The Drip Drip of Freedoms That Results in Serfdom

Quite often it is our best intentions that lead us, or others, into unintended consequences. Many people feel they are helping out, but really they are saying something you would rather was kept quiet; maybe they are keeping quite when really they should speak out. Or maybe a piece of legislation is passed that is intended to help and protect, but results in harm and confusion.

And so it is. That is life and there is no getting away from it no matter how hard we try. We are human, we are fallible and we are usually convinced we are right otherwise we would not act. In a group scenario it is often the case that it is the group that perceives its intentions as correct while the leader or leaders have an altogether different plan. This has happened throughout history.

And it is from history that we can learn our greatest lessons, although we tend to blind ourselves to them.

In the 1920s and 1930s, a great rise of Left and Right came about. The Communists and the Fascists thrust across Europe, seeking a new order. In Spain they went head to head. In most cases it was the Right that won out, the promise of freedom under one leader better then freedom under a committee. Many tens of millions were taken in. But what is it they were seeking to reform?

The simple answer is that, following the Great War, democracy was seen as failing, there was little or no direction and the reform that those returning soldiers wanted was being held back by an imperial class from a bygone age. Feelings of failure in Germany and its allies manifested itself in nationalism, a loss of pride opened a wound to be exploited.

That is all quite correct. However, as Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom it was more complicated than that. Freedom was what was wanted. Freedom from the upper classes, the landowner, the factory owner, the foreign power, the enemy within. Freedom for the masses was promised, their empowerment with control over their land and jobs. An uprising of the people being led by a strong and decisive leader or committee that would make the big decisions quickly.

The reason we have the term libertarian is largely due to the hijacking of the term liberal by the Left in this period. Their perception of what freedom is was taken very much as a freedom from as opposed to a freedom to do.

We live in similar times. Our world is ravaged from recession, our sense of national pride is in the balance. We are at war, although it seems like we have already lost it many years ago. Unemployment is high, industry suffers. To be rich is to be free and to everyone else it is a daily grind. The Left, like the progressive liberals of yesteryear, are in power but not really delivering what the people want because it isn't possible. The conservative right is weak and the Far Right are on the rise, exploiting the wound.

We are no longer, not in the same way at any rate, under the control of a ruling elite from a different era, rather we are held back by a State that makes too many decisions on our behalf, has removed to much power to the centre and has created a climate of fear and surveillance.

What people want from this is freedom. Freedom from in order to be free to do.

The main place that promises of freedom are coming from is that of libertarians. A reigning in of the State and the restitution of powers to the people. This is what the people want and I believe that over the course of the next decade, it is something they will increasingly demand.

However, within that promise lies the rub. Rather than simply reduce the State, reduce taxes, reduce the bureaucracy of government and repeal the laws that limit freedom of movement, of speech, of expression, it is proposed to go beyond this and into areas that show a perception of freedom that will in fact result in the direct opposite.

Most of this is piecemeal, it is not joined up into one larger picture and therefore the end result is not seen, just as in the 1930s the masses saw socialism as only milk and honey and could not envisage the horrors that would unfold.

We have the propertarians who espouse that private property on any scale and in any location with any purpose gives the owner whatever rights they wish to impose. If it results in the removal of all liberty, then so be it. However, many of the gated developments in the UK already consist of thousands of homes and businesses and are owned by large investment companies. They include leases that are huge, in excess of 30 or 40 pages in most cases, that contain so many covenants it is difficult to see the wood for the trees. In fact research at Sheffield University shows that only 2% of residents have even read all of their document, as explained in Anna Minton's excellent book 'Ground Control...'.

The largest on the way is the Olympic site, which contains a clause that all freedoms of movement will be suspended when the circumstances require it. No definition is given. Robot spy planes as used in Iraq, are already in use in Liverpool and are to be used in Stratford to keep an eye on the unsuspecting multitude.

This is the privatisation of public space, a complex area of law that removes the fundamental right of movement that is fundamental to the English since the Conquest. Rights of Way are stopped up, common land removed, highways taken out of public hands. When this happened in America there was a march on Congress, here is is ignored and by some seen as a right to freedom for the property owner.

In context, this was the case with all of the major aristocratic estates built in the 18th and 19th century. Then they were sealed off, manned with watch towers and patrolled by armed guards. People were killed. Those guards, though unamred, can be seen in modern developments such as Liverpool One. The outcry from the Victorians, those classical liberals, at the removal of right of movement led to them being made public as they are today.

In turn we have the current trend to argue for the legal right to arms. Even the English Bill of Rights provides for this given it is not illegal to do so. I feel the current legislation is far too controlling and I see no issue with repealing it to the level it was in the 1970s. However, again, many elements of the libertarian wing see no issue with allowing people to walk around with knifes or guns and certainly no issue with using them in self-defence with no risk of prosecution. Even in America counties and states have restriction on what can be owned and how they can be used.

There is no grey area here. It is black and white for many. You either ban weapons or you allow them, if you ban them you are statist communist, if you allow them it is freedom for the people against the state. There is no in between and if you do have a view that is in between, you are a statist communist.

Then we have the white noise. A fuzzy background sound that is always buzzing away, sometimes louder, sometimes it disappears altogether. But there it is nonetheless. Within the libertarian movement, mainly the propertarian gun advocates, there is a stated distrust of democracy. It is blamed for all the ills and wrongs that we suffer today, it is democracy that has led us down the path to State control. 'There is no other way', they will say, 'but we don't like it all the same'. It is the means to an end not the end itself it is arrogantly explained. Naturally it is, as democracy is there to ensure the freedoms of the people and the accountability of the State, not simply to ensure more democracy.

But it is not democracy that has led us down this path, it is apathy. It is social bribery through the welfare state and the tax system over generations of governments that have caused the British people to stop holding their system to account, preferring to give up and not vote at all. The system needs to be stronger and alterations need to be made, but it is not democracy per se that has caused us the problems we must now correct. In fact it should be a strong belief in a fit and proper democratic country that will increase our freedoms, not the blaming and shunning of it for the reduction of them.

On their own, each of these are elements that can be debated, as they are and as they should be. However, when you realise that the same people hold the same views and that it is these people that are shaping the libertarian direction, it is clear to see the parallels with the events of 80 years ago.

Freedom becomes the freedom from the State, but to be replaced by the dictatorship of the landowning elite. Freedom becomes defending yourself from the State, but also from everyone else. Freedom becomes not a belief in proper democratic accountability, but a realisation that democracy is to blame and does not work.

It has been said many times by propertarians and anarcho-capitalists - who seek to define liberty (an action they levy at everyone else) and who label anyone who disagrees with them as a statist and a social-democrat - that libertarianism, the provision of liberty for the individual, is not about making the world a better place, but is about allowing each individual to do whatever they want to do. If the world would turn out to be even worse than it is now, then so be it, at least there would be no State.

Just a group of landowning corporations with private armies who have removed all liberty from those within their domain.

However, is it not, surely, about giving the individual their liberty so that they may make their own life better, and in that process everyone elses? Do we not seek to limit the State and transfer much of its power to the individual because we believe that the person can make better decisions than the State, not just decisions be they good or bad and no matter the consequence?

What is the point in creating a world where, yes, you have the power to do as you wish within your property, but before leaving the front garden and you have to sign a term of acceptance for whoever owns the next piece of land or get shot? Or a place where a company has built the hundred thousand homes where you live - and have to as it's there or the gutter - and controls every facet of your life, from the volume of your TV and the car that you drive to the people that may visit you and the number of people that may live in your house?

What is the point in a country where the remaining of branches of government are located within a purpose built development, such as More London, where the right to gather or protest has been banned; how is that different to the objections we raise to the removal of the right to protest in Parliament Square?

To say that this would never happen is to be arrogant in your conviction of an unknown future and to be ignorant of history.

Each idea of liberty must be thought through, explored through every notion, the benefits and the ramifications by itself and together with others. If history can teach us anything it is that the promises of freedom must be scrutinised more fully than any other, that they must be questioned over and over again, lest they lead us down the road to serfdom.

The Guardian is caught out denying free speech

The Guardian newspaper was caught with their pants down today. This 'liberal' left newspaper, which has a dwindling readership of around 320,000 a day, down from its usual 440,000 of a few years ago, has much to answer for.

Readers may be aware that this half of Boaty & D follows the big 'Comment is Free' blog of the Guardian online. For those who don't know, 'Comment is Free' is a section of the Guardian Unlimited website that includes prominent and less prominent articles from a range of feature writers.

Underneath each article is a comments section where readers may contribute to debate. It is an enormously popular 'blog', and thousands of people flock there every day to pop their ideas down.

As the Guardian is a 'liberal' paper, you can expect to read some fairly left wing (in a contemporary sense) pieces, and many contributors are of the new wave of left wing thinkers. In other words, the sorts of people that Nick Cohen identified in his book 'What's Left?'

But don't be fooled. A huge number of contributors to this 'Comment is Free' site are from all over the political spectrum, left through to right, through to libertarian and all sorts. It is because of these people that I go to 'CIF', not to contribute, but to pay close attention to the very interesting debates that rage through the threads.

'Comment is Free' is run by a moderation team down there in Farringdon. The site is so huge, and the comments go up instantly, so there must obviously be some ground rules. Otherwise the place would descend into a pit of libel and abuse. That is their rationale, anyway. And so what you can't do on there is call people cunts, accuse people of pedophilia, use the 'N' word or any other unacceptable form of ad hominem attack which tends to troll debate to a grinding halt.

However, today I came across quite a scoop.

You see, the other day I was following a thread on an article by 'G' author Andrew Green. The article is called 'How to tackle immigration'.

I am familiar with a number of regular contributors in 'CIF' debate, and low and behold, one such interesting fellow (I think it's a bloke) who I follow turned up on the discussion. The contributor, who I find immensely interesting and intelligent, is called 'dissident junk', or at least that was what this person was called - I don't know if he has decided to pack it all in and delete his account after this sorry sham.

'Dissident Junk' had posted several comments in the discussion voicing his opinion and personal perspective on the immigration debate. The comments were not rude, abusive, inflammatory or at all libelous. They were not against any individual or body, but rather an over view on immigration in the UK. The stuff of informative and constructive debate.

Boaty & D readers are fully aware of how much we despise racism, and how we detest the sly, sneaky methods people employ in order to attack those of different backgrounds and minorities.

There was nothing wrong in what 'Dissident Junk' said. I agreed with his comments, in the main, but even if I had not agreed, I still could not have argued that the comments breached the 'Comment is Free' rules.

What a grave shame, then, that this is not how the Guardian saw it.

Two people seen debating earlier on today on the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' pages - As you can see, there has been some minor editing, but this had to be done: they strayed from the accepted editorial line.

I checked the thread a day after catching on to it, only to find all evidence of a number of 'Dissident Junk's' posts removed by the moderators.

"This does not make sense", I thought. "There are no plausible grounds for this utter outrage? This is wanton censorship".

Boaty & D readers know what passionate, stubborn defenders of free speech we are. Our readers know that we reject even the oft stated 'libertarian' mantra of 'their property, their rules' when it comes to free speech. People must be able to join a forum, and have the right to free speech.

Well, regardless of any private property issue, the rules imposed by 'CIF' themselves were clearly not infringed.

So, I decided to take the matter further. I tracked 'Dissident Junk' down on the internet, and I managed to get through to his email account. I asked 'Dissident Junk' a simple question, and to my delight, he responded.

I asked: "what the hell happened on that 'CIF' thread? I noticed your comments were deleted by the mods. Did you find out why?"

Here is a reproduction of his reply:

---

"Hi, Yes, I was a bit astonished by what happened on that CIF thread

With reference to your question, the first post they deleted was one in response to a point an earlier poster had made that "hating someone because they were different to you was primitive and pathetic".

I tend to step back and examine statements like this in the round. Difference can be found in a great many facets of life and I think such a statement as the one that poster stated is actually incredibly naive.

So I questioned whether that assertion could stand for every circumstance of 'difference', and queried whether it was reasonable to, say, hate someone who executed his wife because she couldn't bare a male heir, or who adopted children only to kill them and claim on insurance, or who would torture old women as witches, or who would tie fire brands to small creatures and watch them and laugh as they burned.

I said these examples would be of people who were dramatically 'different' to me and asked whether it be "primitive" and "pathetic" of me to hate them. I gave about five examples, all of which I purposefully chose from English history, because I was trying to make the point, somewhat subtly I admit, that many modern British people would find the attitudes and perspectives of historical English figures so different to theirs as to be repugnant, and were modern Brits to suddenly find themselves in 16th and 17th century England, they would find the "difference" between them and those people, in cultural and social attitude, to be so different to theirs that they would struggle not to loathe those people -- even though they were not of a different 'ethnic' culture to theirs.

I think this is a valid point. There are far too many unexamined general assertion of ideology on CIF and so many do not stand up to scrutiny. That said, there was abolsutely nothing in that post that was remotely offensive or rude or that contravened their community standards. The second post deletion is the one that most bothered me.

I wrote about some of the sectarian conflicts and tensions that my region is experiencing. I remember my introductory line: "over the last four years, we have seen serious race riots in my region". I went onto explain that we have had two incidences of riots between migrant groups (Hungarian vs Pakistani, Kurdish vs Pakistani) and these had been very serious and the weapons used has been lethal.

Then I wrote about an incident where a young Kurdish Muslim asylum seeker had been jumped and beaten so badly he was left with brain damage, because the certain elements in the area thought that because he was Kurish, he was, in some way, "anti-Iraqi" and "pro-western-intervention-in-the-Muslim-world". I also point out that his aggressors were not Iraqis, nor Arabs, nor Turks, nor anyone from a community that had direct historical animosities with the Kurdish peoples.

I then said that although neither black or white people in the region had been involved in these conflicts, they knew about them and it did colour how they felt about immigration and the success of the multiculturalist model.

To be honest, I can only see that CIF moderators deleted this comment because a) they do not want these sort of issues publicised and b) because they do not want these issues debated on their comment site. I felt that the deletion of my comments (which I do not think, in any way, contravened their community standards) constituted censorship.

What I feel is most important about this is that it is not a censorship of free speech -- in fact, I gave no personal opinions about the matter -- but, instead, censorship of incidents and events whose details are in the public domain and have been reported in the media.

In short, this was censorship of reported facts. This is what most bothered me about the deletion of my second comment -- that they deleted it because they did not want to publicise fact. The third deletion was a post I made asking why they had deleted the other two. I said it smelt of censorship, and within ten minutes that was gone too.

I hope I have answered your queries. It is always nice to know that other people notice your words and you are putting something out there when you post your perspectives into the blogosphere. By the way, I read your blog. You seem really hung up on private property rights. Why is that?"

----

I have put into bold the part of the email I want to particularly highlight. This is a very serious attack on free speech by the left's and the government's representative in the print media. They do not want certain things publicised or talked about.

In other words, Comment is not 'Free'. Speech and opinion and demonstration of simple fact is not 'free'. This is a massive transgression of liberty and the democratic right to speak freely. There is no justification in this.

I have not yet replied to 'Dissident Junk's' mail. When I do, I may well point out that he is not to be disheartened. This is how the left do 'free speech' and so long as people like Boaty & D are around, we'll ensure it is pointed out constantly and that wide publicity is given over to these shameful, hypocritical events.

'Dissident Junk' used to be a very popular, and well respected contributor to 'CIF' from my observations. He is too good for that fucking site. He might want to consider setting up his own blog, and firing away from there.

I wish Dissident Junk well, and I plead with our readers to give this story wider publicity. Because the more people realise what the bullshit liberals are doing to this country, to national debate and to journalism, the better.

Fuck 'CIF', fuck the Guardian, and fuck the bullshit pseudo-left wing 'liberal' weirdos. Those people who pretend they are about free speech, when in fact they couldn't give a mother fuck either way, so long as they get their ideas through the mechanisms of the state.

Labour's final betrayal

When you're in a hole that is so big, and there's no obvious way out, what do you do?

Well, if you happen to be in the Labour government, there is only one answer worth considering: keep digging and see where you end up. Why try a bold climb to the surface, when there is always the possibility of hacking your way through to Australia?

According to the Telegraph today, Labour and their left wing pals at the 'Sentencing Council' have decided that judges have been overly harsh lately. They have been guilty of allowing something called 'upward sentencing drift', which is very naughty and simply must be stopped now for the good of the country.

So what Labour have kindly decided to do, is to stop all this by imposing shorter sentences via the Sentencing Council thingy, whilst at the same time, killing two dirty birds with one stone by releasing a third of the prison population early.

Yes, that's right, you didn't read that funny. The government, in their final days in power, have decided to endear the populous ever more to its warm, caring bosom by letting a third of all prisoners out - whilst ensuring that in future, jail is used as a 'last resort'.

If you wanted to check up on just how many people this will entail, check out the official prison population statistics here.

As you can see, we're not that far off capacity. This won't have anything to do with the decision, of course. Neither will the fact that the critical prison population level has been the cause of countless headaches for Home Office ministers since the beginning of Labour's first term.

I remember back in the day when I used to work with ministers in Whitehall. The first business of the day would often be a furtive brief on the most up to date numbers of prisoners. One eye would keenly assess the number, and the other eye would nervously consider the maximum capacity figure. They never were far off.

But now Labour are staring down the barrel of oblivion, there must be something else; a further motivating factor in this astonishing and breathtaking decision.

This is no longer about simple incompetence. This is not a basic example of poor policy decision making, or injudicious short termism. I believe this is an act of ideology and malice. A reckless, traitorous piece of bad governance which can only, logically, have a negative impact on the decent, hard-working people of Britain.

Death by chocolate, cigarettes, pool, swimming and television: do you know how many prisoners die each year from bougainvillea exposure? Do you? Shame on you.

We must all surely accept that a good degree of the people who will be released are recidivist criminals. The statistics prove this as a very high probability.

Any given third of the prison population will undoubtedly include some nasty, vicious characters. So to say that the decision makes a mockery of justice and the courts process would be an understatement. It is a total middle finger up at the victims and their families, whoever and wherever they may be.

The left never did accept that there are bad people and that wrong must be punished. For them, the automatic assumption is that every wrong doer is matched by wrong doers everywhere. I.e. 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone'. On that logic alone, they think criminals are no worse than middle class Mondeo man.

They also think that every 'offender' (criminal is too harsh a word to use, these days) is a victim of circumstance, and that in any event, if we just tried to understand them more, and if we realised that property is not a man's sacred right, but more akin to theft, then we can begin to get somewhere in reaching out to the perfect society.

Did I forget to say? Lefties are innate idealists. They believe in the perfectibility of mankind. Capitalism and Toryism is what makes people fallible. So what we need to do is smash the demand and the desire for punishment, and to be ever more softer and understanding to 'offenders'. (I do like the word offender - it sort of means to say 'someone who did a little wrong, but someone who can say sorry and everything will be just fine')

I believe this deeply political decision is at the very least partly based on a desire to land one final blow against the middle classes and the law abiding. They have shown their true colours, once more. The New Labour myth was just that - a myth.

Yet in years to come, the people will forget how traitorous and destructive the social democratic experiment was. The left will return, and any half decent work done to reverse some of their evils will be undone, and we'll be back to square one.

Will this country ever emerge from its terminal decline, so long as we keep on allowing sick, fatally flawed left wing governments into Number 10?

What's the point in 'Old Holborn'?

'Old Holborn' likes dressing up in a mask and going around London winding up cops.

Fine, we all have our quirks. But this fucker really thinks he is some cool, crusading freedom fighter, and he and his band of web-based arselickers can't get enough of it. He's like Crystal Meth for the politically remedial.

I went on to the article's comment section to (quite rudely too, if I'm being honest) ask about the point and the logic of 'Old Holborn's' exercise in the puerile and the juvenile.

OH has not been on yet to reply, as he's probably eating a kebab and tossing off right now, but his fan base have had a good go at it with the usual astounding levels of non sequiturs, misquoting, misrepresentation and odd racism.

I mean, who doesn't know that if you ask a cop for his number, station and other details, he must provide them? OK, let's assume you didn't know that. Well, er, maybe now you do.

So?

What does this prove? Certain people in authority are bound by some rules. OH is trying to catch them out. If he did, he would prove what? That a one off bobby didn't get it quite right?

If he wants to question authority and their rights to do stuff, and if he wants to oppose draconian state behaviour, that is noble - but he is going about it in totally the wrong way here. His beef should surely be with the big wigs. The top cops at ACPO and the politicians.

So why not protest at them?

Probably because that would take some intelligence and it wouldn't serve to flatter the man's incredible ego and insatiable lust of self-promotion in any given form it may materialise. He loves seeing pictures of himself (well, a blobby figure in a mask) all over the net.

Lovely stuff, Holby. I'm sure your grandkids will be proud. That is if they are not confiscated by the evil Stasi who are poised at any given moment to crush the prols beneath their tanks.

Pillock.

Your Defence of Your Home and Munir Hussain

This type of story is starting to become one that the right wing media simply will not let go. They repeat it again and again as if by doing so the law will change into what they perceive it to be so that they can then campaign to have it changed back to what they want it to be, even though it already is.

That law is the right to defend yourself, your family and your property from intruders.

That law is very, very clear in what you can do: the use of reasonable force to defend yourself, your family and your property from intruders.

I fail to see why this is so complicated to understand for the people at The Sun and the Daily Mail, the two 'papers' that have led on this today. In particular the case of Munir Hussain.

To reflect. The Times reported the case of Mr Hussain as the following:

The incident occurred when the Hussain family returned from their mosque during Ramadan to find three intruders wearing balaclavas in their home. Hussain was told that he would be killed. His family’s hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room

Hussain, 53, made an escape after throwing a coffee table and enlisted his brother Tokeer, 35, in chasing the offenders down the street in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, bringing one of them to the ground.

What followed was described in Reading Crown Court as self-defence that went too far. Walid Salem, one of the intruders, suffered a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces. Neighbours saw several men beating Salem with weapons, including a metal pole.

I feel it is very important to read exactly what he was jailed for several times in order to put it into context. This is not a simple case, it is not black and white.

So let's repeat certain parts of that. "suffered a permanent brain injury after he was struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces", and of course "several men beating Salem with weapons, including a metal pole.".

Now, I can fully understand, though hope to never experience what Mr Hussain went through. Any person would be angry, livid even, at what had happened. A mixture of guilt and shame would manifest itself in wanting revenge for what what any husband would see as what they had failed to protect their family from. I totally understand that.

However, his actions went well beyond escape and defence. In fact, the spin the press has put on this is awful. For instance The Sun front page today has how he was jailed for 'hitting a burglar'. Hitting? I've played a bit of Cricket and I can assure you that hitting something as relatively soft as a skull, more so one that had already been staved in, so hard that it broke in three is well beyond 'hitting'. Try it tonight with a coconut, see how hard and how long that takes.

Hussain and other men, including his brother-in-law, then set about the man with the bat and poles, which I am led to understand included a golf club, to such an extent that the man cannot be put on trail such is the extent of his injuries, which include brain damage. It is also my understanding that the brother-in-law was not part of the ordeal, but helped with the rescue was recruited to give chase.

For this, Mr Hussain was sentenced to 30 months. Today that was commuted to 12 months suspended for 2 years, with the Judge basically patting him on the back and the media calling him a hero.

Let's put that into a bit of context. If you or I did that to someone we would be looking at 15 to 20 years very easily. Therefore the mitigating circumstances of the crime have very much been taken into account.

Campaign groups however, have seized on this. They say that we do not have a right to defend our own homes, even though in this case the home had clearly been defended and the separate incident occurred at the other end of the street. They want the law changed.

Why?

The only way to change the law is to define reasonable, which is impossible. The reasonableness is dependant on the situation and cannot be pre-defined.

We should also remember here who sent Mr Hussain down for 30 months for, in effect, the vicious attempted murder of the scumbag who was robbing his house and had tied up his family. A jury. Twelve men and women good and true sat through the evidence in a court of law and then reached a decision, that of being guilty.

The Tories have indicated that they would like to see no arrest being made in such circumstances, something that is wildly populist and stupid in equal measure.

First off, the crime. The person in the house is wrong and they will be charged for it. That is one offence. However, should you attack that person the police are duty bound to investigate. The crime of breaking and entering must be shown to be true, and therefore the act of violence upon that person is one of self-defence. How reasonable that defence is must then be decided.

If the criminal then accuses the homeowner of assault, again the police are bound in law to investigate that accusation and I cannot imagine any country we would wish for where that is not the case. The arrest of the homeowner carries no implication of guilt, it simply allows the police to question them on record. A decision is then made and in the vast majority of cases no further action is taken.

But the overriding factor here is the Rule of Law.

A measure of how reasonable your defence was is if it was in the context of the situation. That is, he was in the house and you were understandably scared and so you smacked him round the head with a rolling pin. Or you picked up a knife to defend yourself and your family.

The grey area occurs when you use that knife. Did you need to use that knife? What harm was caused by using it? Did he have a weapon?

All these questions are impossible to answer in law. They require a case by case assessment and if needs be, the presentation of evidence before a judge and jury.

This law is not there to punish the homeowner. It is there, much like the right to die law where no one is ever prosecuted yet the media make out like they all are, to protect people from the untoward.

The person was an intruder so I killed him. Was he? Without the proper investigations how do we know that to be the case? A person has died or has been seriously assaulted and no matter the accusation upon them, the police should, quite correctly, investigate the circumstances that led to it. It may be opena nd shut, but a cse must be opened, questions must be asked and answers must be found.

To say they shouldn't and that the homeowner should be trusted simply because they are the homeowner is to open Pandora's box.

In the case of Munir Hussain I see it as clear cut. He did not hit the man. He did not even 'defend' his property. He gathered a posse and gave chase, caught him and proceeded to do such damage with such force that his cricket bat shattered and the man is now a vegetable. The man is scum, a lowlife and I would not argue that to be otherwise, yet that is not Mr Hussain's punishment to deliver. We have courts and a police service for a reason. Mr Hussain is not the police, the CPS, the judge, the jury and the hangman all rolled into one.

There is also the obvious issue that burglary does not carry a capital sentence.

You could also transfer this situation out of the house and into, say, a park. If the man had threatened and attacked Mr Hussain during a picnic and Mr Hussain and his companions then gave chase and dished out this punishment, would that still be acceptable?

The fact is that the law is being grossly misrepresented by the media and by campaign groups who seek to introduce a threshold ruling that suspends the Rule of Law within a person's household. This is absurd.

If someone is in your property you can do what you like providing it is proportionate and reasonable, you can even kill them if the circumstances are such, for instance he is trying to kill you.

But any civilised country requires that criminal acts, whether they are to be prosecuted or not, should be investigated.

In the case of Munir Hussain, the man went well beyond reasonable and proportionate. He had driven the intruders from his home, he had given chase and had the option of detaining the intruder for due process to take its course. He didn't. He viciously beat a man nearly to death, in fact turned his skull to a pulp, a punishment that is well beyond what is suitable for the crime committed and more to the point, a punishment it was not Mr Hussain's to hand down. The legal system recognised the mitigating factors and gave him a greatly reduced sentence.

The growing issue here though is that of the media constantly telling the people of this country that they cannot defend themselves in their own homes when the law clearly states that they can. The more recent issue is that of the media and the Tories telling people that carrying out whatever acts of violence they wish during that defence is what should be allowed and that the law should simply turn a blind eye.

Excuses, excuses, excuses

The 'poor' (an infuriating and virtually meaningless phrase too often used in this country today) is a collection of peoples who often excuse their behaviour or are excused by others on account of 'learning difficulties'.

So there will be a 'poor' family in a council flat, and the mum will spend her money on a pet dog and a fag habit while the kids eat shit and sleep on the floor. And when the kids do badly at school and get into trouble, the parent will look all sheepish and say 'it's 'cos poor little Darren has [add bullshit made up condition here].

It could be one of any number of curiously new things. But they all fall under the simpering, pathetic bracket of 'learning difficulties'.

The state loves all this. Because it helps to cover up and make excuses for why their precious comprehensive education system is so shit, whilst at the same time inventing brilliant new ways of spending money, hiking taxes and explaining away crime rates.

"There's nothing wrong with your son, Tracey Savage, he just needs a fucking smack in the face and access to a book." - what would be said to pikey parents, in an ideal world.

But then we have the other end of the spectrum. Bullshit made up conditions that suit the agendas of the super rich.

You'll have heard of this: sex addiction.

I'm sorry, but fuck right off. There is no such fucking thing as sex addiction. I'll tell you what there is, though. There is, not sex addiction (funny how this never crops up amongst scum bags who actually do breed like apes on 'E'), but there is the phenomenon of obscenely rich men who are bloated on ego, money, drugs and a surreal world where they have everything at their fingertips but not the sense and stability to handle it properly.

Well, this won't be the view of one very rich man in the public eye at the moment. Tiger Woods cuts a sad figure these days, and like another big celeb name before him, he wants to sort out his personal life by booking himself in to a clinic for help with his ailment.

The story is utterly ludicrous. Sixty large, for a 6 week course at a 'sex clinic', charmingly known as 'rehab', as though it were for Crystal Meth-heads.

I can see why these centres open up. There's big money in this bollocks, in the same way as there is big money in organic food, mineral water and Sunny Delight. If a product is wanted, it doesn't matter if it is one giant, useless placebo. There's a demand, so there's a supply. Well, fair play to the profit makers.

But if these so-called 'sex addicts' want to spend their money, something they shouldn't be granted is any sympathy. Because rather than embracing made up non-existent, scientifically unprovable conditions to try and make their lives work, they might like to try taking responsibility.

A bit like the wasters who claim dole and churn out pikey brats in this god forsaken shit hole of a country.

A brief comment on the Geert Wilders trial

It's fascinating to see that it isn't just us Brits who have been attacked by the loony left authoritarian elites who have collectively decided what it is we are and aren't allowed to say anymore.

Geert Wilders, a far right Dutch MP, is standing trial at the moment for incitement. This is a great word, as it basically means anything that you want it to mean at any given time. The term joins things like 'enemy of the state', 'insurrectionist', 'terrorist' and 'inflammatory racist' amongst many, many more phrases and euphemisms for 'things the people in charge don't like'.

What must be noted is the public reaction to the trial. The man has managed to bring about a positive reaction in large numbers of people. Is it because they all agree with what he says?

No, I say. Many may agree with some of the main thrust of what he says, though it seems unlikely that everyone who supports him during this trial will buy into every inch of his theorem. I believe Wilders has generated such a popular reaction because that is the natural result whenever the state tries to stifle free speech.

The same would be true if it were a left winger standing trial, or indeed anyone else standing trial, whose only crime was to say stuff that was deemed by authority as unacceptable.

At heart, people don't want limits on what is said, and at heart there is a limit at which our freedoms and liberties may be curtailed. I am very pleased to see that this spirit is still alive and kicking amongst people.

We need more of this sort of thing back in Britain. At the moment, dissent is largely to be found in the blogosphere. Let's have some more of it on the streets and in the court rooms too *

* When I say on the streets, I mean proper organised demonstrations and campaigns. Not getting as many fat losers as possible (usually 4) in a pub, dressed in masks, while repeating daft slogans and using naughty swear words.

Removing the Puck from LPUK

Just to confirm, I removed myself from the LPUK.

I am a nihilistic, puckish creature, known to some as a fucked up loon, and others as a right royal pain in the arse.

Good. I'm glad.

I was put on this earth to create as much mischief, mayhem, dissent and contrarian headaches as possible. I hope I drive every last fucking one of you to an early Christmas supper with M'Lord Almighty. Bless him, up there in the sky with his old harp and a can of 'XXXX' to boot.

JD, on his lunch-break. Eating a sandwich, blowing shit up, the usual...

I have my beliefs and they are real enough. I watch the world revolve around me and my observations are clear. My understanding is good. My logic is strong. I'm no troll. I have real stuff to say, and my way of putting it.

But you see ladies and gents, there's a part of me that just won't play ball. Not with you, not with them not with anyone. Don't take it personally. I've caused so many ball-aches to so many people over the years, I've lost count.

I guess it's part nihilism, but also a potent propensity towards asking questions of everyone and insisting on clarity, honesty and consistency. As soon as I get a sniff of hypocrisy, it's like putting a flame to a stick of nitro. It's game over. Hence the LPUK row.

So enjoy yourselves in the coming months, guys. I wish you all luck. Whether lovers or haters of Boaty & D. I could be writing here, or on a laptop using a dongle on top of the Moors. But either way, I'll-be-a-writin' till my dying day. Writing, and talking, and poking and prodding and fucking everything up.

And you know what, guys? You know what really motivates me?...

A Boaty & D fan, on the hard shoulder of the M1 earlier this morning

Haiti: Is it looting?

The Haiti earthquake disaster is undoubtedly very sad - these poor people have suffered enough without having this cruel twist of nature's fate laying waste to the sprawling city of Port au Prince.

What I find very curious about the unfolding disaster, is how everyone has decided that Haitians who find goods and walk off with them are 'looters'. How do you loot a pile of crumbled concrete and twisted steel foundation rods?

I would dispute whether, in this instance, it counts as 'looting' when people find stuff and take it as their own. Think about it. Nothing really exists anymore. The country, society, whatever you want to call it, has been utterly razed to the ground. There is no infrastructure, no functioning government, no industry, no insurance companies to come to the rescue, no concept of land and property ownership...because most buildings in that city have either been seriously damaged or totally wrecked.

I won't call it a case of 'finder's keepers'. But I would call the 'looting' a form of salvage. Most people are starving, or homeless, or starving and homeless. They are the lucky ones. Others are dead, suffering under a pile of busted concrete and breeze block, or are mourning deceased relatives.

So I think it fair game that people tuck in and help themselves in the circumstances. Any owners of whatever used to exist can't possibly 'sell' the wares they have.

Some of the pictures I've seen in the press have shown shopkeepers with guns, loosing off into the crowd, with a caption underneath along the lines of: "a shopkeeper protects his shop in the face of rampaging looters".

And he'll be stood on a large mound of broken steel, aluminum and wood, in the same way as an Anteater stands on his ant hill with his big old schnozzle poking out defiantly.

"Deez mah motherfucking Ants! You back da fuck up, y'hear?"

No, mate, this is really sad and I'm sorry to have to point this out but...it used to be your fucking shop. It's no longer a shop, is it? It's a sorry mound of shite. Martha isn't going to drop by at 3 o'clock later this afternoon with a crisp dollar bill in order to pick up a couple of tins of chick peas and some collared greens. Martha is dead. The dollar bill is worth one sheet of bog roll, which you don't sell anymore because it turned to putty in the rain.

You're 'shop' is finished.

So with this in mind, one has to question the integrity of those high and mighty types who are carrying out the lynching and street mob justice so as to restore 'order'. Ironically, it is these people who are the real thieves and looters. Once someone has commandeered something. I don't know, like a rug or a TV that won't work because there are no plug points anymore, that's theirs now. You can't take it off them at gun point and come off looking like the good guy!

Adios, for now.

This is a link to Unicef's Haiti Earthquake Fund for Children, should you happen to be reading this site today in a generous mood.

Peter Hitchens on the role of the state

Hitchens' latest Sunday column is out. He talks about what the size and role of the state used to be, compared to what it is now. He gives his view on what it ought to be, and my is it hard to disagree with what he has written. I like what he says and I think his views are congruent with many a libertarian outlook on the role and function of government.

I am also pleased that he mentioned the Myleene Klass incident. A matter I wrote about myself a week ago.

As I said in December, I think there are many areas of agreement between libertarians and conservatives: could this be an allegiance worth forming?

The leader of the LPUK on unions

DK has stuff to say about unions and teachers.

Destroy unions, and sack teachers, says he. He thinks unions once had a point, but because of equality legislation and the minimum wage, he wants unions to be smashed and closed down as they no longer serve a valid purpose.

That's funny, because I don't remember any union figure putting a gun to my head making me join. Unions are there to represent the workforce. They don't merely act as political party donors and obstructions to change and managerial decision making. They support and arbitrate in cases of dispute and acrimony involving individual members of staff, they help to push strong cases for better pay and conditions and they are like an insurance policy for the worker, in case of bad times and instances of bullying and harassment.

The most important point of all, is that individuals make the choice to join and combine. They get to vote in the people who run it, and they get to vote to strike, amongst other democratic rights.

Believe me, I'm no huge fan of unions and I know they have their hideous sides to them. But to destroy them? To take away this choice from people, by force of the law? I cannot reconcile this with libertarianism, but only with some backwards form of feudalism where the bosses and owners have all the Aces. I cannot understand the point DK is making, although I can guess some of his emotional and knee-jerk reactions to things like firebrand socialist union bosses and Guardian reading teachers.

I'm sure any reasonable person would be able to reject both mindless anti-unionism and the sorts of lefties in the public sector who are laughable caricatures.

But why go for Unions? Why not seek to abolish unnecessary and bureaucratic legislation (the stuff on equality and min. wage) instead of seeking to bring down something that people actually want and voluntarily join?

What is staggering about this, is that even the U.S. Libertarian big wig Ron Paul is in favour of the right to combine:



DK appears to be saying that all the work unions could and should have done, has been done, 2 centuries ago, and that because it is all wrapped up, they should be ground to dust before our eyes.

This is a bit like a chief medical officer coming out and saying: "well, we have got rates of cervical cancer, AIDS and hepatitis right down to minimum levels this year, so what we're going to do is basically close down all the hospitals and sack all the nurses."

The trouble with DK's brand of 'libertarianism', is that it places maximum trust in the Boss, and minimum trust in the lowly worker. The state and all its instruments and workers are deemed to be untrustworthy, self-serving and corrupt. But a business, that exists for profit, but that performs the same function, can do exactly as it pleases.

I oppose both forms where excessive power lies in the 'authority'. As I keep saying, you can't have your cake and eat it. Libertarianism has to be about the individual, but it also has to be about the rights and democratic choices of the individual. You can't cancel out the latter, in favour of Mr Biz Niz-Guru, just because Mr Biz Niz-Guru is a private property and business owner, and not the state.

I think it's time to redefine libertarianism in Britain, and drag it out of the depths of anarcho-capitalist hell where it is currently held hostage by a small band of disgruntled people-haters.

A disgrace to libertarianism

It is a profoundly depressing time where such a person as blogger 'Old Holborn' is intrinsically linked and aligned with the UK Libertarian movement. It's a bit like watching your prized and cherished family home get repo'd by Al-Saud the Billionaire, sat in his digger grinning out the window at your freezing family.

'Old Holborn' (a puerile and pathetic, yet mildly amusing, pseudonym which is accurate in that the man is every bit as putrid and bitter tasting as the tobacco's namesake) has penned an 'article' ripping into Jews and 'Zionists'. He, with a strong yellow streak running through it, seeks to draw a link between the MPs who voted for the Iraq war, and the fact that many of them are Jewish.

He thinks he is being cool by writing such gutless, 'controversial' rubbish. He is not. Being offensive has its purpose and there is a time and a place for it. This is just mindless tat that helps to destroy libertarianism as a political movement and it will make people think that the LPUK and the BNP have common ground...in the worst possible way.

I am staggered, even by his standards, that he actually felt the need to say this. I can't bear dumb conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic nonsense at the best of times, but this bullshit isn't even convincing or original.

I suggest you read the piece and the comments, and not just take my interpretation for granted.

Get fucked, 'Old Holborn', you nasty piece of work.

Normal Tebbit has started blogging

A 'hat tip' (ugh) to Obnoxio the Clown for bringing this to my attention via his site.

The sharp, intelligent and brilliant Norman Tebbit has started blogging via the Daily Telegraph online. That's a link to his second blog post. Some great stuff there, and it looks like he might be up for engaging with contributors like Peter Hitchens does on his site. This is rare, and commendable, and very much part of what proper democracy and open discussion is all about.

Go to the Guardian, and you'll note that the big names who get columns via 'Comment is Free' virtually never bother debating with contributors. I put this down to a combination of intellectual weakness and arrogance.

So a welcome to The Tebb-Meister, aka Tebbage, aka Tebbs and I hope his blog is as lively and controversial as our own dear, Mighty Site.

An article more disgusting than Jan Moir's Stephen Gately piece

Apparently, we westerners are licentious, immoral and depraved fornicators, and it's our degenerate lifestyle and culture that drives Muslim men to commit acts of terror against citizens.

No, this isn't the latest bit of crude propaganda funneled through Al-Jazeera by the latest bunch of Middle East terrorists. This is the message in a disgraceful piece by the Independent's Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

The article, which I fully suggest you read, is entitled: "Licentiousness breeds extremism".

In other words, the individual choices of individuals has a direct correlation with people deciding to commit mass murder.

From the piece:

"...the collapse of all restraint in our societies is breeding sicknesses and madness, and may be pushing some Muslims to the edge of reason."

Can anyone, and I really mean anyone, possibly understand or justify this despicable piece of 'journalism', or shed any light on the meaning and content of the article?

This was printed in a 'liberal' newspaper, and from the comments, it went down rather well. Have I woken up in some sort of surreal, dark planet or what?

Do the 'English Democrats' want to silence people and try them for treason?

I commend and offer boundless thanks and congratulations for the tireless and important work of bloggers 'Mr Rob' and 'SteveShark', who continue to relentlessly expose the despicable and highly concerning political 'party' called 'The English Democrats Party'.

The above link takes you to a forum where the EDP big wigs and other members get together to talk about world domination and various deranged ideas. If it weren't for Mr Rob and Steve Shark, their insanity and authoritarian claptrap would probably go by unnoticed, until such time as that grubby party managed to get into a position to nab a couple of small, local electoral victories.

By exposing them, reasonable people everywhere will know that the EDP is a hopeless, joke outfit with incoherent and inconsistent ideas on rights and freedoms, and with even less vision and legitimacy than the (in my view) equally wicked BNP.

Do read Mr Rob's thread, and other threads he has written, because it is always worth noting the goings on in minority parties.

In the '90s, the BNP was a nothing joke outfit with no popular appeal and no political office. Look at them now. Do we want to see another authoritarian mob of idiots make political strides? Ignorance is fertilser in a greenhouse for these people.

For me, banning opinion and silencing and worse still punishing people for their views is not just sickening and evil, it is anti-British.

I take the same position towards the banning of the group 'Islam4UK'. Only bad things can come out of banning unpopular or disliked groups. It is against every single tenet of democracy to ban people and groups from speaking their views. I am aghast at the logic behind it. Do we learn nothing from history?

It is equally important to defend the basic liberties and rights of our worst enemies, as it is to defend the rights of loved ones and allies.

The EDP, according to the source in the linked thread, take this logic further down the road but it is still very much the same road. A road that leads to pain and slavery.

Making light work of libertarianism

A third and final blast from the Mighty D, then my evening is complete. I am easily pleased, dear Boaty & D readers. Quite whether that was too much information for this time of the evening is for me to know and you to find out.

I want to talk about another issue that unites and brings libertarians together. Recently I talked about the Myleene Klass / offensive weapon row, which was in the press the other day. Today I am talking about something that can get all of us libertarians a-noddin'-and-a-smoilin'.

Yep, that's right. Work.

You don't have to be a Randite libertarian to appreciate and understand the importance of work for the individual. All libertarians know that it is by an individual's effort and personal endeavour that their successes and standing should be realised.

It underpins our stance on statism, welfarism, equality and individual rights. Everything ultimately comes down to 'what can the individual do for himself and his family', as opposed to what he can or must do for his state or for strangers.

We also know about what it means for the human soul. For pride and meaning. To work is to say ' I do not depend on or burden you, I am doing my bit. I am making my own way'.

There is much to say about work, and very little against it. If work is bad, and creates misery, then in a proper libertarian country, there would be choice, social mobility and a tax system that would be so beneficial for the individual, that fresh, new, different opportunities and ideas would abound.

But what I want to say about work is this. For me, libertarianism ought to never, ever be about snobbery or looking down on your fellow man for the work he does. I believe an entirely equal amount of respect and consideration ought to be given to people regardless of their job.

I have always taken this view and I will to my dying day. I speak to and regard a CEO of a company or a multi millionaire tycoon with not a speck of difference to the way I treat cleaners, cabbies and bar maids. Work, effort, productivity and self reliance are the values. The job spec and the money is irrelevant.

This is where the nuts and bolts of libertarianism is to be found. In how we see, treat and regard people according to what they say and do. This is what it is all about. Because how people are treated can manifest itself as a bed of roses or a blue touch paper attached to a large bomb. How people are treated is, fundamentally, one of the most important drivers of politics across the globe.

Treat people well and with consistent fairness, and no matter what your politics, you will get a good result. Treat them like dogs, and you could have the cure for Cancer in your sky rocket, but you'd still be seen as a total cunt.

It is with sadness, though not with surprise, that there are libertarians out there who would break from this proper position on work and individual worth. On 5th January, I popped on Old Holborn's blog (the notoriously rude, offensive blogger who masquerades as a 'libertarian') and he came back at me calling me dismissively and with haughty arrogance a: "moped seller from Bradford".

Even if I did sell mopeds and lived in Bradford, which I do not, what would be wrong with that? Some months back he came out with a similar theme, saying that I could not afford the 'bus fair from Bradford'.

Again, if I could not afford to visit London from Bradford via the Omnibus, and I can, why would that make me a lesser or unworthy person?

We as libertarians must junk such disgraceful attitudes if we are to progress as a philosophy in the hearts and minds of fellow Britons.

It doesn't matter what you do, or how much money you have. It is about the basics of our grand, beautiful political philosophy and one of those basic tenets is the importance of work. Whatever that work may be.

Oafish fools and misanthropic, sneering bigots such as that Holborn character who berated me for being a 'moped seller' do libertarianism a grave injustice. Ignore them, and their blind, blithering hypocrisy. Let them obsess over meaningless Westminster tittle tattle, and focus on things that are actually important and worth fighting for.

p.s. my comments on work won't apply to people who are retired. Obviously. They've done their bit.

Weird C4 Broadcast about Obama racist comments

Just a quick one, and your comments are appreciated as ever.

The other day I was watching another amusingly left wing Channel 4 news broadcast with Jon Snow, when a journalist began talking about alleged racist comments made by top political people in the States about Barack Obama, in the lead up to the US Presidential Election.

It has caused quite a stir, as you can imagine. Harry Reid, Senate Leader, is said to have made comments about Obama, saying he is a lighter skinned African American and that he didn't have a Negro dialect, unless he wanted one.

In addition, Bill Clinton said: "a few years ago this guy [Obama] would be getting us coffee".

Well, I don't mean to sound overly controversial here, but both sets of comments are true. Where is the racism?

He is lighter skinned, he doesn't have an accent attributed to many black peoples in the States, he probably could affect one if he wanted to, which he doesn't, and a few years ago he would have been proverbially making the coffee on account of his relative youth and lack of experience.

For goodness sake, why can't we just call racism when we see it, instead of looking for it where none exists? I am sure there are occasions where high profile people genuinely make racist comments. Out those, and rip those apart. This is all just a load of old bullshit, to be honest.

Reid's age is probably a factor in his unfortunate use of the arcane word 'negro'. It's not a word I'd use, though I know older people who say 'coloured'. These words are very similar in terms of their meaning and potency. They almost never infer racist sentiment on the part of the person speaking them.

You can't argue with Reid's underlying point. Obama is more acceptable to his countrymen and women because of what he looks like and how he speaks. That is fact. Call it an unfortunate fact, but that's the reality. Why blame Reid for pointing it out?

And as far as Clinton's comments go, I fail to see any form of racism in that whatsoever. In fact, there is a strong case for saying that a person who immediately sees racism in his comment, is in fact, racist. Because to assume he was doing black people down by making the coffee remark is to assume that black people automatically, and are largely seen as so doing, occupy the lowest rungs of society.

So the people who call racist are probably more racist that the people they are calling racist to start with.

Liberal hypocrisy, well there's a surprise. Wouldn't have seen that coming.

Obama, and I made similar points 18 months back, was relatively young and inexperienced. He came from nowhere to take the candidacy and this will have narked the Clinton's. Therefore, there was a clear motive and context for the coffee maker remark. It meant to say he was a greenhorn and someone without the experience and gravitas to take what ought to have been Hilary's role.

I've read Obama's 'The Audacity of Hope', and while it is a very good book and well written, Obama cannot disguise the fact that he only had a couple of terms of political experience as Senator in him.

So what I want to know, is why all the fuss? Obviously, Channel 4 will want to highlight stuff like this because they are liberal, left wing, multiculturalist, 'anti-racist' obsessives who will do anything they can to paint white people as the imperialist oppressors and wicked subjugators. But I've heard of this storm in a tea cup from numerous sources, this side of the pond and t'other.

What a shame that maturity and common sense fails men and women of all ages and races to such a profound degree. No wonder political 'debate' is so amateurish and childish.

The 'Bleach' attacker and who the real criminals are

Last summer, a young bloke accompanied by a nasty gang of thugs went into a restaurant and poured bleach all over a mother with her family looking on. The mum was severely physically and psychologically damaged and who knows what this event has done to the family.

The reason the bloke did this, was to get revenge on the woman for asking him to be quiet in a cinema earlier on that day. That was it. That was the provocation.

The other day we learned that the attacker got 12 months 'detention'.

I watched the television broadcast of our local news (the event took place in my region and quite close to where I live) and I was disgusted by the reporting on the matter.

Firstly, I discovered that this 12 months 'detention' (i.e. playing pool with lads and hanging out smoking and watching telly) is very likely to be reduced to a 6 month 'sentence'. I challenge any reader of this weblog to convince me that this constitutes a punishment or any form of deterrent.

Secondly, and rather prominent in the reported news piece, the journalist told viewers that the criminal, Jordan Horsley, had 'a very troubled childhood'.

Now, I can't remember whether this was on BBC or ITV, but the fact this was thrown in as a caveat and explainer tells us all we need to know, coupled with the appalling joke 'sentence'.

This country has been brainwashed by the social democratic left who have held political power in this country now since the end of the Second World War, but more notably since the 1960s. Most people at home would not have flinched at this bit of information.

I did. I flinched and felt depressed, because by adding the bit about his upbringing, the viewer is wittingly or unwittingly asked to make various mental deductions.

They are:

1. That the background to the criminal may well be a mitigating and explanatory factor in him committing his crime.
2. That bad upbringings or tough backgrounds can lead to or excuse sickening crimes.
3. That what happened to Horsley (facts unknown) is as important an item of information in the news skit as the crime against the mother.
4. That there are two victims in this story.
5. That there is no popular, widespread disgust at low, pathetic sentences (there is).

The media steadfastly promotes certain aspects to news, and stubbornly withholds key facts simultaneously. This happens all the time. The media will tell us about popular public opinion and outrage in some areas (see the Wooten Bassett Story about insulted soldiers), but they won't talk about anger and treachery in others (crime and punishment, mass immigration etc).

This cannot be discussed as purely a left wing BBC thing anymore. It affects all wings of the mainstream media, who have bought into a singular, dogmatic establishment line. Rocking of boats is strictly off limits, and anyone who talks about things people really want to talk about are tainted as extremists by the liberal elites.

This may sound vague. That is because the perpetrators of this mass crime against our nation want it to be vague. Hence why they never come out and have the courage to nail their colours to the mast. They hide behind jargon and lingo and tag lines like 'New Labour' and modern, caring 'Conservatives' and so on.

The real criminals, the real low life scum from this story are not the Horsley's of this world, but in fact the very people who allow them to carry on with their lifestyles untouched and unhindered. The traitorous left wing bastards who run this country, and ensure that criminals are never punished. The people who spend endless amounts of money trying to understand criminals, instead of accepting that wrong is wrong and it must be deterred and punished for everyone's betterment.

The people who engineer news broadcasts so that people at home are insulted with lines about 'tough childhoods'. The people who kow tow to the left, who have seeped into every vestige of society, so that regular folk rarely protest at the upside down world view forced down our throats. The view where the law abiding person is the dodgy, untrustworthy sod and the criminal the victim.

The arrogance of these pseudo-socialists knows no bounds. I find it extremely depressing and I can't see how any of this will ever change. Not in our 1st Past the Post system at any rate.

A case to unite all libertarians on private property rights

I think I can safely say that, where Mr Boatang and I have challenged the libertarian hard right in Britain on private property rights, there is an recent, topical example where all libertarians (moderate and hard line) can agree.

The case of Myleene Klass, the singer and musician, who was warned by the police for warding off potential thieves from her property by waving a knife at them from behind the window of her own house.

There is no conceivable justification for this outrageous, intrusive and despicable action from the authorities. I find it terrifying that an innocent, law abiding householder can be admonished and reprimanded for trying to ward off trespassers and possible criminals from her own land, by displaying a defensive weapon in her own house.

We don't know if the trespassers would have done something very bad. But seeing as they shouldn't have been there, and Klass felt scared for the safety of her and her child, I think her actions are entirely reasonable.

She didn't throw the knife out of the window at the intruders, although I think that if she did offer a warning and this was unheeded, she should be in her rights to try and repel them. She was in her house, and picked up a kitchen implement.

If the law seriously doesn't allow householders to pick up a knife in their own home, because it is an 'offensive weapon', we have problems. Big, big problems.

This is definitely (I know some fellow libertarians may diverge here) a left - right issue. Law and order is in the hands of a left wing judiciary and now left wing senior cabal of police. Not only do they want the law to protect the state, but more so they refuse to define between the law abiding and decent and the law disrespecting low life. This is a socialist and left wing position, whether they concede to know it or not. It is precisely the attitude expressed in the politics of my teachers and other peers when I was growing up in the '90s.

Some things never change.

But I agree with all libertarians on this matter, in that Klass should not have been warned and she acted well within her rights as a property holder. She should have been congratulated for her calm and her clever defensive measures.

Imagine what message the police are sending out here to the bad guys? They will be emboldened, as if they aren't emboldened enough by free lawyers, legal aid, ECHR and PACE 1984.

The law is on the side of the liberty-crushers, and the state seems disinterested. This is not a coincidence.

The British Cabinet 2010 - How Many Nobodies Does It Take To Run A Country?

I've been meaning to write this for ages and have finally gotten around to it.It's a question that is not often thought about, but it really should be - the size of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom.

Of course, you have the usual people, the required posts that it is hard to argue with, but beyond that, who the hell is everyone else? If you have never looked the list, then here you go:

Prime Minister	The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP
First Lord of the Treasury
Minister for the Civil Service
Leader of the House of Commons	The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP
Lord Privy Seal
Minister for Women and Equality
First Secretary of State	The Rt Hon The Lord Mandelson PC
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Lord President of the Council
Chancellor of the Exchequer	The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs	The Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Justice	The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Lord Chancellor
Secretary of State for the Home Department	The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs	The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for International Development	The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government	The Rt Hon John Denham MP
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families	The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change	The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP
Secretary of State for Health	The Rt Hon Andrew Burnham MP
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland	The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP
Leader of the House of Lords	The Rt Hon The Baroness Royall of Blaisdon PC
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Minister for the Cabinet Office	The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP
Minister for the Olympics
Paymaster General
Secretary of State for Scotland	The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions	The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury	The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP
Secretary of State for Wales	The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP
Secretary of State for Defence	The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP
Secretary of State for Transport	The Rt Hon The Lord Adonis MP
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport	The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP

So, that's twenty-three actual Secretaries of State. But that it isn't it, also attending are:

Chief Whip of the House of Commons	The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury
Minister of State for Africa, Asia and the United Nations	The Rt Hon The Lord Malloch-Brown KCMG PC
Minister of State for Housing and Planning	The Rt Hon John Healey MP
Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills	The Rt HonPat McFadden MP
Minister of State for Science and Innovation	The Rt Hon The Lord Drayson PC
Minister of State for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform
Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform	The Rt Hon Jim Knight MP

That's another six. Twenty-nine regular attenders to the Cabinet then. But what is that I hear? Ah yes, it is the special people that turn up when needed:

Attorney General	The Rt Hon The Baroness Scotland of Asthal PC QC
Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families	The Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP
	The Rt HonRosie Winterton MP
Minister of State for Transport	The Rt Hon Sadiq KhanMP

That's another four then, including the disgrace that is Dawn Primarolo who I hate with a passion. So, thirty-three people to basically, run the country at any given time.

Why?

The Thatcher Ministry circa 1987 to 1989 comprised twenty-three people, even ignoring the people who sometimes turn up listed above, that is still six less. The main one that ran from 1983 to 1987 comprised twenty-two.

Even the Major Ministry with all it's shuffles and fall outs, averaged twenty-four members. The Blair Cabinets ranged from his first of twenty-five though to twenty-three.

The Asquith Ministry of 1905-1915, the end of Empire and The Great War, including members for India, War and so on comprised about twenty people.

So why do we need all this people? Brown is notoriously inward and removed with his cabal of friends and trusted advisers, so is the purpose of have such a massive Cabinet? And what do they earn?

Well, they earn a fortune is the answer to that, as shown here in the Civil Service Salary Table. They are getting between £106,000 and £141,000, not including Brown on £194,000. All the other Ministers that are listed as 'Non-Cabinet', but in fact attend Cabinet meetings, earn £104,050 each. Yes, that utter nobody Primarolo gets paid £104,050 a year of your money.

This then generates a whole host of Parliamentary Secretaries, earning? Well according to Table 4a, about £94,000 a pop, multiply that by forty-one. Each Government Whip and Assistant Whip gets £89,000 each and there are fourteen of them.

That isn't including the 170 plus cars, or the expenses, or the grace and favour homes.

Why do we need all this posts? For instance, sure International Development can come under the Foreign Office and demoted to a Minister? Or all the family, community, culture and food posts etc can all be made Ministers in the Home Office? Surely anything to do with money can be represented by the Treasury? Why do you need the Secretary of Defence and the Minister of Defence Acquisition at the same meeting?

The inefficiency is rife and it is almost rule by nodding. How many get to speak? Not many I would bet. That isn't even getting into the cost of elevating what should be a ministerial position to Cabinet level

The irony that makes it even more absurd is that we all know full well that Gordon Brown, like Blair, doesn't even govern by Cabinet so it's a total waste of time and money. He turns up and tells them what him and Ed Balls want and they all tell him how great he is.

The numbers and names above represent everything that has gone wrong this politics in this country. Too many people doing too many non-jobs being paid too much money. It has become a career of choice as opposed to a calling, I didn't even know most of the the names when I read them, let alone what they do, so how can they justify that sort of money? They aren't even running anything if they are Ministers, they simply carry out what they are told to do and even that means telling civil servants to do it.

Right from the top there needs to be a serious review of what is paid and to whom, because at the moment it's a complete piss take.