go that far. The police's case is likely to rely on bamboozling the judge (and jury if there is one), on technical issues that they themselves are not exactly au fait with. My friend has had a longstanding interest in creating free, or cheap infrastructure for communications networking. He has, for a long time, been involved in projects to help local communities harness technology for communications and community building purposes. The police will make the case that this is all about the evil Indymedia.

Instead, the intention is to create a dossier of case studies and examples of this kind of technology (especially that used / given freely or cheaply) for positive uses, even political ones, that have nothing to do with Indymedia. I've started collating a few myself, including for example, the Rock The Vote campaigns in the U.S., Shoreditch digital bridge etc.

You can help tremendously if you can give other examples. Links, newspaper articles etc are all good. Please post any up, or get in touch with me. What might be particularly useful is if anyone involved in such a project would be willing to testify as an expert witness, identifying the "postive" side to such technologies. As ridiculous as the police's characterisation of Indymedia is, that is the case we have to answer.


Publicising the case
- It would be a very good thing to publicise this case as far as possible, especially if it looks like it may go the distance in court. It's an abhorrent abuse of the law and due process amongst other things. Please blog about this, complain to the police, write to the local papers, your MP etc.

I Have written to Liberty, as a member, to request that they take up his case. If you want you can write to them too. Contact details here.

For articles to reference, the two best articles are:
Spyblog (which also gives a comprehensive critique of the legislation being used here).
The Register article is also good.

Employment issues
- We all know how it works in this country now. The accusation is enough to screw your life, regardless of evidence or the circumstances of the case. Innovations like the National Employee Dismissal database will see to that for posterity. This man has done nothing wrong at all and is blatantly being framed on the basis of some very sketchy interpretation of the law. This may only be an issue if it goes to court though, and for now he has asked that we do not lobby his employer should they decide to find prejudice against him on this case.

Please help - you could be on the receiving end of this next.

As Spyblog have said:

"What happened to freedom of speech on the internet or even in the mainstream media ?

Who will be next ?

If the mainstream media and the UK political blogosphere and the UK telecomms and Internet Service Provider industries do not kick up a huge fuss about this case, then the terrorists will have won, by provoking this morally weak Government into
destroying our fundamental human right of free speech."

Also published here.

Ron Paul on form.

This message applies equally to Britain as it does America.

What if people here started to demand their freedom?

Close ACPO Down

Finally the political establishment,Liberty and the MSM have woken up to the fact that ACPO is is fact a private limited company at the heart of counter insurgency,policing and security. A fact that this site and parties like the LPUK have been highlighting for months. Ian Parker-Joseph LPUK Leader being the first to bring this story out after two years of investigative work.

The utter incompetence of this Government to have 'privatised' policing and security to a bunch of Policemen out to make a buck is a national scandal and only possible with the general acceptance of a Police State.

Liberty have called for ACPO to 'be stopped in their tracks'. My letter to Liam Fox of a few weeks ago outlining ACPO's central role in security, anti insurgency and policing has been passed to Jackboot Jacqui to answer. (If she lasts that long)

Liberty seemed to have been fooled into thinking ACPO was a legitimate State Organisation, just because it has got an official looking badge, with a Crown and the Police service flash on it Shami, does not stop it being another money grabbing QUANGO.

ACPO A Dynamic Third Sector Organisation ?

Therefore, as members of the Labour Party, we should support dynamic Third Sector organisations which deliver our values. We must be loud and clear in stating that these organisations are not in opposition to the state but represent the Labour Government’s continuing commitment to investment and reform to create Twenty First Century public services.

Joe Coward- Labour Party

I have had a response from Liam Fox MP, who has passed my letter requesting an explanation as to the central role that the private company ACPO has in the counter insurgency,security and policing to the Home Secretary for a reply.

Not only have we a bloated State, we have fake charities and Quango's like ACPO to add to the bill that we all pay for, but we are not alowed to have a say in.Mandelson's Post Democratic Society


Instead of Homo Sovieticus, Homo Serviliticus or even Homo Mandelsonius

Tories abandon free speech

Cameron's naked desperation for authoritarian power laid bare

“We have consistently called on the Government to tackle extremists. If Geert Wilders has expressed views that represent a threat to public security, then we support the ban. But people like Ibrahim Moussawi, a spokesman for the terrorist organisation Hizbollah, have not been banned. The Government must apply the criteria governing entry into the UK consistently.”

Utter mush


Tories agnostic on Free Speech- Guido

Time to drop the word Liberal- Chris

Any Libertarian sheltering inside the womb of the 'Liberal' Democrats must be wondering what they are doing there this morning.

Geert Wilders will be stopped at Heathrow just after midday and told he is being refused entry on the grounds that his presence is not conducive to the public good.

The Government shamed by its blatant cowardice over the issue would not put a speaker up on R4 this morning, Chris Huhne could not wait to get over to Broadcasting House to voice his support for the Government repressing Free Speech in the face of the threat of Lord Ahmed (who is not a competant driver) threatening to mobilise 10 000 Muslims to stop Wilders speaking on the the Parliamentary Estate.

The sooner that the Liberal Democrats change their name to the Social Democrats the better, they are no Liberal Party.