Keeping the poor in poverty

This government’s employment, education and housing strategy is mainly aimed at keeping the poor in a position of legal servitude. We have entered the age of modern slavery.

“The government had an opportunity to help support the most disadvantaged people in the UK but has instead wasted over half a million pounds,” said Lord Jay, chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee.

The government even refuses to spend £3.5 Million of Eurpoean Union Funding for the alleviation of child poverty and already had to hand back £580.000 of unspent cash, given by the EU as funding to the UK.

So all those Brexit arguments saying we could spend money we give to the EU on ourselves, is simply a lying trick to hype up the Brexit agenda. They have no intention of making things better for our poor families.  See source article. 

Obsessive Tories

The Tories are obsessed with themselves and despite many defeats in the House of Lords, continue to maintain that their policies are the good ones, the right ones, the only ones, and so fort …..

Persistence can become a bad habit and turn into an unhealthy obsession.  I just don’t know why they do not give up and hang up their coats, go home and have a nice hot cocoa instead of telling us that we are wrong and they are right. Yes they are right, they always have been right, but not right in their decision but right politically.

The most recent defeat in the House of Lords, is that single parents cannot be charged by the Child Support Agency to get their maintenance monies from the children’s other parent, mostly the father. I think the government wants to show enterprise and charge people extra for supporting the people that already pay taxes for the services the government provides.

I am just waiting for the Tories to float the government on the stock market for some extra income. What is that, a Flotilla.

The evolution of English democracy

I was excited to read that the Conservative government favours an elected Upper House that will replace the House of Lords as we know it. I think it will be difficult to have an Upper House that consists 80% of elected and 20% of non elected members. Bishops of the Church of England would reduce to 12. Elections to start in 2015, that is the idea.

The idea reminds me a lot of the parliamentary system in Germany where the Chancellor is in charge of the Parliament and the President leads the Upper Chamber.

That members of the Upper House should sit for 15 years is a more than welcome idea, as we need to bring more stability to ever changing politician but keep the system fluent and able to adapt to change but avoiding deep rooted corruption.

The current appointment system to the House of Lords is really sad. Just looking at Oona King, she got toppled in Bethnal Green by the left-wing opposition and then lost out again in another race for political position but then got the booby prize of a seat in the House of Lords.

I think generally we are living in an age of political revolution. So many leaders have been toppled lately. I can imagine how future history books will describe this world-wide age of discontent with world leaders. First admired and then retired (by force).

The latest Peer expenses scandal shows some type of unhappiness with the current system. Yet there is plenty of opposition to the proposed change in tradition not at least from Baroness Betty Boothroyd 

John Prescott made a Peer

What would we do without John Prescott, now that things got quiet on Labour? I think the world would be a lesser place without John Prescott, full profile of him. The 2-jag joke is priceless and his personality cannot be bought with your Barclaycard.

Well lets look forward to some Piercing questions in the House of Lords then.  I am also very pleased to see Floella Benjamin, the all-time children’s favourite to get into the house of Lords. She kept my kids happy. Ex Tory leader Michael Howard also got his promotion and its so funny how those old parliamentary opponents can then argue it out till old age in the House of Lords.

Again though it has to be said, that the House of Lords has been changed and is now staffed with members of the elected parliament or “current affairs” persons who have been called to the House of Lords. Traditionally the House of Lords was staffed with Hereditary Peers. I am saddened that this system is being phased out. I think a lot has to do with the monarch itself not doing more to prevent or reverse the current trend. I would have to look further into the legal set up of the current monarchy to say more about it but think that many very good and common sense decisions were made by hereditary peers and think we should not forget about them.

Hereditary Peers of course traditionally represent the landowners interest, the land owners that hold large swats of property they acquired through royal descent. Those of all people should have a very big interest in keeping this country prosperous because they depend on it for their own well-being. That is what is often forgotten in today’s short-term government affairs, that the monarchy descended since hundreds of years and kept this country prosperous for their own benefit and we all prospered with our monarch, yet since the monarchy has been slowly dismantled and we depend on termed representatives, the prosperity of Britain has dwindled as well.

The diss-integration of the British left

Whilst the ‘New’ Labour Party power struggle is going on between 2 brothers, well you could say the Brothers Grimm, no, its actually the brothers Miliband now,  the Socialist dream of New Labour got buried. Having lost grassroots support and understanding a long time ago, Labour now tries to stay in tune with the Internationale of Communist states. Whilst in government it tried to build an economic alliance with China and other up-and-coming world powers to build the partnership of international working classes, just to realise that they are a downward spiral.  The international dream of equal rights of all workers fell apart when the economy just didn’t want to play ball. Cups of tea became too expensive, and the wages of those wanting out of slavery unaffordable.

Here in Britain Margaret Thatcher allowed the hardline Socialists a way out of their misery when even they were coaxed into becoming leaseholder and purchased their council flats. The roots to the working classes were nurtured by local  heroes that spoke the lefties language and provided sanctuary from the stressful capitalist environment and loss of pride. Harriet Harman as always acts as the big godmother and sticking glue of the disintegrating organisation, keeping it all together with motherly care, but not taking the pride of leadership away from younger and aspiring candidates like the Miliband brothers.

Having a personal interest in social behaviour and disintegration of social groups, I notice that the traditional Labour left has taken a great knock back from their affiliation of traditional awkward resilience to capitalist guidelines. Yet the dangling price of homeownership in front of the Labour voting council tenant  made them saddle for a new horse, the settled left-wing Labour movement, the home owners gallery of protesters, and all they want is the living wage to allow them a near middle class existence to go with that pride of the newly created homeowner. A fine mess Maggie gotten us in there, when it was not enough to stop the strikes, they now want more money to stay in the job to pay off the mortgages.

Yet the Labour dream is kept alive by old timers such as Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn and the younger ones like John McDonnell. His book “Another World is possible”, is one of the smallest socialist handbooks, but probably handy like the little red book of the Maoists. Mr McDonnell says however he won’t have enough support to make the grade, showing that the old-fashioned Labour Pride is crumbling in real life politics. There will be no long march anywhere as it’s all about keeping the job to pay the mortgage. British Capitalists always loved their British working class. It’s now no longer being against something but becoming what they were once against but Ed Miliband noticed that the dream of New Labour is over. Labour failed to take over Britain but managed to reduce the power of hereditary peers, which is a small revolutionary step into their dream of becoming the real owners of Britain.

The equality dream is kept alive in a strong workforce at British Airways who battle with the unions in the High Court to prevent further strikes. It has become a matter of national functionality, a make or break dispute that drove BA to merge with the Spanish air service Iberia whilst UK inflation hits highest rate since 1 1/2 years over rising food prices because the UK has lost the ability to sustain themselves with food production.  

It is against this background that Left-wing Labour bloggers enjoy a renaissance of the Socialist dream, people like John Gray, Dave Osler and others, squelch the thirst of genuine revolutionary thinking of those that try to escape the daily rut. After all, that Marxist seminar must be able to fruit in some common good. Left-wing ideology is big business from seminars to book sales and all sorts of paraphernalia. Was it any wonder that Osler wanted to keep the radical leftists happy when he accused me of former Baader-Meinhof connections and found himself accused of libel.

But then when the fire got too hot, he engaged himself a right-wing lawyer to save his bacon. His solicitor was hailed by all his lefty friends and one can see the band of heroes huddling together outside of London’s High Court after the ruling. Some look even halfway dressed whilst other still sport the anarchistic hippy look.  Osler sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his freedom and the saving of his negative equity home in North London. Dougans a right-wing Conservative Party member, part of the Conservative group that wanted to win the Poplar and Limehouse seat from Jim Fitzpatrick gave Labour member Osler free of charge help to dream his left-wing dream that little bit longer. In exchange for Osler agreeing that his case be argued on the basis of the Jameel legal principle, that allows better free speech for all sorts of people that want to drive forward certain ideologies on  British cyber space.

What an ideal marriage, the right-wing Conservative Party member from the Isle of Dogs, in marriage with the left-wing Labour Party party member getting together in order to win some votes for his Conservative aims as well as making a name for himself for a ready group of new customers, what better way than create himself some new ideological allegiance. Yet Osler has not made any comment about this on his left-wing blog on which he advertises anarchist organisations and generally praises anything violent and wanting to undermine the state.

It reminds me a bit of the German History, the struggle of the German left under Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht who fell victim to the Social Democrats, Dave Osler is certainly no Karl Liebknecht and is happy with his adulterated Democratic lifestyle. It is a question in how far the far left of British politics now disintegrates into the Social Democratic trot similar to that, which  established itself after the German revolution in 1918, when the far left wanted more than the middle of the road and socialists could practically promise. Miliband has already conceded that New Labour is dead and the last unionist uprisings should soon be quelled by a little more high court action. Yet in Germany the rule of law got lost when the Nazis took over, the only tendency I can see towards a loss of law here in Britain is a tendency to replace jury trials with one-judge rule.

There is no British left, left to mourn, we certainly won’t see a fascist uprising like the Germans did in the 1920s  because we all are in the habits of cashing our weekly benefits, wages and live a live of the daily routine that gives little rise to an uprising, apart from some people’s fantasies that are still inspired from the occasional radical talk and the dream of an amalgamation of international revolution and the taking over of the world’s riches.  Each socialist today is just happy to own a small part of it, even if it’s with a negative mortgage.

There is now very little distinction in British politics with the Liberals and Conservatives building a government to rule for another 5 years. I wonder whether it is worth it at all to even get interested because our daily lives can be administered by any party really, anybody at all who is middle of the road and wanting to keep the economy going. Having put our monarch on a slow burner, all we really are concerned about are threats of natural catastrophe and disgruntled Muslims that want to destroy our blissful unity of all sorts of political streams into one big happy family.

Comparing Western Civilisation with the Roman Empire shall become my next little project to work on, to see if our aim to rule the world will have a similar fate to the Romans that fell in the end to the Barbarians that beleaguered Rome to finally take it over or better how we can avoid that happening to us.  I wonder whether the loss of internal opposition, like the fall of the British left is a good or a bad sign, lets read some more.

Hail strategy

I think the “Hail the excellent Robert Dougans” strategy doesn’t help the UK in the determination of the libel laws. Such propaganda only helps him to get extra work and provides free advertisement for him but in essence would have been fit for a Roman emperor or other dictatorial persons. I think it is a real shame that law  firms can exploit the pro bono procedure to make free  advertising for themselves.  This ruling will never stand up before the ECHR as it is and Robert Dougans knows it. Dougans now thinks it is generous to drop all costs in the case for a paltry £2.000 when his firm is due to make many, many thousands out of the free advertisement.  Even Justice Eady remarked on the on-the-spot-offer as not being correctly made. I will not sell my right to a fair trial and fair determination of the issue for any price.

It also jeopardises a proper determination of the law if newspapers tint judgments in a particular light. The law is not as simple as just to say one thing or another. It is very complex and calling on Ken Clarke to find a solution to lower costs is basically a good idea but where is the call for free legal advice to go with any suggestions. The Defamation Act of 1996 asks for a determination of issues per jury trial, and the only way to reduce those costs is by an application for summary judgment. 

These lawyers are trying to use me as a guinea pig to push through new legislation and that is beyond reasonable doubt. A determination of content by a single judge on the defamation  is against the Supreme Court Act and the Jameel  doctrine has never been tested on in the ECHR, simply because it was used in proceedings, that involved 2 foreign, non EU litigants on either side of the case. To say a claim is an abuse of process when that is judged in an unfair hearing is itself an abuse of process. There must be a lawyer on either side of the argument to make any decision fair.

It is also quite disturbing, from a sexist point of view that as soon as Robert  Dougans with male client David Osler wins a hearing the press gets mad and falls over themselves to support the 2 blokes, but when I won an earlier hearing before Justice Stadlen, that contradicts the very outcome of the Eady hearing, the press kept it as quiet as possible, including my local rag.

Lets just face it, ultimately a case is  not over before it has been processed by all instances of a UK court and then also by the EU courts to make it really, really clear and I think that Justice Eady knows that I can come up with some very good arguments and he has respect for this and I thank him for that. However the judgement is rather polemic and not properly founded and I shall point out my exact reasons why I say that in my permission to appeal application.

This quite unusual Eady ruling is a set back for all those victims of terrorism who now have to watch how terrorism is jokingly trivialized by the press, the results of which we have seen already.  I am just posting that to assure all those victims of terrorism that I shall take up their rights under the article 10. And then to say that I was arrested during the Baader-Meinhof hysteria in Germany puts this case into a huge quantitative  frame and if I asked now each and every person, that was arrested in Germany during the 70s,80s and 90s, when Baader-Meinhof were active, to come forward, we would come up with a huge number of persons, so that frame of mind is very unpractical, it was  merely dictated by the press who exploited that. I feel victim to that as well and I do not like it one bit. I refused an offer from Der Spiegel to purchase the copyright for the sickening and untrue story they printed about me in issue 39/1975, currently before the European  Court of Human Rights and I shall refuse to drop a case for a discount price. Mr Osler could consider allowing his pro bono lawyer to pay his costs when he loses the case in the end.

Mr Dougans should be ashamed to ask me for £2,000 knowing that I have lost my business due to the immense amount of work I had to put in this case over the last 2 years. He should in penance, immediately donate £2,000 to the Great Ormand Street Hospital instead.

Education can reflect a school’s religious character

This is a very, I would say extremely important new law that finally puts it in black and white that we still have the freedom of religious choice.

Morals are the glue that holds our society together, gives it meaning and value. This new law allows schools to teach sex eduction in the manner they see fit, as long as it teaches the basic biological basics, according to this BBC report.

This law is also important because it allows churches a choice on what their attitude towards homosexuality and gender changes is. 

Whilst homo-sexuality has become a human right, as per rulings of the ECHR, we all must not discriminate against people who are practising it, but at least we do have a choice not to promote it in all ways of life. That is an essential right to all of us, that we have a right not to include it in whatever we do.

There are many people who would rather not have sex at all and in the olden days those type of people joined a church to live a life in solitude. This was important in the days when marriage was the accepted lifestyle for both men and women. Today we have the freedom to be professional or single and we do not have to have sex if we don’t want to. I think it is important to promote that as well. The original church teaching is no sex outside marriage, I fully support this and that lifestyle should be taught more in my view. 

We need more morals and less sex and not more sex and less morals.

What’s wrong with democracy?

Is that it has no control as to quality and quantum. So if enough crazy people vote in a crazy leader, then that is accepted as a democratic decision, regardless of how much destruction it may cause.

When I saw this poster of David Cameron on Facebook where he holds a placard with the words: Another 5 years of Labour your choice, I thought well I wish it was because it is quite clear that Labour is not able to run the country or my local authority yet enough people keep on voting them in regardless of how bad they administer their constituencies. Apparently in Tower Hamlets only the minority of eligible voters goes to the polls but had we gotten a law about the quantum of voters, the picture could turn out quite different.

Why would people in their right mind vote in a council that sends payment reminders to those paying by direct debit because there are bank holidays over the Christmas period? I have plenty of direct debits but no other commercial organisation complains about my payments over the Christmas period with the exception of Tower Hamlets council. Well maybe the fact that 2/3 of councillors are non Christians helps to understand this mismanagement of our council taxes.

Allowing the running of a public administration on a minority vote is asking for trouble and unfortunately the long march through the courts is very long because if something goes wrong the nearest objective legal stopcock is the European court of Human Rights who enforce the Human Rights Act, able to prevent an abuse of the rights of the person. What does make the system so expensive is that one has to go through lengthy legal proceedings in the country’s courts first before the European Court can look at it.

What is wrong with democracy is that it allows locals to vote in tyrants and despots and allow them to do the job until they do it so obviously disastrous to the detriment of the population that an outside military force has to stop them from doing it. The question is what can we do to prevent this from happening again? What objective measures can we put into place to stop locals making the objectively wrong choices? Apparently the quantum of wrong decisions doesn’t make a decision right in any case.

We should allow a direct comparison to the Human Rights Act in local decisions but for that purpose the Human Rights Act doesn’t go far enough, because it should be a major heading in the Human Rights Act that everyone has the right to drink clean water and breathe fresh air.

Incidentally what brought the Roman civilisation to its knees was the fact that they drank poisoned drinking water from lead pipes but because all went crazy at the same time, they did not know it or notice it until the barbarians managed to topple them because then the Romans were too weak to defend themselves against the continuous attempts of the Barbarians to overthrow them.

Looking at  that example, we could also bring the other obvious one, the Germans voting in Hitler. Those types of developments are merely an expression of local desperation and what we need is the ability to step in at the beginning of things going wrong instead of waiting until a considerable amount of people have suffered humiliation and death or deterioration of their health.

We’ve seen it with the asbestos, the cigarettes, now the cars, then earth warming but there seems to be no ability to stop it in the tracks. That’s what’s wrong with democracy. I do not have a solution to the problem but know that there is a problem and I want people to think about this more.

Obviously there is no perfect social model that does not upset some people within it but there is not enough objectiveness on local decisions and democracy is not a good measurement at all. I am not saying, get rid of democracy, I am saying improve democracy, so that it builds in quality controls that avoid abuse of the system.

Once could say, if enough people want to be terrorised by their leaders let them, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way because those terrorising their own often enough try to widen out their terror and want to terrorise others as well, as we’ve seen with Hitler, the Taleban and others. It’s not only those extremes that are a worry because we cannot wait until problems escalate to such extent that they do become a worry to us all, we need to stop wrongdoing in its tracks. We need less personal greed and more joint up thinking and Labour can’t do either in my view.

Here in Tower Hamlets voting for Labour has become a local habit, people simply cannot think above that old habit but when they count the cost of voting Labour since generations they should make a more sensible decision and allow common sense to prevail. Unfortunately the weekly brain-washing paper East End Life doesn’t help. See also this article in the East London Advertiser.

Of course the argument of cost comes up to put an objective measure of value and righteousness and if the cost doesn’t justify the means then a policy should be scrapped. Such demands require an independent panel to enforce such measures because here in Tower Hamlets we have a Labour Council wasting tax payer’s money and we have a Labour government that is supposed to curb that bad habit and somehow the chances of that happening are very slim indeed.

You could argue we already have the courts and the House of Lords and now also a Supreme Court and the Juridicial Review process but non of those really avoid widespread health risks or money wasting councils or government policies.  It takes years to achieve any change and then only once things have gone disasterously wrong. Maybe the monarch should be able to interfere into parliamentary business and local government decisions, we haven’t tried that one yet have we?

MEPs cost 5 times more than UK MPs

Robin Hood shooting with Sir Guy, painting by Louis Rheed

Robin Hood shooting with Sir Guy, painting by Louis Rheed

Just began to think that we in the UK are splashing the dosh around so freely and needlessly, we certainly do not make our MPs think they have an easy access to our money.

In my inbox just arrived is the latest issue of “Open Europe”that the tax payers spend a staggering £1.8 Million per year per MEP. Whilst it costs “only” £364.000 per Member of the UK Parliament. So what are you all complaining about.
Set that in context with her Majesty the Queen and we spend only 85 pence per person per year on supporting her Royal Highness.

My argument for a return to Royal Rule looks now even better than before.  Each Lord in the House of Lords costs only £208.000 per year, what a bargain.

Democracy is an expensive sport and even the allowances of the MEPs are higher than those of the UK representatives the cost is £363,000 against £148.297 per MP in Westminster.

Who ever thought that democracy was a good idea?

22 MEPs retiring this year share the golden handshake pot of £20.000.000 between them, in addition to a £10 million pension shared out between them.

You may comment directly on the Open Europe blog and here is the link to the original article.

Whoever complaint during the times of Robin Hood, have to look up what the taxation was like then in comparison to income. Well how do you count eggs and loafs of bread and the occasional golden coin?

I reckon we need to go backwards in time an start counting our good fortunes.
Forgot to mention I think we should call our “Democracy” a “Frequently changing Dictatorship” instead.

Voting reform

Here it is now the real reason why Gordon Brown doesn’t want to step down, so he can fulfil his agenda and introduce the voting reforms he always dreamt of. He wanted to get rid of hereditary Peers and that is what he will spend his final stretch as Prime Minister.
I think not even if he gets pelted with eggs each day would he step down so he can finish the job.

His final plan is the voting reform, to replace the hereditary Peers with elected ones and to introduce a new voting system in the House of Commons.

You guessed it, another reform by Labour, just so we do not get too used to anything. The new voting system seems similar to the system used to elect the London Major. You can only get through the first round if you get 50% of the vote. No problem for the Conservatives then.

Talking of eggs, at least Nick Griffin was pelted with eggs outside Parliament today and was forced to flee a press conference there.
On top of that we have the tube-strike to content with. We are pretty much held to ransom by this Labour government and see widespread dissatisfaction of all sorts going on.

A dictatorship can be interpreted as a government controlled by one person or a small group of people. Show me where the Labour government is differrent. Once they are in, they just dictate to us what is going to happen. To prevent such hijackings of government, governments once voted in should have much more obligation to seek common approval of their policies on a frequent basis. We were promised a referendum on Europe but didn’t get one. I suggest that western democracy can also be called a frequently changing dictatorship because we only vote people in to do what they like after that. There is in fact no democratic control of their decision making at all unless they have a duty to ask people on the decisions they make as they go along. The only people to have a choice are those also voted into government and they do not necessarily reflect the wishes of those who voted them in.

As I said in a comment that a hereditary ruler that holds a referendum on each major decision would be more democratic than the democracy we have in place now.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,254 hits