Monday, 30 June 2008
Saturday, 28 June 2008
54% agreed with the statement that “The government should drop the Lisbon Treaty and not try and ratify it”.
Just 14% agreed that “The government should carry on and ratify the Lisbon Treaty in the UK”.
Labour voters are 46% to 19% against continuing ratification of the Treaty.
Asked which of the following statements about Britain’s future relations with the EU came closest to their own view:
29% said that “The UK should stay in the EU”.
38% said that “The UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the other political elements of the EU”.
24% said “The UK should leave the EU altogether”.
(Hat tip: Infowars.com)
The Daily Telegraph has carried a story on the scope of new regulations for vetting adults with regard to child protection. One of the most pernicious aspects of the modern, 'all-are-suspect' approach is that it normalises something that is utterly unthinkable to the average person. Once upon a time, it was presumed that an ordinary person did not want to have sex with little children. Now the opposite is considered a distinct possibility.
The power of suggestion being what it is, the seeds being sown into the collective consciousness, now an adult (especially) male thinks twice before engaging in any kind of contact with a child, however innocent. Ordinary human feelings, wishing to protect and correct a child - as I was, growing up thirty years ago - become internalised and suppressed, because to express them would invite suspicions, or rather provoke the fear that it might do so. Thus we retreat from society into our own families, at least there we will be able to act naturally? Not so. According to the article, now a mother needs a police check to kiss her own daughter.
But how can ordinary people fight back, when the proclaimed goal of such regulations are to protect children from the small, but nonetheless real, threat of predation from child-hating trash?
I expect the answer will have to be fighting back on the more general front against the Big State ideology, which underlies such measures.
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Bob Martin, an 83-year-old trap shooter, returned to his home the morning after the tornado to discover that several of his guns were missing. Like Ricky Blazek, Martin was originally barred access to his home by officers who claimed, falsely, that martial law had been declared by the municipal or state government. He was forced to take a circuitous route to his home; by the time he got there, his gun safe had been plundered. After getting back several -- but not all -- of his guns (which had been damaged in police custody, Martin, along with his wife, moved out of Greensburg. He now regrets not shooting his way through the police barricade that kept him from defending his home and property. "If I'd have known [that the martial law claim was a ruse, and the police were looting his gun collection], I had a gun of my own in the car, and I'd [have] loaded it and gone in," Martin says. "Ain't nobody going to keep me off my property."
Update: George Galloway has named the agent provocateur as Chris Dreyfus, of recent 'notoriety'.
Update - much later: link to Daily Mail broken, but here's a copy
and here's the text:
Was ‘friend’ who yelled abuse at police on anti-war demo a stooge or a thug, asks writer
Yasmin Whittaker-khan | June 21, 2008
Last Sunday afternoon in Parliament Square, Central London, and several thousand anti-war protesters were gathered to mark President George W. Bush’s last official visit to Britain.
The crowd was, as usual, relaxed, supportive and friendly. So friendly that some people reckon an anti-war demo is a good place to find a partner. It certainly beats internet dating.
The man I was to meet that day, however, left me angry and bemused.
At the start, the demo – organised by Stop The War Coalition, CND and the British Muslim Initiative – was peaceful, if lively.
Many protesters came with hooters, drums, screeching whistles and saucepan lids – every one of them passionately opposed to the invasion of Iraq.
But looming over us ominously was a heavy security presence: riot police, armed officers, even snipers on rooftops.
These days it appears permissible to wave a gun at Britons exercising their democratic rights.
The plan was to walk up Whitehall and deliver a letter to Downing Street, where Bush was meeting Prime Minister Gordon Brown. No chance. We found the road cordoned off with two rows of railings and columns of policemen.
As a throng of protesters built up by the barriers, an extremely animated demonstrator in a white T-shirt caught my eye.
He was near the front screaming abuse at the police and trying to get a friend further back to join him. The second man sheepishly refused his encouragements to edge forward.
The man in the T-shirt was tall, well-built and handsome, smiling but with a hint of menace. He pushed aside children and elderly people.
He continued to shout slogans such as: ‘Pigs Out.’
On his back was a black rucksack and he carried a professional-looking camera with a large telephoto lens. Hardly the sort of kit for a few snaps of his day out.
My friends and I, standing a few rows back, asked him a couple of times to calm down, but he ignored us.
I wondered why I was drawn to him. Was it his dark good looks or was I worried for the safety of my 70-year-old friend and children nearby?
Then it dawned on me. I had met this man at a party. I tapped him gently on the shoulder and said: ‘Have we met before?’
Instantly he recognised me. ‘Hi, how are you? It’s really nice to see you here.’
My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn’t really the sort you’d expect to see shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a policeman himself – and a high-ranking one at that.
I’d met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas. The local mayor was there, along with councillors from other parties and journalists. I’d been asked along by a friend.
Later, we went to a local gay club, where I danced with him and a few others until 3.30am.
He had a bolshie charm, was cocky and a little manipulative. He was also highly entertaining, bragging about his work in the police and how important he was.
I remained bemused about his presence at the demo. I asked if he would send me copies of his demo photos. He replied: ‘No, they’re to put on my bedroom wall.’
I then casually asked why he was shouting anti-police slogans.
‘Funny you chanting that,’ I said, ‘when you’re a policeman.’
They don’t have my sort in the police, love,’ he said camply, so I would assume he was referring to being gay. A few seconds later, he melted into the crowd.
I wondered whether he was at the demo undercover, deliberately whipping up trouble that he could capture on camera. That would then be used to malign anti-war protesters as dangerous and violent subversives.
Of course, it is possible he was there off-duty to support the anti-war cause, but it is hardly likely he would enjoy chanting slogans against the police.
Equally, he could have been legitimately monitoring the crowds, but again he surely would have been quieter.
I realise there are times when the police need to work undercover if they suspect a crime is being committed. But that is quite different to going into a crowd as an agitator to create disruption.
I went home from the demo feeling furious and did a little research into him. It turns out that he is on more than nodding terms with controversy.
A year ago he advertised himself on the internet looking for sexual contacts with men.
There are plenty of gay policemen – which is to be applauded – but few advertise themselves as such on the internet. It isn’t sensible, let alone dignified. Still, I expect the uniform is an extra marketing tool.
I also found out that he is no mere rank-and-file officer.
Last week, it was reported that police at the demonstration had made 25 arrests – including a 60-year-old woman for indecent exposure.
Ten officers suffered minor injuries and two protesters were taken to hospital.
Stop The War has organised about 20 marches in the past, all of which have been peaceful. This is the first where there has been violence.
I cannot say this man was responsible for the trouble, but I saw him try his best to urge the crowd forward.
It is hard not to despair at the remarks of the Metropolitan Police’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, who told reporters: ‘We are seriously disappointed by the irresponsible and criminal action of those who have challenged police … We have done nothing but negotiate to make their demonstration a success.’
But however you look at it, the thuggish behaviour of the man I saw is hardly what you expect of someone employed to protect the public.
Our civil liberties are being eroded daily. The likes of this man are playing a part in destroying the few we have left.
If our security relies on idiots like him creating their own evidence to reinforce fear, who can we trust?
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Friday, 20 June 2008
An interesting story this week from Reuters: a sack of cement comes crashing through a surburban Moscow roof. The accident was due to a Russian airforce weather control exercice. Apparently:
"Ahead of major public holidays the Russian Air Force often dispatches up to 12 cargo planes carrying loads of silver iodide, liquid nitrogen and cement powder to seed clouds above Moscow and empty the skies of moisture"
Hmm, I wonder what other governments employ similar weather modification techniques? One thing's for sure: If the British government sprays our clouds, they won't tell us for about fifty years.
Sunday, 15 June 2008
Why should the people of London put up with martial law just because George Walker Bush is in town? Why should hundreds of thousands of air passengers face massive delays? Why are armoured cars needed on our city streets? Why should we pay to protect this chicken-necked piece of trash?
Saturday, 14 June 2008
Friday, 13 June 2008
As I have been denied a democratic voice in my own country, and my dear neighbours the French and the Dutch had their expressed decision disregarded, I applaud the Irish NO voters, especially those who campaigned in the streets to expose this worthless document.
Via 'A nation of shopkeepers', I come across this disturbing story, of a man assaulted by police in his own home, kidnapped and then prosecuted for 'failure to lick police officer's boots' or something akin.
It's worth savouring the police response:
"A police spokesman said Cocker became 'aggressive' towards the officers who feared for their own safety.
Read the story! He was attempting to close the door on the officers. Unless he said 'hold on, I'm just getting my shotgun', this is clearly false.
The spokesman said: 'Parva spray was used to stop any confrontation and was necessary to protect the officers and any members of the public who were around at the time.Read the story! He was closing the door, thereby stopping the confrontation. They didn't want to stop the confrontation, but continue it.
'Within the circumstances, we feel we used reasonable force.'Stop right there!
This man was watching television in his own home. He committed no crime, until your minions knocked on his door, and rather than buggering off when told to do so, they then assaulted and kidnapped him. Any offence given by the man's words are far outweighed by the offence committed in response.