Fairtrade's Big Swap is bigger than expected

If you are lucky enough to live near to a supermarket like Sainsburys or a coffee shop like Starbucks you'd have noticed a subtle change of hue towards the green and the blue. The hue is the reflection of bold Fairtrade logos emblazoned upon a million different products. As far as I can tell, the Starbucks chain's "Sumatra" filter coffee is the last bastion of the non-Fairtrade in that store, and this week they are serving "Rwanda".

Today brings us to the end of week one of Fairtrade Foundation's "Fairtrade Fortnight", an annual rally modelled after Children in Need and Red Nose Day that seeks to engage smiling school children, church groups, and students in promoting "Fairtrade". This year, they are trying to encourage 1,000,001 people to swap a freely traded product for a Fairly traded one. They call it "The Big Swap".

Before you go for their bananas, let's just revise what Fairtrade means. You might have thought that free trade and fair trade were the same thing. Not so.

The Fairtrade concept is a voluntarily imposed price floor on a globally traded commodity. It is price fixing. Consumers sanction the higher fixed price by demanding special branded goods, and Fairtrade Fortnight is about promoting this idea and the brand itself to consumers. The price is fixed for the farming co-operative which exercises democratic rather than market driven control over the extra money.

The brand is funded by a 1.8% cut of revenue taken from wholesalers, with money from the EU for specific lobbying. That lobbying includes the "Fairtrade Towns" campaign, which encourages citizens to lobby councils for more public money. This is spent through council directives to swap the coffee and other goods in the meeting rooms and canteens to Fairtrade. There are similar campaigns for Fairtrade Schools and Fairtrade Countries, so there is no getting away from them.

As a savvy group, members of this party will already smell a rat. That price floor distorts the market influencing individuals to behave differently. Quite right, it acts as a disincentive against investment in premium quality goods, and it incentivises farming as a choice of career meaning the poor are less likely to switch to more profitable industries. Also, the market demand falls for normal freely traded goods meaning 70-80% of sales are at a suppressed price. The revenue is swapped from the conventional to the favoured supplier, in exchange for a certification fee of over a thousand dollars.

In addition, all that messing about in the middle means only about 10% of the extra money goes to the coffee grower anyway (the price charged, minus the market price of the product times 10%) . The rest vanishes somewhere in the middle.

There are so many issues with this I made a list, but perhaps the most dangerous aspect is that the FLO certification regime helps local Governments' to enforce minimum wage rules, child labour laws, pro-minority discrimination rules, and Unions to enforce collective bargaining agreements. All these rules have downsides that I don't need to spell out here.

The Bitter Aftertaste is a powerful film from WorldWrite that neatly summarises some of the issues in an 18 minute presentation:



Before I let you go to finish your shopping I want to flag one more issue. I found this quote in research published by the ASI. Its from a book by Harriet Lamb, top-coordinator for Fairtrade in the UK:

Fairtrade also plays a more practical role in building a broad based movement for change… Fairtrade is an easy way in… It helps give our governments a mandate to take the big, bold steps needed to change world trade rules.

So, before you consider making a swap, reflect on what changes Fairtrade might want to make. You wouldn't swap your integrity for a cup of coffee, would you?

Update: At the time of writing, I hadn't heard about calls for the NHS to use Fairtrade medical equipment but I'm not surprised at all. The consequences for desparate children in Pakistan and desperate cancer patients here don't seem to have been thought through.

About me:

Simon is unlucky enough to live near a Sainsburys and a Starbucks and is sufficiently depressed about it to blog at Free Trade Coffee whenever he hears something juicy. The blog also promotes online sources of good freely traded brown stuff. You can usually catch him at LPUK South East's regular drinking session.

John Stossel on Charter Schools

Ignore the cheesy opening; they've got some great interviews with would-be applicants to charter schools:
Just think, these are the people Prez Obama is "helping" by ending the voucher program. What a hero.

Int'l Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against Bush et al.

This has just been received on the members email address. I know it is an issue very close to to the heart of many members and supporters so I have copied it in full.

Do with information what you will.
====================================================================
BUSH TO THE HAGUE

International Criminal Court Complaint Filed Against
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales

INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED

Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint
with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W.
Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the
“Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human
beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent
torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the
Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been
responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member
states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.
C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.
C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states.

The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord
under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally “submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial
Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3).

For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up
Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused’s criminal policy and practice of
“extraordinary rendition,” which the Obama administration has continued to implement.

The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the
Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b)
(iii).

In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or
email as indicated below.

The Honorable Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Office of the Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
Post Office Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
Fax No.: 31-70-515-8555
Email: OTP.InformationDesk@icc-cpi.int

January 19, 2010

Dear Sir:

Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal
Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet,
Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and
practice of “extraordinary rendition.” This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof
persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts
perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary
rendition” upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and
People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100
White Judeo-Christian men.

The Accused’s criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” are both “widespread” and “systematic”
within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous “Crimes
against Humanity” in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7
(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused’s Rome Statute Crimes Against
Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of
today.

The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were
responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of
several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the
Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as
follows:

Article 12

Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction

…

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the
following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with
paragraph 3:


(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred …

So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.’s prosecution
of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes
against Humanity on, in, and over the respective
territories of several I.C.C. member states.

Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these
Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows:

Article 13

Exercise of Jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the
provisions of this Statute if:

…

(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio
motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): “The Prosecutor may initiate
investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” My detailed
Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient “information” required by article 15(1).

Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes “a reasonable basis to proceed with an
investigation” under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally “submit to
the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article
15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two
requests set forth immediately above.

Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience
the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to
reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to
enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these
Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still
be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of
their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint.

As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation
of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for
their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next-
of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons
and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin,
loved-ones, and friends of “disappeared” human beings can never benefit
from psychological “closure” unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the
Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused’s enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings
constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims
have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint.

Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called “dirty war” in Argentina the International Criminal Court had
been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and
earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the
Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow
Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of
days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have
both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation,
and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the “widespread” and “systematic” policy and practice of
enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused.

Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public
statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any
criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C.
“case” against the Accused is “admissible” under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of
right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of
Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about
one hundred “disappeared” and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are
also Victims of the Accused’s Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I
implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect.

Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused’s policy
and practice of "extraordinary rendition," which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human
beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration
fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute – unless you stop them!
Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging
in any more “extraordinary renditions” -- enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured
by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama
administration to terminate its criminal “extraordinary rendition” program immediately and thoroughly by means
of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could
very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the
Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons
and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia.

The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to
act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against
Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the
Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C.
a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not
come to that. Please make it so.

Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain
I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i),
article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind.

I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss
this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by
reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well.

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law


FRANCIS A. BOYLE is a leading American expert in international law. He
was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of
1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty
International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the
World Court. He served as legal adviser to the Palestinian Delegation to
the Middle East peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. In 2007, he
delivered the Bertrand Russell Peace Lectures. Previous Russell
Lecturers have included E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said,
Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung,
and Noam Chomsky. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the
University of Illinois, Champaign and is author of, inter alia, The Future of
International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World
Order, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and
International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism. And Tackling America’s Toughest Questions.
He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in
Political Science, both from Harvard University.

To visit the MAKE WAR HISTORY website

To visit the CLARITY PRESS website, Law/International Law titles

You are listed as a subscriber to the list of Clarity Press, Inc. If this is incorrect and you wish to be removed, please click here

Reason.tv on Marijuana Legalisation

A very accessible video from American Objectivist/Libertarian publication "Reason" magazine on medical marijuana legalisation in California:
Full video.

Open Your Mind

Gateway Drugs are a Logical Fallacy

Now, here’s why: suppose you didn’t like fox hunting, a peculiar British sport where country-dwellers dress in red and gallop across fields on horseback with a pack of dogs after a fox. It’s been banned in this country, but many similar activities are still legal such as chasing a pre-laid trail of fox musk, or chasing a toy doped in fox musk and dragged by another horse. All very well and good, economic substitution at work, however a small amount of illegal hunting continues.

It comes to your attention that everyone who participates in illegal fox hunting started off by learning to ride horses, so you ban horse riding — it’s clearly a gateway to illegal fox hunting.

“But that’s stupid!” you cry, “And nothing to do with drugs!”

But wait: Here are the facts — nearly everyone who currently does heroin started off with a “soft” drug such as ecstasy or cannabis.

You can argue about this two ways — that smoking dope makes you more likely to shoot up smack, or that the kind of people who shoot up smack are the kind of people who would start off smoking dope.

Both result in the same correlative evidence, but one is a causal relationship, and the other isn’t. How would you tell the difference?

Back to fox hunting. There are large numbers of people who participate in riding-related activities that aren’t fox hunting. If riding did really “cause” fox-hunting, then we would expect a far greater number of people who do riding also doing fox-hunting.

Now consider drugs; consider drugs in Portugal, where both cannabis and heroin have similarly declassified legal statuses. In 2006, heroin use occurrence amongst 16-18 year olds was 1.8% and cannabis occurrence was 15.1%, using Bayes law, even assuming that every heroin user also used cannabis, and in the knowledge that heroin and cannabis use does not equate to usage (i.e. occasional vs. habitual), the probability that any given cannabis-user also uses heroin is 0.12. Interestingly, when drugs were decriminalised in 2001, heroin usage dropped, and cannabis usage rose, strongly implying a fact that seems obvious when applied to horse riding:

If horse riding were illegal, then less people would ride horses, but those who did ride, as they were already breaking the law, would be more inclined to participate in fox hunting.

The evidence from statistics in favour of the “gateway drug” concept is weak indeed, but argument from anecdote is weaker still. I saw a program the other week where a panel discussed the potential legalisation of drugs, and despite having some excellent rationalists on both sides (Tim Carpenter of LPUK in favour), the debate devolved into an argument between a medical-marijuana user and a former drug addict.

Come on gentlemen.

Grow up.

Repost of an essay I dug up from May last year.

Sleepwalking To Totalitarianism

Well it has come to this, walking the streets of Manchester you will be compelled to walk through a metal detector.Sorry in BBC Parlance ' a safety arch'. Not even bothering with the Ausweiss Bitte

H/T The Red Rag

Oxford Working Party - 27 February

A number of members have kindly offered to help me put membership packs together and we are meeting in the Lamb & Flag next Saturday, 27 Feb, about noon although I intend to be a bit earlier. I have spoken to the landlord and he has reserved a back room for us in my name, Simon.

If anyone else would like to join us please feel free. Parking isn't very good in Oxford but this place is walking distance from the station. Oxford is also a good place for partners to go shopping/site seeing if, like my wife, they find politics intensely politics boring!

Suicide Attack on Austin Tax Office

AP has news of an American, Joe Stack, 53, who flew a light aircraft into the Austin Tax Office, after posting a rambling rant on scribd about his running battles with the IRS.

Whilst many Libertarians may be sympathetic to his motivations, the destruction of life and property of others is never justified, and burning down the house you share with your wife and daughter isn't exactly nice either.

The fire service are saying that the low death toll (two -- including the suicide bomber -- at the current count) is due to the heroics of federal employees, including one gentleman who -- despite wounds to his hands -- managed to smash a hole in a wall and help six co-workers to safety.

So here's to you Andrew Jacobson, who in the midst of this tragic waste of human life and tax-dollars, manages to restore my faith in humanity.

The 60 economic mentalists

Most of you should have seen the news that 60 economists have backed the Government's economic policies. Well, how could New Labour let you miss it...

Anyway there is just one point I wish to pick apart...

"While unemployment is still high, it would be dangerous to reduce the Government's contribution to aggregate demand beyond the cuts already planned for 2010-11," they said.

How is it so many "economists" fail to grasp the following, very simple, fact? There is no such thing as a "government's contribution to aggregate demand".

It is us. We the people, who produce the aggregate demand. We pay the taxes, and we back the debt.

All that's happening here is a bunch of politicians are forcing us to spend beyond our means. And until more people grasp this simple point we are well and truly...

All of us.

Thought for the day

Taxing the productive to pay for the unproductive is like refusing to play Wayne Rooney so eveyone else can have a game.

Discuss...

Libertarian Party Proposes Selling Heroin From Vending Machines- Official

The LPUK is one of the most extreme political parties I have ever come across. Here are some of its aims:

1). Abolish the NHS. Introduce measures to achieve this aim, such as reducing funding year by year.

2.) Free trade economic policy so that people in the Third world working for pitifully low sweatshop wages can put British workers out of a job.

3.) Legalise all drugs, hard and soft. Heroin to be available on the high street. Crack cocaine can come out of a vending machine.

4.) Completely open borders. Unlimited immigration. Massive social unrest and conflict.

5.) LPUK expects individuals to make their own provision for a future pension. Eventual scrapping of state pension. Let the elderly poor starve.

Every single one of these aims is reason enough not to vote for such a bunch.

This from 'Caroline' a far left BNP supporter from Leeds on the British Democracy Forum

A Libertarian Party spokesman said " We are still to formulate our policies on Baby Eating, but hope to release a draft policy in the next few weeks"

And there is a free poster too-

Libertarian Party Policy on the Monetary System and Banking

The current monetary system in the UK operates a State monopoly currency, i.e. Pounds Sterling. There is also a lack of transparency bordering on misrepresentation in deposit taking which is currently entrenched by a State-funded “deposit insurance scheme”, which distorts the market and encourages abdication of risk. Both shall end.

To this end the Libertarian Party will, on taking office, commence a "sound money” policy in regards to Sterling[1]. The Bank of England will remain and regain powers lost[2] to enable it to be responsible for the oversight of this policy. State deposit insurance will end[3].

Fractional Reserve Banking[4] of Sterling will continue, but under sound money principles.

The sound money policy will be vital because we will remove the monopoly of Sterling. Banks and other entities will be free to issue their own currencies. This is sometimes called "Free Banking"[5]. This will be achieved via repealing the relevant sections of the Legal Tender laws that currently force people to accept Sterling while restricting banks and other entities from issuing their own currencies, distinct from Sterling.

Once the currency and legal tender monopoly is ended, new currencies created by entities like banks or credit card operators will be possible. Once that happens, Sterling will be judged against any of these currencies that might emerge as well as in isolation. Should an administration behave in a fiscally imprudent manner the people can withdraw their support and their wealth from it. This will apply equally to the Government and to the other currency producers.

Banks and other entities will not be left to run riot. Fraud, misrepresentation, false accounting, theft and other laws will be vigorously upheld with a shift from regulation towards supervision.

Although the formation of a State run gold-backed “Pounds Sovereign” is attractive in some dimensions, this, in reality, should not be necessary due to the ending of the currency monopoly. Other organizations are expected to step in and provide gold-backed deposits or gold trading and vault facilities should sufficient demand exist, so the energy, expense of, and distortions caused by a State player in this market can be avoided.

Note that the State will offload holdings in private banks that might remain from the banking crisis of 2007-9. As such it will no longer need trouble itself with the internal operations of banks except when in breech of the Law.

[1] Sound Money is focused on maintaining a stable value and purchasing power of the currency. This, in essence, is a means to uphold the implied contract that the note represents. As the Bank of England is the entity that issues the currency, it is the body that will be charged with upholding and maintaining it. Examples of Sound Money would be not artificially raising or lowering interest rates, devaluing the currency or refusing to increase the money supply to keep pace with economic growth. Quantitative Easing is an opposite of sound money policy – expanding the money supply at a time when the economy looks to contract.

[2] the Bank of England lost a number of powers to other bodies such as The Treasury and The Financial Services Authority. Those that still apply to the role of the Bank of England will be repatriated.

[3] Depositors will be at liberty to seek insurance for their deposits at their own expense.

[4] FRB is not a "scam". Money is not "created". It is simply on-lent then lent again with end of day inter-bank transfers deciding where the net flows are. All debts and demands for cash are honoured. All unused money remains on-lent. For those who still think it is a scam and understand Football, would you always relegate a team even before all the day's matches have finished? No? You await all the scores and then look at the table. This is the same mechanism with FRB - all transactions of the day are accounted for, netted off and only then will we need to know who owes whom. Most "deposits" in banks are on-lent. Banks must ensure customers are aware of the truth if banks statements are more a record of their lending to the banks, not a record of cash held in a vault on their behalf.

[5] "Free Banking" is not to be confused with "free at the point of use" current/checking accounts common in the UK.

Eighty One Days To Go

We have eighty one days to the General Election widely predicted for May 6th, whilst we are only putting up a few candidates and endorsing a few independents on the basis that this is going to be an 'Anyone But Gordon' Election, and we are focussing our efforts on Local Elections, this is still going to cost money.

If the Cameronian Conservative Party gets in, they will need opposing just as hard as the Labour Party, if it is a hung parliament Politics will be a bit more interesting at both local and national level.

My job as treasurer is however to prepare for the upswing in political debate.

In the meantime we still need to up our donation rate, so please give generously as a member or as one of the LPUK's supporters. Monthly Standing order forms can be quickly set up to our account so please contact us at donate@lpuk.org

Quote Of The Day

Despite my earlier determination and optimism, I have had to concede that the Liberal Democrats will never be an economically liberal, civic libertarian party, and that holding out hope for that is psychologically draining and a waste of effort.

Charlotte Gore

My Friend Sarah

Free-marketeers, enjoy:

"What the heck is marginal utility anyway!"

Harriet, the Pope and the "Equalities" Bill

After some rumblings we see that the Pope has waded in and spoken out about the Equalities Bill, brain child of one Harriet Harman who as we must surely know has not a bigoted bone in her body, working its way though Parliament.

Let us cut through the specifics and get to the generics.

This is about freedom of association.

Those in favour of the bill are basically saying they support the right of someone, to put it bluntly, thrusting themselves upon an organisation with the lurking threat of a lawsuit if they don't get their way*.

Freedom of association is a fundamental freedom and is far more important, far superior than any employment regulations.

I do not support a special case for religious groups. I support the right of ANY group to decide who it wants to be in or not in that group. Therefore I have no issue with all-women clubs, male-only golf cliques, lesbian tennis associations if that is what they want.

This is very far removed from another problem in employment, that of an individual enacting their own personal prejudices - for or against, mind - in the workplace. However, if there is any claim, to me it is by the group over the group member not conforming to the code. A prospective member has no contract with the group before, say, employment, so I fail to see why a group should be punished because of an errant employee before the claimant gains employment**. Yes, it is more convenient for the State to impose its will this way, but being a supporter of the Rule of Law, administrative convenience is, IIRC, no justification for legislation.


* this is called "fairness". All the more reason to recoil at the Lib Dems' clasping of this disingenuous term to its busom of late.

**it is another thing if an employee is subject to discrimination and nothing is done about it, for then a contract exists)

More victims of information-criminalization policy

Relating to the recent arrests of author Philip Luty and his website's visitors, the accounts of this wave of unhinged thuggery are coming out:

forum.prisonplanet.com

First please read Musket Mike's article which explains what I was caught up in:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle551-20100103-03.html

Dear Sir / Madam or Mr.Luty (if you get a chance to answer this yourself),

I'd just like to let you know that I read the article on the link by Musket Mike & I'd like to let you know that I was one of the 50 people who downloaded the book and ended up being raided.

My story has a bit more punch as they did this one day before I was due in operating theatre for open heart surgery. I ended up spending the afternoon before I went under the knife in a stinking police cell, all because they found (in my loft where I was keeping them for storage but they tried to put into my mouth that I was trying to hide them there) a BB gun, 2 legal to have old blank firers that I've had for 15 years and an old antique decommissioned rifle that I was keeping for my Dad (made in 1867). I now have had all these items returned, as they are perfectly legal to own and don't require firearm certificates and subsequently have also had all 'firearms' charges dropped.

If you get your site back up, I would love to write up a full account of my experience for you and I'd be delighted if you were to post it on there somewhere.

All the best,

crutley.

---------------------

hi new to this site,but just thourt i’d let you know that ive just been raided by the anti terrorist division on tuesday there warrent to enter and search premises for eveidence of an indictable offence:

Firearms,ammunition,component parts and documentation detailing the processes by which to manufatrue firearms and ammunition.Machinary and tooling for the production of weaponry/parts. The documentation will inculude internet manuals and publications relating any such activitys. any other materials used for the production of firearms. Vehicals present at the property that are included in the warrant information.

P.A.Lutys name was mentioned and the document that i downloaded from his website on ammunition was mentioned that i downloaded 4 years ago. These guys came with a moblie laboratory, forensics,detectives, police the lot. they were there at my home for six and a half hours riping the place apart. they confiscated my laptop and two books one by p.a.luty , they wanted a lot more!! but i said no, freedom of speach all the way and i intend to get my books back.I wont lie i s**t my pants even though i have done nothing wrong.
Beware big brother is watching you!!!

People, I can't stress how serious this situation is. Totalitarianism is literally speeding over the horizon.


It just so happens that this article greeted me when opening up Google just seconds ago:

Police unit set up to combat terrorist websites

What they don't tell you is that literature on firearms is also considered to be useful to terrorists. Would I be overly speculative if I were to suggest there is probably a lot more that's going to meet this vague enforcement policy?

ASI and meet up reminder

This is just to remind all South East members that we will be meeting at the Rose and Crown in Southwark this Thursday for our monthly meet up.

In addition if you are available tomorrow some members will be heading to the ASI for their first TNG event of the year.

For more details on both please see here.