Friday, 30 August 2013

SYRIA, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

'At the conference table and in the minds of men, the free world’s cause is strengthened because it is just. But it is strengthened even more by the dedicated efforts of free men and free nations. As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  '
President John F. Kennedy 1961

 Scared of the unknown consequences of punishing Assad for using chemical weapons the UK has voted against using military action. So what are the consequences of doing nothing?

The obvious consequence is Hezbollah or the Militant Muslimists getting their hands on them.

That it gives Assad the green light to continue using them on his own people and possibly Turkey.

It is reminiscent of -

"However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account."
Neville Chamberlain on Appeasement 1939 (who thought he had learned the lessons of World War 1)

The UK thinks it has learned the lessons of the Iraq war but it has forgotten the lessons of World War 2

Monday, 25 March 2013

Ending the Something for Nothing Culture

David Cameron -

"Ending the something for nothing culture needs to apply to immigration as well as welfare"

As xenophobia continues to fire up the politics of the right in the UK David Cameron continues to promote one rule for the scapegoats, who, in this case actually do not exist yet (immigrants who he imagines are about to flood the UK) and a different rule for him and his buddies.
So who in the UK does actually get something for nothing?

Well there was George Entwistle,  Director of the BBC for 54 days, he got just under half a million pounds.

And then there was Quantative Easing, the bank of England's own report to MPs pointed out that the richest 10% of households saw there the value of their assets increase by up to £322,000 per household.

Not to be forgotten is the Funding for Lending Scheme, so far £14bn of nearly free money has been drawn down by the Banks signed up to the scheme, the result? Overall lending by the banks actually fell by £2.4bn!!

Osborne bringing down tax for the rich, if you earn £250,000 a year the tax giveaway is worth £5,000.

 I will not even mention Banker's bonuses,     oops!!

So the rich and the ruling class continue to 'fiddle' while David Cameron attempts to ignite the UK 'burn' over the imagined abuse of the welfare system by immigrants who do not exist

Thursday, 28 February 2013

Green Economy, An Oxymoron?

Electrically-powered bicycle after the lecture...
Electrically-powered bicycle after the lecture "Green economy" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Can the words 'Green' and 'Economy' together be anything but an oxymoron?

The working definition of a 'Green Economy' developed by UNEP is -
"improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive."

The first part (improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities).
 In any economy the driving force from top to bottom is individuals striving to do exactly that at a personal level, to improve their well-being, their personal social equity in their place on the ladder, at the same time significantly reducing environmental risks to themselves (not in my backyard) and through wealth insulating themselves from ecological scarcities.
The second part (in its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of as one which is low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.) leaves out the most important factor  - it must be sustainable!

The Green Economy does not exist and never will do, what does exist are words and concepts that have been manipulated to create an illusion.

Do any Politician understand the meaning of 'reform'?
"to make an improvement, especially by changing a person's behaviour or the structure of something"

When the UK Government speak of Welfare Reform they are not speaking of improvement to the lives of those on benefits, in reality their 'reform' is an imposition of austerity, a worsening not an improvement. The concept of reform has been manipulated to create an illusion.

We all know what a supermarket is yet it is neither super or a marketplace, it is a big shop belonging one of a chain that strives to reduce competition, the complete opposite to the concept of a marketplace.

The meaning of 'sustainable' is -
"causing little or no damage to the environment and therefore able to continue for a long time "

I am not aware of any economy Green or otherwise that does not require depleting resources to keep it going. From the Roman Empire to our recent economic problems history has told us that economies are always unsustainable.
The concept of 'economy' is a manipulated illusion itself, and really would we want the Roman Empire to have lasted up until today?

We need to create sustainable models by which to lead our lives into a more equitable future, not illusive 'Green' concepts and manipulated economics.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 17 February 2013

Theresa May In The Footsteps Of The Fuhrer

Entrance to the Way of Human Rights, Nuremberg.
Entrance to the Way of Human Rights, Nuremberg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Theresa May has vowed to introduce new laws on deportation.

May wrote today in the Mail On Sunday -

"This is not a dispute about respect for human rights, which I certainly agree is an essential part of any decent legal system.
It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual's right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals."

I am not sure if May is aware  but there is no right of the individual to be free from violent crime, or the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals. I presume her ignorance of what human rights are has produced this rant against the all important arm of the Separation of Powers an Independent Judiciary.

Human Rights are Universal,they are not a pick and mix decided by politicians. Human Rights laws do create some unpalatable situations in what have been some high profile cases but deciding on who should and who should not be afforded those rights is walking in the steps of Hitler.

"In Germany, long before 1933, legal theorists
were rejecting the idea that states were bound by a set of
external and abstract legal norms that guaranteed the civil
rights of the individuals and an independent judicial
system. Hitler only stepped in this track."

Historians have noted that Germany's slide into National Socialism was a gradual process of popular desire for simple answers, the desire for a strong leadership and a gradual process of new laws to dilute the power of the Judiciary.

Theresa May went on to say-
 " It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country - and not the judges.
 Yet some judges seem to believe that they can ignore Parliament's wishes if they think that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny have been 'weak'. That appears actually to mean that they can ignore Parliament when they think it came to the wrong conclusion."

It is unfortunate that May is unaware of Common Law, the law created by Judges in individual legal cases, something one would have hoped a Home Secretary would be aware of!
And further it is the Judiciary's responsibility to keep in check the power of the legislature by questioning Government's legislation.

" Unfortunately the initial coordination between the executive and legislative branches wasn’t fully effective in regards to controversial verdicts.  In a fit of frustration Hitler announced to the Reichstag that he would directly intervene in the judicial process.  The Reichstag, not surprisingly, granted him this request stating that it was Hitler’s authority to “enforce, with all means which he may consider suitable, every German’s duties… in case violations of duties he has the right to impose the proper penance…  in particular, he may remove anyone from his office, rank and his position, without resort to the established procedures.”[19]  Judges were informed that their decisions were to be guided by ideology rather than legal doctrine, and that these decisions were to be clear, concise and uncomplicated.[20]  Their subservience to the F├╝hrer was once again reinforced."

If a foreigner commits a crime in the UK and they have a Human Right to remain in the UK then they should be punished in the UK.
This is not a problem with Human Rights Law but yet another politician upset they not only make law but have to abide by it as well!

As I pointed out in my previous post

Without the protection of European Law, without a majority in Parliament and bypassing the House of Lords the Cameron Government could quite legally pass a law (based on a Blair type perceived threat) dissolving Parliament and creating a dictatorship."

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 11 February 2013

United Kingdom, A Fledgling Dictatorship?

When one million people took to the streets to protest against the Blair government's decision to got to war with Iraq there were one million people exercising their right to peaceful protest.
This 'Right' is embodied in Article 11 of The Convention of European Human Rights, the Right to Protest and Freedom of Association.
In the UK, unlike most countries there is no written Constitution or Bill Of Rights. A recent parliamentary investigation into the possibility of creating a Bill of Rights decided there was not enough support for it among MPs.
So, contrary to popular belief, in the absence of European Human Rights the citizens of the United Kingdom have no rights.
The unwritten, or uncodified UK Constitution reveals a system that allows everything that has not had law made against it, to put that another way if there is no law, or interpretation of law preventing an action a citizen can perform that action.
But who makes the Law?
Parliament is free to make any law it likes, in addition there is no rule or law preventing the House of Commons from bypassing the House of Lords completely (Parliament Act 1911 and 1949).
In fact, contrary to popular belief, A UK Government need not even win an election to remain in power-

 "Stanley Baldwin's government lost its majority in the general election of December 1923, but did not resign until defeated in a confidence vote in January 1924."

With the benefit of hindsight (not to take anything away from those million marchers with foresight) It appears that for what ever reason, Tony Blair and a group of committed colleagues with false information and scare tactics got Government to agree to going to war with Iraq.
Tony Blair, some years later says he believed it was the right thing to do and so it got done, as did some years before him Lady Thatcher when she sent a task force to win back the Falklands. Neither of whom were dictators but both were dictatorial, all dictators believe they are doing the right thing.

If David Cameron does not get a majority in the next General Election it is legally possible for him to remain at Number 10, it is legally possible he could still hold a referendum on Europe, it is possible the citizens of Britain will vote to hand back their Human Rights to Brussels, including their Right to peaceful protest .
Without the protection of European Law, without a majority in Parliament and bypassing the House of Lords the Cameron Government could quite legally pass a law (based on a Blair type perceived threat) dissolving Parliament and creating a dictatorship.

I am not suggesting the above will happen, I am suggesting without the protection of European Law it could happen and would be completely legal.

It happened in most of Europe in the 1930s which is probably why the EU has put in place such protection for us European Citizens.

Saturday, 9 February 2013

Poverty And The Banking Elite’s Death Toll

This world wide recession need not have happened, it was man made. With the political will man could fix it but it is now becoming obvious that there is only the will to retain and protect the fraudulent systems that created the recession while making those less well off pay for the mistakes of the political banking elite.

As with any actions there are consequences.
Across the world, it is well documented that poverty is on the rise as a direct consequence of the recession brought about by fraudulent banking protected by a misguided or just plain corrupt political elite.

In the UK a recent report by the Rowntree Foundation  ‘Child and Working Age Poverty From 2010 To 2020′ states -

“The period between 2009-10 (the latest household income data available) and 2012-13 is likely to be dominated by a large decline in real incomes across the income distribution. Absolute poverty is forecast to rise by about 600,000 children and 800,000 working-age adults. Median income is expected to fall by around 7% in real terms, which would be the largest three-year fall for 35 years.”

In the USA the NPC (National Poverty Center) states -

“In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.”

In Greece the Quarterly EU Labour Market Review, March 2012 states -

” The overall at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate for the total population stood at 27.7 percent in 2010, higher than the EU27 average of 23.4 percent. The risk-of-poverty (income-poor) rate was 20.1 percent in 2010, following an increase from 19.7 percent in 2009, whereas the EU average is 16.4 percent. The risk of poverty for children (23 percent) is higher than the EU average which stood at 20.6 percent in 2010.”

Poverty, from a Global point of view, is usually associated with the third world countries, and there are many respected reports out there on the net showing how from Bangladesh to Brazil, the banker’s recession is having a direct impact on raising their levels of poverty.
In 2008 it was estimated by The World Bank that there were 1.29 Billion people living in absolute poverty, it also estimates that 53 Million more people were pushed into poverty as a direct result of the financial crisis, adding the prediction that this induced poverty will lead to an additional 200,000 to 300,000 babies dieing  each year.

From decreased charity funding and broken promises for aid in Africa to 2700 ‘cold weather’ deaths a year in the UK directly linked to poverty (Professor John Hills London School Of Economics) the politicians and their paymaster bankers in a bid to protect their failed fraudulent system are imposing systems of austerity to combat the recession, the consequence of which is death on a scale never imagined by Hitler and his death camps

In his book ‘The End of Poverty’ Professor Jeffrey Sachs estimated 20,000 humans die each day from poverty.

From the above figures of recession induced increasing poverty in the UK, USA and Greece I would guesstimate the actual percentage increase in worldwide poverty is somewhere between .4% and 4%, based on Sachs’s estimate that would mean an additional 80 to 800 people die a day world wide as a direct result of the omnipotent banker’s greed and the inept political elite’s actions.

The political methods being used to combat this man made recession are like fighting an outbreak of chicken flue by bailing out the farmers to produce more diseased chickens. The farmers produce our food, they are too important to fail so if they are financed to produce enough diseased chickens and the human population takes the hit eventually only the immune humans will survive and all will be well!!
It is time to wake up and realise our system is fundamentally  broken, only then maybe we can do something about it. Poverty causes death, the financial crisis is causing poverty.

Saturday, 2 February 2013

Spanish PM Rajoy Denies Corruption

Cases of corruption in local and national politics in Spain, of which there are currently over 300 reached fever pitch this week when El Pais published what it called the "secret accounts" of former party treasurer for Spain's ruling Popular Party Luis Barcenas.

Luis Barcenas, who served in the party's treasury for 20 years, resigned in 2009 after he was first named in a National Court probe into alleged irregular financing practices by the party.

The 'secret accounts' show that the spanish PM Rajoy received as of 1997 some €25,000 each year.

Party secretary general Maria Dolores de Cospedal who for three years tried to stop the Court investigation, and one of the alleged recipients is reported to have said some of the entries published corresponded to payments made within the group while others were false.

The unexplained fund of 22 million Euros was found in a Swiss bank account in Luis Barcenas's name who subsequently took advantage  of a controversial government amnesty for tax evaders to "regularize" roughly half the Swiss account money, something the Finance Ministry denied.

Mr Rajoy said today
"We can't permit that Spaniards, whom we are asking to make sacrifices, could have the impression that were are not up to strictest ethical standards."

Probably a little late for that sentiment, a recent poll, conducted by El Pais, suggested that 96 per cent of Spaniards believe that the level of political corruption is “very high”

Friday, 1 February 2013

Cameron's EU Speech, Trains and Spare Rooms

So Cameron made his EU speech, hailed as exactly what British Industry
needs to make it more competitive.
Not from innovation or manufacturing but from stepping away from the EU labour laws!
British workers can look forward to lower pay and longer working hours, oops maybe not all British workers, it is hard to see Scotland or Wales wanting to leave the EU and waving goodbye to  billions of EU funding.
If Scotland becomes independent will it use the Euro?
Oh and how dare people on benefits have a spare room, no one should have  spare rooms without paying tax for them, surely its time to tax folk in employment extra for their spare rooms!
But all is well as in 14 years there will be a fast train that no one will be able to afford a ticket for!
So much for Cameron's Big Society.