Freedom = paying by cash

If you think about it real freedom only exists if you can do things that are not controlled or monitored by someone other than you or when your movements are not held on any type of database.

The other day I walked along the canal and found several police officers patrolling the area where I walked. I approached them to chat them up and show my delight of their presence, whereby one of them asked me whether I lived in the area, so as to establish whether I had a right to be there.  I was just waiting to be asked to provide a piece of paper with walking entitlements on them. Even then when I tried to get into the Olympic enclosure in Victoria Park I was asked to tolerate a body-search and empty out my bottle of water.

I quickly felt a sudden loss of freedom coming on and that took away my desire to even get into the enclosure.

But when we travel today in London paying by Oyster is much cheaper than paying by cash. So travelling unmonitored is 4 times as expensive as getting reduced travel on benefit cards. But anything that happens on a card is monitored, may that be Oyster, debit or credit card; any other card stores information of the user also on a database, which proves your movements.

Even going on the Internet provides a traceable activity, which can be checked upon via the service provider.

We should really get to a state where freedom of movement unmonitored manifests itself in equally cheap prices for cash as for card payment.

Nowadays you make yourself suspicious purely through paying by cash when card would be cheaper and that is a sad state of affairs. But in some cases electronic records may be the only form of alibi a person can produce if necessary when everything else fails. It is the malicious nature of humanity that brings some people to falsely accuse others and make false statements about other people’s activity that makes us welcome electronic tagging in one form or another.

I agree with Assange in one aspect

The rule of law is breaking down because English lawyers use the law to make political decisions. It is woefully inadequate how the publication laws are unable to stop secret material to be published because the Freedom of Expression gives everybody a right to spill the beans on government secrets.

I think Assange must answer claims of the sexual nature that he has been accused of but the law should never use another reason to enforce those Swedish claims.

I noticed it during my own case that there is a disturbing mix of sexual harassment and political agitation going on and that always needs victims, unfortunately I may add. Yet the English courts are terribly indecisive and do not want to upset freedom of expression at any cost, which is too expensive really.

I have experienced myself how high-court judges put a political goal before the stark reality of the evidence in the case before them. In fact I think of trying a complaint in that nationalist emotions have lead a judge to make a ruling that is not supported by the actual evidence and that evidence has been bent to fit the case as desired. That is a crime.

But has it not always been like that with show-cases and show-trials. It doesn’t matter what you say or put before the court, they are determined to find one party guilty and that is set outcome. Are we any better? No!

Is there ever a chance to get justice from a justice system that is bent?

A cat and mouse game

With every announcement and report about the Conservative party we get worst news. If its not reduction of the 50p tax rate its reducing the pension. Now the government wants to put back pension even further but do so earlier. Yet the pension contributions whilst working are supposed to be rising when we work longer and get pensions for a shorter period of time.

This government seems to want to give us the stick and carrot treatment with a tactic that forces us to agree to their proposals or we are going to get some more kickbacks on our benefits and feel-good subsidies.

There seems little sense in what they are doing other than to bring us into submission into agreement to them. With every announcement they make us feel that little bit worst.

At the same time we get notifications of truly horrible events like a British couple being abducted, the male killed and the female kidnapped by Somali terrorists. I think that radical Muslims truly have a sexual obsession with white western women, that was a strong part of Osama Bin Laden’s personality when he was once rejected by a white woman when he was a student in the UK. It is most likely that these Somali terrorists want to collect intelligence from the women when she is most vulnerable when her partner had been shot in front of her.

But this latest kidnapping reflects on the fact that for example here in Tower Hamlets the council falls over themselves to give people of Somali origin all the best treatment and they get special community services, they have a high-ranking councillor who is now deputy mayor. The more we promote foreign cultures here in the UK, the more do the native countries reject us or build anti-cultures against the western influences.

In areas like Tower Hamlets we see a concentration of Muslim immigrants who often have important links back to their communities at home. Recently a teaching assistant from North London was appointed Deputy Prime Minister in Somalia. Otherwise we read frequently London based political activists or voted in councillors are in the press for connections to radical eastern organisations.

Yet the government has policies that are based on local choice and if that locality is full of radicals then they accept that. In Tower Hamlets we see a unique approach to do away with nationally proven and good strategies and some obscure local solutions are being put in place, which are hyped up to be good. The most recent EDL problems in Tower Hamlets showed that the East End Life paper completely forgot to report that local Muslims actually came out of their estate and attacked a bus full of EDL supporters whilst it broke down on the way out of London. But East End Life felt fit to quote all types of organisations from the Conservatives to Telco and Respect as saying that East London proved a great community.

The only national strategy this Conservative government seems to have is political isolation from the EU and strict perseverance of austerity measures within the UK, which is not working. We get more and more punishment every day we open up the papers. I think this government truly shows the inability of Conservative leaders to appreciate the working classes.

There is so much subordination in the field of older people, that as soon as you turn 55 you are entitled to the old-peoples subsidised lunches whilst you are supposed to be working till 62. As soon as you turn 50 you can join over 50’s sports teams. Companies fall over themselves to sell wills and death insurances to over 55s. And employers all treat over 55s as scrap and they do not want to invest in them when there are so many young people unemployed and a ready army of foreign immigrants are channeled straight into UK jobs.

The unions are hopping made and call for more civil disobedience but this government wants to make any type of civil disobedience impossible by imposing immediate financial punishments if you do not do what you are supposed to be doing to be a good citizens. If you kid doesn’t go to school lose benefits. They target families with children and force them to keep kids in line by punishing them the most if the kids stray from the path of righteous. If you do not pay your parking fines immediately you get a higher fee charged. If you are 5 days late with your rent you immediately get threatening letters. If you borough on the credit card you are charged high interest. Fares constantly go up, so does post, this means that travel and communications are less active and people don’t communicate that much.

In the 60s the young generation turned into hippies and did what they wanted, they worked or didn’t work as they pleased and that produced  a very productive music industry and also helped other industries a lot because the wealth it created was good for the whole of society but today there is nothing but strict education and institutionalised supervision for young people, which does not allow for any type of creativity to develop in young people’s lives. Its school all day, then college, then uni, then work.

It is no wonder that young people want to break out and that then shows in sudden outbursts of violence. But that is only because there is such a strict institutionalised amount of supervision for young people these days that produces such behaviour. This type of disciplinarian approach is otherwise only practised by Muslims who force their kids into the strict religious discipline from baby-hood. But now it seems the western world wants to adopt that approach and that is something most of us reject.

In our lands it is less religious but institutionalised discipline that is forced upon all of us. At least in America individual citizens can still make a choice of carrying a weapon or not but in the UK, we are not allowed to have anything on us that could be used in such a way and we are systematically trained into a very strict type of mental slavery to the state from childhood nowadays. When Gordon Brown extended school days, David Cameron now puts more young people into prisons if they misbehave.

There is little hope that the economy will take off on a program that sees no investment and people are put off from investing.

But what the UK needs is a strong national strategy to invest in environmentally adequate business ideas instead of promoting isolated pockets of ideological advancement.  The whole Free School policy does not promote a national strategy but local Anarchy instead.

On one  hand the government really wants to repress too much immigration and on the other it is unable to devise a national strategy to deal with it. We see it here in Tower Hamlets how the police and local government are completely unable to bring all residents together around one table. With the recent EDL demonstration we saw a contingent of certain community groups and churches attending to show a barrage of strength against right-wing intrusion but that is not manifesting itself in continuing working together of all community groups. All political parties just showed up to get the votes of the Muslims at the next election.

Unless there is a clear national business strategy that prefers UK investment instead of getting foreign capital into the UK and UK capital out of the UK controlled we will see continued domination of UK interests by foreign investors who slowly but surely choke this country into submission. The Conservative government just shakes us into place to obey to whatever is given to us to mull us into submission.

The announced trip of David Cameron to Russia seems to be a begging mission rather than anything else, its just that the media conceals his visit to Moscow as some kind of show of strength, when it clearly can’t be.

It’s the thought that counts

I am disturbed by the fact that people got prison for suggesting rioting over social media. It is a basic Freedom of Speech that people can organise revolts. Whether they succeed or not is another matter. Over the ages, we all learned in history how many times people revolted against despotic rulers and sometimes they succeeded, and we all nod our heads in approval that people managed to rid themselves of despots and bad rulers.

I am certain those ancient rulers also did not like it when people congregated or communicated to organise such riots and revolts.

But if enough people want to topple a government, they can, I am sure of it.

Forbidding people to organise a riot over Facebook, is similar to not allowing them to speak about this at all to others.

Of course it keeps the police more busy and makes our lives that little more difficult but in the end, if only a tiny minority always comes together to cause damage, there is certainty that things are good for most of us. During the most recent riots in the UK some very ridiculous sentences have been passed down to show how much the government disapproves with the fact that some made a point and showed dissatisfaction with our current order. Fair enough, the rioters didn’t succeed, the majority was not on their side, but they could have joined in and toppled the government. Lets be realistic about this.

I agree that anybody should have the freedom of speech to organise a putsch and if they are in the minority, they have to take the consequences and in the case of immigrants be banned from our shores. If people protest more often it would force the government to invest more in people to avoid discontent. What we see now is more control over freedom of speech to avoid any grumbling about living conditions, which makes no happiness at all but just quenches the protest before it arises but it will simmer under the bonnets, in people’s thoughts just to break out more forceful later on.

I think the UK has to be a people’s investor and do more to teach people skills, invest in public schemes, improve live in general instead of telling people they are not allowed to voice their frustration if there is no other democratic way for them to make desired change. Maybe the processes currently in place are not user-friendly enough but our government just doesn’t want to look into this and thinks arresting their way out of this problem solves it.

It is the thought that counts and it always tarts with a thought and the more have the same thought, the less satisfaction is all around. I think Cameron has not shown any compassion for young people in Britain today.

The government simply tries to silence protest but that does not mean that the dissent has disappeared. Just because Abu Hamza has been stopped from preaching hate does not mean that this hate does not exist. It would be much more useful to look the hate in the eye and deal with it rather than driving it underground, which is what this government and current laws does.

It must be obvious that if protest stays open that it is much easier to keep track of the protesters. It must be easy for the law enforcers to follow open made protests and keep them in check but if that communication is no longer accessible easily then it is much easier for protest to stay unnoticed until it is too late.

The government thinks that people just stay quiet and eat their crumbs and sleep under bridges and die quietly without voicing protest because it is against the law.  The only difference between the UK and Syria is the fact that rioters here in the UK don’t get shot.  We however have increasing incidences where individuals get shot by armed police. But the excuse that the police can feel under threat and therefore have the right to shoot people would be valid in Syria as well as in the UK and there is little qualitative difference.

A paradox crime, whom to blame for it?

I always get myself engaged when such horrid incidents happen but feel calmed by the sober words of President Obama who hailed the brave bystanders and their reaction to the events. He found that their behaviour prevented further damage and by taking Jared Loughner’s gun and ammunition away.

There is little point in the Right blaming the LEFT and vice versa. People with mental problems like Loughner are a result of our liberal society. They allow themselves to be driven from the path of righteousness and become vulnerable to doing the wrong thing. Loughner helped his own dilemma by abusing drugs and seeking little sobering of his crazed condition, not even realising anymore how crazy he had become.  In such a circumstance our liberal society has little to offer such a person by way of discipline other than imprisonment or death penalty after victims have been created. It is this point that I try to find a solution to, it is the fact that I do not want to see victims of such crazed persons like Loughner.

There always will be criminals but I think would our society take greater steps to control individuals we would see less victims.  I think it is a result of individuals’ lack of personal discipline so that they allow themselves to be driven into crime and disorder. In this case there seems to be nobody having been there to remind that man, how wrong he was, other than the college that tried to deal with his anti-social behaviour during classes.  He was reprimanded for drug abuse by the police but his political radicalism was never taken into consideration and he might well have had terrorist motives.  He could well have acted alone, stimulated by what he saw on the Internet.

As a society I think there is nothing that we can do other than lock those persons up. And such a severe case, to hand out the death sentence, which is the prescribed method of punishment in American law. I do appreciate that some individuals would fare much better in heir lives with early intervention but then how does one measure that discipline that would have to be handed out without breaching the personal freedom of individuals. I think that American society and legal specialists should look into measures that could be taken to control such obviously out of control individuals before they can commit such atrocities.  Maybe our Freedom of Speech/Expression is not controlled enough to take into account the harm some very provocative material can have on individuals. 

Not only in the USA but also in the UK it often becomes apparent that a certain type of people would be better off living in communal housing, that could be connected with some type of social care supervision. We should also look into better protection of parliamentary representatives and make  it a standard that they meet constituents in safer locations and could for example use court houses where visiting constituents could be screened for what they have on them before they enter. I don’t think we should risk the lives of democratically elected people’s representatives by not doing anything to make their positions safer.

A definition of Freedom

One of THE best definitions of the term freedom was in last week’s Assumptionist newsletter, available from Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church here in Bethnal Green. There, under the heading of Catholic Social Teaching, the philosophy of Freedom is explained as: ‘One of the most important values that we all cherish is ‘freedom.; We could ask ourselves if it is freedom for something or freedom from something. In fact both traditions mark our society. Freedom for something calls for the interior strength to do the right thing. The artist is not less free because he is constrained by the limitations of his medium, whether paint or stone; in fact the limitations of his medium are the very conditions that permit him to be an artist. Freedom from oppression and so on necessarily involves others. It presumes some sort of organised control or law making, which protects individuals and society from abuse in what ever form’.

This very well formulated general definition applies to all forms of freedom and this sits very well with the Human Rights Act too.

A literal book burning

Of course the burning of books is a message that publicly pronounces that people’s freedom to read is restricted and that means that democracy is at stake and taken away because the freedom to inform has been taken away.

Yet that 130 libraries in London are at threat of closure is literally the same effect as burning books in public because it equally removes access to books and freedom to read them.

I noticed that it is impossible to get certain law books in my area because public libraries do not stock them any longer and they are not available on the Internet free of charge like for example Gatley on Libel and Slander.

But if we read that Tim Coates, a former Waterstone manager (Waterstone is one of the biggest book retailer in the UK), analyses that the failure to run the library service cost-effective is responsible for closures by local authorities, we see that there is simply an excuse taken to remove the ability to read.

Out of £200 million to run London’s libraries only 11 million are spent on books, which is a scandal in itself. There are currently 33 sets of management, which I presume costs at least half of those 189 million that are not spend on books and further if the running of libraries were to be transferred to the Mayor’s office, they could run better and more cost effective and stay open.

This is in my view against Human Rights to take people’s ability away to read and inform themselves by mismanagement of funds.

Budget and cuts

So far I am not quite sure how the cuts affect what and therefore refrain from making detailed comments about it but will link to this BBC page to get a good marker for further information about the subject.
As far as I understand the budget policies, they are aimed to reduce the heavily oversubscribed public sector in favour of a free developing private and commercial sector.
As far as my home Tower Hamlets is concerned I can definitely see how a large public sector stifles the economy. Tower Hamlets only large employer is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the NHS and business is slowly squeezed out of the borough with the exception of Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs.
As resident I can feel how devastating a large public sector service can be on the individual if that public sector service is bound to a political ideology, which is destined to give preference to those that follow that ideology.
Quite clearly had we continued with Labour’s economy we would end up with a police state and a type of country that is merely regulated by governmental agencies, stifling free commercial development and freedom of the individual that goes with it.

As I wrote in an earlier blog, humans always developed around economic developments, e.g. the docks in Liverpool and other towns, manufacture etc, always attracted people to settle around the economic activity, whilst in recent decades we’ve seen a tendency to settle people wherever they are disrespectful of their ability to earn a living at the place they reside.
I fully support the recent measures to make changes, allowing people to move where the jobs are and dismantling large public administrative bodies to make way for innovative private initiatives.

As mentioned at the top, I am not quite sure how the new rules work out for me, but shall wait until I get further details to see how especially social mobility is affected.

I firmly belief that this Conservative government is committed to social mobility whilst Bob Crow and his other union mates wants to keep the working classes as they are to keep his voters’ motives alive. In a recent picture Crow, to me, looked very much like those Russian Bolsheviks we remember from pictures of the Russian revolution with his Baker’s Boy hat, he wore at a rally of the RMT.

Fight against fascism was led by Britain under Churchill

Just as I thought about my pleadings before the honourable Mr Justice Stadlen, which included to correct a false impression, that was presented, that anti-fascists could be seen as being equal to left-wing, as they were treated by the German authorities during the 1970s, when I also became victim of the German authorities’ scrutiny, I Just read that David Cameron thought that Britain was only a junior partner in the fight against the evil German Nazi regime.

My argument during the proceedings were that anti-fascism doesn’t compute to left-wing as Britain was the leading force in the fight against Germany’s fascism and this fight was led by a Conservative government under Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

During the 1970s, 80s and 90s, Germany persecuted anti-fascist along with animal rights activists, Human Rights Activists and accused them of trying to form criminal associations under Paragraph 129 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), with a possibility that that assumed criminal association has the potential to carry out terrorist acts. They did not need to proof that accusation. German authorities could take something they “heard” as reason to arrest someone under this legislation.

These arrests and accusations had been made against any type of people, neighbours, friends, people meeting in the streets. Those arrests had nothing to do with existing terrorist groups, though the possibility of wanting to carry out terrorism was used in the arrest warrant. It was just a way to persecute people that were a worry to the German state at that time.

In my case the police wanted to investigate a man who owned a property in a small town, the man I never met myself, but me and my boyfriend found ourselves in the cells one day. I have never seen my boyfriend again but the charges against me were dropped without even an interview. I was just left to rot in my cell.  Had I had connection to left-wing extremists the organisation Rote Hilfe would have helped me out but they did not as I had no connection to them.

Because the German authorities, prior to 1976,  would just accuse people of wanting to start their own conspiracy. If you read on certain blogs, that I had been accused of Baader-Meinhof membership you are very much misled. Recent judgments have confirmed my innocence and also confirmed that I was never accused of membership in the Baader-Meinhof group.

Unfortunately so far the court has not seen it necessary to distinguish the accusation that was made in 1975 in relation to today’s Human Rights legislation and have the stance that once you have been accused of criminal association you have no good reputation to defend, which is what I am fighting against at the moment, in appliations to appeal and I hope the readers are with me on that.

What is today protected by the European Convention of Human Rights Article 11, Freedom of Assembly and Association and Article 10, Freedom of Expression was in the 1970s purported to be a criminal offence. The Article 129 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) was used to criminalize those that are today protected by this Human Rights Act and violating Article 8, Right to a private and family life.

In the 1970s Anti-fascism was still seen as a threat to the German Republic, the Republic that in the 19th Century still persecuted members of the Social Democratic Party as potential criminals and also persecuted them under Paragraph 129 StGB.

We can therefore see that an accusation is not just an accusation as we would get it today, it is an accusation that is made from a certain frame of mind and not transferable to any legal constitution without taking due care of the laws that were in effect at the time, in the constituency they were in, made by people with certain ideological goals and compare to today’s legislation.

I have always been anti-fascist and therefore think it sits easy with my commitment to the Conservative Party in the UK today.

But then the criticism against David Cameron expresses the terror we suffer today in that each and every word is put under scrutiny, examined under a microscope and used against people and that seriously hampers our freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Many people write on blogs under stress, being drunk or just in a particular mood and sometimes even forgot what they wrote but if it comes to the crunch, others can take the words somebody else owns, somebody else has the copyright for and interpret them in a manner that was not meant to be by the person who said those words.

Of course in the case of a Prime Minister his words are owned by the Queen and the people who elected him but one can interpret those words much more friendly and say, he meant to say that the might and power that Britain contributed to the fight against Hitler was in quantitative terms junior and it was not meant to be a comment to be put in a historic time-line.

We “May” feel free again, thanks to Theresa

That’s what we always wanted, get rid of the big brother society and unbalanced threats to our freedoms. Maybe Mrs Theresa May can do what the recent Labour government abused and mismanaged and install the feeling of freedom for all of us, so that we don’t all feel potentially guilty just for walking down the street.

Such measures are badly needed to concentrate on doing the job of state security properly.  After all, it’s not about creating anti-heroes and martyrs but we need to find a way to break down barriers and social divisions and not stigmatize social groups but instead act in favour of openness and freedom.

I do not mean the type of freedom that allows others to agitate their fellows to carry out murderous actions or to preach hatred but people loving legislation that allows us all to be responsible and participate in our own safety out of the love for our community and country instead of fear from Big Brother.

I reckon David Blunkett talks about himself and his own party when he accuses others of using democracy in order to destroy it, that is the trick Labour uses.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits