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.

French MPs vote 335:1 against full face veil

I am just thinking how stupid George Galloway would look if he spoke his silly threats in France, where most Muslims just follow the law and do neither threaten to commit suicide or kill others over the decision of the French parliament.

Recently in France a Muslim woman was fined € 22 for driving whilst wearing the full-face veil.

I am not certain why Britain doesn’t just follow the pattern as France is not the only European nation that outlaws the full-face veil.

At least the Conservative President Sarkozy has the full support of his Communist counterpart Andre Gerin who compares the veil to a walking coffin or muzzle. The only opposition vote came from the Socialist MP (I presume).

Whilst out of  the 5 million Muslims in France only 2,000 wear the veil, the ban is seen as an important instrument of integration.

Business man Rachid Nekkaz, wants to provide a € 1 million fund for those women who want to defy the ban and so encourage them to wear it. I wonder whether there is going to be a new crime, aiding and abetting the wearing of forbidden clothing.  Surprisingly the Muslim council of France supports the abandonment of full face veils for women.

The bill, that was introduced by Ms Alliot-Marie is not meant to stigmatize a group of people or religion but to help further democratic openness, starting with an open face for all.

Up-date on 18 May 2010, it seems that George Galloway found support from Damian Green who said outlawing the full-face veil would be un-British and Catherine Hesseltime said we should stop wasting our time discussing it. I suppose we are covered under Freedom of Expression and speech if we do.

BCA v Singh

I understand from reports on the 5RB website that the British Chiropractic Association has dropped the Defamation  Suite against Singh because the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Singh against an order of Mr Justice Eady. It was somewhat unpredictable that a decision of Eady J is allowed an appeal against by Mr Juatice Laws. Apart from all the legal meanings of the wording appealed against and the reasons why some wording bore sufficient meaning to allow an appeal, it seems to me that the decision to withdraw from the case might be cost driven.

When it would be important for us onlookers to know an eventual outcome why any wording would be defamatory or not, unfortunately we are deprived of that privilege to know an outcome. It would be without question in the interest of justice to find the outcome to that case as it has very important implications for all of us, all of us that care about our health because it does affect all of us, to know the value of medical treatments in general. I suppose to get to the bottom of this, one would have to bring into court immense amounts of evidences that would be very expensive to produce and for lawyers to represent.

I do not think one can see that outcome as a win for Singh on the basis of the situation on which the case has been withdrawn from the court.

In principle I think that public opinion can be manipulated by the filing of witness statements that cannot be contradicted because a case becomes too expensive to resolve, yet those witness statements stay on public record and cannot be contradicted for the aforesaid reasons.

Public opinion can have immense consequences on the direction a whole country will take and support of the population can rest on such opinion. The importance of meaning has more impact on our lives than justice will admit and meaning should not be a matter of costs but a basic human right that is equally important to the assertion of criminal truth.  I understand Human Rights Article 6 deals with ctiminal and civil matters.

Whilst, if we compare criminal and civil justice we will get an outcome regardless on how rich the accused is in a criminal matter, we get the outcome because the accused is accused outright of having committed a crime. That fact in itself is a reactionary method of solving problem, a method meant to ascertain the status of an accused after criminal actions have taken place, yet civil matters are a preventative method of solving problems and not enough is done to support that path of righteousness.

The Conservative Manifesto

is what I have been waiting for all along and it definitely gives me something to look forward and to smile about. It is a realistic and ambitious manifesto delivered by a man who is so honest and sincere that I cannot but go to the Election booth on polling day and put my cross next to the Conservatives.

Look at David Cameron, he is not a flash in the pan, one day wonder like Blair used to be, who put down the price of a loaf of bread to 10 p after he got in and now look at the bread prices, David Cameron is the nice, next door kind of guy that actually loves the people he wants to govern and we as a nation would be mad not to accept that offer.

the manifesto has some very innovative points, which read:

  • Restoring the National Lottery to its original purpose, reducing administration costs, and ensuring that 100% of Big Lottery Fund goes directly to the voluntary and community sector.
  • Sports, heritage and the arts will each see their original allocations of 20 per cent of good cause money restored.
  • A “right to bid” to run any community service instead of the state.
  • A review of the criminal records and vetting and barring regime, scaling it back to “common sense levels”.
  • A work programme delivered through private and voluntary sector providers, which will be rewarded on a payment by results basis for getting people into sustainable work.
  • Any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament.
  • What I particularly like is the Right to bid to run community services instead of them being run by the state, that is a model I tried to achieve here in our estate but could not because the Council put the spanner in the works.

    Restoring the National Lottery to its original purpose, so we can actually enjoy the money we make and sponsor for recreative and essential services for the good of us all.

    And that each petition that reaches more than 100.000 signatues gains the right to parliamentary debate, fabulous.

    We could never get such freedom under Labour, all we get from them is, do this, do that, and no don’t do this and now you have to do that.

    with conservative policies, we get freedom, choice and the ability to express freely our desires and wishes for the good of the community, the country and the world.

    Labour’s vague exclusions

    I know first hand how vicious the Labour Party machinery can become when one leaves the party and/or criticises the party.

    Now again we see the demotion of former Labour dissidents who called for leadership contests or fancied the wrong leader.

    The details of such evidence is explained in this article I found on the BBC website.

    With Labour there is no more open honest political debate possible, its follow the leader or nothing. It’s unbearable under Labour.

    But what is even worst is that Labour doesn’t even want to enter into a full and official enquiry about this and just uses the opportunity to expel those who were unfaithful to the party line, whilst David Cameron expects an official enquiry to be carried out to save the reputation of MPs in general.

    Under Labour we had more scandals than hot dinners and only a full parliamentary enquiry will do as demanded by David Cameron.

    Even in my case the Labour party members writing to most frightening things about me were happy just to blog about it and it was me who asked for a full enquiry in the shape of a libel case at the High Court, otherwise those Labour bloggers would have been happy just to promote what they portrait me for.

    It is scandalous that Labour simply doesn’t understand that their wrong doings are a sure sign of how rotten this Labour government is, through and through, rotten to the core.

    Keeping it real

    I am writing with a plain heading about recent protest and matters involving my experience with persons from the left spectrum to show that there is a tendency to report about things, which is questionable.

    First of all in my case, currently ongoing in the Royal Courts of Justice, I get correspondences, which make allegations, which are completely unfounded and not even rockhard evidence, to show the reality of the situation, will convince my opponents to admit to the true version of events.

    When I now look at the demo of UAF v. EDL in Bolton I am more than concerned about the vision the UAF have. Of course, first, just describing the parties involved with abbreviations, they all sound like energy companies but they are not, they do create a lot of the wrong energy though. source

    It is about that the UAF describes it as far-right if someone opposes militant Islam and Shariah Law. This sounds to me that all our Christian and legal values we have in our society are not accepted by the UAF, it sounds as if they want to promote radical Islam and Shariah law. Now who is the radical? I would say its the UAF. Congrats to the police for arresting the UAF leader that organised the demo.

    Then we have the Clash between BA and the Unite Union. source.

    Here the unions claim that BA is almost at a standstill that the place has become a ghost town whilst BA claims that flights have gone back to normal, with long haul flights also taking place and the overwhelming majority of workers reporting for duty.

    I continuously have the problem with left-wingers that they tell unreliable stories about lots of situations to fit their purpose, that is of course also very clear in my case. Yet they all claim freedom of expression and freedom of speech. But the press has a duty to report the facts as not to mislead the readership. That is a very important point to consider, don’t you agree?

    Anything published makes anyone who makes that published statement a publisher and editor of the publication, at least in my view. So why can publishers continuously get away with publishing untruths?

    We do not need bombardment with clichés used by the left to get what they want, they think they just have to use the word fascist and we all agree that the Left, who denounce fascism are the good ones because of course we all associate fascism with Hitler and know how many of us fought them in World War II (oops I wasn’t alive then).

    The British fought Hitler to keep our good western and I dare say Christian values in tact, our laws and society associated with it, we did not fight Hitler to replace it with sympathy for Violent Islam and Shariah law.

    Freedom of expression or lies?

    A few days ago I read on a Yahoo news report the Tory lead had grown. Today in the Sunday Mirror, unfortunately one member of my family buys that paper each week, I read that “Polls show Tory lead is slipping” whilst in the News of the World I read “Tories lead by 9 points”.

    I know which one I prefer and so we all like to read that our party, the party we personally support, would win the next election, such news make the Sunday more enjoyable.

    But how much truth is actually in either story? Can we rely on such stories as being true or only as being wishful thinking? What is the role of the press these days? Is it to massage facts to make them seem true to please a particular frame of mind or is it to show us what’s actually going on.

    Mind you, we might not need to bother, as long as our electricity comes through our switches, as long as we have gas on the stove and as long as our local supermarket is stocked with food, why should we care?

    I care because I like to know what is really going on. So I have to look at various polls and maybe compute an average out of all of them to get the real figure? Not so easy neither. Each poll can be manipulated! Political parties canvass addresses, they know who votes for what and they keep that information on their systems. So nothing is easier but to ask the people they know votes for them and get the result desired.

    I always would like to know how the poll has been compiled; Was it in a busy shopping mall on a Saturday, where people come past at random or was by approaching people at their address? Makes a huge difference.

    Is there any quality control on how polls are conducted? A YouGov poll might not be the most reliable source because of course the party that governs at the moment is in charge of the poll because as the name says it’s a government poll, at least that is how I understand it. There are various other ones, and who owns those? Do we know?

    Are we coming to the point where papers already write what could be true instead of what is true? If it’s the latter scenario then I am really worried that we are all being led up the garden path. I wish I had a garden, well I have, a communal one.

    Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

    Blog Stats

    • 53,254 hits