Friday, 10 March 2017

Portion Police

Well, completely flying in the face of the nannying injunction on the wrapper and risking the introduction of a new fining bureaucracy, I ate all 120 grams of a Nestle Crunch bar (Dairy Crunch before 1992).

Fines are a wonderful thing aren't they? Initially, when justice referred to, well, justice a fine was imposed when a gaol term would too extreme. Invented to deal with crime in a proportionate way.

Today of course the law, as defined by low grade politicians and implemented (interpreted, don't ya know) by pompous Judges is speeding towards total disrepute. If you imprison people, politicians must provide the budget to provide the structure for incarceration.

But a fine, oh my a fine, well that just requires bureaucrats to catch you out (Portion Police) broaching some arbitrary and pointless rule and then the politicians actually raise money! Win, win!

Who cares about proportionate? You can only truly display power if you fly in the face of such constraints. It is almost important to be disproportionate.

If you want to get even more philosophical, I suppose you could consider that the previous belief in proportionality was because the people owned the law and it sought to serve the people. At least it lived as an entity in fear of the people.

Now of course, to fit in with our overlords in Brussels (please God, not much longer) that has had to be turned on its head. To suit the French desire for everyone to have the appalling system their elite have imposed on the people, we have to put state ahead of nation, government before people.

Everything is illegal unless the elite choose to allow it. And bizarrely, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats absolutely love this system. Your watchword can be 'outrageous disregard'.

Saturday, 4 February 2017

All You Need To Know About Ken Clarke

Ken Clarke MP(!) is the sort of person you should not trust to hold your ice cream while you tie your shoelaces

Friday, 27 January 2017

Our Tickle 50

Little punning there, sorry, serious subject. Well, to people that understand it!

The people of this country, under a law of 2015 voted to request and require their democratically elected government to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. It is amazing, after years of propaganda, threats of doom from all and sundry, apathy and the general fear that maybe we should cling to nurse for fear of something worse, that we voted to leave.

But we did. And Jeremy Corbyn thinks that is the reason his party should not think it knows better, rather carry out the will of the people. Article 50 of course is an article of an EU treaty. It is the formal way to inform them we are leaving. Some of his MP's think their view more important than the public's though.

But wanting to leave is only something that stupid people and fascists voted for, according to the liberals. Now these are interesting people, because they call themselves liberals, which suggests freedom and tolerance (as it is intended to).

The manifestation though is that they are deeply and often violently intolerant of people having different ideas from them. So, a narrow, dictatorial society is what they are after, as long as the power rests with them.

This is OK though, because they are cleverer than you (clearly, you voted to leave the EU) and are lovely people who would never do you any harm (unless you disagreed with them).

I was trying to think if any country has ever been run on these principles and how it went. Nearest I can come up with is Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, oh and the very similarly structured EU.

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

Judges Cogitation Over

It was a nice delay wasn't it? The judges 'deciding' on the powers of government. I mean, you know they really thought about it. In a democracy, should the people be allowed a say? Once given a mandate, should a government be allowed to carry it out if they haven't checked with 8 judges first?

Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?

Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.

They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.

Monday, 9 January 2017

I Don't Do Groupspeak, So I Need Help

Having never quite grasped why Marxism is the only way to save humanity, which I only base on experience - Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Cambodia, China, I need some modern stuff explained to me. For instance, Brexit.

Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.

In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.

But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.

Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?

Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'

Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.

The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.

But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.

Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.

No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.

Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.

National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?

Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.

WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.

At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.

Monday, 12 December 2016

A Little Lost On Remain

People have differing opinions, some like Handel, some like Mozart. Are you a Beatles kind of person or more Rolling Stones?

But some things seem a little more likely to bring general agreement, like, murder. I would guess that most people would see murder as pretty much a bad thing in any society and you can understand why.

So what I don't get is why the EU and the ideology of supporting the EU is so strong. I say 'the ideology of supporting the EU' simply because there is no other case for it than blind belief, hence my confusion by their stance.

The EU is a sclerotic bureaucracy and could never have been anything else. The Euro was almost designed to fail. Quite removed from keeping the continent from conflict, the belligerence of the nations keen on war, France and Germany, is still never far away. They have threatened each other over hegemony within the supranational structure they are building.

It has been necessary to lie consistently about the objectives of 'the project', because it was recognised from the outset that, by only serving the elites it would never be popular. This of course is why they are not keen on democracy and have suggested in the past not asking their populations opinions. On anything, including who should run their lives.

Constructed on classic Marxist lines, the EU wishes to introduce a perpetual, unaccountable bureaucracy that has absolute power and rules over a command economy. Going back to the aggressive tendencies mentioned earlier, they presaged the instability in the Ukraine of course. Thankfully, they have no military to enact their expansionist schemes. Yet.

And if you thought that the Germanic taste for efficiency would rein in the penchant of the French for grandiose schemes of immense stupidity, you didn't factor in that the German responsible would be wedded to her roots on Eastern Germany. A Soviet Union of Europe? Bring it on!

So, which part of this makes the safe-space luvvies wail and cry bitter tears into their kale and quinoa at the prospect of leaving this club? Because, despite decades of serious intent by the Left on destroying education in this country, the pro-EU mob can't all be air-heads, surely.


Shocked to hear at the weekend of the passing of AA Gill, a fabulous writer and a constant companion on a Sunday with the style and wit to delight, in his Sunday Times 'Table Talk' articles. No one can replace him and our lives are that little worse that he is no longer with us.