2.9% A Victory ?

I am utterly astounded by I Dave making this statement. This is an utter disaster, the very fact that the EU wanted a 6% expansion in its spending just shows how out of touch with econnomic reality the EU is and it should have been contemplating massive cuts not expansion.

In times past this country has always resisted expansionary powers seeking to politically dominate this country, here we have a Prime Minister actively diverting additional funds from this country to a supra national power and crowing how well he has done.

We know that I Dave has no time for libertarian or constitutional Government otherwise we would have less Government not more, and the people would have spoken in a referendum on Lisbon. He promised this and went back on his undertaking to the British People.

We have nothing less here than the naked excercise of a clique in power in both London and Brussels, if we had a constitution, I Dave would have acted against the Constitution that vests sole power in the British people.He is acting in the financial interests of a supra national power that does not have the active assent of the people.

The Hayek Lecture 2010

From the LSE, an interesting diversion for your education and enjoyment:

Hayek lecture

Date: Thursday 28 October 2010
Time: 6.30-8pm
Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building
Speaker: Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto

The current financial and economic situation of the world should be analysed from the point of view of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory as developed by Mises and Hayek. Professor Huerta De Soto will present innovative solutions to the banking crisis and credit crunch working within the tradition of the Austrian School masters, Mises and Hayek. He will also unveil his proposal for similar legislative change that the "Peel Act" or Bank Charter Act of 1844 achieved with regards to the over issue of promissory notes to gold, but with respect to the over issue of credit. The consequences of doing this should create a climate of financial stability and an opportunity to totally restructure the national debt (potentially pay it off).

Should you wish to get an advanced feel for the subject of the lecture, you can look at Chapter 9 of this book by Huerta De Soto, which can be downloaded from The Cobden Centre, the pdf is called "Huerta de Soto, Jesus: Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles. This chapter gives the theoretical outline of part of the lecture.

Jesús Huerta de Soto is professor of political economy at King Juan Carlos University.

This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis. For any queries email events@lse.ac.uk| or call 020 7955 6043.

[Source]

Just to be clear, yes that's on tomorrow.

Speaking Fabian Lesson # 32

' There Are A Suite Of Issues involved'

Type of person using this phrase

I am a very clever person who is now working for a Quango/Fake Charity/Eco-lobby, and I have now mastered the parallel language and buzzwords that mark me out as an 'insider' and politically sound.

Literal Translation

This is dreadfully important as far as my Quango/Fake Charity/Eco-Lobby is concerned, and therefore requires oodles of public money to keep myself in the luxury I have become accustomed to

See also special pleading

The Gap Between Theory And Reality

I have been to sunny Northampton today to attend to a number of family matters, but having spent five hours in the car, I have been able to listen to the roll out of the Entrepreneurs are going to save us spiel from Con Dem and the slathering we must all work for the state socialists/social democrats.



Nice try Dave but here is the problem, every one of the companies that your spokes person listed this morning as starting in the teeth of one of the last ten recessions was American.



Americans can go to the market and raise start up capital relatively easily, here in the UK it is beyond difficult, the 'Dragons Den' is good TV but not a reality show.



Start ups need backers who inject equity and take a risk, in the UK working capital has been raised by going to the banks, signing a personal guarantee against your assets and leaving your kids as hostages.



You are also required to act as an unofficial unpaid tax gatherer for the Inland Revenue, social worker for staff that it has been increasingly difficult to get rid of,  if they are incompetent or  have zero work ethic. As a Director /owner of the you are subject to the whims and vagaries of the the Companies Act, The Insolvency Act, The Health & Safety at Work Act, Money Laundering Legislation, you can also fall foul of the Department of Business,Innovation & Skills, whose collossal budget and overspending by Mandelson introduces further rafts of regulation, thats before we start bring the EU into the equation.



The average life of a limited company is two years, before that personal guarantee is called in and you are left broke never wanting to repeat the experiance.



As I was driving back, I got a call from a colleague in Northern Ireland, who told me that the Ulster Bank (part of the Nat West farcical Bank) owned by the taxpayer had just pulled the plug, despite having a full order book, it was in the 'Wrong sector'.



All of our cash Dave, has gone to prop up the zombie banks, don't rely on the entrepreneurs until you sort out getting Government of business' backs, and an equity market is flourishing again.

Talkin' Bout My Generation

What an embarrassment my generation actually is. I've said before about how I was ashamed to be a part of this generation, due to the mini-riot over a Primark Sale, but now I feel it is time to completely divorce myself from this self centred, self deserving, materialistic bunch of pathetic, "apathetic socialists".

The reaction from my age group to the Spending Review has been really quite telling. There are millions dieing worldwide due to hunger and warfare, helped in many ways by our interventionist Government. There are hundreds of thousands of families facing a future of unemployment, within the private sector as well as the public, helped in many ways by our small business hating Government. There are just over 60 million people in this country watched and spied upon, thanks entirely by our liberty hating Government.

Where were you when all of these people were in trouble? Were you marching on the streets? Were you fighting for civil liberties? Were you protesting against the war? Were you campaigning for a fairer tax system and more freedom?

No.

Of course you weren't.

You were sitting indoors, in your warm double glazed house in suburbia. You didn't give one when it mattered. So why are you suddenly protesting? Campaigning? Fighting?

That's right...

You have been spurred into action because all of a sudden there is a chance you will have to pay a bit more to go to Uni. All of a sudden there is a chance you won't receive your nice £30 in the bank every week for the privilege of going to college for a few days a week.

Welcome to the real world. The world doesn't owe you anything. You're meant to prove yourself before you can start bleating on like a crazed lamb.

A crazed, bleating lamb is all you are. Nothing more.
The above image is to demonstrate what a lamb should look like- non crazed and not bleating.

Alex Ellis Roswell - LPUK Student

Did You Know You Signed A 'Personal Guarantee' Yesterday ?

In a landmark case yesterday in the High Court, Mr Justice Mann said the Taxpayer had to stand as a guarantor for £22Bn in case British Telecom went bust because of the underfunded pension scheme.

I have signed some of these accursed instruments as a Director before, but at least the financial institution gave me the option of seeking legal advice first before I signed.

Here , the Judge has done it the other way round he has told us we are now the guarantors. Well I don't I have been given the required notice or consulted my lawyers yer as to whether I should stand surety for BT, so I think I will pass.

This ruling also applies in principle to the Post Office, the Civil Service and Local Authority Pension funds .

2010 Nominations

Chairman                                                            Nic Coome
Party Leader                                                      Andrew Withers
Treasurer                                                           John Watson
Communications Director                                   Stuart Heal, Ken Ferguson
Nominating and membership Officer                   Simon Fawthrop
Policy Director                                                  Tim Carpenter

Let it be known that I AM Ideologically in favour of a Small State

We have seen in recent days the attempt by some to attack MPs in the government for desiring cuts, wishing to have a smaller State for ideological reasons.

Well, I do not consider that an attack, but a compliment[1]. I desire, within the bounds of a foreseeable horizon, a smaller State, a balanced budget and debt reduction, not just deficit reduction. What holds for a household is the same for a State. We must live within our means[2].

Taxes are, at best, a necessary evil. Redistribution by coercion, certainly not a "good", has built up an inertia of its own, rendering it very hard to reverse and return to a voluntary, consensual approach[3].

The attempt to "preserve jobs" in the public sector is often justified by the effect the ending of those jobs will create. These problems are exacerbated by the policy of moving State sector jobs to areas of high unemployment. You replace one dominant employer/sector with another, so dealing with the symptom, not the disease. However, across the country, keeping those jobs means the private sector has to pay those wages via taxes or higher debts for the country. For all the talk of more money in the economy, in no way will all that money return to the pockets of private sector workers. A significant proportion will not. Heat, not light, is often generated.

If jobs are created or maintained by putting money into the pockets of public sector workers, then more would certainly be created or maintained by not taking that money out of the pockets of the private sector in the first place. Taxing the private sector makes the UK less competitive. It increases the flow of wealth out as our exports reduce and our imports increase. It not only takes money out of the pockets of workers, it puts their very employment at risk. Public sector workers should be employed because there is a need for the function, not through any specious argumentation over the effect on the economy.

So what to cut? The headline figure of the Coalition's 19% vs. Labour's predicted 20% reductions are a shallow game play and there are suggestions that the two numbers are arrived at from so divergent routes as to make any comparisons worthless when talking of percentages.

The key is to have a clear purpose for what the Government is, what the economy is and the purpose and limitations of both.

A government only gains legitimacy if it can secure the population at home both in terms of internal threats - via police, courts, prisons or other mechanisms - and external threats - the mainly the military and diplomatic services.

Until we are in a position to reduce the State below what is often understood to be a form of Minarchism, then this is an unavoidable, necessary evil. Better to ensure that if you have to tax people and implement such a necessary evil, it is done as professionally and competently as possible, so reducing the impact on our freedoms and Rule of Law.

After that, it becomes, frankly, more a discussion of "wants", not "musts", but I would place care for people who are not in a position to exercise informed consent or defend their personal sovereignty[4] within that list. This must remain a want, though, for that is necessary to avoid mission creep. The State should also be constitutionally limited in what it can do, especially in the area of forming monopolies where no natural monopoly exists.

Once so limited, I would be very happy to see each person given the opportunity to prioritise the spending of their taxes. Some may not have the time, so they can decide to abdicate to a political party which has their own pre set bias. That is fine, for the individual. What is not fine is 40% or less deciding so, and the other 60% having to comply to the same balance which is what we have now. So a Labour voter can have their net tax revenues allocated as they wish it. A Conservative, likewise.

By each deciding for their own revenue streams, personal responsibility is enhanced. People can then withdraw support for a Party's ideology at will at any time, not just all-or-nothing like-it-or-lump-it once every 5 years charade we now have. It might also be worth a reality check to include the major benefits people draw down on, so if they pay taxes but are a net gainer, they will find they have no allocation. Most people with two or three school age children will find they are a net gainer. They will find that they will have no discretionary control over taxation revenue and I think that should be made clear to people.

Transparency and reality is lacking from the whole area of public finances. People kid themselves they contribute when in truth they do not. People think there is some big pot that pixies refill with gold every evening when they sleep. People think that there is a vast army of under taxed rich people who cannot leave the country or hire someone to take their wealth out of the reach of the Taxman.

So what of the economy? Well, the economy is just people getting on with living. Buying, selling. The less the State meddles in that, the less it tries to engineer, manage, skew, bias, tax or subsidise, the better for all. The collective wisdom of crowds trumps GOSPLAN any day. Alas, there is a massive Fabian and beyond mindset that believes the State can "do good". There lies folly. The folly is repeated and replayed over and over due to ideology, pork barrelling or expediency. It has to stop. Leave people alone, for they know best, in the round, what is best for themselves.

On a final note, as a country, we overspend. Even with the cuts now announced, our national debt will double to around £1.4tln before the next election. That is a scandal and one that is rarely mentioned. We are certainly not wealthy, but the aim should be to become so once again and to begin with we need to reduce our debts and get the State out of the way of wealth creation so each of us can get on with the job.


[1] However, it is interesting to see how few MPs defend that corner. Any?
[2] In my opinion, the UK has not been a truly wealthy country since, I suspect, 1914. After the first war there was a false rebasing to the Gold Standard, rendering exports overpriced, the last thing that was wanted considering all the blood and treasure that was lost. Then we had the crash, the Keynesian response, the Second World War, which transferred what wealth was not blown up to America. Then we had the Welfare State. Is there any room for more nails in the coffin?
[3] Even recent benefits like the Educational Maintenance Allowance, EMA, generates howls of protest as if this was won by The Chartists.
[4] The frail elderly, infirm, de facto orphans and mentally ill, for example.

Adam Smith Institute on the CSR

First up, let’s give credit where credit is due. George Osborne stuck to his guns yesterday, and achieved with the Comprehensive Spending Review what he set out to achieve, outlining £81bn in savings that the government would make between now and 2015. If these savings are realized, the government will hit its spending targets and take a big step towards balancing the cyclically adjusted current budget by the end of the Parliament. It took political courage to do this in the face of widespread special interest opposition and a generally unfriendly media.
But we do need to keep things in perspective. As the chancellor admitted in his speech, we are only going back to 2008 levels of real terms spending – so this is hardly the fundamental re-imagining of the state that some of us were hoping for. Indeed, if you assume two percent a year inflation, total spending will only fall by a couple of percent between now and 2015 – despite admittedly severe cuts in some specific departments, and particularly in capital budgets.
The reason for this is largely down to three things: health, welfare, and debt interest payments. Debt interest payments are set to skyrocket over the next five years, rising by 35 to 40 percent in real terms, and will end up costing us more than the entire education department. Welfare spending is going to remain more or less the same over the next five years, while health spending will rise in real terms by 4 percent or so. Together these three things represent almost half of total public spending, so the lack of savings counterbalances cuts elsewhere.
Of course, there’s not much the government can do about debt interest payments, but on welfare and health they have missed an opportunity to really get to grips with the fact that the post-war welfare settlement will not be affordable for very much longer. Universal benefits are, like it or not, living on borrowed time.
We also need to remember that the Comprehensive Spending Review is only the beginning. It’s not so much a case of “mission accomplished” as “what now?” As I wrote on ConservativeHome earlier this week, we still need a positive agenda for economic growth. We also need a genuine commitment to radically reforming the public sector, since only that will make spending reductions sustainable in the long term.
To put it bluntly, the government has made a decent start. But there’s no room for complacency: much remains to be done.

Tom Clougherty- ASI

The Only Legitimate Role Of The State Is That Of Defence

H/T Jackart

Next year we are to bring all the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.

Places they guarded, or kept orderly,

Must guard themselves, and keep themselves orderly.

We want the money for ourselves at home

Instead of working. And this is all right.



It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,

But now it's been decided nobody minds.

The places are a long way off, not here,

Which is all right, and from what we hear

The soldiers there only made trouble happen.

Next year we shall be easier in our minds.



Next year we shall be living in a country

That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.

The statues will be standing in the same

Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.

Our children will not know it's a different country.

All we can hope to leave them now is money.



Philip Larkin, The Whitsun Weddings, 1964.

In the words of Ron Paul- we marched in lets  just march out again


The fact that we would rather prop up the Welfare State than maintain adequate defences in a dangerous world shows how low we have sunk. Defence means defence not invading sovereign countries with zero resources and no war aims and extraction plan.


The only defence cuts we should be having is ending this bloody war.

Have We Been Here Before

Labour =Conservative + Lib Dem= State Security


If this is true why bother to have an election ? All that has happened is a change of 'non executive Directors'

Milch Cow To The Masses

I have driven back from a meeting in Cheltenham and was listening to a programme on 'the middle classes', the kick off point for the piece was a definition of what it was to be middle class.

Somebody who had a whitecollar job, was paid monthly and had a mortgage ventured some 'bright' academic, somebody who was liberal, valued education wanted to take responsibility for their lives, lived green lives , ate cous cous ventured another.

I started thinking about my own definition.

That of Milch Cow

milch  (mɪltʃ)
— n
1.	( modifier ) (esp of cattle) yielding milk
2.	informal milch cow  a source of easy income, esp a person
[C13: from Old English -milce  (in compounds); related to Old English melcan  to milk]

The working classes (a diminishing resource in this day and age) know what they want, they want 'looking after' by the State, they don't want personal responsibility because they have rights and entitlements. If they cannot get a job it is up to the State to provide 'free' everything. They have the right to have kids, the right to not to acquire too many skills beyond that of the three 'R's. They have the Labour Party and the Trades Unions to keep them were they want to be dependent, poor and with limited horizons. The Middle Classes can pay.

The upper classes they also know what they want, they want to be ' in charge' by God's own ordnance. They will organise their financial affairs in the most 'tax efficient' way a la Millibands. Whilst they are 'in charge' they can screw up the economy, the banks, start wars, it matters not a jot, they have the Tory/Labour Party and besides the Middle Classes can pay.

Then there is the vast raft of the Middle classes, largely apolitical, subscribe to the 'mustn't grumble' political philosophy of the never getting angry. They get in debt through crushing mortgages and university fees, but never talk about it, because they are the only ones out of the whole of the middle classes that are struggling, WRONG they are the coping classes who have been shafted royally by the see-saw of successive Lab/Con Governments. They are the easy targets. Like the grey vote. They will not complain ever, even while they are having their financial teeth kicked in by Nu Labour/Cons/Social Democrats.

They cutely believe that they live in a free country despite all evidence to the contrary. They believe that British is best even though seventy five per cent of British manufacturing  is owned by foreigners and that the Queen is Head of State not the European Commission.

Their Political Party is the Militant Masochistic Tendency, you can beat them over and over again and they will gladly pay over and over again. The Middle Classes are dangerous because they are delusional, they believe everything they are told.

Is there the slightest chance that Jonty and Isabella might be getting the message, that no matter how broke they personally are, the State and the Banks are going to ask for even more money next year. At what stage do the Middle Classes say enough is enough, there has to be a better way.

The Golden Circle Appeal

As you know I will be shortly standing down as Treasurer after a two year stint.

I would like to leave my successor with some hope of financial planning, and the ability to run an office doing everything that has been reliant so far on volunteer time.

I am looking for 100 people to undertake to pay £30 min a month for a year by standing order that will be dedicated solely for the running of an office and one member of staff. If we can get more people so much the better we can then afford to take on an intern. Unlike our political masters this person would have to be paid the minimum wage.

This is a pledge for one year as we would need to issue a contract of employment, this circle is open to members and supporters

Please email 1984@lpuk.org for a standing order form, I would like to get this set up by November 1st.

All other donations are still welcome, this is an add on not instead of

Botched Paramilitary Raids In The USA- An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"


View Original Map and Database 

The Cato Institute has produced a map of botched paramilitary police raids since 2006 in conjunction with the publication of Overkill by Radley Balko


"Americans have long maintained that a mans home is his castle and that he has the right to defend it from unlawful intruders. Unfortunately, that right may be disappearing. Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

This paper presents a history and overview of the issue of paramilitary drug raids, provides an extensive catalogue of abuses and mistaken raids, and offers recommendations for reform. "

We are starting to get a pretty similar sort of pattern arising here-

Liam Fox MP Calls Deputy Leader Of The LPUK’s Case A Scandal

To friends, members and all readers.

I draw your attention to the following press release in relation to Andrew Withers, as it is relevant to his seeking the leadership of the Libertarian Party.



PRESS RELEASE


PRESS RELEASE
Liam Fox MP calls Deputy Leader of the LPUK’s Case a Scandal
In the latest turn of events in Andrew Withers’ four year legal tussles with The Department of Business, Innovation & Skills, a District Judge in the Bristol Registry has ordered that he should list all of the companies and organisations that he is an executive member of so that it can be decided by the Court whether he should be given permission to continue. Amongst the organisations specifically named is the Libertarian Party.
On the 22^nd September 2010, the Information Commissioner ruled that when the Department was being run by Mandelson it withheld evidence that Andrew Withers wished to rely on in Court, and that they should release it ‘without further delay’. That ruling has so far been ignored by The Secretary of State’s officials. If the order is further ignored by this Friday, Andrew Withers will be seeking a Court Order to compel the Secretary Of State to comply with the ICO order under sec7 (9) Data Protection Act 1998.
Andrew Withers’ local MP is Dr Liam Fox and has been extremely supportive in a case that he has called in a personal telephone call a ‘scandal’, and found time in the midst of the strategic defence review to have personal meeting with Ed Davey MP the responsible Minister in the coalition Government on the 27^th September 2010 to discuss the case. After which Ed Davey has ordered a review into the case by senior officials and a meeting has been suggested with senior officials to try to resolve the situation.
Andrew is currently writing a book about his experiences, and admits that new chapters are being added as one man’s fight against a politicised bureaucracy continues into a fifth year.
The story started in 2006 when a French company that Andrew was a gerant (director) of was illegally placed into liquidation by its French Director in contravention of the company statuts and on a perjured statement of affairs. The Court appointed Receiver was paid 8000€ to bury the company, and the French Director made off with the assets and finished goods . An investigating French barrister appointed by Andrew Withers visited the Receiver in Coutances and noted that there were no accounts, invoices or supporting documentation. The Barrister described the situation as the worst case of corporate fraud he had seen in over forty years of practice.
The unfortunate direct consequence of this fraud was that it brought down the British company down as well and it ceased trading in 2006 unfortunately four customers and a number of corporate creditors lost money.
The company was wound up in 2007, and Andrew presented himself to the Official Receiver with supporting documentation and statements from the French Investigating Barrister as to the veracity of the illegal winding up of the company by the French Director causing the failure of the company. He was complemented on the professionalism of the presentation of the narrative and whilst he could not promise that nothing more would be heard from the Insolvency Service, he was satisfied with the narrative.
In October 2007 , Andrew Withers became one of the five founding members of the Libertarian Party sickened by the growth of the security state established by Blair and continued by Brown and the fact that the State was out of control and the State was absorbing more and more taxpayers funds. Three days later the run on Northern Rock began.
From this point the story started to take a bizarre and disturbing twist.

• Despite the French fraud being reported to Avon and Somerset Police and the Insolvency Service which is part of the then Business,Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. A furious French Colleague contacted Andrew to report that the French Director had just been given an award presented by the British Ambassador to Paris and Lord Digby-Jones (GOAT)

• From redacted documents secured under the Freedom of Information Act, the French Director started lobbying to have Andrew Withers’ investigated in April 2008.

• In June 2008 he received a letter from the Insolvency Service in Plymouth to say he was under investigation under the terms of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, this despite them having no accounts because they could not access the electronic copies of the SAGE accounts.

• In November 2008 the Assistant Official Receiver confirmed in an email that in their view the French subsidiary was not part of their investigations as their advice was that it was not possible for French companies to have foreign shareholders !

• The conduct of the investigation was the source of endless abuse, the interviewer was balefully ignorant of commercial law, gave off the appearance of being a former policeman, told a number of direct lies and allowed Andrew Withers’ to look at a former employee’s personal bank statements and files in contravention of the Data Protection Act, then could offer no explanation what those statements and files were doing with the company documentation.

• The Company’s former accountants were threatened with investigation, to the extent that they took legal advice.

• Mandelson was appointed Secretary of State 3^rd October 2008, it is his decision to seek disqualification orders against company directors. Liam Fox MP met Andrew Withers and was shown all of the documentation relating to the criminal fraud. Fox lobbied Mandelson and was rebuffed.

• Further evidence was supplied to the Secretary of State in July 2009, including witness statements and French Court documents to show the extent of the French Fraud and the effect it had had on the British Company. All of this evidence was rejected and returned to Andrew Withers unread.

• From redacted documents received by Andrew under FOI , the Official Receiver’s recommendation to move forward to Proceedings was rejected for lack of evidence in May 2009, saying it ‘required more work done on it’

• In August 2009 with days to spare before being statute barred, proceedings were authorised by Secretary of State Mandelson against Andrew Withers to be disbarred as a director for eight years. If Andrew was so minded to sign a confession and to say a false set of accounts prepared by the Secretary of State were true (that omitted the French subsidiary) , the ban would be reduced to seven years.

• Andrew Withers and his lawyers refused to sign, and tried to negotiate with the appointed lawyers to no avail to drop the case.

• When the evidence in the case was finally released to Andrew it soon became apparent that-

• The winding up order made against the company was made by somebody who was not a creditor. The Official Receiver knew this and sought to hide the supporting documentation and invoices that had been altered

• The French Director had supplied the Official Receiver with forged Delivery Notes, the Official Receiver made no attempt to verify them.

• The Official Receiver had made no attempt to contact the Court appointed Receiver in Coutances, but entered into very friendly correspondence with the French Director. The Official Receiver allowed the transfer of assets , goods and cash to the French Director’s company at nil value.

It costs not less than £50 000 to mount a defence in actions such as this, Andrew’s legal insurers refused to consider this was an action they would cover, it does not take long to burn through legal fees, and with money running short Andrew compromised and settled on a voluntary undertaking with the Secretary of State for five and a half years not to act as a company Director with an undertaking that a s17 hearing would be heard by the District Judge before the undertaking took affect on July 13^th 2010. The Court Order of 22^nd June confirms
That hearing never took place because the Secretary of State two days before the hearing in July had issued no instructions to counsel to attend and had broken the settlement by rushing into print and online trumpeting their success on the 1^st July. The District Judge then signed an order to allow Andrew to continue to act as a Director in two designated companies, an order that was renewed on the 11^th of October 2010 pending the outcome of the next full hearing.
Andrew Withers released the following personal Statement yesterday.
“I first wish to repudiate the voluntary undertaking I signed on 22^nd June 2010, the accounts so presented were false, the Official Receiver knew they were false, I knew they were false, they were based on perjury in both French and English Courts, based on forged documents supplied by the French Director who colluded with the Official Receiver to transfer assets at nil value. I simply signed to end the attrition of costs by an overbearing State and because of the effect this war of attrition has had on my family. That is the end of one battle, but I have not given up the fight in this war.
I am grateful for the support of my legal teams in both France and England, to Liam Fox MP and to the members of the NCC of the Libertarian Party who refused to accept my offered resignation last June as Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Party, and that despite the Court Order of the 11^th October 2010 examining whether the poorly written, oppressive anti business CDDA 1986 can extend its authority over companies that are not registered in this country and to political parties and to charitable organisations, I will continue to seek the leadership of the Libertarian Party. Therefore it is only fair that all members are aware of this cloud that hangs over me before casting their vote.
I welcome the intervention of Ed Davey MP and look forward to the results of his review and for the opportunity of a meeting with senior officials to present the evidence that Dr Liam Fox has seen and quite rightly has called a scandal.
This will not however stop me seeking a Court order on the 25^th October against the Secretary of State following the ruling of the Information Commissioner of the 22^nd September. I will also be launching a civil action against the Secretary of State, Official Receiver and French Director, as both a creditor and shareholder of my former company for the wrongful transfer of assets , equipment and cash to the French Director at nil value.
I can however only express my displeasure at the lack of action by the Avon & Somerset Chief Constable in this case in relation to the Fraud and Theft that has occurred. The constant pleading of lack of resources has further undermined my confidence in Law enforcement.
I was a Classical Liberal before I help found the Party, my experiences of politicised public servants under the last administration have only confirmed that I must continue with that fight. I am confident the Parliament never intended the CDDA Act to be applied to foreign companies over which they have no jurisdiction , nor to political parties which is a breach of basic political Liberty, and I am confident that the Judge will come to the same conclusion “

Did You Vote For 'Change' ? Political Crimes Still Get You the 'Sack'

Via Cranmer and Tom Paine this morning the inevitable story that Katherine Birbalsingh has been forced from her post for thought crime of actually doubting that the Fabian destruction of education is 'good' for children.

The Tories promised you change, but the dangerous politicised public servants and their weak bosses are still in post, fulminating against the inconvenience of the ballot box. There has been no change and they are being paid by you the tax payer.

As one of the few countries in the world that does not have a Constitution, Katherine is not afforded the right of free speech under the Constitution, and she could scamper off to Court to not only claim constructive dismissal and declare the action of the school unconstitutional.

Unless Cameron acts this morning to end this farce every teacher had better keep their political opinions to themselves.

Brown gone, Cameron arrives- The State still rules and the State is red in hue and claw.

The Hunting of the QANGO

QANGOs are born of Mob Rule and they are dying by it, too.

Here, I want to put some thoughts out on trying to rationalise the process of reducing QANGOs, defining if they should exist, should mutate, and to offer an alternative to the divisiveness involved in deciding where the axe falls or the money flows. Note this is put in the context of where we are now, not where we want to be. It is, rather, early stepping stones towards a destination, which is a much smaller State that is still shrinking.

If a body does not need to be a monopoly e.g. it does not have statutory powers, or is not a natural monopoly, then the justification to be a QANGO reduces.

If the body provides oversight at arms length to the government, then it might be worth first reconsidering if the Government should be responsible for that area at all, if they cannot be trusted with a monopoly or powers. Remove the powers, remove the need for a QANGO to oversee said powers.

If something is a natural monopoly, then, potentially, it might be better as a municipal activity in the interim so at least there is oversight and accountability. If it must be arms length, then it should have electable leaders.

An entity like The School Food Trust does not need to be a monopoly. Why does it "need" to be accountable outside of the fact that it gains State funding? It does not have statutory powers. There is no "need" for it to exist, but it is a WIBNI - "wouldn't it be nice if...", and only then subjectively. It is a want, not a must.

In times of hardship, wants are not the focus, musts are. Anyone who thinks we should borrow massive amounts of money year on year to cover running costs - a.k.a. Brownian "investment" - is a stranger to reason.

If you ask everyone to decide, who is a taxpayer and paying for it, how they would divide up their tax funding for a range of wants, you might find that most people are pretty level headed.

After all, those in Local Government are people, ordinary people, no?

The wisdom of crowds is not the same as mob rule. What we have now in "democracy" is mob rule, the tyranny of the majority passing through a cypher that is Local and National "authorities". It potentially disenfranchises 60%+ of the population.

Of course, some will say that people are too busy to read up and understand the good works that many QANGOs and other bodies funded by the State provide. Well, the answer may well be very simple. Labour, LibDems, Conservatives and others can all produce a 'first draft' of their own version of a prioritised list and funding proportions therein, and make it freely available. Then, if you are too busy but trust a particular party, you can just agree with them, adopt their ratios and priorities and that is sorted. If you have a little time, you can grab the nearest set and opt out of some and add your own beneficiaries of your own tax revenue stream from the full list.

For QANGOs to get my money I want to see salaries and bios. I want to see results[1].

This way it will not be "Tory Cuts" or "Labour Waste", but people will decide where the tax revenues allocated to QANGOs will actually go in proportion and in order of preference. When the money runs out, those least preferred by someone will not get the tax income from that person, but if that same organisation is higher up the scale for another, it still gets the revenue from that second person.

This is real localism - putting the power back to the individual.

Will any of the Big Three countenance that? I doubt it, not even - and I would say especially not - the Lib Dems. I suspect that Socialists would prefer this scheme to letting the Tories decide for all. Of course, they might not want to keep such localism once they regain the levers, but then that would distinguish the genuine voluntary mutualist-leaning Socialists from the Authoritarian-Totalitarians, no?

Putting in such a mechanism - and I admit it might benefit from some refinement - will remove the divisiveness from the whole process. Lobbying government will not be good enough. It allows those who are too busy to at least get their approximate preferences, and those who want to get stuck in to fine tune. What it does NOT do is allow one Party after another to dictate to the majority who did not want them in that position.

[1] I would be happier to see money go to one or two non QANGOs over some QANGOs - I might well prefer Southall Black Sisters or MIND to get some money instead of The School Food Trust - but extending beyond direct State funding of QANGOs might be too complex for the first iteration of this concept, but should not be left unresolved for too long.

Police Arrest Love Police- The Public Interest

You can be held, imprisoned have your Liberties restricted by the new catch all phrase 'in the Public Interest'. What does it mean and who defines it ?

Courtesy of LPUK Scotland

Great Repeal Bill wish list: Public Order Act - section 5

We've not heard much about the Great Repeal Bill recently, but it is still on the agenda. And one piece of legislation that needs to go is section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Take the case of Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane. They feel fairly strongly about abortion. So strongly, that they decided to mount a (peaceful) public protest outside an abortion clinic in Brighton. Their method of making their case was to display a large (7ft by 5 ft) graphic banner which showed a picture of an aborted human embryo. Police were called by a member of staff concerned that patients entering the clinic felt traumatised and upset. The Police arrived and told Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane to take down their banner. They did so, replacing it with another similar banner. The police then arrested the pair, and took them to the police station. And there they held them for 14 hours before finally releasing them at 3 o’clock in the morning.

Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane were released on police bail, and are due to return to court tomorrow to hear if they will be prosecuted under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

The issue, of course, is freedom of speech. I was somewhat amused by the comments of Ann Furedi, the head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, who said she fully supported the right of pro-life activists to demonstrate against abortion clinics - but who then added: "There is a distinction between freedom of expression and actions that are designed to distress people who are accessing legal, medical services."

Actually, Ms. Furedi, there isn’t. And it’s not as if Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane simply wanted to distress people for the fun of it. They were trying to make the point that what abortion does to an embryo is something very distressing.

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says:

A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Section 5 was also the legislation under which Dale McAlpine was arrested.

It seems to me that Section 5 is a piece of legislation in need of repealing. I’ve asked before, but I’ll ask again: “Why do we have a law on our statute book which means that someone can be guilty of a crime simply for using "insulting" words within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused "distress"?” The words “abusive or insulting” must go. In fact, the whole section should go - since the matter of threatening behaviour is covered by Section 4 of the Act.

Now, to be honest, I don’t like the pictures that Mr Stephenson and Miss Sloane displayed. But that’s not the point, is it?

So let’s hope that Section 5 is included in Mr. Clegg’s Great Repeal Act.

Sandwell District Council Climb Down

Anna Raccoon announces that the fourth and fifth estate (MSM & Blogosphere) working together hold the State to account in the case of Sheila Martin the widowed Grandmother who was jumped by the 'litter police' in her home town.
The local Stasi have decided that it is not in the 'public interest' that the prosecution goes ahead. B******t, it is the storm of protest over this case and their own bloated self interest they were not thinking of Sheila Martin.

So a bad week for eco Fascism the sponsors of Richard Curtis' 10:10 withdrawing their support from 'Enviro-snuff'movie, now this good news.

Way to go Raccoon !

The 'Blog' Society

Did you hear it? Friday night, around tea-time? The crunch of gears engaging, the whine of engines turning over. Perhaps you smelt the noxious diesel fumes as Sandwell Borough Council revved up their engines, lowered their gun turrets and reversed their tanks off the front lawn they have been parked on for the past 136 days?

Sheila Martin’s front lawn. Sandwell Borough Council have blinked. Backed down. Taken their ball and gone home.

Sheila Martin, a frail 70 year old widow, in severe ill health, who had committed the dastardly offence of nibbing her cigarette and letting the lighted end fall to the floor, whilst dutifully stowing the ‘butt’ end in her handbag, is no longer to be prosecuted.

In the eyes of the apparatchiks employed by Sandwell Borough council as ‘enforcement wardens’, that millimetre of lit and sterile cigarette ash constituted ‘the discarded end of a cigarette’ within the meaning of section 98 of the Environmental Act 1990 as amended by Section 18 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, and Sheila was to pay £75 for the crime of not putting burning cigarette ash into her handbag like a good little girl.

Adam Aspinall of the Sunday Mercury, Sheila’s local Sunday paper, was incredulous when he heard this news. He wrote a small piece for his paper that Sunday describing the subsequent events, detailing how Sheila had been threatened with a £2,500 fine for not paying the original fine.

I happened to read it; I wanted to speak to Sheila, I wanted to know more. I spent the better part of a day methodically telephoning everyone in the Oldbury area with the name of Martin. There are an awful lot of them – none of them turned out to be Sheila.

It didn’t occur to me initially to contact the paper – journalists and bloggers, they’re like oil and water aren’t they? At permanent war with each other, hurling insults with vicious abandon. I came from the ‘stench of the blogosphere’; that famed sewer; one of the pajamahadeen that journalists delight in looking down on. Some 40 phone calls later, in desperation, I thought it might be worth a call to the high moral ground of the newspaper.

I was in for a surprise. I had carefully marshalled my credentials; I had been instrumental in getting Nick Hogan out of jail when he had been an unfair victim of the anti-smoking legislation, I had a respectable readership, I was sure I could help Sheila Martin fight this iniquitous penalty; pumped up with self righteous adrenaline I was all ready for them to put me down.

They didn’t. Adam Aspinall was delighted that someone could help Sheila, he had been affected by her story too, and he was not a heartless hack thinking only of his next by-line. His problem, one shared with every other regional paper, was lack of resources. Newspaper no longer have spare lawyers sitting around their offices with nothing better to do than advise on legal technicalities; journalists are driven by deadlines, and the requirements of their advertising departments. His Editor couldn’t spare him to spend hours researching similar stories, writing letters, reading legal cases, phoning local councillors – but the Blogosphere could do all that and more!

We verbally shook hands on a deal. Adam would give me all the information he had – including the precious phone number of Sheila’s neighbour, if I would agree to publish nothing ahead of his Sunday deadline and share everything I had with him.

It was a deal that was to come under severe pressure when a major Sunday National became aware of one of the earlier stories I had written on Sheila. They contacted me; could I put them in touch with Sheila? Whyfore? Oh, you know, this was just a story in the Blogosphere and they had to check it out for themselves. My response was to say sorry, no can do. Half an hour later they phoned again. Was she Sheila Martin of ‘X’ Road. No, I said she wasn’t. Why was I being so awkward, they asked? They were intending to make a big story out of this; they might even mention my name – whoo hoo! The information simply wasn’t mine to give away, I said. Another half hour and they were back – they’d pay me, a not insignificant sum, and by the way, was she Sheila Martin of ‘Y’ Road? No she wasn’t! They were welcome to use what I had written already – I could hardly stop them, it was out there on the internet – but I wasn’t at liberty to give them any more than that.

Another half hour of that Saturday night rolled by – closer to their deadline, as I’d realised by now. The phone rang once more – they could double their offer. Wow! Why, I asked, were they so keen on gaining her phone number? Well, they had a photographer standing by in Birmingham – at 10pm at night, and thought they might just call round to this elderly lady’s house and surprise her in her nightgown and get a picture of her smoking to go with their story. They thought they might even get it on their front page. They’d ‘give me a name check’ and if I ever wanted to get into journalism it would be useful for me…….

That entire exchange encapsulates why I would never want to get into journalism, why I am happy to be a ‘semi-literate blogger’ – I would never want to be subjected to the pressures that see Sheila’s distress and fragility as fodder to fill a late night deadline on a slow news day. Her dignity and privacy invaded for a handful of tenners.

The following morning the Sunday Mercury and I both published our new stories on Sheila. The response of the Blogosphere was extraordinary – within a couple of hours I had more e-mails than I had comments – and the comments were at that time running around the 50 mark, a figure now way out of date. I had e-mails from Barristers and Academics, Solicitors and Local Authority Legal Advisors – all willing and able to pitch up with their specialist knowledge on Sheila’s behalf – free of charge. Detailed information on the legal technicalities behind her offence positively poured out of them. By the end of that first night we had a legal team that would not have disgraced the defence team for a major conspiracy trial at the Old Bailey.

We also had e-mail addresses and mobile phone numbers for virtually everyone on the staff at Sandwell Council, home addresses, photographs of their houses for heavens sake, even, in one case, a photograph of the aluminium wheels on their BMW that were for sale on e-bay – the cuttings library at the Old Mirror building was famed for the ability with which it could come up with a cornucopia of information on any obscure subject; I would pitch the wit and wisdom of the Blogosphere against their sleuthing skills any day.

That was the network that the Sunday Mercury was able to engage with, and by putting their trust in the energy, expertise and exchange of information that the Blogosphere with its predominantly Libertarian ethos is so good at, and combining it with their on the ground knowledge, and contacts, together we have achieved a remarkable result.

Sandwell Borough Council has finally decided, after 136 days, that ‘it is not in the public interest’ – decode that as you will! – to persecute Sheila Martin any longer. She was not just a frail elderly widow who would bow to their demands; behind her there was a mighty powerhouse, the combined forces of their local paper and the blogosphere that was marking their every footstep, dogging their every incompetence, detailing their every inaction, and Sheila didn’t look such an attractive ‘mark’ any longer.

Sheila is delighted; she has said:

“This whole process has been one long nightmare and my health is suffering as a result.
“The stress of everything has caused me to collapse twice and end up in hospital; I don’t know how much more I can take.
“If I was guilty it wouldn’t be a problem but I’m not so while there is breath left in me I will fight but I have to admit it is taking its toll now.
“What I cannot understand is why it is taking so long, surely it is costing the taxpayer lots of money to deal with this and it is a load of nonsense.
“It is funny how I haven’t seen one single enforcement officer since this came out and when you walk outside the council building the streets are full of cigarette butts and fag ends – where were they when that happened or do they belong to council employees?
“I am just so glad that I have had support from the Sunday Mercury and the internet bloggers because otherwise I would have felt so alone.”

I am delighted too. Not just for Sheila, but for a new era. One where the main stream media and the Internet can learn to work together. There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides, together we are more than the sum of our respective parts. Together we form the Blog Society – an Internet based version of the Big Society, which has the expertise and initiative to force back the cold, dead, hand of the State, and right the petty wrongs it imposes on decent men and women like Sheila.

The Unfree School Movement

I have recently caught up with Start Your Own School, which chronicles Toby Young in his quest to form The West London Free School. It has created quite a reaction.

This project is very interesting for me because it is moving things towards, but not embracing completely our Party policy on Education[1].

Ealing is a London Borough with a larger population than Iceland, yet the only schools with anything other than a fleeting space or two available are at best only “Acceptable” to OFSTED, which, for me at least is, well, unacceptable.

I will not give you a blow-by-blow account of the programme, for it is on iPlayer for you to watch, but just pick out a few strands that caught my eye – surplus spaces, who decides, and arrogance.

Before I do, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to appear as if I am trying to tell Toby how to pursue his project or criticise how he has done so. Evidently, he did many things right as he has achieved his goal and, more importantly, he got off his backside and did it, whereas I am on mine typing this.

First was the rebuttal given to Toby from Ealing Council that they already had enough places in their plans and Toby’s scheme would “take children away” from other schools.

Toby did try to placate them, but to no avail. I believe that this is trying to fight on their ground. It is almost impossible to resist that temptation and no fault of Toby’s.

By saying you are not about providing a surplus of spaces, one falls into the trap of being then accused of providing a school that the Council decrees is not acceptable to them or the parents they say they represent. If there is no surplus, some children may have to go to the West London Free School even if they do not like it. This allows people to say you are forcing your views onto others. It is rather tragic that those same Council representatives do not appear to see that many parents in Ealing are already forced to send their children to schools they do not like, using pedagogy they do not support and precisely for that reason – a lack of surplus spaces.

Having surplus capacity is vital to enable parental choice to organically affect, improve and evolve educational provision. Right now, even the worst school in Ealing can survive because it will be running at near capacity and all because the number of spaces borough-wide is kept close to the demand.

If The West London Free School was created in addition to the existing provision, then no child would be forced to go to this new school. Parents and Education Officers would not be worried into a heap over the thought that children are going to be thrust into an academically focused arena and exposed to The Classics. Or is it that they are worried that few would go to one of their schools? I think the latter is the case.

By not trying to limit spaces you remove the argument about parents and children not wanting the school or “taking away” from others, particularly in an environment that only provides schools with funds per pupil, as in a voucher mechanism, and is not concerned with capital projects[2].

Not standing in the way of new schools forming in addition to existing provision is precisely the way to do it. If existing state schools are providing what parents want - a good learning environment - as we are told, then they will continue with healthy rolls. Even if those schools do lose some children, that will enable in-year admissions to be accommodated rapidly, so enabling children to move into the area and be able to receive education from one of these fine establishments nearby.

Of course, this means parental choice and a market, not the LEA calling the shots. One needs to think who, on average, knows best for the children - the collective wisdom of the LEA or the collective wisdom of parents? Ealing now has a Labour Council, who did give the impression that they were open to listen to Toby, but it is a relief that Ealing did not get a Liberal Democrat council judging by the attitude of those I met, who exuded arrogance and contempt for the notion that anyone but themselves should decide. As we know, they are neither Liberal nor Democratic.

By moving the Arbiter on who can open a school from the LEA to the Secretary of State, the West London Free School has been able to move forward. However, this does not really solve the problem, as you still have an Arbiter and now a national bottleneck. If a school wanted to open formed by a Teachers’ Mutual[3] who wished to emphasise Collectivism and revisionist view of History[4], one wonders how that would be processed by Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education. While the new arrangement might suit one persuasion or ideological group, another could be stymied. We need to remove the scope for a monoculture and you will not do so when one decides on behalf of all others.

The same goes for parents. In the programme you saw a couple talking about how they do not wish to have their children go to such a school as the West London Free School, but want their children to be educated in an inclusive diverse environment or similar boilerplate. That is fine in a way, as, referring to above, if there is a surplus, such parents will not be forced to send their children to the West London Free school. What is chilling, however, is that they indirectly imply through their views that they want other children forced to go to the same school as theirs to benefit of their own children and support of their ideology and declaring that it is for the good of all the children (so forced). How dare they. The conceit, the arrogance, the steaming Authoritarianism. Other peoples’ children are not pawns for the betterment of another’s. This smug, self-satisfied, faux-liberal attitude is not unique. Some people want “inclusiveness” imposed upon others for their own reasons and to not have their error exposed. An extreme form of denial.

When you have an unnatural, forced limit on spaces, that gives a perverse justification for “the consensus” to force others to comply with a monoculture. It leads to a certain group – who, I am sure, entertain that delusion of being “the consensus” – dictating to others. These people are all the more dangerous, for they have the impression they are “doing good”, with all the risks of boundless enthusiasm and lack of introspection and consideration for the views of any who might dare to offer dissent.

Dictating to others is fine when you are the ones doing the dictating. Now Free Schools are on the horizon, you see the anger and hatred emerging from those people who see their dominion challenged. This is not even a case of another regime changing what exists, just that their Totalitarian view is being threatened by competition. If they were secure in their beliefs, in the strength and value of their approach, this would not disturb them but might, if it did anything, inspire to achieve more and prove their superiority. It does not, so one cannot be blamed for drawing the obvious conclusions.

This arrogance was manifest at other points in the programme.

The NUT representative had a few words and it was pure Authoritarianism, that only they knew best and everyone had to like it or lump it. This was to be expected, I suppose, but it is a shame that Teachers, of all people, who’s very profession is to open the minds of their charges, tolerate a Union hierarchy that appears to put narrow-minded self-serving dogma before curiosity, voluntary experimentation and liberty in general.

We had a rather bizarre interlude of a few very self-assured teenagers dismissing Latin[5], something they did not know of nor understand, saying they did not want to know about it. One wonders how they come to get such an attitude. How are they expected to progress and thrive in the big wide world with an attitude like that? I would not employ people like that, for they act as if they can’t be told anything because they know it all and have made up their minds and they don’t like it, even before spending time trying to understand it. It is not their fault, for they have been failed. Failed by a system the West London Free School is rocking and threatening.

And where do they get such a dreadful attitude? If the programme was anything to go by, they got part of it from - an admittedly unrepresentative group - of teachers at a state school called Quentin Keniston. They really should look back at their car crash of priggishness, arrogance and superciliousness and learn how not to appear. One wonders if the attacks on Toby Young were included to expose the monumental inertia of knuckle-headed bigotry that the West London Free School project faces or was an echo-chamber comfort zone for the BBC and associated Fabians? Who knows. One teacher complained that the school would not “reflect the community”, as if the school must be just like the outside - as one of many slices of seaside rock. Has it occurred to that person that some kids might want to ESCAPE their “community”? Has it occurred to them that they may aspire to do better, to leave that behind and progress, to be labelled by their ability and aptitude, not their postcode? It is fine by me that those teachers want to have a school that reflects what they think is best, good luck to them, but when it is the only option imposed by threats of imprisonment, it becomes a real problem - an arrogance that is never tested in the cold light of day.

An horrific example of what happens when you rock the boat, when you speak out of turn can be seen in the treatment of Katharine Burbalsingh. This Deputy Head dared speak out at the Tory Conference about falling standards. BLASPHEMER! Ranks have been closed, but the adverse publicity has, I hope, created a minor Ceausescu Moment in the Staff Room.

The problem in the Educational sector is a coerced monopoly. End the coerced monopoly, this 60+ year long Unfree School Movement and parents, Heads, Teachers and children across the country will demand the best and reject the rest. Those without the means or ability will gain the benefits just as they do in every other sector that has competition. This requires surplus spaces and will expose or endorse the views on either side.

The winners will be, for once, the children.


[1] LPUK policy is of a voucher system, but limited intervention by the State, focusing on delivery of numeracy and literacy (incorporating critical reasoning and communication). Home Educators will only have to comply with proof of improvements should they request Taxpayers money. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/30632138/Libertarian-Manifesto
[2] If schools were built to last, as they used to be, the current need for rebuilding would not be so acute.
[3] Who take it in turns to be acting Head Teacher for the week, with a simple majority in the case of operational affairs, but a two-thirds majority in the case of curricular or pedagogy affairs.... On a serious note, the LPUK has no issue with Mutuals, or other forms of voluntary collectivism, only coercion.
[4] Of course, if a School taught lies, then that is another issue and for the Courts, not politicians to decide.
[5] Unlike Toby, I did study Latin and it was one of my favourite subjects. I learnt not just the language but culture, history, lifestyle, law and mythology. That world was as far away from those kids in Acton as it was from me in the borderlands of North East of London and to deny it them this is an outrage.

Libertarians Like People

This from party member Dick Puddlecote, which proves that citizen's action works.

We are an independent lot down here in North Somerset, this junction is three miles from my house, Portishead also regularly wins the best flower display . Just getting rid of these lights has made a huge difference to traffic flows because people can be trusted not to slam into each other.

As Chaiman of Clevedon Pride, we 'seized' control of the 'Town Square, three years organised public events for flowers, Christmas lights arranged to have the rubbish strewn municipal 'pond' filled in and planted out. Yesterday some of our 'chaps' were out watering and planting out spring bulbs.Hose pipe donated by local business as were the bulbs, manure by the local stables, not a diversity officer or Health & Safety Officer in sight. Not everything has to be done by Municipal Socialism

The Square is now a nice place to sit, walk, shop and a cafe culture has sprung up

We cooperate with 'local government' were neccessary, but largely just get on with it. Clevedon Pride is now a normal part of the local landscape, we do not have litter 'police' fining people, CP arranged litter to be picked up by volunteers, then amazingly the level of littering started dropping dramatically as it became unacceptable to litter.

Clevedon Pride is not a 'Libertarian' organisation it is just that its Chairman is (me), its not all about high flown political theory, it is about volunteerism, the time involved costs me a couple of hours a week and a few meetings a month.

Andrew Withers

List Of Public Authorities Being Monitored By The Information Commissioner

As of the 1st October the following are being monitored by the Information Commissioner for failing to respond to Requests under the FOI Act on time.


Babergh District Council
Birmingham City Council

British Transport Police

Bromsgrove District Council

Cabinet Office

Calderdale Council
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust
Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission

Department for Work and Pensions

Government Equalities Office
Gravesham Borough Council
Great Yarmouth Borough Council

Home Office

Lancashire County Council

Legal Services Commission

London Borough of Barnet (Council)
London Borough of Croydon (Council)
London Borough of Ealing (Council)
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Council)
London Borough of Islington (Council)
London Borough of Newham (Council)
Medway Council

Metropolitan Police Service

Ministry of Defence

North West Strategic Health Authority

Northern Ireland Office

Rural Payments Agency
Surrey Heath Borough Council
The Scotland Office
Transport for London
Westminster City Council
Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Wolverhampton City Council

Fraud Squad Called Into European Police Agency Training College (CEPOL) in Bramshill

"CEPOL brings together senior police officers across Europe with the aim
to encourage cross-border cooperation in the fight against crime and
maintenance of public security and law and order."

Apart from when it is a a fraudulent organisation with massive overheads, and whose accounts do not bear scrutiny. Their funding has now been frozen.



"The parliament's budgetary control committee said the new director
had delivered an action plan on time, but it was "vague" and the MEPs
were "not ready to accept that the college needs four more years to
reach an acceptable standard of good administration".

Last year the EU Court of Auditors found there had been "a
high number of breaches" of EU administrative and financial rules at
Cepol."



Another case of who is watching the watchers



H/T Ian Parker- Joseph

Call me stupid but how is this 'fair' the latest buzzword in political circles

Administrative Division




Population
(mid 2007)
England                                          51.1 million No Parliament
Northern Ireland                               1.8 million Devolved Assembly
Scotland                                           5.1 million Devolved Parliament
Wales                                               3.0 million Devolved Assembly


United Kingdom                             61.0 million Westminster Parliament with English
                                                                         decided by Welsh,Scots & Ulster MPs


                                                                         Devolved Powers to Brussels


Source Census Office


EU Members- No Referenda


Population of Yorkshire       5.18 million No Parliament
Freistaat Bayern (Bavaria)  12.5 million   Bavarian Landtag
Freistaat Sachsen(Saxony)   4.17 million   Saxon Landtag


 Non EU Members- Referenda


Staat Freiburg (Kanton Freiburg) 273,159  Staatsrat

It appears that with most things that are organised by Westminster black = white, to qualify for 'independent ' status and to get your own regional assembly you must be in receipt of massive amounts of Westminster aid, to keep you dependent on Westminster. It helps if the majority of the population are wedded to the Fabian mode of democracy. 'The Elite knows best'.

So explain to me Dave as we are all in it together and you are waving your Union Flag about, that it only takes a quarter of a million Swiss to qualify for Cantonal Status, decide their own tax affairs and all other public issues, 4.17 m Saxons can do the same, but 51 million English are entitled to no say in their own affairs, without allowing Scots,Welsh and Ulstermen tipping the balance.

Giving me 75 mins of national democracy in my life time in a rigged two and a half party state is not Democracy, it is an oligarchy.





 

The EU Seizes Control Of Financial Regulation Over The City Of London

Well done Mr Hannan, we did not hear much about this at Birmingham did we ?

Cameron Calls For National Government

Hold on Mr 'I am not a Libertarian' Cameron, the central message of this is that you are working for a 'strong and stable Government', the rest of us are trying to sort out the mess left behind by big Government. We are working for ourselves and our families not for a strong and stable government.

What was the Conservatives economic policy under Blair/Brown 'We will share the profits of growth' you and Osborne did not see the crash coming.



The 'growth' was founded on a pile of fiat money

Do not expect the British people to support you until we get a Constitution that puts power back in the hands of the people. You may be interested in having 'strong and stable' Government, the rest of us want less Government that caused this unholy mess to start with.

 H/T OH

The Corporate State- The Factory Of Fraud

The Law is all that stands between us and anarchy. If you listen to the following Congressman it appears that the Corporate State in America (the Banking/State Continuum) is now so desperate for assets that it is repossessing properties it does not own.

The average repossession hearing in Florida now takes ninety seconds. Whatever happens in the States tends to happen here eventually, so we have time to mount our defences. Remember Credit Referencing Agencies they started off in the States, came here, now the Authoritarian Tories are proposing to use one of these companies to combat benefit fraud. SATS and Year 13 (lower sixth to you and me) in Education, came from the States, so it goes on.






H/T Captain Ranty


These monopolistic organisations treated Government exchequers in 2008 as a reserve fund, as soon as they ran dry, they ran to Government, to appropriate your money that you have been forced to hand over by coercion and threat of imprisonment and fines. The weak politicians simply handed it over, no stipulations over bonus' no repayment terms, no wholesale sacking of Bank Boards. It was what they call daylight robbery. A French Banker gets three years for breach of Trust, Gordon Brown gets a golden goodbye and a standing ovation from the Labour Party.


Apart from fighting BIS, trying to run a business, running for leadership of the LPUK, I help young people who are easily intimidated by the Corporate State, to point out to their banks, credit card companies etc that the Courts are not there to rubber stamp their fraudulent activities, you are entitled to a say and a defence. Lawyers are expensive, but Courts have to take your view into account. If you feel crushed by all the Coats of Arms and panapoly of the State, you are entiled to a 'McKenzie' to support you in Court. I have been supported by such legal friends, and I have been grateful for the support of both my French and English based 'McKenzies' over the last three and a half years of battling with the State in Court.


Usually in assisting people, I have found that you never actually reach Court, because the 'Coporate' has reduced matters to that of a Factory of Fraud, and any early examination of any paperwork starts to throw up letters that say they are from credit card companies but are actually printed by the 'Credit Management' companies themselves, dates don't match up or the company concerned actually has no competence in a British Court because it is based in the Cayman Islands, so it can only rely on intimidation and constant telephone calls from India and the darker reaches of Liverpool


Telephone calls from call centres are about the easiest things to stop under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 , a simple letter stating that the Corporate is in breach of this Act, and insisting that they conduct everything in writing to you, gives you three benefits.


a)  The calls stop, they will be committing a criminal offence if they do not.


b)  Keep all the correspondence, because I will bet you £50 that they will be threatening AND full of errors with breaches of consumer law, fraudulent documents and downright lies.


c)  Once you get them writing to you it is costing the fraud factory money, you are starting to slowdown the production line, in Florida it appears that they have got this down to ninety seconds ! I have had some of these companies throw in the towel after just one letter. It just means growling back.



The Corporate State has made it a lot easier for the Fraud Factory by setting up its own Fraud Factory in Northampton. 'The County Court Bulk Centre !


The purpose of the Bulk Centre is to provide an excellent service
designed around the diverse needs of our customers.  We utilise modern,
streamlined systems to facilitate the removal of repetitive
staff-intensive work from local courts to a central, computer-supported
office in Northampton.  There are about 200 staff dealing with the work
at the Bulk Centre


A fraud factory that the Congressman is talking about has already appeared.


The Bulk Centre which issues over half of all county court ‘specified amount’ claims.
There are around 150 users and we receive data files electronically each
day. After processing, the case data is sent electronically to the
court(s) selected by the claimant. 


So the Corporate State has made life easy for about 150 'users' to churn out claim forms. It handles 90 per cent of all CPC claims. So if you get one of these, always always always defend and get it moved to your local Court, slow the factory production line down. Otherwise an 'electronic Judge' will make a Judgement against you by default. You are entitled in Law to a defence, you can ask for mediation, if under £3000 ask for it to be dealt with in the small claims Court. Don't allow the legal machine take over you are too important to you to allow that to happen.


All of this takes time and money for the Corporate, there comes a point when it becomes too expensive to deal with, and they will either drop it or starting to treat you like a human being and start to negotiate. They will certainly do this if they appear before a Judge, and you appear with you folder full of their earlier threats.

You should try to avoid getting into debt to start with, but for a huge majority it is death, bearevement, loss of job, and divorce that creates these situations. However that does not stop you being a citizen with legal protection from corporate hoodlums, aided by their weak friends in the State.


A Libertarian State with Constitution would enshrine the Individual above the State, not the current situation that is not compatable with the Common Law.