What Is Justice ?

I watched a programme on BBC 4 recently called 'Justice -a citizens guide' by Harvard Professor Michael Sandel who is a political philosopher. It was beyond excellent, even though Sandel is a reluctant communitarian, which I am not.

It was the first time in my life I had actually considered what the word 'Justice' means, because well, we all sort of know what justice means, it usually means in common parlance dishing out revenge and getting the State to sort it out, or getting recompense from somebody that has treated you in that currently over used word 'unfairly'.

Well there were two things that I learned immediately, that for Justice to exist there has to be a common framework that we philosophically all agree on, to the extent that it becomes second nature or 'natural' to use.

Secondly there is no such thing as natural Justice, it differs across cultures. I am not talking her about the severity of punishment differing between say Iran and Britain, or China and America, but the basic concepts differ as a result of our ideas or concept of 'Justice'.

On that basis I find it very difficult now to understand how the differing concepts across Europe can ever be brought together in one European code. I also saw yesterday convicted perjurer Tommy Sheriden promising to come out of jail to carry on fighting for Justice !

The only natural 'Justice' that exists is that of the Jungle. If you upset a Lion as an antelope you will get eaten, no fairness, you will get eaten because you are weaker as an antelope. The Strong with sharper teeth get the Justice.

In Britain we appear to have adopted the utilitarian concepts of Jeremy Bentham.

Justice is what is required to keep the majority of people happy. The example used was if a jumbo jet full of people is known to have a bomb on board ticking down to zero, and you have captured the bomber - is it right to torture the bomber to save the three hundred people on board? The answer most people gave was 'No' - it was not right to torture, and that the three hundred should be sacrificed so that we could be ensured of not being tortured by the Government.

The utilitarian argument was served by the majority having the greater happiness knowing they would not be tortured, than the three hundred who would die. The utilitarian model we follow dictates 'Justice' for the majority and the bomber, and 'injustice' for those at the hands of the bomber.

You then have further complications - as with the Pan Am bomber - released to allow British citizens and companies to have the greater happiness of Libyan oil.

In Germany they follow the Kantian Philosophy of 'Human Dignity'. It is enshrined in the German constitution.

 

This is where the citizen is deemed to have transgressed fundamental codes of behaviour if it diminishes Human Dignity. If your husband/lover/partner is being chased by somebody who wishes to kill him, he hides and tells you to answer the door, do you say 'he is not here' to the murderer and tell a lie thus diminishing your human dignity or say 'yes, he is under the bed'. In the latter case you have not diminished your human dignity by telling the truth in Kantian terms.

This was teased out further by a real case in Germany, were a child was kidnapped and the kidnapper was captured on collecting the ransom, he then refused to say where child was being held. The local police chief concerned that the child would starve to death, threatened the kidnapper with dire punishment. In the event the child was already dead, murdered soon after the kidnap. The Kidnapper was prosecuted and jailed, as was the Police Chief punished by a Court for breaking the law and diminishing the 'Human Dignity' of the kidnapper. The premise being that by acting in such a manner he had diminished the human dignity of the whole society by his actions.

The third was the 'Aristotelian' - that we should all develop a sense of the 'virtuous' as citizens, and take part in virtuous development as people and society, by partaking in debates on all aspects of society and thus be virtuous as citizens. The Athenians following Aristotle's principles, debated for three days whether it was morally right to fight Sparta that was invading its lands.

The further example used was that the students that took to the streets in Athens were morally right to protest and to seek 'justice', but morally wrong to use violence and to firebomb a bank and kill people to seek  'justice.

The Benthamite philosophy is the one that fits the social democratic model (demos=rule of the mob) we live by. If you are in the majority view you get justice as you are in the majority, if not tough, you will not get justice if you are in the minority, or the utilitarian model deems that the greater happiness lies in Libyan oil, you will not get nor should expect justice because it is not in the interest of the 'greater good'

Aristotle only applied his principles to an elite, (aristocracy) no women, no slaves. Only the virtuous (or righteous) . Much of this can also be seen in British justice. The elite make the laws to control the unvirtuous, hence we hear of 'public service' from the elite and civil servants. They are merely an elite seeking the maintenance of the elite and to stop the plebs destroying each other and the elite.

So if you ever hear people say there is no 'Justice' they are right because there are many kinds of Justice, it just depends where you are in the scale of things in terms of power. Laws are just written extensions of a philosophy. We have very little way in Kantian fundamental principles of behaviour.

Fascinating stuff, for justice and injustice to exist you have to have 'society' and somebody to determine who the winners and losers are in 'justice'.

Debating AV

Here's a recent televised debate between the Establishment politician Margaret Beckett and Jonathan Bartley, who heads the campaign group "Yes to Fairer Votes". Personally I think Mr Bartley got the upper hand in this debate, but you make your own mind up:




On 5th May, we're all going to get the chance to vote for or against the introduction of the Alternative Vote system (AV), a seemingly small but significant change to the existing First Past The Post (FPTP) system. The difference with AV is that you number the candidates in order of preference, so you put 1 next to the guy you want to elect, 2 next to your second choice and so on. If your first choice doesn't get enough votes to be elected, then he's eliminated and your vote gets transferred to your second choice. This should eliminate the problem of tactical voting - instead of voting for whoever you think has the best chance of beating the guy you really don't want to get in, regardless of whether you like them or not, you can give your first preference to your favoured candidate without fear of your vote being wasted.

Although it's not a proportional system, it's an improvement on the current one. Not only will it eliminate wasted votes, it should also give a clearer picture of what kind of government the electorate actually want. The Libertarian Party supports this proposed reform, as do a broad range of other minority parties. Funnily enough, it's less popular with Establishment politicians, who seem to be generally happy with the system that got them elected (very often on small minorities).

5th May is going to be an opportunity to introduce a beneficial constitutional reform and give us, the general public, a bit more say in how this country is run. Don't miss the chance to vote Yes to fairer votes.

Did Not See This On The Beeb On The 24th ?

Officers and staff arriving for work at New Scotland Yard, the UK police headquarters in London, were forced to queue around the block this morning, as the front entrance was blockaded by 40 activists. Women held up large images of the three male undercover police officers who have been in the news recently, as well as 12 images of question marks, representing the other shady undercover officers referred to by ‘Mark Stone’ in his interview to the Daily Mail.

State sanctioned sexual abuse has been going on for long enough. It is time to draw and line in the sand.

One activist said; "It's time for the abuse of women by undercover police officers to stop. If a person is pretending to be somebody else, if they are spying on you, then you absolutely cannot give your informed consent.

"Women are not able to make an informed decision about who they are having a relationship with if they are being duped by police officers. We want a judge-led inquiry. We don't trust the police to police themselves. They have showed time after time they believe they are above the law."

They demanded that the police make public the names and identities of all other undercover offices who have worked or are working to infiltrate movements for progressive social change, so women can know whether they have also been abused by the state, and can decide whether to join other women in considering legal action against the police.

It is crystal clear that the authorities knew about the long term sexual relationships conducted by these undercover policemen. Mark Stone was not a one off. This is state sanctioned sexual abuse.

This has to been seen in the context of a much broader problem of political policing in the UK. The police use all sorts of tactics to interfere in politics and protest, from the use of terrorism laws against environmental activists to police brutality against students. This affects all sorts of movements and all sorts of people.

The protest was lead by women but men were welcome to come to show support. The event was self organised by a group of women who feel strongly that we need to show solidarity with each other in the face of police abuse. Anyone who is concerned that they might have been personally affected, and who would like support and access to legal advice, please feel free to contact  2getherwearestronger@gmail.com in the strictest confidence. We are not legal experts and we do not claim to represent any particular group, we simply hope that we can hold out a hand to anyone who wants support.

H/T Indymedia

Tunisa, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen. Revolutions?

I make no secret that I do not like "revolutions".


What has happened to the poor people? Rod Steiger outlines why he hates revolutions

Overthrowing one rotten regime is pointless if all it does is bring in another that is as bad or worse. In the process people are hurt, killed, business ruined, wealth destroyed. Families shattered, split and beset by tragedy. The only winners are rats, flies and cockroaches, many walk upon two legs.

Sometimes this is all that can be done - things are so bad, so unjust, that the only option is to roll the dice and hope. Better to get it over with, the sooner to rebuild.

I hope that the fear of retribution does not drive the establishments in the countries above into a killing spree in a vain attempt to cling on to power.

I hope the wound created does not trigger a worse tumour than that which has just been cut out.

I hope the countries concerned can throw off foreign manipulation

I hope that their peoples can regain personal sovereignty and Rule of Law.

"Democracy"? What is the point if you do not have Rule of Law? What is the point of voting when those you vote in can take what you have at will and can prevent you from minding your own business and not others?

The potential for an exchange of demagoguery, not its removal, is tragically rather high.

I do not like revolutions. I like evolutions. Evolution tends to produce plurality, progress, options and keeps most things alive and viable most of the time while tending to see the best - or least bad - come through.

Sometimes, though, what we want is not always what is available. Sometimes a necessary evil is the best we can hope for.

For those countries struggling for freedom, I hope for the best.

You Paid How Much For That !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have just been reading the Telegraph's little scamper through the colossal waste of money the last Labour Government were responsible for. If you were a district councillor responsible for this you would have been quite rightly surcharged.

However if you are a government minister you can hit the cheque book with no concern for tomorrow, because you are not accountable for it and will be most likely dead when the reckoning comes.
Lord Anthony Blair will have been dead for nearly twenty years by the time our children have finished paying for their disastrous thirteen years financially drunk in charge of the economy.

In the seventeen century as well as posthumous awards the Crown had posthumous accountability as well.
Cromwell and other regicides who died before the Restoration were disinterred, strung up at Tyburn, their bodies thrown into the common pit, beheaded, parboiled and put on the end of a pike visible to all who passed for the next twenty years.

Now, whilst tempted, I am not advocating this as a suitable punishment, but lets not also get tempted into dishing out honours to Blair, Brown and the other bloke who has just taken over the Labour Party, Ed Balls.
Chilcot is a pretty poor alternative for Blair been held to account for his time in office.

Much of the problem is that we have not solved the problem of the Duomonarchy we live under.
Lets forget that we live in a representative democracy, we don't. 21% of the available vote was enough to secure a seat for Labour, the winner whose name I have already forgotten has toddled of to Westminster to be ignored by both the front bench and the opposition front bench, until she is required as lobby fodder to do her duty by the party.

We have a Royal Monarchy consisting of one woman who makes all the decisions, the police, army and judges swear allegiance to her and she has a coterie of family and friends who are in a pecking order called the Court.

Then there is the Civil Monarchy consisting of one man who makes all the decisions because he has more lobby fodder than the other pretender to the throne, and he is backed up by a coterie of  old schools chums and sound friends who make up his Court.

Behind this is the real power base the unelected, unaccountable, spend now somebody else will pay, executive.

You lot, the great British public do not count, neither do your sons and daughters just starting work, and their unborn infants who will have to contribute to this disaster. You are required just to pay and pay and pay and pay. Its called mortgaging the future.

There is only one set of people responsible for this unholy mess and that is the British Public, that are apathetic, cowed and are playing the victim to the State's Marquis De Sade.
The State exists because it promises to protect us from all ills, except it cannot. The State cannot even effectively defend your homes from marauding foreigners as it do in 1940 because Labour lost financial control of the Ministry of Defence, Education and Health.

To which the soon to be ex leader of the Labour Party said-

He acknowledged there were certain failings in the way in which the Labour government ran the economy, notably in terms of their lax regulation of the banks.
"But he absolutely refuses to admit spending was not under proper control, saying national debt was at a low level and the deficit was running at a low level before the banking crisis.

He was in the Treasury as well as his successor ! Both deficit deniers to a man. The moral and economic equivalent of sticking your head in the sand and shouting I cannot see it.

The Head of the CBI is saying there is no coherent Business Strategy, the repaying of the PFI disaster is dependent of Britain having real jobs making things and being involved in trade, not faux government jobs.

He is right, there has to be low taxes and a favourable investment climate to provide real jobs for our educated people. I would argue that the massive State is obstructing that aim, and threatens us with becoming the North European Tunisia.

Interesting Times !

Without A Hint Of Irony

I was in the new Bristol shopping centre with my youngest son who is back from University for the weekend. There was a bit of a commotion going out side Barclays, by Anarchists for more State Intervention (Anarchists ??)

After a lot of pushing and shoving with the Police they decided to target Lloyds Bank next, then Nationwide (this is a mutual not a bank you idiots) then they started running through the shopping centre yelling and shouting for what they were worth, an activity called steaming, this resulted in some other ne'erdowells joining in and shops starting to close their doors in case the guardians of the revolution decided to liberate their goods.

Without a hint of irony, members of the Socialist Workers Party stood by trying to sell their newspapers. The latest in fashionable chic is apparently a Palestinian scarf (denotes level of righteousness) a soviet era military fur hat with cap badge whilst shouting for freedom (remember gulags) and troops out of Afghanistan (Soviet troops being ok in Afghanistan then) topped off with a Serbian army surplus wintercoat (don't even go there)

As Lenin said 'useful fools'.

Highlight of the day - 'Anarchist' withdrawing £50 from HSBC cash point, without the hint of irony.

Right Cause Wrong Man

Four days ago, I was contacted by a man called Brian Howes, in respect of his imminent extradition to America. The interest of this site in the unfair oppression of the individual by the State is well known, and I duly interviewed Brian and published a preliminary and sympathetic account of his plight based on the information he gave us. We also reported that the Scottish version of the Mail on Sunday was about to publish a story which would have been particularly sympathetic to his wife.

However, it is equally well known that this site does dig into stories, and look for confirmation of facts. We have now done so, and the outcome is most unsettling. So unsettling that the Mail on Sunday, after consultation of the documents discovered by us, have decided not to publish their story. It has been ‘spiked’.

It is fashionable to jeer at the Mail group of papers for their lack of journalistic research and their habit of copying and pasting articles without any attribution, but on this occasion they have acted with alacrity and professionalism.

The true story of Brian Howes was buried deep within the Scottish legal system’s papers; there was nothing in their cuttings library; nothing apart from a note of the public support of Cardinal Keith O’Brien who had spent time and energy writing to Kenny MacAskill saying that he wrote on ‘behalf of Brian’s children, and in their best interests, to ask that ‘any trial be held in Scotland’ to ‘maintain the integrity of the family’.

As this tale unfolds, it may seem strange to you that a Roman Catholic Cardinal should be so concerned to keep these children with their father – I have e-mailed and telephoned the Cardinal to invite him to comment on this support, but he has, so far, declined to comment further.

Whilst the one sided extradition laws with the USA are undoubtedly wrong and unfair on British citizens, Brian Howes has additional reasons for not wanting to be extradited to the US over and above the issue of the US government not being required to supply evidence of the crime in respect of which they are demanding he be extradited.

He would like your support to be given to him on the basis of being a fine upstanding British citizen, selling a product which is legal in the UK, unfairly targeted and entrapped by Arizona Drug Enforcement Officers. Those statements may indeed be true; however they conceal a far murkier web of ‘truths’.

If we go back to the earliest extradition hearings, we find that the Scottish legal system made extensive enquiries into the welfare of Mr Howes children, they too were concerned at the possible disintegration of a good and decent family. They found that:

"The bleak scenario of the four children of necessity being taken into care and housed separately without maintaining their relationship with one another and without being able to sustain their relationship with their parents to the extent that it will be extinguished or irreparably damaged is not made out".

The reason being that the following facts were either admitted or proved:

• Brian Howes has three children from previous relationships. He spent a period from around 1989 to 1994/5 living and working in the United States. He and his partner had a daughter who was born there. Her name is Jenna Millward who is now aged 21. In a Judgement dated 30 January 2004 His Honour Judge Bryant, who had granted the injunction in November 2003, found at paragraph 91 that Brian Howes sexually abused Jenna on a number of different occasions in Arkansas and Texas in 1993 and 1994. At paragraph 94 he found that he was satisfied that Brian Howes remained a real and continuing danger to young girls. In terms of that Judgement, Judge Bryant continued the proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining Kelly Ann Shanks' position in relation to his findings. She accepted Judge Bryant's findings. On 6 September 2004 Judge Bryant granted an injunction against Brian Howes from having contact with DH, BH and EH. This injunction was not complied with at any stage by either of the respondents. In April 2005 the respondents and the three elder children left Middlesbrough and moved to Scotland. Kerry Anne Shanks has relatives in the Bonnybridge area. They have resided in the area with their children since then.

Mr Howes has a history of getting very upset with people who raise this matter – in 2003, before Judge Bryant’s findings that the allegations were true, the local authority in Middlesbrough were made aware of the (then mere) allegations by Jenna Millward relating to the sexual abuse said to have been perpetrated upon her by Brian Howes in the United States. There were proceedings raised in the family division of the High Court in Middlesbrough.

In response to this Brian Howes mounted a denial of service attack on the local authority's e-mail system which resulted in their taking out an injunction against him in the Middlesbrough High Court in November 2003! Since this is also a man for whom search warrants have been granted by Teeside Magistrate’s court on March 23 2005 in respect of firearms offences, I am perhaps doubly unwise to publish the back story of this man’s fight against extradition.

However, I have worked hard to get the reputation this site enjoys, and while no blame can be attached to Andrew for his sympathetic report, nor to the Mail on Sunday for their proposed story, I am not prepared to see this site used to support a man who has not only dodged prosecution for child abuse by moving from Arkansas to Oklahoma, but who continues to use the difference in legal systems between England and Scotland to ignore the ruling that he should not have any further contact with the remaining young children in his large family.

The support of the Roman Catholic Church for this man remains a mystery. Hopefully they were also hoodwinked.

©Anna Raccoon and Andrew Withers.

Et Tu Balls !

The Labour Party has a faux election where the crown of Imperial Marxism is at stake after the mob (us) have deposed the previous Emperor. Two effete  brothers fight to the death, both sons of the rich house of Ralphus Marximus Maximus Germanicus. The younger brother has the support of the praetorian guard of  the Unions and is elected Emperor. The losing brother retires to the Northern frontier to lick his wounds and become the director of a football club.

Meanwhile lurking at the back of the Senate, is the leering former hardman of the previous Emperor Brownus Maximus Cockupus, Maximus Selfinterest Ballsi and his scheming and ambitious wife,Livia Yvetta.

The Imperial Emperor of Marxism has a right hand man Alanus Johnsoni.An acolyte of Selfinterest, Spadus Belardinelli decides to investigate and find dirt and scandal upon the Alanus familia.

He discovers rumours abound about Alanus and his fidelity, Alanus wife is also alleged to be having an affair with a lowly slave of the State, one Closus Protection Squadus.

The die is cast, the knife is flashed, Alanus is to be exposed in the forum in the Sunday scrolls courtesy of Spadus. Squadus is called before the Leader of the Praetorian Guard for unprofessional conduct, Alanus resigns, the Emperor is aghast ! Infamy Infamy they have all got it in for me !

Maximus Selfinterest and his wife Livia Yvetta move one step closer to the throne they want and need with all their being.

The Praetorians of the Unions declare themselves content.

You cannot make it up.

©Andrew Withers

Did You Commit A Crime In Arizona Today

This is an incomplete post and it will be updated as more information is supplied to me.

Many of you have heard of the Gary McKinnon case where the lop sided extradition treaty signed by the Labour Government with the United States allows citizens of the the United Kingdom to be extradited to the US without any evidence being presented.

Until two nights ago I had not heard of Brian Howes and his wife who face 98 years in jail in Arizona and their children being taken into care.

Brian ran a pyrotechnic chemicals supply company that was registered with the Home office and the Special Branch. He has never been arrested for any crime in this country, yet he and his wife have already spent seven months in jail separated from their children. He has never been to Arizona.

The Arizona DEA allege, without supplying any evidence, that he was supplying chemicals that could be used to make crystal meth, I understand from Brian that a senior police officer from the UK has already been to the States to accept an award for apprehending a 'dangerous felon' ( Brian and his wife have yet to be convicted of anything in either country).

I am waiting for further information from Brian but it looks as though the DEA set up two sites to entrap people in the States purchasing chemicals and fed these through Brian's company. Brian has not been charged with any crime here whatsoever, and no evidence has been supplied to the UK for extradition because there is no requirement to do so under the 2003 treaty.

Last Friday Brian and his wife were compelled to attend their last extradition hearing. Brian's wife is heavily pregnant and asked to be excused as she was feeling so unwell. This was refused.

During the course of the hearing Brian's wife went into premature Labour, they asked leave of the Court during an adjournment that his wife could be taken to hospital. It took 15 minutes for a Judge to come back to give the Court's permission for her to be taken to Hospital, the Judge did however release Brian to go with her.

The Hospital want to give the baby the best possible chance of survival by staying within the womb for as long as possible. As I write Brian and his wife are again en route to hospital as she is in so much pain.

The Mail on Sunday are running with this story on Sunday. I said to Brian that I did not want to queer their story and Brian's publicity, by releasing this story now. He has asked that this gets out now as they are desperate and have lost all their money in defending this.

If  they have committed a crime here they should be charged here, if  the US want to extradite them provide the evidence first.

This 2003 Treaty should be scrapped or put under moratorium. You can help, please retweet this, write to your MP, write a blog post, just do something for a very desperate family.

How many of our fellow citizens are facing this ?

@Brian_Howes

Raw coca leaf could be legalised

Progress gentlemen, of an interesting sort.

Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca is touring the world buttering up diplomats to support a decriminalization of unprocessed coca - the raw ingredient of cocaine - and a gift from the gods that rescued the Andean people from the hardships brought about by the Spanish conquest, amongst other things.

The BBC:

Bolivia wants to amend the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs to remove language that bans the chewing of coca leaf.

The deadline for nations to raise objections is 31 January.

If no objections are registered, the change will go ahead.

The convention stipulates that coca-chewing be eliminated within 25 years of the convention coming into effect in 1964.

Bolivia says that is discriminatory, given that coca use is so deeply rooted in the indigenous culture of the Andes

Its proposal would leave in place language that makes coca a controlled substance.

Spain has already given its support to the Bolivian campaign.

Coca is incredibly popular and part of mainstream culture in Peru, where I took a holiday in 2007. It is a massive industry, with the ingredient going into sweets, tea-bags and a now fizzy drink. About as potent as PG Tips, it is sold in raw form openly by children and elderly street sellers and is common in cafes and eateries - including posh tourist places as well as roadside canteens. You can even buy gifts of little cotton bags with the word "coca" embroidered on the front, a item that was incredibly useful on the Inca trail and which I had to leave behind thanks to the ban.

Of course, this is not a move born of principle:

As well as being Bolivia's first indigenous head of state, Mr Morales is also a former coca grower and leader of a trade union of coca growers.

In addition, the ingredient is set to go into a new fizzy drink Coca Brynco, which recently launched in La Paz, with the support of, you guessed it, Evo Morales. With the new bottled drink and the existing produce permitted around the world, Mr Morales' base is likely to be pleased.

For what its worth, despite the unprincipled origin of the change I welcome it as a tiny step in the right direction.

Predictably, America is opposed to it.

Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus – Dictator Then, Dictator Now

On Saturday Ed Miliband gave a speech at a conference organised by the Fabian Society, by doing so he is endorsing an organisation that is the closest I can equate to an unethical, amoral resident evil still in our midst from a period of of our history that we should not be proud of, let alone influence the thought processes of any putative future prime minister.

The Fabian Society founded in 1884 was named after Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator (ca. 280 BC – 203 BC) a Roman Dictator who defended Rome in the Punic Wars. Verrucosus being descriptive means the 'warty', Cunctator the Delayer. It is from the latter nickname that the Fabians took their tactics of gradually wearing down of capitalism with a view to to its eventual destruction.  As Quintus once advocated defeating the Carthaginian Army.

At the centre of this Society were a civil servant and his wife Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Members have included George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, Hubert Bland, Edith Nesbit, Sydney Olivier, Oliver Lodge, Leonard Woolf and Virginia Woolf, Ramsay MacDonald and Emmeline Pankhurst, Oswald Moseley, Clement Attlee, Anthony Crosland, Richard Crossman, Tony Benn, Harold Wilson, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

These 'intellectuals' regarded the working classes as something akin to to livestock than individuals. Their stated aim was-

"the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race" which would be more productive and better militarily than the "stunted, anaemic, demoralised denizens...of our great cities"; and a national education system because "it is in the classrooms...that the future battles of the Empire for commercial prosperity are already being lost"

George Bernard Shaw speaking of the coming Socialist Utopia

"Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."

The breeding aspect reveals their obsessive interest in eugenics which reached its apogee with the extermination camps across eastern Europe to deal with the 'unfit', the jews, gypsies and homosexuals. The unfit also included Downs Syndrome, epileptics and alcoholics; these were to be reduced by methods ranging from compulsory sterilisation or euthansia. The far left party NSDAP (The National Socialist German Workers Party) known to history as the Nazi party lead by another dictator Adolf Hitler, who, like Moseley and Mussolini, was attracted to extreme left wing politics after the first world war.

The enemy of both the Fabians and these National Socialist movements was individual Liberalism. It still is.

The common thread in all of these is that there should be an elite that knows 'the best' for the the lumpen masses who can be shovelled into grotesque high rise accomodation and are simply there as producers. It is in the interest of the elite that the masses are kept ignorant and largely servile.

The Liberal Democracies made a supreme effort defeating National Socialism by 1945, however this was at the expense of allowing Socialism to be part of the National Government during the war. The result was welfarism and dependency on a massive scale post war. The Liberal Democracies continue to hold the line against Soviet Russia throughout the Cold War

However the Webbs were disillusioned with the lack of progress by the Labour Party  in Britain,  having visited the Soviet Union in 1932. They published a book, Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? (1935) based on their experiences there, which indicated a shift from their expectation of a natural progress of social and political reform. Although they expressed concern about the lack of political freedom in the country, they were highly impressed with the improvement in the health and educational services, as well as the political and economic equality of women. They believed that the Soviet type of planned economy would eventually spread around the world. The Webbs' final book, The Truth about Soviet Russia, published in 1942, continued to support the Soviet Union, celebrating central planning.

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to Britain and the EU.

1. Strong, centralized government.

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of  Parliament and the Judiciary.

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.

4. Government control over employment.

5. Government control over unemployment insurance, old age pensions.

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade.

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labour.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation.

The fall of communism in 1989 did not bring about the triumph of Liberalism, conversely it saw the rapid expansion of communitarianism in the West.

The old Liberal Party in Britain succumbed to an inverse take over by the Social Democrat Party, The Conservative Party swung to the 'Big Society' under Cameron , and the United States fell to Obama's Democrats. The European Union also swept all before it.

If you want to know why you now live under a 'Nanny' or Communitarian State, you need to be aware of the history of Fabianism and why Ed Miliband chose this venerable institution of intellectual fraudsters to make his first major speech to his supporters, and please note the reference to the 'long' road back to power and his appeals to the Liberal Democrats. Classic Fabianism.

He calls this alliance the 'Progressive' forces. I just see a history of repression, corruption, war and death camps. The road to Hell being paved with good intentions.

I am a Libertarian, because I do not accept my relationship between the individual and the state, as that of servant and master.

There is no need to accept Fabianism and Communitarianism as inevitable, I would refer you to alternative 'think tanks' as to a more honest and peaceful future.

The Cobden Centre

Peace will come to earth when the people have more to do with each other and governments less.

Richard Cobden

and the Adam Smith Institute, unless the true Liberals seek Constitutional change on the basis of a Swiss style constitution and a referenda on the European Union as so constituted, we are going to be damned to a Fabian future.

2020 Tax Commission- IOD & Taxpayers Alliance

On Tuesday the 18th of January 2011 the newly formed 2020 Tax Commission will meet for the first time. The Commission will set out a plan for how Britain’s tax system should look by the year 2020. It will embark upon the most thorough investigation of the potential for ambitious tax reform in recent memory.
Spending cuts have been at the forefront of the political debate recently, but there is a pressing need for tax reform.

Founded by the TaxPayers’ Alliance and the Institute of Directors (IoD), the 2020 Tax Commission will map out the way forward. It will assess the economic and moral case for radical tax reform and release a series of research papers analysing the key issues. Since the two organisations last collaborated in September 2009 on a plan to cut £50 billion from public spending, many of their suggestions have been made policy by the Coalition.
Allister Heath (Editor, City AM) will chair the Commission and David B. Smith (Chairman, IEA Shadow Monetary Policy Committee; Academic) will be Chief Economist.

The Commissioners
Andrew Allum (Co-founder and Chairman, TaxPayers’ Alliance)
Richard Baron (Head of Taxation, Institute of Directors)
Kevin Bell (PR consultant and Trustee of the IEA)
Nick Bosanquet (Professor of Health Policy, Imperial College; Chairman, Volterra Health)
Rosemary Brown (Chairman, Gabbitas, Truman & Thring Educational Trust)
Mike Denham (Research Fellow, TaxPayers’ Alliance)
Martin Durkin (Managing Director, WAG TV)
Anthony J. Evans (Associate Professor of Economics , ESCP Europe Business School)
David Frost (Director General, British Chambers of Commerce)
Graeme Leach (Chief Economist and Director of Policy, Institute of Directors)
Andrew Lilico (Director and Principal, Europe Economics)
Mark Littlewood (Director General, Institute of Economic Affairs)
Douglas McWilliams (Chief Executive, Cebr)
Fraser Nelson (Editor, The Spectator)
Stephan Shakespeare (Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, YouGov plc)
Matthew Sinclair (Director, TaxPayers’ Alliance)

Families and businesses in the UK are taxed far too much and the system is too complicated. The 2020 Tax Commission will look at ways to address these problems, feeding into the debate about how to simplify the system. Throughout the year, the 2020 Tax Commission will be releasing research and new statistics to show just how complex the current system is, how it stifles growth and hits the living standards of ordinary families across the UK.

The Commission will also gather submissions and hear from tax experts, academics and business leaders. As the Government tries to tackle the deficit, it is important that a credible and robust long-term plan for tax reform is articulated. The 2020 Tax Commission will explore ways to do this and conclude with a major report in early 2012.

The Prime Minister recently said we need to rebalance our economy “by creating a climate in which the private sector can grow and develop, creating jobs and opportunities for people across the country”; the 2020 Tax Commission aims to plot a course for tax reforms that can help this to happen.

Allister Heath, Chairman of the newly formed 2020 Tax Commission, said:

“Families and businesses in the UK are taxed far too much and the system is horribly complicated. Consecutive governments have taken money out of the pockets of taxpayers to give some back as benefits and grants to selected companies; this convoluted system is costly to administer and prone to error. It’s also unfair and a smaller, more responsive state should not only be an economic objective but a political one too. The present system is stifling economic growth, at a time when we need entrepreneurs to flourish and create jobs, and hikes in taxes like VAT and fuel duty are putting huge pressure on the cost of living for ordinary families. The work of the 2020 Tax Commission will look at ways to address these problems, and to push for real and sustainable changes to overhaul the tax system by the year 2020.”

Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, offered this endorsement:

“Britain has enjoyed highly beneficial results from ambitious tax reforms in the past. It is vital that the arguments for lower, simpler taxes are made again and that as the economy and the public finances recover we have a plan for a better tax system. By 2020, we should be in a position where we can start to take great steps and work to deliver a tax system that will deliver economic prosperity. The work of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and the Institute of Directors in the 2020 Tax Commission can make a valuable contribution and help make that happen.”

Press Release TaxPayers Alliance 

I have asked Tim Carpenter to prepare submissions to the Commission from a Libertarian perspective.

Unlikely Heroes Of The Revolution

I was recently introduced to a character from recent history by David Farrer of the Libertarian Alliance who is an unlikely hero of the Classical Liberal Revolution and a public servant to boot. I am ashamed to say that I was completely unaware of Cowperthwaite and can only imagine how different life would have been in Britain today had he been in No 10 instead of the social and economic regulating Fabians of both the Labour Party and Conservative Parties lumped under the term Butskillism.

Sir John Cowperthwaite KBE CMG Financial Secretary to Hong Kong. 1915-2006

Sir John was sent to Hong Kong in 1945 to oversee its economic recovery after the war. What is remarkable about Sir John is that unlike any other colonial civil servants he decided on a course of positive non intervention in the economy.

This did not mean that Cowperthwaite sat around doing nothing, as P J O'Rourke put it -

"Quite a bit of government effort is required to create a system in which government leaves people alone. Hong Kong's colonial administration provided courts, contract enforcement, laws that applied to everyone, some measure of national defense..., an effective police force (Hong Kong's crime rate is lower than Tokyo's), and bureaucracy that was efficient and uncorrupt but not so hideously uncorrupt that it would not turn a blind eye on an occasional palm-greasing illegal refugee or unlicensed street vendor."

He took non intervention to such a length that he refused to collect economic data in case it provoked some bureaucrat to start trying to interfere.

"As for the paucity of economic statistics for the colony, Cowperthwaite explained that he resisted requests to provide any, lest they be used as ammunition by those who wanted more government intervention."

Daily Telegraph Obituary.

He maintained a rule that Government spending should never exceed 15% of GDP, compare that statistic to Governmement spending in this country. Milton Friedman was also an admirer of Cowperthwaite.

"Direct government spending is less than 15 percent of national income in Hong Kong, more than 40 percent in the United States. Indirect government spending via regulations and mandates is negligible in Hong Kong but accounts for around 10 percent of national income in the United States.

"We are more productive than Hong Kong. But we have chosen, or been led by the vagaries of politics, to devote roughly half of our resources to activities to which Hong Kong devotes 15 or 20 percent. Our higher productivity means that we can produce with 50 percent of our resources the same per capita income as Hong Kong can produce with 80 to 85 percent of its resources.

"The real lesson of Hong Kong for the United States is that we're using our resources inefficiently. Our government is spending our money to subsidize tobacco and to penalize smoking; to subsidize childbearing and to discourage childbearing; to build new housing and to tear down housing; to subsidize agriculture and to penalize agriculture; and on and on -- not to mention converting square miles of forests into billions of paper forms and spending many man-years of labor filling them out and then filing them."

Hong Kong did not just 'happen';  it happened because one man held back the wrongheaded interferance of both Politicians and the Public Sector. He was, however, not a complete non interventionist as he presided over a massive expansion of public housing, making the Hong Kong Government one of the largest landlords in the world.

Would that we could persuade our politicians to stop arguing about how to spend the increasing amount of Tax that is levied from us by coercion and to adopt Cowperthwaite's dictum.

"In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."

Cowperthwaite would not have lasted five minutes in Whitehall.

Tim Worstall on Cowperthwaite

Cowperthwaite passed away in 2006, his message ignored by his own country and the west, his legacy however the economic success of Hong Kong, now centrally placed in the strongest region in the world, while Britain and Europe slowly slide into decline and authoritarianism, and asking the East to bail the bankrupt economies of the EU out.

If you want to join with people who think that people like Cowperthwaite and his policies should be admired and emulated, please join us in the Libertarian Party.

First Published on the Anna Raccoon site

The Real Oldham & Saddleworth Election Results

How Can Yvette Cooper say on Radio 4 that the Oldham Result gave a clear message of Anger to the Government ?  They got just over twenty per cent of the Vote. The Parties that make up the Coalition got 22%.
Votes Electorate % Could Not Be Bothered 37840 72770 52.0 Labour 14718 72770 20.2 Lib Dems 11160 72770 15.3 Conservatives 4481 72770 6.2 UKIP 2029 72770 2.8 BNP 1560 72770 2.1 Greens 530 72770 0.7 Monster Raving Loony 145 72770 0.2 English Democrat 144 72770 0.2 Pirate Party 96 72770 0.1 Bus Pass Elvis 67 72770 0.1
We had a good candidate in Gregg Beaman but the North West branch had come to the conclusion that a Christmas campaign to try and persuade  the 72 700 voters of Oldham to vote for us would be both a waste of time and a £500 donation to the local council. They were right. Every party below the Conservatives lost their deposit. The Libertarian Party made a positive decision to not take part in this farce and to concentrate on local elections. Less costly and where the individual candidate can make a difference.
The clear winner was the could not be bothered to vote party. How can any party claim to have a legitimate mandate to represent Oldham and Saddleworth. See here what one man achieved.

There Is A Board Meeting Today- You Are Not Invited

A second undercover police person apparently has been identified as 'Lynn Wilson'. As an IPCC investigation starts into the pan European activities of 'Michael Stone' and our European neighbours would like an explanation as to why he was operating in their countries, ACPO the private limited company that is in receipt of Millions of Taxpayers Money and sets Policing Policy in this country but is unaccountable to the Taxpayer, is having a board meeting today to 'discuss' the matter.


Errrr why is this scandal not being raised in Parliament ? David, Ed, Nick, Anyone ?


Hugh Orde apparently thinks having sex with your 'targets' is unacceptable, but spying on UK citizens is.


The sole reason ACPO is a private limited company is so that awkward FOI requests cannot be made. So we have no idea how much Wilson and Stone were paid,  how much this operation cost, who authorised it.


As soon as the Freedom of Information Act was brought in the Police circumvented it, the same deal is now being done for the Royal Family to further exempt them from the Act..


 The State feels it has a right  to know about you, but you are not allowed to know anything about the State.


 Some are truly more equal than others

The Latest Wheeze In Taxes- Dope Inspection Charges

 
Care of Anna Raccoon. The Swat team strikes again.

The local authority pays you a friendly visit to ensure that you are not running a weed farm, then sends you a bill for the inspection. Fortunately this is Canada, not Britain YET !

And You Think We Have Got Problems ?

Today's guest poster is Mik Robertson on how the requirement for a £500 deposit and ten signatures is positively open compare to the United States

The United States is often touted as a shining example of how representative government and a democratic electoral process should work, particularly by those who govern there. A closer look does reveal some significant problems, though.

As chairman of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, I have encountered some serious barriers to participation in the electoral process that affect not only our candidates, and any candidate who is not associated with one of the two big political parties, but the democratic process itself. Ultimately the voters lose out by not having choices on the ballot, and political discourse becomes severely limited.

The elections laws in Pennsylvania have some unique features that make being a candidate in the commonwealth more difficult than elsewhere, but there are also problems found in many other states. This look at a couple issues may show how even an apparently well-functioning democratic system can be manipulated and controlled.
First of all, Pennsylvania has a particularly stringent requirement to be considered a political party. At least 15% of all registered voters must register with the party to count. If places like Massachusetts had this requirement, the Republican Party would not be considered a political party, and if places like Utah had this requirement, the Democratic Party would not be considered one. Those two are the only recognized political parties in Pennsylvania.

Further, Pennsylvania has what is called a closed primary election, where only those voters registered with a recognized political party can participate, and only with their registered party.  This is a publicly-funded nomination process for two political parties.

Candidates who go through the primary election are required to file valid signatures of registered voters in order for their names to appear on the nomination ballot. The number of signatures required may vary from ten for a municipal office to several hundred for a district state legislative, one thousand congressional office up to two thousand for a statewide office like Governor or US Senator. Once nominated, those candidates are automatically placed on the November election ballot.

The Libertarian Party, considered a political body in Pennsylvania, nominates its candidates at its own expense. Additional signatures are required for these nominees, and any other alternative candidate, in order to appear on the November election ballot. At least 2% of the highest vote-getter in that district from the previous election is required, with the minimum number being that for the same office on the primary election nomination ballot.

For local offices, this means our nominees often have to collect 50% to 100% more signatures than a candidate on the primary ballot. For district races our nominees usually need three to five times as many signatures, and for statewide office ten to over thirty times the number of signatures can be required.  Generally, an alternative candidate for statewide office in Pennsylvania would need around 25,000 to 30,000 signatures to appear on the election ballot, but in 2006 that number was over 67,000 signatures.

Once submitted, signatures are then subject to a challenge process whereby they undergo a strict technical review if an objection is raised. Signers are required to complete their printed name, signature, address and date all in their own hand. If any information was determined to be written by another, the signature will be disqualified. If any information is determined to be illegible, the signature will be disqualified. If the signer uses a nickname (like Joe if the voter registration was signed Joseph) the signature will be disqualified, as it will be if they put the month and day for the date but not the year, or if they have moved and have not updated their voter registration address.

If the candidate fails to demonstrate that enough valid signatures remain to be placed on the ballot, that candidate can be assessed the costs to conduct the review of the signatures. Ralph Nader in 2004 and Carl Romanelli in 2006 were each assessed in excess of $80,000 in fees after being removed from the ballot in Pennsylvania.

The extra burden placed on alternative candidates and the assessment of fees if those candidates fail to withstand a challenge has a chilling effect on the democratic process. Restrictive and unfair ballot access laws result not only in limited choices for voters, but when coupled with gerrymandered election districts and campaign finance laws, in a closed political system that can be dominated and controlled by two political machines with largely the same interests.

Alternative ideas are then no longer included in the electoral discussions, and partisan vitriol replaces reason as the two parties try to show there are some significant differences between them from which people can choose. We can see this now developing in the US.  In the end, the illusion of a democratic process is all that will remain.

© Michael J "Mik" Robertson
Chairman Pennsylvania Libertarian Party

Gerrymandering

One of the first testing grounds for the new Libertarian Party was fighting the Norwich North By Election. We learned a huge amount. We gained precious little in the way of votes, but a huge amount by way  the cynical way elections are run.

We were criticised for having such a young candidate, but the winning conservative candidate was barely a few years older and had precious little in the way of life experiance either. Which proved to me that the voter does not vote for the candidate but for the biggest party machine.

Whilst holding no brief for the BNP and the English Democrats, the shenanigans in Oldham where the BNP candidate was ejected from a hustings is further evidence of the ongoing ‘fit up’ in local and national elections. Perhaps we should call in Kofi Annan to supervise our elections as well.

The Quiet Man and Dick Puddlecote carried this story yesterday.

Whilst hustings are held on public property and the £500 deposit is payable by all registered parties, hustings should be open to all candidates, not having these private ‘affairs’ . Norwich North was just the same, the LPUK, UKIP (who beat the Greens)and local independents were all not invited to hustings.

I object to the Labour Party on the basis that I object to their core principals of individual coercion and a ‘big state is good’ . However I would never ‘ deny them a platform’. A central tenet of socialism since the seventies. I did not see the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats objecting to the BNP being ejected.
The Labour Party cannot argue the BNP do not deserve to stand because of their racism, considering Jack Straw’s cynical little outburst on Asian gangs preying on young white girls in the days running up to the Oldham election.

Also lets not forget the reason why this by election is being fought. Because an electoral court found again the ‘principled’ Labour Party and Phil Woolas’ activities in the General Election. Harriet Harman was right to eject him from the Labour Party, something a good section of the Labour Party disagreed with as they condoned Woolas’ actions.

If you think we have problems with gerrymandering, I have invited Mik Robertson of the Libertarian Party in Pennsylvania to contribute an article on the problems of even gaining ballot access in the bastion of Democracy- the United States.

Politics- no wonder a huge proportion of the electorate do not bother to  participate any longer.

PR Man Speak With Forked Tongue

As part of Parish Notices-

The LPUK Website/Blog is now well under way under the leadership of Ken Ferguson, hope to report on this further in the next few weeks.

Can Party members please check their email settings we are using Mailchimp for party information, make sure it is not going into SPAM (or perhaps that is were you think it belongs !)

If you are not a member but a supporter and would like to be on the new supporters mailouts for 2011, please email us on 1984@lpuk.org, we will be happy to put you on the list to receive communications from the Libertarian Party.

My view on Chaytor ?  He is one of the small fry thrown to the wolves to keep us happy, £18 000 is a drop in the sea of the money that is being taken from us daily under false pretences by Whitehall.

Regards Andrew Withers

The State Certificate Of Goodness

 Leading the resistance to state stupidity

So another nursery worker, Paul Wilson, has been charged with abusing children in his care. This post is not about paedo-hysteria but on the way the CRB checks are largely giving a 'certificate' for those intent of abusing their charges a licence and people relying on this piece of paper than getting out and accepting responsibility for their offspring.

I will not on principle subject myself to a CRB check because the Criminal Records Bureau do not know me from Adam. Whereas quite a few local people do know my character personally for good or ill do, those asked for a reference as to my suitability have so far always said I was an OK sort of person.

This is of some regret as I would have been more than happy to have put my time in at any local youth group, to repay all those young adults thirty plus years ago that gave up their time in the Church Lads Brigade, organising camping trips,mountaineering expeditions, football matches, swimming galas that stopped me being a bored adolescent and giving something back.

The 'something must be done' mentality in relation to Paedo Scares, which I do not believe is any more prevalent than it was thirty, forty or sixty years ago, has got to the stage that the flower arrangers at Gloucester Cathedral have been told they must subject themselves to a CRB check,and they have refused. Blanket suspicion of the whole population of being suspect paedophiles until given a CRB certificate is suffocating children, corrupting normal interactions and relations between adults and children and denuding voluntary organisations of volunteers.

Much of this stems from the 'All Men Are Rapists' mindset of some 1970 feminists, who have now floated to the top in our modern society.

The only person who is responsible for your child is the parent. Not some bored bureaucrat issuing permissions without meeting or knowing the person. It is upto you if you are leaving your child with another adult is to meet the people concerned, talk to other parents etc etc. My parents did, because they were caring people and took responsibility for their offsping, not delegated it to the State.

Time to dump the CRB check, it is patently not working. As with most 'licences' issued by the State a waste of time created to create a spurious public confidence and and create public sector employment.

Quote Of The Day

" Many Cubans confuse socialism with handouts and subsidies "

                                                                                       Raul Castro



Really ! Why ?

Taxing Our Way Out Of Recession ?

The Liberal Conservatives have this morning introduced the worst way of reducing the structural deficit created by the Labour Party, but the slickest way to ensure conformity within the EU.

European Country	Standard VAT*	Reduced VAT*
Austria	20%	10%
Bulgaria	20%	7%
Belgium	21%	6-12%
Cyprus	15%	5-8%
Czech Republic	20%	10%
Denmark	25%
Estonia	20%	9%
Finland	22%	8-17%
France	19.6%	5.5%
Germany	19%	7%
Greece	23%	5.5-11%
Hungary	25%	18% + 5%
Iceland	24.5%	14%
Ireland	21%	13.5%
Italy	20%	10%
Latvia	21%	10%
Lithuania	21%	5-9%
Luxembourg	15%	6-12%
Malta	18%	5%
Netherlands	19%	6%
Norway	25%	8-14%
Poland	22%	7%
Portugal	21%	6-13%
Romania	24%	9%
Slovakia	19%	10%
Slovenia	20%	8.5%
Spain	18%	8%
Sweden	25%	6-12%
Switzerland	7.6%	3.6%
United Kingdom	20%	5.0%

With fuel this is going mean the most basic of business overhead is primarily tax upon tax upon tax. The best way to attack the structural deficit is to reduce Government spending drastically and ending expensive overseas military adventures. We have been in Afghanistan for ten years, that is WW1 and WW2 combined.

The underlying Fabian idea shared by the Liberal Conservatives and the Labour Party is that the State is a force for good, this means that Governments consider that their role is nothing less than crucial to our national well being. It was Tax that broke the British in North America, how many of our fellow citizens are going to wake up this morning and realise that for nearly half of the year they will be working directly for the State like some neo-serf working for his Lord for free as part of his dues.

Higher rates of taxation means the need for a more coercive and intrusive state to collect these taxes. See Richard Wellings of the IEA.

This will have direct consequences for our personal Liberties.

Please read this by Charles Crawford on the irrational response by the 'left' to the mess they have created.

I am not the only one who believes that Constitutional Reform on the Swiss model is essential.