tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73769510134456319462024-03-18T21:47:17.688-07:00don't set fire to your jacketLibertarian meat eater, right wing in the sense of conservative with a small c.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-40240457960416814882009-07-28T04:05:00.000-07:002009-07-28T05:28:34.086-07:00Balancing the crooksVia the <a href="http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/britblog-roundup-232/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Britblog</span> Roundup</a> I found this <a href="http://toomuchtosayformyself.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/if-a-tree-falls-in-a-forest/">post</a> from <a href="http://toomuchtosayformyself.wordpress.com/">Too Much To Say For Myself</a> regarding the limitations of rape alarms:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"No, what I am suggesting is that while a rape alarm may make a woman <em>feel</em> safer, it won’t in fact actually <em>make</em> her any safer"</span><br /><br />All too true, the normal reaction to hearing an alarm these days is "What twat set their alarm off?" and that's if anyone heard it in the first place. So what to do?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"it might be an idea to concentrate instead on trying to find ways to stop men from raping.</span> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Because, and I realise this might sound obvious to some, if men <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">didn</span>’t rape then there’d be no need for rape alarms. Simple as that."</span></p>Which is perfectly true but only in the same way that if nobody committed crimes we wouldn't need prisons. However, just as there is no way to educate every <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">pikey</span> little toerag into not breaking windows after his quart of loopy juice there will always be some who want to commit rape. There is one possibility though. Given that rape is only possible because of the imbalance in strength between the parties, you need something to get rid of that advantage. I suggest one of these:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjioL8wZy0jzdqkKmMIa8VQje9isPcE1QqBObGW2mXSzMnrTfOXU4rJKiVaTSY3_jAgOrErrBeBIH2fY86RMgl4lqF49kobavZ-e2EZzEFaePM9GhCFfCvBrQ-GmqG_1O2g9RyO0Z-s-ycT/s1600-h/Glock+26.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 181px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjioL8wZy0jzdqkKmMIa8VQje9isPcE1QqBObGW2mXSzMnrTfOXU4rJKiVaTSY3_jAgOrErrBeBIH2fY86RMgl4lqF49kobavZ-e2EZzEFaePM9GhCFfCvBrQ-GmqG_1O2g9RyO0Z-s-ycT/s320/Glock+26.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5363471505622757938" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Here you have a tool that does redress the power imbalance and will therefore actually work but I doubt that this solution will find favour. This country is very much anti gun ownership and although I used to be as well I now cannot agree with the prohibitionist arguments. If everyone had the same ability to attack and defend then there would be no need for a leveler but they don't. Banning guns just means that instead of everyone being able to defend themselves, only those who happen to be stronger than their attacker are able to do so.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-71771749475434698802009-07-26T17:26:00.000-07:002009-07-26T17:43:48.841-07:00The limitations of argumentI see that <a href="http://timworstall.com/">Tim Worstall</a> has been having an argie with <a href="http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/">Richard Murphy</a>, (AKA knobhead), who I have encountered <a href="http://dsftyj.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-only-it-wasnt-against-my-priciples.html">before</a>. The problem is that you can demonstrate arguments to knobhead and even "non ideological by any measure, honestly just showing a fact here" type arguments are met with disbelief, nonsense and sticking his fingers in his ears and going la la la la.<br /><br />Knobhead cannot be excused for simply being too stupid to grasp ideas, he is a qualified tax accountant and dull as that job may be, it does require a working brain to qualify. He just doesn't want to hear anything that challenges his bonkers little worldview and short ofdeath there is no way to get him out of his rut. He's far from the only person to take this route but he is a shining example of the fact that there are some people you just can't reach and it's not a failure to communicate that we're dealing with here, it's a failure of reason. If a person is incapable of responding to a reasoned argument with more than "nasty logic people go away" then there is no point in talking to them.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-51380193609066893182009-07-15T11:03:00.000-07:002009-07-15T11:58:19.272-07:00What is a Charity?........or how Labour may have shot themselves in the arse with the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060050_en_2#pt1-l1g3">Charities Act 2006</a>.<br /><br />The recent wailing and gnashing of teeth from private schools do have some basic justifications.<br /><br />The Public Benefit Test from the Act:<br /><p><span style="font-size:85%;">There are two key principles both of which must be met in order to show that a charity’s aims are for the public benefit. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><u> Principle 1:</u><b> </b>There must be an identifiable benefit or benefits. </span></p> <ol type="a"><li><span style="font-size:85%;">It must be clear what the benefits are</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">The benefits must be related to the aims</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm</span><br /></li></ol> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><u> Principle 2:</u><b> </b>The benefit must be to the public, or a section of the public.</span></p> <ol type="a"><li><span style="font-size:85%;">The beneficiaries must be appropriate to the aims</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Where the benefit is to a section of the public, the opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted by geographical or other restrictions, or by ability to pay any fees charged</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">People in poverty must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Any private benefits must be incidental</span></li></ol>2c and the last clause of 2b are clearly aimed straight at the knackers of private schools, you can almost smell the elite of the socialist movement creaming themselves as they add both clauses for certain overkill. That the inquisitorial commission is headed by a Labour party member of dubious qualification for the role is another ground for complaint as is the fact that the decisions reached have been made on a very narrow basis and no clear guidance on what is required has been forthcoming.<br /><br />However, the first objection is the biggie because most people do not hold such a narrow definition of a "public benefit" and until trying to argue this out I would have agreed with them. However, I can find no compelling reason that a school should be a charity rather than a business if it requires fees and if no fee is required then it should meet the new tests anyway*.<br /><br />The problem is that people have long looked on the charitable status of Private Schools as a quid pro quo for having to pay for useless shit that they don't want and aren't going to use.** It is not unreasonable to expect something back if you are forced to pay into a pot and have not taken anything out. Charitable status was that little something, (£280 per year per child in a case looked at by <a href="http://markwadsworth.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-doesnt-school-just-tell-them-to.html">Mark Wadsworth</a>).<br /><br />The upshot from this is that private schools will divide between those with whacking great endowments that can satisfy the charity commission's box tickers and those that will have to become business'. This will hopefully lead to some positive changes; giving money to a charity so that little Johnny gets taught is one thing, there is a different mindset involved if you view education as just another commodity. Market entry will become easier once parents are used to the idea that there is nothing wrong with a school being a business, leading to greater competition. Parents are going to be more demanding and if they keep running up against the regulatory problems then they will pressurise politicians to change them***.<br /><br />Not even the rabid rump of the left believes that public education is better than private, in fact it is this higher standard that they detest because it's unfair. With any luck, this attempt to kill off private schooling should make it better, cheaper, provide a wider range of options and help exterminate the comprehensive system with extreme prejudice****.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">* Until our Lords and Masters decide that discriminating on ability is "unreasonable" at any rate.<br />** Or the Comprehensive System as it's otherwise known.<br />*** Or just fuck off, the greatest service most politicians are capable of.<br />**** No that doesn't mean "With a big fuck off axe" but I can see where you're coming from.<br /></span>Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-69780013910691691402009-07-14T17:17:00.000-07:002009-07-14T18:59:11.759-07:00Fundamental ConflictsVia <a href="http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/007584.html#comments">The Englishman</a> I have sound this <a href="http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamas-science-czars-plans-for-mass.html">recipe</a> for the death of everything I hold dear from Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren:<br /><br />"<em>Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.<br /></em><em>The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.</em><em>"</em><br /><br />It is no exaggeration to say that this is the sort of twisted, evil thinking that lead to Mao's China or Stalin's USSR but this idea is even worse. Not only does this scum want to produce a totalitarian hell but he wants it to be impossible to escape. There's no point going into the detail of why Holdren's baneful plans are so appalling, they are another expression of the madness that has snuffed out the lives of so many. Nor would I, even given the very unlikely opportunity, bother trying to convince this degenerate sea louse of a man that his opinions are wrong; you cannot reason with the the utterly insane or the truly evil.<br /><br />Those things that I value, the wonderful products of what can roughly be described as Liberal Humanism, are ever under attack from would be tyrants. It doesn't really matter what motivates those attackers, whether it is to bring us into the fold of their sky fairy or doing it for the planet or our supposed own good, the only difference is the colour of the shirt and hour of ritual obeisance. Those of us who treasure our civilization have a duty to resist the works of malignant cankers like Holdren and his ilk and that brings me to a practical matter that is often misunderstood by those on the well meaning left:<br /><br />Libertarians and those who would tend to be classified as on the right of the political spectrum resist big government and particularly supra-national organisations, primarily for non petty reasons. Our objections arise because we know that if you give any structure too much power over people, then it will eventually try to bring about the kind of hell Holdren proposes. A big government always finds ways to fill its days and expand its duties and once all the sensible things are being done, the only place to expand into is the area that it has no business being in. We should not let these structures get too big or too powerful. Too powerful and they become oppressive, too big and there is no escape.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-81860464094518020482009-03-07T19:22:00.000-08:002009-03-07T19:42:10.594-08:00In defence of the Sloop John B......because he is <a href="http://www.johnband.org/blog/2009/03/06/99-of-men-are-rapists-or-nose-pickers/">entirely correct</a> and <a href="http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/07/amnestys-statistics-on-violence-against-women/#more-3063">Sunny</a> is as wrong as a wrong-un.<br /><br />Amnesty International has decided to get involved with domestic violence, its not in their remit but that wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't such split tongued, Janus faced fuckers. Below is my response to Sunny being a fucking idiot:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />"I’m satisfied by that response"</span><br /><br />and I am not.<br /><br />Lying about a problem, (and lets split no hairs here, that is what they are doing), is not helpful. Domestic violence is not part of their remit and trying to get a message across is not a good reason for making stuff up.<br /><br />I suggest the author of the following quotes look for his fellows in the eighth circle:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Our first point on statistics is that we would urge people to show support for victims of violence against women rather than get into a debate about the niceties of statistics"<br /></span><br />So they admit that they lied.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />"Interestingly though, once the men began to accept the statistics they were very horrified and had massively underestimated the scale and extent of violence against women."</span><br /><br />Astonishing, people didn't initially believe the stats you made up.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Do we have to dispute the niceties of the stats or can we have a more humane starting point that we reject violence against women and wish it to end."<br /></span><br />Despite what you may believe, those arguing over the stats also think violence against women, (or indeed anybody), is a very bad thing. Those disputers believe it is important enough not to lie about it.<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />"of course stats should not be misused"</span><br /><br />Then stop doing so. LIES DO NOT HELP.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-40373581143966767602009-02-17T08:48:00.000-08:002009-02-17T09:42:48.754-08:00A policeman's lot is now a happy oneFor many years policemen have been in hiding. Terrified beyond reason that somewhere, someone is holding a camera and may take their picture which will inevitably lead to their grisly demise.<br /><br />You see, before going out on the beat all prospective policemen are taken to the <a href="http://www.topnews.in/files/Scotland-Yard.jpg"><span style="font-weight: bold;">UberUltraSuperSecret Temple of Mild Discombobulation</span></a> where their souls are removed and stored in canopic jars with a single pickle to maintain their "soul integrity". The extraordinary effect of this fantastic procedure is to leave the policeman invunerable to terrorists, (all that body armor is just to disguise their glorious power).<br /><br />However, like the fleet footed man killer Achilles, the policeman's protection is not without flaw. Should some <a href="http://www.pigdogfucker.com/2009/01/18/in-praise-of-america/">EVIL TERRORIST</a> gain a picture of a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNWw0jTMPy4">policeman</a> (Link is NSFW and not in a fun way either), the protective spell is broken and the poor policeman shall surely die!!!!<br /><br />Now this new law preventing <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&ei=S_GaSaz8NdWa_gbw1rmNCg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=UK+citizens&spell=1">TEH EVIL ONESES</a> taking pictures will mean no policeman has to fear the loss of his soul protection and will be able to win THE WAR ON TERRORISM!, THE WAR ON DRUGS!!, THE WAR ON RUGS!!! and THE WAR ON (insert abstract noun here)!!!!!!<br /><br />We are now safe, thank you Gordon, thank you Labour, thank you from the deapths of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divine_Comedy#Inferno">rotting pit</a> in which you belong.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-17533542011086824902009-01-27T10:32:00.000-08:002009-01-27T10:53:15.947-08:00Beeb-bopFor no good reason that I can see, (other than thoroughly intentional myopia), I have from time to time been described as a deeply cynical bastard. This possible cynicism in no way informs my take on the recent <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7853019.stm">Beeb / Gaza</a> charity spat.<br /><br />However, it did occur to me that if I were running an organisation accused of systematic bias in contravention of the charter under which the organisation operates, even to the extent of hiding an investigation into <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bbc-fights-to-suppress-internal-report-into-allegations-of-bias-against-israel-442150.html">possible bias</a>, I might consider a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Civilian_usage">false flag</a> operation. From now on, any time the BBC is accused of anti-Israel bias they will be able to say, "Oh come on, we didn't even show a charity appeal for Gaza civilians. How dare you accuse us of being anti-Israel."<br /><br />Of course the Beeb is perfect in every way and I'm sure they would never stoop to such tactics, <span style="font-size:78%;">(I may have been accused of being sarky once or twice as well)</span>.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-39534546308997634702009-01-12T19:52:00.000-08:002009-01-14T07:35:15.738-08:00Kill it, cook it, eat itIt's not all that often that I champion the Beeb but I do think that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gn264/Kill_It_Cook_It_Eat_It_Series_3_Rabbit/">this</a> is a worthwhile program.<br /><br />People have managed to disassociate meat from the animals that they get them from. While I hate to state the unbloodybelievably obvious, animals have to die for you to eat meat.<br /><br />A few months ago I went rabbit hunting with an item similar to this uniquely ill suited equipment:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvyMYDV1OOoRRwlGJGDBbv4iNs6YInsVYIvTN8g6yKjO6gDvcrC96BN1vLElppAtRroKpXQWt3TKX9eZxsZbCuUU68_fhh-keHS1TJVpnbDWWp4VNYGijmsrL8YBpNZHnCCcCllz7BDSKH/s1600-h/thundergun.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 449px; height: 87px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvyMYDV1OOoRRwlGJGDBbv4iNs6YInsVYIvTN8g6yKjO6gDvcrC96BN1vLElppAtRroKpXQWt3TKX9eZxsZbCuUU68_fhh-keHS1TJVpnbDWWp4VNYGijmsrL8YBpNZHnCCcCllz7BDSKH/s320/thundergun.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5290623730169158306" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The result was this:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxfuLI0tTqGUzg-k7zrZe2esJefo25YONgZb8Qjcsd3ZWTJGQ-o6xeXl1URdIdmCoATEtaSEkAYp7Nkrv1ga68dKrgOZLWP9svpij5GzYZG0hzhorXj0mrvfVAXUAXAs3oHUZaq3Kx2iss/s1600-h/Wabbit.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxfuLI0tTqGUzg-k7zrZe2esJefo25YONgZb8Qjcsd3ZWTJGQ-o6xeXl1URdIdmCoATEtaSEkAYp7Nkrv1ga68dKrgOZLWP9svpij5GzYZG0hzhorXj0mrvfVAXUAXAs3oHUZaq3Kx2iss/s320/Wabbit.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5290625383470194226" border="0" /></a><br />I shot it just behind the skull, killing it instantly but I wrung its neck to make sure that it was not suffering. In all honesty, shooting it was barely a conscious decision, I saw it run and before I was even aware of what was happening, I had killed it.<br /><br />I was sad that I had ended it's life, however, I don't regret my actions because it became food and damn tasty it was to.<br /><br /><br />I suspect that despite the protestations of modern man, (let alone woman), we retain an instinctive ability to kill for food. Whether we like it or not, we are very successful predators and that propensity is not going to disappear overnight.<br /><br />As for any deeper point; appreciate meat, it's harder than you might think to hunt the little buggers down and vegetarians are, as we always suspected, lacking in many ways.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-19370132064649000022008-12-30T12:38:00.000-08:002008-12-30T12:39:12.646-08:00Fish......<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d878212-d69b-11dd-9bf7-000077b07658.html">in favour of water</a>.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-66510111428242014112008-12-28T10:49:00.000-08:002008-12-28T10:55:44.778-08:00Falco's First LawIf you allow the state to have power over you beyond preventing obvious harm to another, then innocent or guilty, it will be used against you and yours, by this government or the next.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-47862304714900263002008-12-28T10:12:00.000-08:002008-12-29T05:26:52.273-08:00Not something I say every epoch<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Hundal">Sunny</a> has written a <a href="http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/28/israel-has-declared-war-on-palestine/#more-1810">fairly sensible article</a> about the latest Israel / Palestine (I/P) massacre.<br /><br />Sunny, criticises Israel for <a href="http://voanews.com/english/2008-12-28-voa12.cfm">killing one fuck of a lot of people</a> but also provides this gem, worthy of any good swearblogger:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"As for those defending Hamas - I don’t see what else they were expecting given the recent upsurge of rocket attacks into Israeli areas. A fucking Blue Peter badge? This really is a crappy state of affairs."</span><br /><br />Sunny is correct in saying that both are to blame but the question is how to end it. Unlike Darrell in the comments I doubt that "providing a reasonable framework for a viable state and supporting the Palestinian people" would work. There are many reasons why the I/P situation has gone on for so long, it's the longest running phony war that I'm aware of. However, this is not a Cold War to be settled by the eventual disintegration of one state and the obvious superiority of the other. The I/P is a hot war quenched by repeated international pressure and I cannot see a way out for either people without a total victory for one side or the other.<br /><br />The problem with searching for a peaceful solution to this conflict is the assumption that one might exist. It is increasingly evident that there never was.<br /><br />UPDATE........<br /><br />We now have <a href="http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/28/israel-time-for-perspective-and-action/#more-1811">this</a> from <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/author/darrell-goodliffe">Darrell Goodliffe</a> showing rather less sense than Sunny. I was particularly struck by this glaring example of stupidity:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Israeli’s meanwhile would be forced to face .... that the only way to end the attacks is to make some painful but necessary concessions to win the hearts and minds of Palestinians."<br /></span><br />Given that the only concession that would satisfy the Palestinians would be the total destruction of Israel, Darrell is rather reminiscent of an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_had_to_destroy_the_village_to_save_it">American commenter</a> on Vietnam but gone arse about face:<br /><br />"The Israelis must all die in order to win."Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-12908049705613858812008-12-27T18:58:00.000-08:002008-12-27T19:02:17.354-08:00Made my dayI was just looking through the referrals and realised that this is the top of googling for: <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Neil+Harding+is+an+idiot&btnG=Google+Search&meta=">Neil Harding is an idiot</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Childish I know but fuck it, I've had the odd beer this evening.</span>Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-16500641978929494932008-12-27T18:36:00.000-08:002008-12-27T18:49:51.307-08:00Thought for the dayThere is a stupid, socialist, (I repeat myself), school of thought that believes that various circumstances are the FAULT of the market.<br /><br />This is similar to the way that erosion is the fault of the tides, rain is the fault of the clouds and deserts are the fault of the Sun.<br /><br />The only difference between the upper example and those lower is that while tides, clouds and the Sun, <span style="font-size:78%;">(not the bloody newspaper, the large ball of fusioning Hydrogen)</span>, have both positive and negative results, you would be hard put to claim that for the upper.<br /><br />In a free market you will trade because it makes you better off, if it does not do so, you have no force compelling you to make the trade, <span style="font-size:78%;">(until the socialist bastards make you of course)</span>.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-12862638651772699072008-12-22T17:46:00.000-08:002008-12-22T18:10:14.928-08:00Shout, shout...A recurring theme on this blog has been the importance of freedom of speech. Regarding <a href="http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/19/wrong-end-of-stick-grabbed-shaken-vigorously">this</a> story from <a href="http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/">LibCon</a>, I do agree that it is unlikely that the proposed legislation was ever intended to attack specific bloggers, it is none the less, disagreeable and wrong.<br /><br />The main problem is that it would require comment moderation for all blogs, many of which flourish on the basis of near instantaneous response. Bloggers should not be liable for comments made unless they meet the following criteria:<br /><br />- The comments are slanderous.<br /><br />- The blogger has been given reasonable notice to remove the comments.<br /><br />-The blogger has refused to do so.<br /><br />Going beyond this would be an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech.<br /><br /><br />There have historically been few ways for people to communicate their ideas and the great advantage of blogging is that it is a universally distributable media, (whether anyone listens is another matter but down to the writer to sink or swim). Any legislation on blogging is likely to reduce free speech and there are few legitimate reasons to do this. All the proposed legislation, (that I am aware of), on this subject deserves to be fought to a bloody standstill.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-51856062258380203782008-12-22T12:50:00.000-08:002008-12-22T13:15:18.415-08:00Whoop, whoop...There are times when you have to look at a person's actions and think, "What in all the name of fuckety fuck were they playing at?".<br /><br />Met Assistant Commissioner Mr. Quick was unsurprisingly annoyed by a story in the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1099168/Security-scare-wedding-car-hire-firm-run-terror-police-chiefs-home.html">Hate Mail </a>that his wife runs a car business from their home. His next statement was both stupid and counter to his own interests:<br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />"The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way, and I feel very disappointed in the country I am living in."</span><br /><br />How stupid can you be. You might think that being a policeman he would understand that it would be a good idea to have some evidence before accusing people of criminal activity.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Oh yeah, I forgot our Dear Protectors track record on that for a moment.</span>Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-69979844990094178002008-12-11T16:09:00.000-08:002008-12-11T16:39:50.275-08:00Oh Sir ArthurAs was widely expected following the Irish rejection of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Constitutional_Treaty">Lisbon Treaty</a>, (the link is, I assure you, entirely correct and intentional), the Irish will be <a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/serious-consequences-if-republic-votes-no-again-14105148.html">voting again</a>.<br /><br />Call me a cynical bastard with a conscience but I thought no meant no, asking repeatedly with growing threats until you get the "correct" answer is just not cricket, (I now live on the Isle of Wight and I'm feeling old fashioned).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/">Richard Corbett MEP</a>, (Labour), is a particular case of scum in point however:<br /><br />"I'm not sure if people in Ireland were aware what 'no' means - 27 minus Ireland"<br /><br />Might it by any chance mean NO, you useless bag of scrofula scrapings? Also, given that the Irish have been the only population offered a CHOICE on whether or not to sign the Constitution Mark 2, could it be that you just don't agree with what people want?<br /><br />I will be fisking <a href="http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/100labou.pdf">this little list</a> later.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-73754805485778767862008-12-11T15:35:00.000-08:002008-12-11T16:03:14.007-08:00Renegade MasterAfter a considerable break, I have returned, (bloody life <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">interfering</span>, how dare it).<br /><br />I've not had the best of times but I will once again be providing my unique line of blather about the events of the day.<br /><br />Hurrah!...etcFalcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-34398283838148826702008-05-20T12:28:00.000-07:002008-05-20T12:54:47.667-07:00An overdue ideaThere are <span style="font-style: italic;">as any fule no</span> a number of problems with the UN. As an international talking shop the UN has few peers, sadly when it comes to doing anything more than talking you run into problems. This can hardly be surprising, if you set up a system where vastly disparate values are represented then you are unlikely to get a coherent voice.<br /><br />If the charter of the UN was confined to the <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/">preamble</a> it would be an admirably brief document but even in this section we run into difficulties:<br /><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:midnightblue;" ><b><br />to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and</b></span><br /><br /><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:midnightblue;" ><b>to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and<br /><br /></b></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:midnightblue;" ><b>to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and<br /><br /></b></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;color:midnightblue;" ><b>to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, </b></span><br /><br />The first clause is sadly unobtainable at the moment and the last can mean whatever you wish it to. The second and third clauses are possible but only in a specific model of government, Democracy (I am aware that there may be some hypothetical mode of governance where they are achievable without democracy but I have yet to see it).<br /><br />So it is interesting that McCain (and others) have <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2008/05/how_about_a_league_of_democrac.html">postulated</a> the idea of a "League of Democracies". I think it would be a worthwhile project, simply to help coordinate the response of democracies to regimes less favourable to the human condition. The UN could remain but be acknowledged as what it is, a convenient place for negotiators to meet rather than an international force.<br /><br />The League would not always agree and nor should it be binding in matters such as war or sanction (though it should require those who disagree to state their reasons publicly).<br /><br />Those governments that fail to meet the criteria of democracy have no interest in obtaining the second and third clauses for their or anyone else's countries. It's time we stopped pretending that they did and freely condemn them.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-6499528698785649672008-05-20T08:06:00.000-07:002008-05-20T08:58:43.602-07:00Striking PolicemanPolice in England and Wales have voted for the right to strike in the absence of binding arbitration. The whole thing is a typical <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Browny</span> pigs ear because the phasing in of the recommended pay rise effectively reduced it from 2.5% to 1.9% and it is entirely understandable that the police are somewhat <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">narked</span> by this. The police are in a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">severely</span> disadvantaged position at the moment, they are bound by arbitration, the government are not and with no right to strike they have no effective means of fighting for their position.<br /><br />The above said, it would be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">disastrous</span> if the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">police</span> were given the right to strike. This right would shift the power too far the other way, allowing the police to hold the country to ransom over pay, conditions and even legal powers. The government must agree to be bound by arbitration as this provides the best balance of power.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-13268041229892279122008-05-20T07:35:00.000-07:002008-05-20T07:58:53.183-07:00Elephant spotted at the BBCOur sub-"lords and masters" have come up with another stupid idea. They're trying to give agency workers the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7410127.stm">same rights</a> as permanent staff after twelve weeks. So, if you're an agency worker on a rolling contract look forward to a compulsory unpaid holiday every 12 weeks. Bravo you bloody idiots.<br /><br />However, as the BBC has noted (and very unusual for them do so) this cannot happen until the EU passes a directive that the UK government can then implement. Of course we don't know whether the EU will give us what the government wants, (stupid idea as it is), something better, (long live the ice cream in the blast furnace), or something even worse, (guess where my money is on this one). Nevertheless, it is pleasing to see the EUs role being noticed for once.<br /><br />It is frustrating for those honestly arguing both sides of the debate when little about how the EU affects our daily lives is mentioned. It is possible, if you hack through the scare nonsense, to find reasonable anti-EU arguments, (though very seldom in the MSM), pro-EU arguments are somewhat more difficult to get hold of.<br /><br />Were I uncharitable I might be drawn to the conclusion that the reason that the pro side does not wish to put their case forward is because they know they don't have a very good one. This would explain why the obvious goal of a European superstate is obfuscated when there can be no other intention from "ever closer union". However I will suspend judgement, (rather sceptically), if someone can point me in the direction of some decent pro-EU arguments, ("it prevents war in Europe", "we need the EU to trade", etc will not do unless you can show that such arguments are not the total bollocks that they very much seem to be).Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-15410670048888754592008-05-15T05:46:00.000-07:002008-05-15T09:25:22.846-07:00The Mirror, pure comedyWhile going through the news today I stumbled upon <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/05/15/gordon-brown-unveils-his-vision-for-the-future-and-urges-voters-not-to-write-him-off-89520-20417912/">this</a> form the Mirror regarding the draft Queen's Speech and the OEGK's relaunch. Frankly I think Stalin would have been pleased to get such a positive response from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda">Pravda</a>. Let's have a look at the proposals and the Mirror's interpretation:<br /><br /><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>IMMIGRATION</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Newcomers will be made to learn English and contribute economically under Citizenship, Immigration and Borders Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: End of whole streets where nobody speaks English.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Translation:</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;">We promise not to let any more darkies in</span>.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>COUNCILS</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Councils may be forced to respond to petitions. Community Empowerment Bill also gives residents a greater say in how they want services run.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: End of "town hall knows best".</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation:</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> Councils may be forced to tell you to fuck off rather than just ignoring you. The Community Empowerment Bill, (the weasel wording of that makes me feel slightly nauseous), will allow you to waste your time and taxpayers money for no effect because the residents will still have sod all power over the council compared to central government.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>COASTS</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Walkers will get beefed up right to walk along beaches, cliffs, dunes and rocks with the Marine and Coastal Access Bill creating a national path.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Stunning new views opened up.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation:</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> If you own any coastline we're going to take away your property rights and allow people to sue you if they twist an ankle.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>HERITAGE</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Old buildings protection to stop demolition will be simpler. The Heritage Protection Bill will stop Government having say on statues put up in London.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Old buildings saved, more statues.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation:</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> Waffle, waffle, rhubarb, people like old buildings and statues and this might make them think we're doing something to help but will have sod all effect.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>EQUALITY</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Public bodies must show they treat workers fairly. Equality Bill allows all-women shortlists when parties pick candidates.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: More women MPs, checks on equal pay in town halls.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation:</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> Public bodies must comply with existing employment law, (which they have to do already). Equality Bill will result in piss poor female candidates getting ahead in politics, (see Blears, etc.), but will give us something to shout at the Tories about if they don't go along with this stupid, illiberal, counterproductive idea.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>POLICE & CRIME</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The public will be able to vote on members of local police boards who will have some control over police priorities.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Policing and Crime Reduction Bill will set national standards of numbers of bobbies on the beat.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">It promises reduced police paperwork, more seizing of criminal assets and better protection for witnesses and victims of gun and gang crime.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: It will force police out on patrol and concentrate on crimes which cause the most misery.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation:</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> Public will have so little control that it's simply not worth bothering with. National standards will be set, when they fail they will be reset, no overall effect other than wasting money coming up with standards. There will be no reduction in paperwork but they feel they have to say it. If charged with a crime you will have any chance of defending yourself removed as you will have no assets to hire a lawyer and you will be effectively denied legal aid. Witnesses and victims will get a leaflet on how to hide in hole in the ground.</span><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>SECURITY</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Tougher airport security agreements and Navy powers to tackle piracy would be brought in by the Transport Security Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Less chance of terrorist attack.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Translation: </span>We will produce various nonsense theatre that will help convince you that WWIII is about to break out. That way you wont object so much as we spend the rest of eternity stamping on your face while wearing jackboots, after all it's for your safety and protection.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>BANKING</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Treasury and Bank of England can intervene when banks face collapse - and Banking Reform Bill will ensure savers get their money back.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Less chance of a Northern Rock.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">We're not making many changes apart from giving the banks yet more forms to fill in but again, we felt we had to say something.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>SAVINGS</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Savings by the less well-off could be matched pound for pound by the Government under the Savings Gateway Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Poorer savers could get hundreds out of the Treasury.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Translation: </span>Look aren't we clever, we can bribe you with your own money!</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>HEALTH</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Cash will be withheld from hospitals that get the thumbsdown from patients.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Patients will fill in questionnaires on what they think of the quality of service when they leave hospital.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Health Service Reform Bill will bring in a constitution for the National Health Service which will guarantee that patients set standards.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The long-term sick will get a greater say on how money allocated to their care is spent.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Good hospitals could expand and get busier. Bad hospitals will get worse and could close.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">We want more paperwork and to give the illusion of competition so that when it all goes to hell, (next stop), we can blame the concept of competition, (oh and even more paperwork, it makes us feel all fuzzy inside).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>BUSINESSES</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The top tier of local government could tax bigger businesses to help local development under the Business Rate Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Business owners paying more to boost deprived areas.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Translation: </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Having bled you white we're going to put up taxes even more.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>INTERNET</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">More powers for police to probe what people do online are provided in the Communications Data Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Will make evading authorities tougher for internet criminals.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Dangerous thing free speech, we'd like to put a stop to it.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>LEGAL REFORM</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Murder laws changed by Law Reform, Victims and Witnesses Bill with tougher punishments, more security for witnesses.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Fewer thugs escaping justice due to scared witnesses.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Translation: </span>We recon that if we take away your legal safeguards and stack prisoners like cordwood you will think we're doing something.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>EDUCATION & SKILLS</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Town halls will get new powers to step in to sort out underperforming or "coasting" schools.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Parents will get the right to have more regular updates on their children's progress.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Education and Skills Bill will also give all employees the right to take time off work for training.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Bad schools taken over by private education firms or other schools. Emails to parents, possibly every week, on children's schooling.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">We don't think teachers have enough paperwork to do, we also want yet more government interference in schools and to add to employer costs.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>CORONERS</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Families will be given new rights to appeal against coroner's verdicts by the Coroners and Death Certification Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: No more complicated court battles to have verdicts overturned.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Coroners seem to have too much time on their hands or they wouldn't be criticising the government for shoddy equipment in Iraq or Afghanistan, this should keep them busy.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>CONSTITUTION</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">MPs will have the final say over international treaties.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Constitutional Review Bill also reduces restrictions on protesting outside Parliament.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: More rows over EU treaties.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">We don't want to have you horrible little proles having a say on the future of your country even though we promised to do so at the last election. Protesting outside parliament will now be punished with a cattle prod up the arse rather than a bullet in the face.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>THE UN</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Aid workers will get the same protection afforded to UN staff under the Geneva Conventions and UN Personnel Bill.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: Reaffirms our commitment to the UN.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:100%;">Translation: </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">We like the UN, it makes us seem less corrupt by comparison.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>WELFARE</strong></span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The unemployed will be expected to learn new skills to help them back into work.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">Medical teams will give incapacity benefit claimants a work "MoT" to try to get them back into jobs.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Welfare Reform Bill will also toughen powers to make "deadbeat dads" contribute payments to their children's upbringing after a divorce or breakup.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;">What It Means For You: The unemployed will lose benefits if they do not take up training courses or turn up for Jobcentre interviews.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Translation: </span>We're not going to do anything new with the welfare state but we will now have power to look at, disseminate, loose the details of and steal money directly from your account.</span></span></p><br /><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p">Still laughing?<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;" class="art-p"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></p>Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-37687693495470786602008-05-13T10:19:00.000-07:002008-05-13T10:30:13.216-07:00When in a hole......stop digging you bloody idiot.<br /><br />Alister Darling has a great many worries at the moment, ducking the clunking fist from above, dodging sideswipes from Ed Balls and the ever present danger of the voters from below, (and I'm sure that he sees the voters as being below). However, his job, the one we pay for, is balancing the budget, making sure that the country doesn't go ever deeper into debt and so what does he do?<br /><br />Borrow an extra <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKLAC00283420080513">£2.7 Billion</a> to bribe his way out of the 10% tax debacle. Clearly he felt that the public finances were not in a deep enough hole with unfunded pension liabilities, various PFI nonsense that has until recently been "off book", (hidden in one of the most pathetic attempts at cooking the books by the OEGK), and all the other costs and debts so he's swapping his spade for a JCB.<br /><br />Before Darling manages to dig to the earths core, could we just get a magic 8 Ball as our chancellor, at least it wouldn't be wrong all the time.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-31250396451543000702008-05-09T05:20:00.000-07:002008-05-09T09:22:35.028-07:00Basic principles of Libertarianism 101Libertarianism is grounded in the belief that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty">Negative Liberty</a> is paramount. You are free to do as you wish, use and dispose of your property as you wish, (including your body), provided that you do not interfere with the Liberties of others in the process.<br /><br />The result of this is that you are both free to act and responsible for those actions. You are free to get drunk for instance but if you hit someone while inebriated you are just as guilty as if you had done so while sober.<br /><br />Libertarianism, almost by definition, requires a small government. Large enough to enforce justice and defend against those who would interfere with your rights but not so large as to spend its time interfering itself.<br /><br />Given that Negative Liberty has usually been associated with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism">Empiricists</a>, (mostly British philosophers such as Lock, Hume and Hobbes), it is interesting to note that Libertarianism fits well with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law">Common Law</a> system, (you are free to do anything that is not illegal). Those who based their beliefs on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty">Positive Liberty</a>, (the "freedom" to interfere with others), are more associated with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Law#Roman_law_today">Roman Law</a> system, (a simplification of which is that actions are legal if specifically permitted), including such luminaries as Hegel, Rousseau and Marx.<br /><br />This leads us to such basics as:<br /><br />You own yourself.<br />You have every right to your property.<br />Authoritarianism, Paternalism and the banning of things other than acts harmful to a third party will always decrease Liberty.<br /><br />And people wonder why Libertarians are so opposed to the current government, (sticks head in bucket and screams).Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-50990377329153831452008-05-09T04:40:00.000-07:002008-05-09T05:11:14.879-07:00Oh I Art More Authoritarian Than Thou!In recent days we have seen <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/07/lt_booze_ban/">Boris banning alcohol</a> on the tube and now the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=564721&in_page_id=1770">government</a> wants to ban alcohol on all public transport.<br /><br />It really is a mutual spiral of fuckwittery lead authoritarianism. The thing is that if you accept the principle behind the no drinking on the tube idea then how can you object to this:<br /><br />No Muslims on the tube.<br /><br />Boris today explained that while he accepted that most Muslims were no trouble on the tube at all, those few who were caused such serious trouble, (far more than any drunk), that it would be best to "send a message" to crack down on tube explosions.<br /><br />or<br /><br />No Blacks on the tube:<br /><br />Boris launched his new policy of a "Darkie free tube" today. He explained to the baying mob that just because most blacks were law abiding did not excuse the increased incidence of theft by this ethnic community. The best way to send a strong message on crime was to ban the lot of them. When asked what would be the situation if you had mixed parentage Boris replied, "We are making the tube a safer, better place. So frankly I wouldn't show up if you've got even a bit of a tan."<br /><br />Do go and have a word with the bunch of bastards commenting on <a href="http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/05/blow-to-belief.html">DK's post</a> on this. They seem to have forgotten that bans cannot increase Liberty.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7376951013445631946.post-13450726459072208832008-05-07T12:11:00.000-07:002008-05-07T14:50:36.432-07:00God how stupid can you get?<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jacqui</span> "<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/07/news/Britain-Cannabis.php">I'm severely retarded</a>" Smith going to push for cannabis to be reclassified as a class B drug <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">against</span> the advice of the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">commission</span> set up by the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">OEGK</span> to look into the matter.<br /><br />I'm lost for non <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">sweary</span> words. I hope she catches a disease that only cannabis can ease the pain from.<br /><br />There is no sense behind this move, cannabis is essentially harmless, (when was the last time there was an overdose or insane stoned <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">maniac</span> on the loose?). Just a piss poor, cheap, tawdry and pathetic trick to please the gallery of authoritarian bastards.<br /><br />There are two possible effects from this; everyone will be so stoned that they wont bother to vote next time or the house of commons will be surrounded by a baying mob that burns so many bales of dope that the legislature is stoned for the next 10 months.<br /><br />If the latter then there is some hope that they will do less stupid things, (don't hold your breath).<br /><br />UPDATE: Yet another example of the <a href="http://www.neatorama.com/2008/05/03/10-insulting-words-you-should-know/">jobbernowled bescumbers</a> at the <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=564666&in_page_id=1770">Hate Mail</a>.Falcohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02403217488563637871noreply@blogger.com0