Totalitarian Britain

This is not a drill, and it is most definitely not a spoof of some kind.

I am alarmed by a post I have just read over at Ollie Cromwells fine blog, it seems for 24 hours the City of Manchester (England) was turned into a Police State with police checkpoints set up all over the City and members of the public were escorted through airport style metal detectors.

There was no declared Terrorist threat; there was no national security necessity.  This is simply the latest demonstration of State control over our lives.  In usual fashion people are being told that this was a crime reduction exercise.  We, as freeborn men and women have the right to go where we like in this country without molestation and interference from the State, it is our country.  Without highlighting this and without registering our distain, the Government will simply repeat the exercise, and with no basis in law, what is to stop them extending the zone of control, or the period of time such measures are in place. 

From Wikipedia - "Police State":

The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state

This kind of exercise is what you would expect to see in the former Soviet Union, or under the current regimes in North Korea or China.  The absence of vocal opposition to this action is deafening!  The few media reports that do exist are carbon copies of each other, no doubt copied-and-pasted from the press releases.  How a thousand journalists are not outraged by this is incomprehensible to me. 

Greater Manchester Police are a strict bunch as well, they have recorded six seperate incidents of snowball throwing as acts of Serious Violent Crime.  Seriously people, WTF!

Thanks to Ollie, I also know the BBC reported on it today, they lead with the number of arrests and state that rapists were arrested and two cannabis farms were closed.... Why would you need metal detectors to catch rapists and cannabis growers?  They also state that pubs were visited to ensure licensing laws were being adhered to.  One-hundred-and-ninety-five people were arrested and thirty-eight people have appeared in court already as a result of the actions.  Sky News describe the check points as "Safety Arches"

The BBC also helpfully claims:

A "lock down" in police terms is when officers control where people can go in a certain area in response to a specific risk, hazard or threat.

So what was the specific risk, hazard or threat?... What, people out drinking are a threat?  How dare people move freely and take a drink on a Friday night!  We must all be surevilled and monitored just in case things get out of hand.  The Met used to boast that they promoted Intelligence Led Policing, inferring that they take information and clues (some might say, facts) and build an investigation from it.  Now, they are the agents of control.

The message is clear that if you do go out, have too many drinks and get involved with violent crime then you will be brought to justice


Assistant Chief Constable Terry Sweeney, Greater Manchester Police

No mention however that just by going out you must comply with his officers directions whilst moving around town.  Under the theory of enlightened absolutionism the ruler is the highest servant of the state, and exercises absolute power for the general welfare of the population.  Except, we as voters never gave consent or legitimacy to the notion that Gordon Brown or Herman Van Rompuy may exercise such concerns on our behalf.  That's the point, it is seldom granted, it is usually assumed control.  It is evidence of another abuse of power that can go unchecked under our decrepid and decayed system. 

If people are breaking the law in Manchester then they should be investigated and questioned and if there is evidence then they should be charged, detained with the authority of the magistrate and then stand trial in front of a jury of their peers.  The wrong doing of individuals in Manchester is not reason to turn the area into a police zone.

Silence on such matters strengthens the hand of those who want to control our lives, because they will think they can get away with it again, only next time they will go further, and the time after that they will go further still.  Please do not let this incident go unnoticed and uncommented upon.


Update: Ollie has emailed to bring this link to my attention.  It seems that 162 of the arrests were in planned raids; so the additional actions in the City Center are being tied into the same effort.  It seems the police are raiding known and suspected criminals, then trying to tie those arrest numbers and crimes to the "lock-down" action in the city.

Sombrero Sales Set To Soar In UK

I am a bit late on this, but seeing as I did not spot it mentioned in any of my weekend catch up blogosphere reading I thought it merited a mention today.

According to the Guardian a consortium of Government agencies are in negotiations with BAE systems to purchase and implement a national strategy for the use of wartime drones for deployment at home in the UK. The plans seen by the Guardian, released under a FoI request are being planned for the “routine monitoring” of motorists, protests, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers.

The Guardian also reveals that the plan is to have the drones in place for surveillance activities by the 2012 London Olympics. The costs of the scheme being spread across several agencies and the police, but will be offset from with the drones being rented from time to time by private contractors and with the Police exploring the potential for selling on collected data.

The prototype will be ready for testing this year. Drones are designed to take off and land on their own and can stay airborne all day and are virtually invisible because of their small size from the ground. It represents a new phase in the intrusion of the state in the lives of citizens that from such a great height such a wide area can be surveyed by a single drone. The surveillance equipment includes high definition cameras, radar, and cross spectrum sensors. The cameras feed back in real time to control rooms where the drones can be redirected if agents feel they wish to check something out that has appeared in the data.

The drones have been used in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001, and have been a key tool in tracking down suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda from the sky in the exceptionally rough terrain. They have also been linked to high numbers of civilian deaths. The drones will inevitably be viewed as a cheaper alternative to police surveillance helicopters and the socialist mantra of if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear will surely be dusted off to be rammed down our throats all over again.

And yet in the past 12 months thanks to section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 the police can basically confiscate cameras at their will - if you are believed to have photographed a current or former member of the police or security services your actions are deemed as potentially beneficial to terrorists and as such the state deems it necessary to stop you and fine you. They take away our rights one at a time and in doing so ramp up the control of the state yet further. Yet again I say to you, did you vote to give consent to the use of potentially deadly drones to watch over us? Were we consulted? Do we think the Government cares for our concerns? No, No, No. We were taught in school that should anyone be in a position to visit one of the then Soviet Bloc countries, we would probably have any cameras and video equipment confiscated on entry on the grounds that these were deeply controlling places that did not like to be monitored themselves. Now I look at where we are today and it is such a shame that we can’t even heed our own lessons form just ten or fifteen years ago.  In the same way that teenagers with too much time on their hands have turned to the hoodie, will Britain more broadly feel the need to turn the the sombraro to avoid being constantly monitored from the sky?

Drone surveillance from the air will do nothing to reduce crime and will be as hit and miss as CCTV when it comes to the quality and admissibility of evidence produced. It is an expensive exercise being carried out without concern to a basic liberty currently withheld from us. At any moment when in your home or garden we are not exempt from the worst assumptions of the Government and not entitled to privacy, anywhere. As with Surveillance and speed cameras persistent offenders will quickly find a way to dodge and avoid being monitored and caught. It will of course be the case that these drones will be there to randomly catch out people and will not be much or any use towards replacing real policing and detective work which targets real criminals and builds strong a strong prosecution against serious criminals. The government feels it is its duty to monitor all of us, all of the time and everywhere we go. And of course, this will be sold to us as necessary for our own protection and safety.

Drop Your Pants In Protest

H/T: LPUK Blog.

Islam4UK Ban

I don’t know all of the in’s and out’s about the group Islam4UK but from what I have seen and read in the news their agenda is not one I agree with, and should they ever have any real influence they would have me very worried.

You may not think me right about this post, nor will this win me any new friends but I am more worried by the ban than what they have to say. So far as I know, the members of this group have not been convicted of any terrorist crimes. And so banning them in the UK leaves me with an uneasy feeling. Perhaps I have missed a crucial detail here, but I am not seeing it.

If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must recognise that the bedrock of our society is rooted in our freedoms and freedom of speech is one of those, perhaps even the most important. Those people who hate our way of life, including Islam4UK are showing us up as hypocritical for purporting to defend freedom of speech then banning the messages that we don’t want to hear.

If Islam4UK is telling lies that prosecute them for libel or slander and get a court injunction silencing them; if they are engaged in acts conspiring and plotting murder then arrest them on terrorism charges, and then ban them then. I no more want to see or hear from them than I assume my readers do, but hearing what we don’t want to hear is the price we must pay for free speech, the alternatives to having free speech can be witnessed around the world today and many times over in history books and journals and they carry a much, much, higher price to ordinary, everyday people than having to listen to unpleasant things. For the genuinely crazed and loony’s there are already laws to shut them up and if necessary remove them from society.

The government seems to have put all parties concerned into a corner here whereby it [seemingly] has no recourse on criminal grounds to press charges, nor has to bring a suit in civil court which would silence them and so has decided that it should therefore censor what it finds distasteful. This is yet more dangerous ground for the state to be seizing over its citizens and lends an unneeded precedent in future to other acts of censorship.

Remember also, that free speech works both ways – those who use it to provoke and avail themselves of such a freedom, like Islam4UK should also be aware and prepared to hear what others think of them.

David Camerons New EU Policy - My Verdict

So there it is, straight from the horse’s mouth, a Cameron Conservative Government:

- Will accept Lisbon and will not hold a referendum.

- Will attempt to repatriate some Social and Employment laws, (which remain unspecified).

- Will seek an opt-out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

- Will offer a referendum guarantee on future power transfers to Brussels.

-  Will pass a British Sovereignty Act stating that the will of Parliament is supreme to that of the EU.

So let's look through this; calmly I hope.

The Conservative Party will accept Lisbon, and only seek repatriation of certain laws laid out as above. So the EU President is in, as is the High Representative, and the EU wide ID Card scheme, control of the police and of our economy. No word though on whether the EURO is now an option. If it is not under the next Conservatives it definitely will be the next time Labour or the Liberals get in. But the bottom line from Cameron is that it was Labour that screwed us and that we should blame Labour, but the Conservatives will not attempt to reverse or take the UK out of the EU or force any retrospective vote on Lisbon.

Initial reaction to this can be read over on the Daily Telegraph, where a group called the "European Movement" could not be happier with David Cameron speech, in fact they are positively thrilled.

The European Movement welcomes the statement by David Cameron today that a future Conservative government would not seek to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Peter Luff, Chairman of the European Movement, said:

“The Lisbon treaty is not in force yet, so it is premature for the Conservatives to say that it is not working and needs to be changed. That would be to put ideology above practicality, which is not the right thing to do. Better to give the new treaty a chance.

“There is a large and far-reaching agenda ahead of Europe at the moment, including economic recovery, fighting climate change, helping Afghanistan attain stability, and improving Europe’s relations with China, Russia and America. The Lisbon treaty will help Europe deal with these important issues.

“Any attempt to renegotiate the treaty will be difficult, time-consuming and counter-productive. It makes more sense to deal with the real issues facing Europe right now than to pick an unnecessary and distracting argument with our European partners.”

There is more, but I think you get the point.

Secondly we have the previously mooted repatriation of powers is limited to some Social and Employment laws. David Cameron acknowledged that he would need the support of all 27 member states and probably only when attached to a new accession treaty could this be achieved. So, if the EU does not expand there can be now repatriation. If the EU offers no new treaties, as it does not need to do now that Lisbon grants self amending powers there will be no repatriation of powers. And if the 27 member states do not agree, there can be no repatriation of powers. Let me spare the guff, this cannot happen, there will be no repatriation on this basis. This is nothing more than wishful thinking. How do I know? Because the working time directive was rammed through the EU Parliament this year with the support of Labour MEPs overriding our previous so called “red line”.

There was nothing, absolutely nothing Gordon Brown as PM could do to reverse it. That was the PM’s position in relation to an EU Directive where the UK had achieved a “red line” BEFORE Lisbon.

There is not a conceivable situation whereby 27 council members or a majority in the EU Parliament will grant this power back to the UK, and Cameron should and I assume does know this. But, he is setting himself up for a fight he will not win or another climb down later on.

As someone who wants out of the EU, the repatriation argument was going to be the key today for me, and how far the Conservatives would be prepared to reach and how hard they were prepared to fight was going to be the key to how badly support would leak away. The answer I take from the speech is not very deep, not very hard and allowing themselves 4 to 5 years to do some pretty undefined and uninspiring stuff. It has not brought me closer to voting Tory; I wonder how many wavering Tories will feel that this is simply not good enough?

The third point is an opt-out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Now my understanding is that this is a document that was agreed at Ministerial level about 20 years ago and has been bouncing around ever since. It is not in itself a treaty or laws but a proclamation of statements about Human Rights. There is obvious concern about how this will be interpreted by Judges and how it will affect legal practices throughout the EU. However, I think there is a little misleading going on here.

Human Rights Laws are subject to great debate in the UK, but the fact is, most of these do not stem from the EU, but from the 47 Member Council of Europe and the European Convention of Human Rights which the Council passed. This is not a part of the EU; it has nothing to do with Lisbon. The inclusion of the Charter to Lisbon will not really change the debate in the UK on how Human Rights laws are implemented, and really most of the argument boils down to Judges Interpretation both in the UK and in the ECHR Courts in Strasbourg. The Tabloids will still have plenty to write about on this score. I can’t help thinking this point is a smoke screen from the Conservative Leadership, and the misplacing of laws enacted from the Council of Europe rather than the EU (a mistake frequently made) was often publically seized upon by Ken Clarke to ridicule those who complained about the EU but did not really know what it does. So I wonder if Ken prompted this to be included?

The next point was that the UK Parliament would offer a law to guarantee power of referendum on any future transfers of powers. This I think is an interesting pledge, one which some people will buy into, but here is my thinking. EU law is superior to our own laws on areas where the EU decides it is, and up until now, the EU has required treaties to change the balance of those powers.

The EU now only needs, say 10% control, and without much more than a snap of the fingers, it can assume at will up to 100% of control from the nation-state. That’s the deal that is what we are signed up to. So, by going back to the first point, that generally the Conservatives are accepting Lisbon it is hard to see how any transfer in this sense, the 10% to 100% grab will be possible, in fact I would say it is impossible to achieve and would again require unanimity from 26 other nations who have nothing to gain from an UK opt-out here. I return to the point that an amendment would be required at EU Law, which would never be passed in the council or the EU Parliament and potentially a treaty, of which there may not be another one. If this is not the case I hope someone can link to some supporting evidence, because this is certainly the case now.

But what of that small pool of laws that we have retained, well The Conservatives could pass a law in the UK Parliament guaranteeing that a referendum must be held before any more powers be passed. What is left to be passed? The EU will now control us, our education, our police, our local councils, they can impose ID cards, and control environmental policies, employment laws, and they will soon control our economy and increasingly are merging the lines between the national defence and security initiatives of different nations. Seriously, what is there left to want a referendum on? But even with this law, it is subject to British Law and as such can be reversed by a future Labour or Liberal Government. It is only good for as long as the Conservatives hold power in Westminster. I am not filled with confidence this pledge will serve us in the way it was being sold.

It is in fact very much a symbolic bolting of the barn door when the horse is long gone, only the barn is derelict and the bolt is rusty, so what’s the point? Poor horsies.

Maybe I am wrong, I fail to see how any security can be gained or felt from this pledge.

The final point is the Conservative promise of a British Sovereignty Bill asserting that UK Law is supreme to that of the EU. It is an Interesting notion. However, this is another smokescreen.

During what could laughably be referred to as the debating of the Lisbon Treaty in Parliament, Bill Cash introduced Clause 9 as an attempt by the UK to assert Parliaments supremacy over that of EU Law. The Clause read

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the UK as affecting the supremacy of Parliament"

The idea being that UK Courts would not feel obliged to ignore UK Laws where these were contradicted by EU law which no matter how you cut it is considered to be superior to UK law. If a vote in favour of the clause had of been accepted the passing of Lisbon could not have happened, as the text has to be adopted by each country in exactly the form it arrives. The vote for clause 9 was defeated, but that is not the point I am trying to make. It is that it had a chance of passing, however, the night of the vote, the Conservative Whip sent Conservatives the all clear to go home, which they did as the Whips word is as good as the Party Leaders word. Just 7 minutes after the texts were sent, the vote went to the lobbies. Only 48 MP’s were present or able to make it to the vote which was then easily defeated.

If David Cameron views the Supremacy of UK law, why did he have the Whip send everyone home? If David Cameron was serious about not wanting Lisbon, Clause 9 was about the best chance of scuppering it in Parliament, so why not try to do so?

These are questions I do not have the answers to, you will have to draw your own conclusions there, but for the record here are the 48 who deserve a mention for defying the whip and voting for what David Cameron now wants you to believe is his aim to.

Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Binley, Mr. Brian
Butterfill, Sir John
Campbell, Mr. Gregory
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Cash, Mr. William

Chope, Mr. Christopher

Conway, Derek

Davies, Mr. Dai

Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain

Dunne, Mr. Philip

Evans, Mr. Nigel
Fraser, Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Gray, Mr. James
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
McCrea, Dr. William
Pritchard, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Robinson, rh Mr. Peter
Scott, Mr. Lee
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simpson, David
Spink, Bob
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Walker, Mr. Charles
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wilshire, Mr. David
Wilson, Sammy
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Even if The Conservative Leadership now believes that there should be a protection written at UK Level, it is entirely pointless trying to argue in an EU court that a UK Law supersedes it. It does not, and only someone who does not understand this or a person who hopes that others do not understand this would try something so utterly pointless.

If you are in the EU, you are in the EU 100%. The Conservative will be laughed at all across Europe for even trying to get control back, it ain’t gonna happen and certainly not in the ways they envision. Frankly it shows how little this has been researched because the lawyers will all say the same.

There is a case for a retrospective referendum, but if recognised by the EU it would also have to dismantle the structures of Lisbon (which have all been erected before it became law, so you can be sure this will not happen) and there is a case for an “In or Out” referendum, which will obviously be a vote on whether to leave the EU or not. Such a referendum is the only way of achieving the desired relationship so many of us in the UK want; that of EFTA Membership and full trading rights and access, whilst none of the statehood that comes about by being in the EU. Best of all, we would write our own laws again and govern ourselves again. This is not on the table from the Conservatives; they are tabling acceptance of the EU and nothing stronger than the hint of inclusion of a referendum in a second Conservative Parliament. Sorry but this is not good enough. We all know, thanks to Stuart Wheelers legal challenge that an actual manifesto pledge is not considered sufficient for the courts to act upon, let alone a line in a press conference a whole Parliament before.

So, after today’s speech I can see absolutely no reason to vote Conservative given my strong feelings on the EU, though I now welcome that the Tories can finally admit that we are enthralled to the EU’s wishes, and I think can no longer claim to be an EUsceptic Party. Though I do for some reason still think of David Cameron as a good man, a measure not easily attained in my estimations, I can see no serious policy attempts to make all of our lives better by wresting control away from the EU juggernaut. In fact, I really felt like David Cameron did not fully appreciate exactly how enthralled this country is to the EU. Until the Conservatives really open their eyes to the extent of damage being done to our country by membership of the EU and until Conservative voters are prepared to hold their votes until stronger EU Policy is drafted it is simply more of the same merry-go-round that has led us squarely to where we are today.

Because of my personal feelings I think there will still be a few exits, and possibly a defection or something of that ilk. However, where as Ithink I have a pretty good measure on the Eurosceptic feelings of the country, I have misestimated the level of actions proportionate to certain events, so I am really guessing as to the voter and potential reactionary response here. I am interested in hearing others opinions both on what I have written, but also on their take from Cameron’s speech and how they are feeling about the Conservatives right now. So, feel free to let rip in the comments.

Civil Liberties

This is doing the rounds on the VOTR circuit, and is well worth a watch.



TPUC Home

There is a shortage of coherent strategy from those in or aspiring to Government on how the erosion of civil liberties can be reversed. Even more depressingly there is no real shared vision on which rights are considered as inalienable; partly because we know that in the eyes of successive governments there is no civil liberty that can be allowed to stand in the way are in of the agenda of the day, and because we are so easily rail-roaded.

So today can be Civil Liberty quote day here on D1979, because I think we need to remind ourselves of why the protection of Civil Liberties is the duty of all free people and of the dangers of ignorance in this matter.

"People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them they're being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering

"Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you" Abraham Lincoln

“Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites: in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity” Edmund Burke

“All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Dr Martin Luther King

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." John Adams

“A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.” William Orville Douglas

“When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for.” John Milton

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. John Milton

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" Benjamin Franklin

God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say:" This is my country." Benjamin Franklin

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. David Hume

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. Patrick Henry

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance. John Philpot Curran

There is no conflict between liberty and safety. We will have both or neither. Ramsey Clark

I would think there are hundreds or possibly thousands more apt quotes in the same vein, so feel free to leave any additional ones in the comments.

Section 76 Of The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

From tomorrow section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 comes into force.

Under the law anybody taking a photograph of a current or former member of the police, armed service or security services can be prosecuted and/or fined. The act allows for police officers to remove the cameras of people taking photographs of them.

When I was at school, not too many years ago we were taught that cameras were forbidden in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. This, our liberal teacher told us was because cameras can be used to document offences of the state against civilians; as such, they were considered a tool that can bring about civil unrest and encourage protest against the Communist Governments. This particular teacher, sneered at this particular law and the system in which it helped preserve.

We take a big step further into Labour's totalitarian state tomorrow, as professional photographers can be arrested and detained for doing their jobs. Tourists taking pictures of the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace are liable for prosecution. Taking photos in the street, at sporting events, at weddings and during state proceedings could all lead to the possibility of prosecution.

Shamefully our two houses in Parliament have failed this country and its population miserably by allowing such a massive assault on our civil liberties to be enacted.

The National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association have been warning about the potential impacts this law will have. The fact is Under section 76, eliciting, publishing or communicating information on members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" will be an offence carrying a maximum jail term of 10 years.

The NUJ is arranging for photographers to gather outside New Scotland Yard tomorrow with photography of N.S.Y. and any nearby police officers starting at 11am, they are encouraging any one who is attending to bring their cameras. (Daniel1979 has work commitments tomorrow, but I will be happy to publish the account of anyone who does attend.)

Is this what you voted for? Do you feel safer?

In case you missed it before, here is a video clip I posted previously (from YouTube) of a PCSO trying to stop a person in the street taking photographs. From tomorrow, a PCSO will be allowed to have succeeded in this aim, and the man with the camera could have been prosecuted. There are plenty more videos on You Tube of the police trying to cease cameras or stop people taking pictures of them.

Whatcha Gonna Do?

So Peers can sell their influence on an open market to lobbyists, the Government can't see that it is their very existance and size that is bankrupting the nation, The Irish will be asked to vote for something they have already voted against, the Greeks are rioting, the people of Iceland are rioting, Sterling is crashing, and tax payers are covering bankers wild international splurges.

The BNP seems close to getting elected in Bexley, Lib/Lab/Con all love the EU even though two-thirds of the people they represent dislike the EU, and MPs were prepared to vote to reduce their accountability to tax payers by covering up their expense details.

Our history has placed us with a position of global responsibilities that a great number of people take great pride in, others see this as a great sin, and a stain on our nation. Our armed forces are asked to serve to defend the very principles that this country has been abandoning for a generation. They are sent into battle with insufficient supplies and armour. An experienced squaddie knows that he must even ensure that a sufficient supply of toilet roll is packed as we are often unable to provide such basic provisions.

Our schools maintain a continued decline in standards, with Maths and English coming second to social studies and humanities. They are taught to pass exams, not provided the tools and skills to succeed in life. And what is the point anyway, their parents will have told them that if they can not get a job they can sign on and earn a living by fulfilling some small requirements that ensure that government targets are met. Don't rock the boat and the benefits will keep on coming.

After ten years of proclaiming that schools and hospitals are over stretched, this government has overseen that poor immigrants have entered the UK, en masse for over a decade. Stretching the those services further and further. A whole underclass of poverty stricken immigrants in place to ensure Labour Support for another 25 years is secured. The Labour Party, creating Poverty in the UK to further its own interests.

The Liberals have abandoned any pretence of true Liberal thinking and share no resemblance with the party was founded to oppose the Corn Laws, and now gloriously urinate on the principles of Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George. The Liberal Democrats in their present form would not recognise a principle if they tripped over one.

The Conservatives are the only mainstream party whose views countenance to the problems of the nation, but only in terms that slow the progressive visions of the insane and righteous; not to reverse it and set forward a new independent mantra of individual and collective responsibilities, freedom of individuals, especially freedom from state interference, and trust in the free market... which by the way, has lifted more people out of poverty and released more people from the yolk of tyranny than any charity, institution or international law ever conceived.

I really feel that 2009 could be the most radical for a very long time for setting out a shift in the direction of political parties ever... As politicians listen less, the louder we must shout. You may not answer our questions directly and offer soundbites when we need solutions, but we will not go away, and we will not be ignored forever.

When the EU meets to discuss civil unrest in nation states it demonstrates exactly how important the EU considers itself in the governing of Europe. Did anybody actually vote for this? Do we have Democracy and true Civil representation today? I could only answer yes if I could afford to buy a Peer, (and I can't).

There is something fundamentally rotten in our Constitution that the opinions and wishes of so many people can be ignored, and where the tactical application of smear and innuendo has replaced the presentation of facts in our media. We need to change the way politician's are able to govern from above. More accountability, less cost, less intrusion, and these and other rights enshrined and guaranteed. Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the Government there is Tyranny; when the Government fears the people there is Liberty." Which do you think we have in the UK today? Are we moving towards or away from Tyranny?

Do we wish to form a more perfect country for the betterment of ourselves and mankind? or shall we hand ourselves, and our minds over, as requested, to the people who dictate that the way you live is killing the planet, the way you think is the cause of oppression, that you should be subject to laws that they should not? I have my voice now, here in blogosphere. Is your voice, and are your wishes being heard?

Worried About Civil Liberties in the UK? Got 6 Minutes? Then Watch This....