Archive for Politicians
Social Unrest
We constantly hear that the protestors in the August 2011 disturbances in UK are scum, hooligans and common criminals. Certainly there are elements who fit that category, however to focus on the minority is to miss the reality of how deeply divided the country stands.
Social disconnect
We have a Society which just recently was torn asunder by a systemic failure in the Banking system, old preconceptions of Capitalism were ripped away by the crass behaviour of banks to fail to secure their loans, under the pretext of lending rules, which even now permit banks to count loans as capital. Complex financial instruments which Credit Rating agencies failed to understand and rated incorrectly, regulators who didn’t understand what they were regulating and a political and media frenzy focused on revenue generation.
Bankers were rewarded for going bankrupt and individuals were convinced it would all be fine in the end. The mantra of 2.5% inflation was all that mattered, itself a fictitious number drawn from no genuine analysis.
The net result being a perception that greed really was good and avarice and ownership is the mark of attainment.
On the collapse, instead of a humbling of the banks, the Labour Party decided to refinance the banks with taxpayers money with no sanctions or penalty. This has led those self same banks to be in the position of lending money to the Governments who bailed them out, with effectively the very money that6 bailed them out, at punitive rates of interest. The new Government while talking tough have in reality merely punished the tax-payers further for the failure of politicians to seize the metal.
We still have a Society in which ownership of the latest bling is the measure of value and it can hardly be of any surprise that those with no bling are somewhat miffed at the situation. We hear much talk of the sharing of pain, but those in the have not pile feel, justifiably or not, that the pain is being inflicted at the have not pile.
We have a disconnect in the country as life has been too easy for too many years for the Westminster coterie. There is little public perception that MPs have actually bothered to clean up their act and we find the the Police and Media are just a bribe away from an orgy. Those with influence take, those without suffer.
I hear from Police Officers now, about how they fully support Peaceful demonstrations, but are appalled by the violence of the current round. The self-same police forces that kettle as a matter of course and cover up the murder of Ian Tomlinson. Politicians also like to spout how they accept peaceful demonstration as being a reasonable expression, but just a few months ago were lambasting Students and anti-cuts protestors as scum of the earth.
It has been evidenced that the system in which we live does not respond to either democratic vote, or demonstration. What exactly does Society expect those who are disenfranchised to do? Shut up and put up, or perhaps get violent.
These demonstrations are probably only a precursor to more aggression. When the establishment doesn’t listen, history has shown it falls.
The Democratic Disconnect
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
Evicting tenants for earning too much money
The ConDemned coalition have come up with yet another crack-pot idea, the detail of which is surfacing.
Too rich to live here
This one is to evict tenants who are doing well.
I’ll state up front, the idea that well-off people are living in subsidised Social Housing, is an anathema, but the ConDemned have approached the issue from the most obscure angle possible and come up with a concept that is damaging in the long term and totally contradicts their mantra of encouraging financial success.
The idea that tenants become too wealthy to live in a particular area, will lead to ghettos in which the only inhabitants are the poor. This is an appalling state of affairs. Society is made up of a mix of income groups and to suggest that Social Housing Estates should only contain the poorest members of Society is an absolute disgrace. This encourages poor service provision, poor schooling opportunities and continued and increasing social deprivation.
The idea that if you earn too much money, you have to move makes absolutely no sense at all. It means that the poor only meet the poor, that estates of poverty have no better-off neighbours who may encourage others to aspire to better things and creates a brooding sense of helplessness.
This hardly meets the concept of improving social cohesion.
On a similar vein, the idea that if a family income raises to an arbitary limit that the family is forcibly evicted does nothing to encourage people to improve their financial position. Social Housing rents are subsidised (I am not referring to Housing Benefit, which is a separate issue) and the disparity between Social Housing rents and Private Sector rents are well documented. The idea that a family who manage to secure a £3000 a year (pre tax) improvement in salary will then have to pay an additional £3600 (post tax) in rent makes absolutely no sense at all. This policy is a disincentive to work and financial betterment.
I don’t see the drive to earn ever higher sums of money as being the be all and end all of life, but as this is the dogma of the ConDemned how can this block on incentive fit within their dogma.
There are a myriad of other Social issues with this form of apartheid will cause including: Schooling continuity; Housing security; Social cohesion; Fairness and Simple relationship building, all of which will be adversely affected.
Were the ConDemned actually interested in doing anything other than stamping on the vulnerable, poor families, poor elderly and disabled, they would have approached this from a different angle.
Taking as a concept that it is the subsidy that is the major issue with Social Housing for life, there is absolutely no reason that instead of forcing people to move out, that Housing Associations and Local Authorities could not be permitted to increase rents for tenants dependent on income. This could be graduated to not discourage people to earn more and be capped at mid-market rents for the area. This has many advantages over eviction, as outlined above on the disadvantages of the proposal and simultaneously enables Housing Associations and Local Authorities to secure a fair market rent for properties where that is feasible.
Were the process thought through in more detail tenants of Social Housing could be freed from claiming Housing Benefit, as rent charged by the Association or Authority would be set on income. The Association or Authority could then make a claim for rental to cover the subsidised rents for tenants en-mass, rather than DWP employing a myriad of staff to deal with individual claimants.
The rabid right wing red-tops would be in favour as it would be in the interests of Housing Associations and Authorities to ensure that tenants declared all their income, as if the tenant had extra income, they (the landlord) would be able to charge a higher rent.
There are undoubtedly other ways to tackle the problem, but the idea that if you earn too much money you will be evicted is an anathema.
I have recently read that NASA are considering one way flights to Mars, perhaps the ConDemned are in cahoots with NASA and will shortly be announcing mass colonisation of Mars by the vulnerable groups in the UK.
Ed Vaizey and the lost plot
It is of little surprise that have such scant regard for politicians as they far too often loose the the plot.
Ed Vaizey
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.
Aung San Suu Kyi and Control Orders
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.
Control Orders
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:
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
86. My main conclusions are as follows:
(1) There is no single definition of terrorism that commands full
international approval.
(2) The risks posed by terrorism and its nature as crime are sufficient to
necessitate proportional special laws to assist prevention, disruption
and detection.
(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
rights.
(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
terrorist purpose.
(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
terrorist designs.
(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.
–47–
(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
practicable.
(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
immunity.
Palace of Westminster
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?
Far fetched?
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.
Major Terrorist Group working in London
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.
The leeches come home
While ConDem smile their sweet smiles, a little look behind the reality may be of some help.
Peers
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.
The New ConDem coalition already wasting money
Just hours in to a new regime, which loudly claimed to be a fighter of waste, we can already see this means nothing at all.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families has been renamed Department for Education. I have put in a freedom of information request to ascertain exactly how much this piece of ego-massage will cost the tax-payer. Not to mention a query on the Green principles as all of the redundant physical material will now have to be dumped.
What else has ConDem been up to?
We have the joys of a new National Security Council, a Quango by any other name.
National Security Council
And as a final twist in the pleasure to come an intention by these people to change the way a Motion of No Confidence can be passed.
The reason we have a coalition is that with 51% of the Members of Parliament a Motion of No Confidence could have been passed, hence the 326 MPs target.
With the new dictatorship the requirement is 55% of them must now be counted, which amounts to a Government only requiring 292 MPs vote against the Motion of No Confidence for the Government to stay in office.
The coalition was unnecessary.
ConDemned already
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a31688a9-950d-4004-8ab4-04e9d0fd4682)
Legal insider trading
- Image via Wikipedia
Thanks to the Nationalist Socialist Party of the UK, aka The Labour party, shorthand- Nazi (UK) -Government, for declaring insider trading is now legal.
Hiding billions of pounds in security is now an completely acceptable way for a PLC to operate, in the old days, before the Nazis took power, this was unacceptable and any PLC had to legally declare this information, because funnily enough a PLC means everyone is entitled to equal information.
Sure, the rules were bent as far as possible and pension fund managers who hold shares for two days got more information than any individual investor ever got hold of, but at least even under the self serving Tories, billions of pounds of security, hit the wires.
Thanks to the minion who goes by the title ‘Chancellor of the Exchequer’ and his playmate Brown, who has the title of Prime Minister, those rules go by the board.
It is now absolutely acceptable for a PLC to fail to declare their true financial status and up to the shareholders to find out the truth about the company in which they are investing.
I have no vested gripe with capitalism, but I do have a real problem when it becomes acceptable to hide information which would enable private investors to make rational decisions.
There can now never be a genuine trial against insider trading in the UK. The Government have set a precedent. The Directors of the banks didn’t sell their shares because they knew full well the bank wasn’t going to fail, that information should have become immediately available to shareholders, who may well have taken different positions on the market at that time, not to mention subsequent trading decisions.
We need to look at the spike in share price and the spike in options trading shortly after the Nazi (UK) Government made their hidden securitisation and find out, which fund managers were privy to information, they are the evidence that insider trading is now formally legal in the UK.
The Nazis (UK) manage a better job of anarchy in the UK than anyone else.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=60dd0279-5b2b-48c2-9232-7c9874f83e09)
