Monthly Archives: February 2017

Public appointments

We learned yesterday that Cressida Dick (unfortunate choice of surname) has been appointed ‘top dog’  of the Metropolitan Police Force. Mind you, where public bodies are concerned and funded by the taxpayer and over which we have no say, it is understandable if one of the qualifications to so do  is that he/she fulfills the necessity to be a ‘Richard’.

It is also known that she has ‘history’ of being in charge when things go wrong. When we look at this report one has to wonder, where her appointment today is concern,  just how decisions are made on our behalf. Just why was she ‘demoted’, which begs the question just why has she now been appointed to head the Met?

Not that she is alone  where suspected culpability is concerned; think, for example, Mandelson who was reappointed despite more than two questionable wrong doings – and I wont mention Keith Vaz………..

It would seem, on the face of it, that there is a’club’ in operation, in which those in the club ‘look after their own’ – see the example of Mandelson above. Witness that in 2015 she officially retired to take up an unspecified position in the Foreign Offiice – so how come she can be appointed, two years later, head of an organisation from which she is no longer a member?

If we, the people,  are subject to someone in a position of power and are thus subject to the decisions they make, especially where law and order are concerned – should we not have a voice in their appointment?

The same argument can be made where the appointment of members of the legislature are concerned; currently ones within the remit of the prime minister of the day – but just who, at any time, actually elected any prime minister? Should not we, the people, have the right to vote for those who have the  right to affect, through their decisions, our lives.

The foregoing just exemplifies the deficits with our system of representative democracy. Just how long will you, the people, continue to accept the yoke of representative democracy – aka a democratised dictatorship – before you rebel against the sheep dogs that control your thoughts and movements?

Evolution,  over time, has given we humans the power of reason and thus  of thought; which thanks to our political class has – and is continuing – to be ‘bred’ out of us. Is it not time that, while we still retain some distant element of that knowledge, we began to realise that fact?

Is it not time that we, the people, began to rebel? By ‘utilising the word ‘rebel’ I am not talking about ‘armed resurrection’ or ‘taking to the streets’ – I am suggesting that there is a better way, one which can be exercised though the ballot box.

Is it not time that our political class were told, in no uncertain terms, that they accept the people are sovereign and that until such time they accept and recognise that, they  don’t get our vote?



What is the point….

…..wasting one’s time and effort complaining, unless of course, one is prepared to make time to actually attempt to right the wrong that annoys/frustrates one?

The question is posed as, lately, we have witnessed the ‘twitterati’ complaining about incumbents of the House of Lords not ‘doing their jobs (with pictures of them apparently asleep on the red benches), yet ‘pocketing’ their £300 daily allowance.

On that point two articles immediately spring to mind: one on Politics Home (no link) and the other in the Mail, repeating the content on Politics Home,  in which Baroness d’Souza relates the occasion she saw a Peer alight from a taxi, while having it wait, to dash inside the HoL – as she put it: presumably to claim his daily allowance and then dashing out to re-board his taxi.  Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of theElectoral Reform Society, was quick to condemn this incident, stating (according to Politics Home): Lets fix this broken House before the situation gets any worse – if only we could ‘fix’ the Electoral Reform Society; but I digress.

Not that it would appear Baroness d’Souza is free of criticism when it is recorded that she, as Leader of the House of Lords, kept a chauffeur-driven car waiting while she attended an opera at a cost of £230; or spent £270 while a car waited four and a half hours for her to have lunch with a Japanese ambassador in central London.

When one Peer is of the opinion that the HoL is the best day care centre for the elderly in London; and that Families can drop in him or her and make sure that the staff will look after them very well nice meals subsidised by the taxpayer, and they can have a snooze in the afternoon in the chamber or in the library; when incumbents are there purely as a result of the patronage of the government of the day, rewarded for either keeping their mouth shut or opening their mouth or their purse at a particular moment in time; when the HoL is  second only in size to the Chinese people’s congress, then surely there must be a case for reform.

But why leave it there? When the there is no separation twixt Executive and Legislature within government; when a miniscule section of the voting population can decide which ‘chosen’ individual can stand for election in a constituency (whether that be by their political party or the local constituency association), then is there not a case for reform? When a ‘know-not-all’ can succeed another ‘know-not-all’ as leader of their party (think Nuttall/Farage) – although that may be a tad unfair because in recent times can any one name any political party where this has not been the norm – is it not time for reform?

Returning to the statement encapsulated in the first paragraph, I can but point to the graphic which forms the ‘header’to the hompage of  DD4UK: To make democracy work we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers.

That there is much wrong with this nation of ours; and especially where its form of democracy is concerned, must be a ‘given’, even to one who is blind; so I have to say this: if you are content to accept your life – and that of your nation – is to be ‘directed’ by those over whom you have no real control and who obviously know nowt but would have us believe they know all; then you need do nothing but continue to lead what you believe are your blissful lives.

If on the other hand,you feel as I do that our lives are worthless and are but pawns in a game played by politicians, then I ask you to remember that people should not be afraid of their governments, but that governments should be afraid of their people (works in Switzerland).

To all those ‘complaining’, the answer is simple: get involved, – do something, make time to get involved.  Don’t just sit there, complaining! All this crap about the meek shall inherit the earth their nation is just that – crap!

So c’mon people – arise and be counted!


What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – unfortunately

According to the Cambridge Dictionary one definition of this saying is that it is said: to emphasize that if one person is allowed to do something or to behave in a particular way, then another person must be allowed to do that thing or behave in that way, too.

Much is made of a ‘supposed’ statement by Winston Churchill: We are with Europe but not of it; we are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.

The word ‘supposed’ is used as it is inferred, by those with a fondness to quote it, that those words are an extract from a speech he gave at one time or another.

According to this blog the quotation mentioned in paragraph two of this article did not – and could not – have happened. Therefore the continued use of the purported phrase mentioned in paragraph two is a classic example of a phrase being used time and time again and on thus are articles written –  even though the authors of such articles are clueless of the crime they commit –  when a little effort shows that said authors have not carried out the necessary research to authenticate that which they assert.

,The preceding paragraph does not stop David Hannay, writing this article, about May’s decision not to attend the 60th celebrations of the founding of the European Union, from which I quote: Do we really believe that the decision taken 60 years ago by our closest neighbours, allies and partners to put behind them definitively the internecine warfare which had led to two world wars, on the explicit advice of Winston Churchill in his famous Zurich speech of 1946, is not an event which we should be celebrating too?

Hannay is guilty, as are so many – especially among our Ukip fraternity – of assuming  a ‘misquote’ as fact; of which this is the actual text. Nowhere in that speech did Churchill state that the United Kingdom must be part of his vision – one only has to read his last sentence: Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia – for then indeed all would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

Referring back to paragraph two of this article -and in particular to the last sentence of what is a misquote – from this article can be found the source of the second sentence; again from which I quote: It appeared in Churchill’s “The United States of Europe,” published in The Saturday Evening Post in America and John Bull in England on 15 February 1930. On 29 May 1938, just before Munich put an end to such happy musings, it was republished in The News of the World as, “Why Not ‘The United States of Europe’?” It appears in book form only in The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, Volume II “Churchill and Politics,” London: Library of Imperial History 1976, pp. 176-86.

Is it not time that Churchills’s words are not misquoted; ie, parts of separate speeches combined to present a ‘false statement’?

An argument may well be presented that Hannay is correct in assuming that May did not wish to attend the EU’s 60th celebrations because:she did not want to face the criticism from her own benches for attending a celebratory gathering of an organisation which many of them sincerely hate and would be happy to see broken up,

The problem with that statement is that Hannay – along with so many others – fails to recognise why the European Union is unnecessary in the first place. Neither Hannay, – nor unfortunately May – recognise that the European Union is but a ‘middle-man’ where the setting of standards are concerned. As I intimated in this article: who needs a middle man with its associated, additional, costs, not that May – or any other politician – understands that? Mind you, it will be noted that in the article linked to in this paragraph one politician did realise this fact; unfortunately he appears to have undergone a Damascene conversion

Is it not time, where Brexit is concerned, politicians and the media told us the truth; is it not time, on other and all matters affecting our nation, that politicians told us the truth; is it not time that we had politicians who remembered why they we elected and forgot heir political party loyalty?

Of course to all our woes and dissatisfaction with our political class and media, there is an alternative.




Begone I say, you are no Parliament

For far too long those that sit on the green benches in the House of Commons, or on the red benches in the House of Lords, have sat there under false pretence.

Since 1972 they would have us believe they govern this nation of ours, yet they have not due to the fact they ceded their right to govern when they acquiesced their power to so do to the European Union.

Since then they have taken little, if any, interest in the governance of our nation nor, come to that, little or no interest in matters EU; yet now they clamour for a voice in the process of leaving an organisation in which, up to now, they have shown no interest.

According to Wikipedia we find that, in 1653, after learning that Parliament was attempting to stay in session despite an agreement to dissolve, and having failed to come up with a working constitution, Cromwell’s patience ran out. On 20 April he attended a sitting of Parliament and listened to one or two speeches. Then he stood up and harangued the members of the Rump. This speech does not survive but has often been paraphrased, for instance in the Book of Days:  You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

Again, according to Wikipedia (same link) a more detailed record of the event is recounted by Thomas Salmon in his Chronological Historian (London, 1723, 106), thus: Cromwell commanded the Speaker to leave the Chair, and told them they had sat long enough, crying out “You are no longer a Parliament, I say you are no Parliament”. He told Sir Henry Vane he was a Jugler [sic]; Henry Martin and Sir Peter Wentworth, that they were Whoremasters; Thomas Chaloner, he was a Drunkard; and Allen the Goldsmith that he cheated the Publick: Then he bid one of his Soldiers take away that Fool’s Bauble the mace and Thomas Harrison pulled the Speaker of the Chair; and in short Cromwell having turned them all out of the House, lock’d up the Doors and returned to Whitehall.

Is it not on record that some MPs are drunkards, is it no longer recognised that MPs are whoremasters as they increase their remuneration solely on the back of their being MPs  (and where the term ‘whoremasters’ is concerned, not just for financial gain), have they all not ‘cheated the public’ at one time or another (albeit that it is always within the rules – rules they devised)?

Anarchy can be described as a a society without a publicly enforced government. Under representative democracy where is, or can there be, publicly enforced government? It could be said that presently this nation is an oligarchy because does not power rest with a small number of people (650)? Are not those currently in power distinguished by wealth family ties or ‘corporate control’ – and in view of the latter, are not MPs the result of selection by their political parties?

At one time or another we all rail at government (whatever its persuasion) – and for what purpose? Yes, we can turn out one lot for another, but what does that achieve for us as individuals? One cannot help but be reminded of that well known phrase: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Just what to these 650 do for the people of this nation and why are they therefore funded from the public purse? Is it not time that we the, people, entered Parliament, turfed the lot of them out, then locked the doors and returned home? For what good they currently do – or have done – would their absence be noticed?

If we, the people, are prepared to sit on the sidelines and accept that which is imposed on us without complaint then the words of Galations comes to mind; (paraphrasing) as you sow, so shall you reap. On the other hand, as Louis L’Amor said: To make democracy work we need to be a nation of participants, not observers.

So people, are you to be led like sheep to your doom – or are you prepared not to be observers but to participate in how you can lead your lives — and decide the future of your nation?



A missed opportunity?

For those of us who keep a ‘close eye’ on ‘developments Brexit’ it will not have escaped the attention of some that amongst all the talk of the United Kingdom ceasing its membership of the European Union – while wishing the European Union no harm, etc, etc- only one voice has asked the question: why do we need the European Union? As an aside there were two voices, but one of them was a politician (of whom more in a minute) who, in the intervening period appears to have changed his tune – presumably because he was handed another ‘hymn sheet’ (you know the one: it contains the phrase: be a good boy,  ‘don’t make waves’, following which: behave, ‘fall into line’; and you’ll soon be a Secretary of State again). Oh, how are the mighty fallen – but resurrected once they have had their 15 minutes of ‘rebellious fame’.

I am at a loss to understand why any politician in our nation would wish to give the ‘kiss of life’ to an organization that is, in effect, breathing its last due to the fact that the need for its existence has been overtaken by events. Let us, initially, acknowledge that two men (Monnet and Salter) recognized a ‘gap in the market’, one which would bring them – and their disciples – power and fortune. Whether it brought them fortune or power is open to question as those two are now no longer with us – but it sure as hell has for their disciples.

It is a known fact that approximately 80% of what is called ‘EU law’ actually emanates from United Nation bodies – such as UNECE and Codex, to name but two – and whilst our politicians are, no doubt, well aware of this fact, that they do not acknowledge it is probably due to the fact that it diminishes their self-proclaimed right to ‘set our laws’. Knowing this as they do I, for one, find it incredulous that they appear willing to ‘prop-up’ a failing supra-national body which is no longer needed – if it ever was in the first place.

Amongst all the ranting about Theresa May’s views with regard to Brexit, as an aside I have to say I find it ludicrous that MPs appear so obsessed with the subject of whether EU nationals will have the right to remain in the UK once we have left (and vice-versa), when there are far more pressing subjects such as the continuation of trade – but I digress.

Guy Verhostadt has admitted on the BBC that the EU faces possible ‘disintegration’ and in this regard not much, if anything,  appears to have been mentioned by those bloggers who are considered ‘must reads’. Where ‘disintegration’ is concerned, I would suggest that too little has been focused on the possible upheaval that could be caused in the Brexit debate were Gert Wilders to succeed in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen in France; and adding in Denmark, together with the Eastern Europe Member States (Hungary and Poland spring to mind), just how many of these countries are waiting to see how the UK fares, prior to declaring they too wish to ‘jump ship’?

It cannot be denied that history shows the United Kingdom has not only ‘led the world’- but that it has also ‘led Europe’ – is it not time the UK resumed this leadership? Has- and is it not time – that our politicians held/have talks with the likes of Wilders, Le Pen and the other aforementioned nations with a view to accumulating a group of countries willing to speak with one voice; in effect saying to the EU: we don’t need you – we’re leaving.

In the first paragraph I mentioned two voices querying why we (the UK) need the European Union. One is Richard North (FlexCit: pp 200-210) and the other was Owen Paterson with a speech (google: owen paterson heritage foundation washington speech [should be top hit] – opens in pdf) given to the Heritage Foundation in Washington a few years ago – as I wrote, he appears to have changed his tune somewhat; or suffered a loss of memory?

Helle Haganau first came to the attention of most people when she appeared on a Newsnight programme and ‘stunned’ those of us interested in ‘matters EU’ by announcing that Norway is not ‘governed by fax’ (contrary to what we were led to believe at the time) and had a veto over EU directives and had exercised such where the Third Postal Directive was concerned.

While I have been an advocate of EFTA/EEA membership, as proposed by Richard North in FlexCit, in the interim period we may spend there it may not be the ‘bed of roses’ it appears. HelleHagenau has posted an article here – (click on ‘The EEA – A warning from Norway’ (opens in pdf – do read) which suggests that the EU has been ‘tightening its grip on the EEA’ in its usual ‘salami slicing’ – this would suggest that were we to follow the EFTA/EEA route there is much to beware.

This leads one to query whether there is something to be gained by investigating that which is suggested in paragraph six of this article? Were the UK and France to ‘leave’ (bearing in mind they are both nuclear powers  and have an ‘armed might’ worthy of consideration), notwithstanding the loss of possibly four more member states; might that not put the boot on the other foot where UK negotiations were concerned?

Food for thought……………?






A word to the unwise

To those who are of the opinion that Brexit can be swiftly resolved, I can only refer them to the ‘interview‘ of Sir Ivan Rogers by the European Scrutiny Committee. Those in Ukip, together with those of similar views, do need to watch this video – and listen and learn!

Richard Drax (at 10:29:00) posed a question using the analogy of belonging to a golf club and in terminating that membership stating that one is not liable for any future payment. The man obviously does not understand the difference twixt a payment and a commitment to pay. Unfortunately he is but one of 650, it seems, who has not a clue about matters EU – and these are people we are forced to pay in order that they may take decisions on our behalf for our benefit?

At (starts at 11:01:00) Sir Ivan mentioned FlexCit and Richard North in respect of an exit strategy – yet not one member of the committee picked up on this; and it could be said that even the Chairman of this Committee ‘Cash’d’ out. Either members of this Committee are aware of the document and its author, in which case they exhibit an arrogance by ignoring it; or, they are ignorant of its existence and exhibit an arrogance in not querying its mention.

We have today had published (opens in pdf format from link therein) the Government’s White Paper detailing the United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union. If they can accomplish everything it contains (and the extra it does not mention) within their timescale – and without  any detriment to the UK – then I’ll eat my hat (which by the way is made not of straw [Jack or Will] but strawberry cheesecake).

Why is it that I feel I have landed in the world of Lewis Carroll and am one of  x million ‘Alices’ talking to 650 Humpty Dumpty’s sat on a wall?