Archive for Politicians
Lying has become such an endemic strategy in British Politics, Business and Policing that it is little surprise the general public is dismissive.
Back in 18th Century Edmund Burke – who as an MP in the the House of Commons for The Whigs came up with the euphemism for lying with his summation – ‘Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.’ Burke is viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism. Politicians of all sections have learnt the lesson well.
In 1986 another politician – A former Cabinet Minister – Robert Armstrong – brought it in to common parlance, whilst giving evidence during the Australian spycatcher trial in 1986.
Lawyer: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?
Armstrong: A lie is a straight untruth.
Lawyer: What is a misleading impression – a sort of bent untruth?
Armstrong: As one person said, it is perhaps being “economical with the truth”.
In 1992 yet another politician – Alan Clark tried to make it all seem so noble an art for politicians to master when at the Matrix Churchill trial he exchanged under questioning -
Clark: Well it’s our old friend “being economical”, isn’t it?
Lawyer: With the truth?
Clark: With the actualité
This paroxysm of lying is now an inbred part of the culture of politicians in the UK that no-one sees it is a surprise. But it needn’t be the case and it is time the British Public and Media took Politicians to task for consistent lies rather than smile sweetly as with a naughty toddler.
Sadly this virus has spread wider than politicians and it is not a unusual site to look around a jury and find half the members stifling a laugh when a Policeman takes to the stand and takes a look at their black notebook – proclaiming – ‘this is what I observed at the time’.
This spiral of lies and deceit has subsequently found Bankers, Retailers, Manufacturers etc. deciding to join in the band wagon. That little bit of ‘bending the truth’ runs rife through the UK and is not acceptable and those in positions of influence must be called to account.
It is why Politicians think fiddling expenses is a fine and dandy thing to do. It is why none of these Police Officers – who can be clearly seen looking directly at the assault – actually saw anything of Harwood pushing and murdering Ian Tomlinson -
It is why staff at agencies such as A4E and G4S sign contracts they have no intention of fulfilling and seeking to find mechanisms to secure payment with little come-back, on occasion resorting to outright fraud – for which no-one is ever made accountable.
It is why Blair continues to fly around the world lecturing on moral probity when the September 2002 document in which his introduction advised – The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. -
Not only was the document proven to be wrong but his introduction an outright lie.
This comical and sweet sounding term – Economical with the actualité – is a pernicious and dangerous festering sore that needs to be stamped out.
In the UK the Labour Party tried to introduce more extensive surveillance legislation, the Tories opposed, now the Tories hold the upper hand, they want to introduce tighter surveillance legislation.
All politicians demonstrate their complete lack of intelligence and reality of life regularly and this proposal just highlights the Insanity of Politicians.
The Scream by Shayna Michaels
Does an perpetrator of ‘major crime’ as this is the suggested rationale really sit at home on a computer or send text messages without taking precaution?
Politicians don’t seem to have heard of – Proxy Servers, Dongles, disposable email addresses, PAYG phones, multiple sim-cards and now a Raspberry-Pi (which the average copper conducting a search wouldn’t think was in fact a computer).
The inference for the need to have legislation, which means everyone in the UK will be under-surveillance, being that we are all master minding a coup or running a major criminal syndicate. This legislation indicates more about the mind-set of politicians not the mind-set of a ‘master criminal’.
Never mind the Statism of it all, those who chirp up with the ‘if you have nothing to hide’ chorus can perhaps explain how this proposed piece of legislation would actually achieve it’s supposed objective?
The alcohol pricing issue is but another stake in the heart of the poorest sections of Society and bears no relation to reality.
The price ranges between £50 and £ 1 000′ish a bottle. I drink at least a case a week in addition to Red Wine. My closest friends, well they knock back the alcohol too. How many people do I know who drink alcohol below the ‘minimum pricing level’? Absolutely none. Yes I did know one person once on the Wirral, a really nice guy, who got it wrong and he is dead, that is the only ‘minimum pricing’ casualty I know. Now lets get an extra set of digits for the number of expensive alcohol drinkers who have died through alcohol poisoning, that I personally know. Would minimum pricing levels have made a jot of difference? You know the answer.
Have you ever been in to a City Wine Bar? Have you ever been in to the subsidised Politicians drinking den?
This war on alcohol pricing is absolute nonsense and is merely another swipe against the poorest in Society for the sake of it.
One day the Daily Mail will stop jumping with glee at every abuse of the most vulnerable (that is if any of them ever sober up) as every-time one of their number appears on Question Time they appear to be out of their head on drink.
Let’s stop harassing the poor and start looking at real issues.
Through-out history social structures have evolved and been radically changed through revolution.
We, in the UK, currently live in a Representative Democracy, which has evolved over time, to give ever wider sections of Society a role in the election of representatives. But it is not a pure Democracy, rather a socially engineered system of Government it is, as it says on the tin a flawed ‘representative democracy‘ and as such vast swathes of the population have no representation.
Whilst in the early stages of its evolution this was not an issue, as individuals have gained greater knowledge and raised expectations, this system of Government is creaking at the edges.
Those who support the status quo of course attempt to claim the moral high ground prefacing their argument with the construct that they are right, in much the same way that any evangelist enters a conversation.
In very simple terms 1 in 3 people, registered to vote, did not vote at the last election. Evangelists claim their failure to engage is their own fault. They never question why that 1 in 3 do not vote, perhaps some of them do not support representative democracy as a valid system of Government.
Of the remaining 65% who did vote, nearly 1 in 2 didn’t vote for the current Government.
To turn that in to a raw score – only 17 500 000 people in the UK actually voted for this Government which means that of the estimated 55 000 000 adults in the country only 30% of the population actively (at the last general election) support the Government in principal.
To suggest that a system whereby 7 out of ten people do not support the legislature is ‘representative’ is farcical.
It can not be right that 70% of the population is disregarded, sneered at and ignored by politicians, which is in effect what happens in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
Are there alternatives and does it actually matter?
Follow-up posts to be published
It is of little surprise that have such scant regard for politicians as they far too often loose the the plot.
Ed Vaizey, Minister of The Department of Communication, Culture and the Creative Industries, is the latest in a long line.
He has been responsible for having a look at the way ISPs operate and provide access to the internet and has concluded that the UK should be lightly regulated and ISPs be able to offer internet access using different charging methods for access to various parts of the internet.
Regardless of where anyone stands on the aspect of two tier internet access, Ed Vaizey really seems to have no idea of what he is proposing, alternatively he is so contemptuous of the general publ;ic that he thinks they are too thick to understand.
Net neutrality, held up by most, as the way the internet should continue to develop, whereby in brief means, once you have accessed the internet you should be freely able to access whatever URLs you wish. If the site owner wants to place charges, registration or whatever once you have reached their site, that is for the site owner to decide.
Ed Vaizey is proposing that ISPs will be able to charge a premium for subscribers to access certain sites, maybe blocking them completely without the additional subscription, or to slow down their access speed to reach those sites. The complete opposite of net- neutrality.
Mr. Vaizey is trying to claim that his vision of ISPs charging and throttling at will is net-neutrality and that we the unwashed public and experts in the internet including by the way Tim Berners-Lee that they don’t know what they are talking about.
It will be of no surprise that I am an advocate of net-neutrality and I make no bones of that, but for Vaizey to try to claim that his vision is in anyway related to net-neutrality is so far off the scale of intelligent thought that it is worrying.
It is hardly of any surprise that he is a Minister in The ConDemned Coalition and his pronouncement is a further example of the Con in this coalition, which pronounces lies as facts and failure to understand on their behalf as stupidity by the rest of the world.
Vaizey goes on to claim that in the UK there is a wide range of ISPs available and people are free to switch at a whim if they don’t like what their ISP is doing. Perhaps he is too far removed from reality to understand that when you sign up with an ISP you sign up for a contract period which ranges from 12 months to 2 years. Not exactly free to switch at a whim.
British Politicians continue to pour scorn over the Dictatorship in Myanmar and I too am pleased to hear of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, there are some disturbing parallels.
Apologists, will undoubtedly claim this is the ramblings of someone unhinged and it is a disgrace to compare Control Orders and an abhorent dictatorship in Myanmar.
Lets have a look-
The controlee does not know the accusation or case against them and is powerless to dispute it or show their innocence. Under a control order you might never know the accusation against you, and never have the chance to clear your name.
Control orders enable the Home Secretary to impose an almost unlimited range of restrictions on any person they suspect of involvement in terrorism. Parliament must vote every year to continue the control order scheme.
The key differential being the word terrorism
Definition of terrorism :
Terrorism Act 2000:
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
The Definition of Terrorism
A Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C.
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation: 2007 concluded:
86. My main conclusions are as follows:
(1) There is no single definition of terrorism that commands full
(2) The risks posed by terrorism and its nature as crime are sufficient to
necessitate proportional special laws to assist prevention, disruption
(3) A definition of terrorism is useful as part of such laws.
(4) The current definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 is consistent with
international comparators and treaties, and is useful and broadly fit
for purpose, subject to some alteration.
(5) Idiosyncratic terrorism imitators should generally be dealt with
under non-terrorism criminal law.
(6) The discretion vested in the authorities to use or not to use the special
laws is a real and significant element of protection against abuse of
(7) The exercise of such discretion requires especial care by those in
whom the discretion is vested.
(8) New sentencing powers should be introduced to enable an additional
sentence for ordinary criminal offences, if aggravated by the
intention to facilitate or assist a terrorist, a terrorist group or a
(9) Offences against property should continue to fall within the
definition of terrorist acts.
(10) Religious causes should continue to fall within the definition of
(11) The existing law should be amended so that actions cease to fall
within the definition of terrorism if intended only to influence the
target audience; for terrorism to arise there should be the intention to
intimidate the target audience.
(12) The existing definition should be amended to ensure that it is clear
from the statutory language that terrorism motivated by a racial or
ethnic cause is included.
(13) Extra-territoriality should remain within the definition in accordance
with international obligations.
(14) A specific statutory defence of support for a just cause is not
(15) A new statutory obligation should require that the exercise of the
discretion to use special counter-terrorism laws in relation to extraterritorial
matters should be subject to the approval of the Attorney-
General having regard to (a) the nature of the action or the threat of
action under investigation, (b) the target of the action or threat, and
(c) international legal obligations.
(16) The law should not be amended to enable the use in the United
Kingdom of the special laws against persons subject to diplomatic
We have a dangerously weak definition of terrorism, which at present could be interpreted, if the state so minded, to define that Protest Demonstrations where violence was perpetrated could find themsleves becoming proscribed and therefore fall under the definition of a terrorist organisation.
The feminist movement went as far as threatening to kill MPs- Terrorists?
The Poll Tax Riots – Terrorists?
Anti-terrorism laws are being used by councils to look in your dustbin.
As long as we continue to have Control Orders in this country, expect more Aung San Suu Kyis’ to be detained in this country.
A new terrorist splinter-cell, based in Central London has been uncovered with some key stated objectives, which are aimed at destroying the cohesion of the UK.
Their targets are wide-spread and comprehensive, indicating this to be a terrorist group, which are likely to lead to widespread destruction of Military and Civilian infrastructure. Their motivation would appear to be the wholesale destruction of the UK, leading to its re-emergence as a satellite of a far more powerful terrorist group based in Washington.
They are planning a series of attacks across the UK, which are aimed at destroying much of the infrastructure, which will lead to chaos in delivering public services, military defence, wide-scale deaths and significant unemployment. They have announced plans to target the civilian population, with plans which are likely to cause widespread devastation of housing resulting in refugees fleeing inner cities. Selective targeting of members of society indicates this terrorist group has an abject hatred of poor people, the elderly and those with disability.
It appears that they have already succeeded in taking over much of the mainstream Media in the UK, creating effective smoke-screens and social division. The power of their media manipulation has already resulted in the civilian population turning against themselves. By using the in-built greed and selfish nature of the British population, which was bolstered by an associated cells, earlier forays, over the past 13 years, this new group have been able to convince large swathes of the population that helping others is not a good idea rather, a pointless exercise, with the most effective solution being their dispersal. Despite the fact that many of those targeted are in-fact people submissively targeting themselves.
Their lightning raids on Military installations has already led to the weakening of the Royal Navy. They have successfully laid plans to disrupt Air-force capability over the medium term and have been able to divert the Army to a futile war aimed at supporting their parent group in the USA.
Some anticipated figures have been unearthed of the scale of the destruction in civilian infrastructure have been released by the group. They aim to destroy half a million jobs, with expected collateral damage to result in a further half a million people becoming unemployed. Their follow-up plans on housing are anticipated to lead to at least a million people to become refugees, with their two pronged attack on employment infrastructure this is likely to be far higher.
The elderly and disabled are specifically targeted by this group, with a quarter of a million people, including those with dementia, to be left to cope on their own. This carefully targeted population has the additional benefit, for this ruthless terrorist group, of a significant chance of their deaths.
To manage the transition to the destruction of the UK, they are known to kidnap those who oppose their aims and send them to central command in Washington to be tortured. Whilst waiting shipment by the Washington cell, the London based group, use what they like to term ‘Control Orders’ and their widespread use of snatch squads has resulted in the past year on over one hundred thousand people being stopped and questioned. This threat of arrest, control order and torture is managing to dampen open signs of opposition. As required, the snatch squads will perform public executions. These have been witnessed recently in London, during to time when the Major World Economic Powers were in the UK and an individual was selected for public execution and murdered, as a warning against all those who oppose their power.
The latest move in this group has been to successfully divert attention from civil unrest in the UK and ensure the British population focus on issues which are of importance to the Washington Group. This weekend two bombs were found in Northern Ireland, but it would be difficult to find much of the mainstream media reporting this, dealing with the far more important issue of bombs in planes directed towards the USA, rather than bombs in the UK directed at the UK population.
While ConDem smile their sweet smiles, a little look behind the reality may be of some help.
We will cut the number of MPs they loudly shout, while quietly shoe-horning in 200 peers.
Each of these scum rip the tax payer off everytime they remember to turn up for the roll-call and then wander off back home.
Why did the ConDemns decide they needed to appoint these Peers? Nothing to do with ensuring they get theri way. Labour was a centralist monopoly, this lot are just a simple dictatorship.