The Change-Makers

"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Steve Jobs, US computer engineer & industrialist (1955)


I'd be quite pleased to have people say this of me when I pop the old clogs.

Rather that than "He did fuck all".

What about you?

CR.

X marks the spot for UKIP

Do you vote? 

 

Do you bother to take part in the democratic process which is quite frankly a bit of a sham when you consider the gerrymandered constituencies, first past the post system, no real difference between the established parties and the fact that most of our laws come from Brussels anyway?

 

With all that it's no wonder that 35% of the electorate simply stay away in general elections, a figure that can rise to 65% absence for local elections, perhaps they have something more important and enjoyable to do, like watching paint dry.

 

Some people like to vote in order to tell the candidates exactly what they think of them. All spoilt ballot papers are shown to the candidates to get their acceptance that the ballot paper is indeed spoilt. Therefore if the voter scrawls the word C U N T S on their paper this WILL be shown to all the candidates. I was once at the count for a local election and let me tell you that candidates from the established parties really don't like this. Some councillors are officious jumped up egotists so anything that bursts their bubble is to be welcomed.

 

However, I believe there is a better way.

 

First, lets have a look at a few facts.

 

As mentioned above, participation by the electorate is between 35-65%.

 

Since the 50's the established parties membership has been in free fall.

 

The established parties share of the national vote has gone from 95% to less than 70%.

 

In view of the above I would suggest that instead of removing ourselves from the process or calling the politicians rude names we should start to use our vote.

 

There is a general consensus here at CR that we are governed too much, taxed into penury and subject to idiotic and nonsensical regulations whose sole intention is to control us.

 

There is however a political party that is in (broad) agreement with our aims. And that party is UKIP. Several polls recently suggest they are level with the third placed political party. IOW they have gained critical mass. Look, all political parties are a broad church of various views and it is easy to point to one or two policies that you can find disagreement with but they are the only political party with aims of reducing the state.

 

Some people here may think that the BNP or EDL is an alternative. This is ridiculous as the BNP are nothing more that a bunch of socialists with added racism and the EDL is a single issue pressure group against the religion of war that was founded by the warmongering child molester mohammed. (If any islamists take umbrage at my comments please note that several Hadiths mention this eg, Bukhari 5.58.234. For the vast majority of devout muslims hadith are essential supplements and clarifications to the koran and also a source of religious inspiration, however I must say I fail to see how anyone could get inspiration from a warmongering kiddie fiddler, as religions go islam must be one of the more nasty and evil - but I digress).

 

A lot of conservatives are unhappy with what Camoron is doing to their party and they are ripe for recruiting. Some may say that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote that will let in labour but is there any difference between what labour did when in power and what the tories are planning to do now. Govt spending is still out of control, there haven't been any cuts, Repressive legislation is still enacted. The only real difference is that a different out of touch member of the elite stands at the dispatch box during prime ministers questions.

So next time you get a polling card consider giving your support to UKIP, it won't hurt and could change things for the better.

 

Gaius

 

Disclaimer, I have recently joined UKIP.

Turning Worms

Are we finally fed up with this increasingly inept government?

This article would suggest that we are.

It is brief. At around 170 words it is extremely brief considering the gravity of the situation.

This is pretty much the long and short of it:

"Only 18% regard the coalition as in touch with the concerns of ordinary people, the Angus Reid survey for The Sunday Express found. Some 82% feel that it is not."

If I could offer a few words of advice I would say this: when populating a Cabinet, extreme care must be taken NOT to fill most of the positions with millionaires. Particularly during a global financial downturn.

This is not envy. I care not a jot how much money anyone else has. It's really none of my business. To my mind, it must be almost impossible for Cameron, or Clegg, or Little George to even begin to understand how hard life is for people struggling to pay their bills every month.

Nadine Dorries is a wombat. I have very little time for her, especially since she told us (during the expenses scandal) that dozens of MPs were suicidal. And not one of them offed themselves. Very disappointing. But on this occasion she is right. Pinky and Perky really do not have a clue. Neither of them has ever known financial hardship so they cannot empathise. Of course, this is politics, so both of them will make a half-arsed attempt to show the great unwashed that they really, really do care. And maybe they do, but they cannot express it.

So we have 82% of a limited survey saying "We've had it with these two". But what will they do about it? If those asked were traditional Brits, they will either write a stern letter to their local rag or collectively, the national alert level will be raised to "Slightly miffed".

The reaction from Hinge and Bracket? "We must try harder to understand the little people". But they will fail at that. It's axiomatic. Politicians, pretty much all of them, do not care. They live inside a tightly controlled environment where the only thing they do care about is scoring points for whichever political party they are members of. Why should these temporary wardens care? They have a temporary job where temporary solutions are what drive them. Sticking plasters for major wounds is what they specialise in and it will remain that way for as long as government is politicised. They are in it for themselves, let's never, ever forget that.

Ban ALL political parties and test prospective MPs for giveashitness. If they don't score highly enough, they don't get to stand for election. Those standing absolutely must put country first. Every time.

Then, and only then, will we start back on the long road to recovery.

CR.

Back In The Saddle

Hi folks.

Apologies for the light blogging. I was busy preparing for a trade show all week but it is now done and I are returned to the bosom of my loved ones.

Being jammed in a hotel all week with unlimited access to (free) booze took its toll but I am almost fully recovered.

Because I was away from the interwebs for most of the week I haven't seen the news (either the made-up MSM version) or the (brutally honest) blogworld version so I have nothing for you on this outing.

I'll catch up with the Awkward Sods to see what they have been writing and I will trawl the freemen & LR sites to see what's new.

Meanwhile, if the weather is not inclement, enjoy your weekend.

CR.

Guy Taylor Vs Judge Cadbury

A slightly misleading title.

Guy actually had a beef with another judge, and was asking Judge Nigel Cadbury to enforce the summons Guy had issued.

In Part 1, the judge asks for all mobile phones to be gathered up and switched off. He then states that recording events in court is illegal. These two videos may not stay up for long so be sure to watch them before they are taken down.






The most interesting bit for me is when the judge declares his own incompetency.

No wonder they don't like cameras in court.

As always, decide for yourselves whether the content of the videos have merit.

CR.

PS-tip of ye olde beret to Pitano for the links.

The Toothless Tiger

Recently I have been witnessing yet another fascinating email exchange on the monarchy. I asked my pal Bob if I could reproduce it here and he very kindly agreed.

It all started when someone wrote to the police asking them to investigate charges of treason against certain individuals. The police, by way of Sergeant Parsons, responded to the letter, and from there, the debate bloomed.

Here is the letter:

"Dear Mr Xxxxxxxx

 

Thank you for your email dated 15^th April 2012..  I am sure that you appreciate officers will take and rely upon legal advice and, where that advice differs from your understanding of the law, officers are entitled to rely on the advice they receive from the Legal Services Unit.

 

Our Legal Services Unit advise that there is still no offence known to law that can be, or should be, investigated.

 

The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution.  The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown and created a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament).  The Bill of Rights also enshrined into English law (for at that time there was no United Kingdom) the prohibition on any impeachment for words or deed made in Parliament.

 

The recent prosecution of a number of MPs for fraud was in relation to their conduct outside the chamber of the Commons (or in the case of some Defendants, the Lords), and therefore parliamentary privilege did not apply (see for example R v. Morley and others [2010]).  However, that can be contrasted to a number of cases where so-called super injunctions were breached by MPs naming the parties but because they enjoyed parliamentary privilege (the statements were made in the chamber) no action could be taken for what would otherwise be contempt of court.

 

The Bill of Rights also founds the common law principle that a Parliament cannot bind its successors, therefore any Parliament can repeal the acts of a former Parliament and no Act of Parliament can be ultra vires, as Parliament’s competence to legislate is absolute (though the Courts have drawn a practical distinction between legislative theory and legislative practice, for example it would be practically impossible to repeal an Act giving independence to a former colony, but theoretically possible). 

 

Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended.  The supremacy of Parliament also allows for Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties relating to international or supranational bodies, such as the European Union and whatever ones personal political viewpoint there is no offence at criminal law (whether treason or otherwise) committed by such an enactment.

 

As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations.  Indeed one of the very issues you refer to, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was), was considered by the Court in the case of Blackburn v. The Attorney General [1971].  In that case the Court was asked to make a declaration that in signing the Treaty of Rome the Government would surrender the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and that in doing so it would be acting in contravention of the law.

 

The Court held that the treaty was a matter for the exercise of the sovereign power of the Crown (exercising the Royal Prerogative) but that it was not binding unless and until ratified by an Act of Parliament, and once there was an Act of Parliament the treaty became the ordinary law of the United Kingdom to the extent that Parliament decreed.  In that Judgement Lord Justice Salmon also stated that the Courts have no power over, and are not concerned with political decisions. 

 

As for Acts of Parliament, the Courts have also decided that there is no power to declare them ultra vires or to overturn them (there is no power to declare an Act of Parliament unconstitutional as there is in some other jurisdictions: the best that can be achieved is to make a declaration of incompatibility as is possible with the Human Rights Act, but the Court cannot overturn a Act), see for example Pitkin v. British Railways Board [1974] or Manuel and Others v. Attorney General [1982].

 

I must therefore conclude on the basis of legal advice that there is no offence known to law identified in your email or its attachments, or any of your earlier emails and that the views expressed, while doubtless passionately held, are political views and therefore not the concern of the police or the Courts.  I am therefore unable to progress these matters any further.

 

I am grateful for the evident love for and loyalty to your country that you show, however in light of the above we cannot lawfully act on any of the information which you have provided.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Andy

 

Sgt Andy Parsons, Humberside Police."

 

And this is Bob's rebuttal:

 

COMMENT:-   Sgt Parsons writes it as he has been persuaded to understand it and with clear explanation but opens with a misleading statement.  "The Constitution is not fixed and is subject to variation, amendment and evolution." 

 

He fails or declines to mention that our Constitution is a common law constitution and as such is beyond the control of Parliament, just as statute law is subordinate to common law. Parliament can only undo that which Parliament has done. By the same token the letter of the law is subordinate to the spirit and intention of the law.

 

"The Bill of Rights in 1689 limited the powers of the Crown creating a constitutional monarchy, and developed the concept of parliamentary supremacy (that is to say the supreme authority is the Crown in Parliament)." 

 

The first half of this statement seemingly contradicts the second half. If the Crown is the supreme authority in Parliament it can hardly be restricted. The Declaration of Rights 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689 changed the powers of the Monarch as custodian of the Crown from that of ruler by assumed divine right to that of official Governor of the nation, a political office very similar to that of a national president.

 

 

".......no Act of Parliament can be ultra vires, as Parliament’s competence to legislate is absolute."

 

Parliament is not above the law in particular the common law as  upheld by constitutional constraint. No Bill can lawfully become an Act if the Parliamentary process of its construction is carried out in breach of constitutional constraint. If by means of deceit and breach of Parliamentary protocols an unlawfully constructed Bill became an Act such an Act would not have been created and passed by lawful Parliamentary procedure and therefore would most certainly be ultra vires, or to use a word from the Bill of Rights, void.  

 

"Because of this principle Acts of previous Parliaments that have been repealed no longer have any legal effect and that includes all previous Acts relating to treason that have been repealed or amended.  The supremacy of Parliament also allows for Parliament to legislate to give effect to treaties relating to international or supranational bodies, such as the European Union and whatever ones personal political viewpoint there is no offence at criminal law (whether treason or otherwise) committed by such an enactment."

 

This loosely suggests that the treason Acts have all been repealed. Some have and some have been amended, Blair would have done away with them all but the Treason Act 1351 and the Treason Felony Act 1848 remain extant, they are constitutional Acts and as such are beyond implied repeal. The supremacy of Parliament is a myth for Parliament is subject to the rule of law, constitutional constraint and subordinate to the people by oath of allegiance to the people's elected Monarch who has the final word and discretion on all of Parliaments doings thus the people retain control over their Parliament. Parliament may legislate to give effect to treaties but only within the lawful constraints of its office. The ratifying of the Treaty of Rome and subsequent EU treaties all of which were carried out in violation of constitutional constraint placed those involved subject to charges of treason.

 

"As you are aware the enforcement of any law would be through the Court and the Courts have ruled that it is not possible to challenge an Act of Parliament or the actions of the government in entering into international treaty obligations."

 

This seems something of a sleight of hand, it suggests that the Courts believe Parliament to be above the law. Clearly the Courts cannot interfere with the lawful procedures of Parliament, but what if there are unlawful procedures such as the surrender of the people's sovereignty and their lawful rights and liberties as enshrined in the Constitution? This is not a hypothetical possibility, it is a reality which is plain for all to see and the Courts have the same duty and obligation as all British subjects to challenge it and expect the police to take the appropriate action to enforce recognition and adherence to the rule of law.

 

" Indeed one of the very issues you refer to, the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union (or the European Economic Community as it then was), was considered by the Court in the case of Blackburn v. The Attorney General [1971].  In that case the Court was asked to make a declaration that in signing the Treaty of Rome the Government would surrender the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and that in doing so it would be acting in contravention of the law."

 

In this the government was without any doubt whatsoever acting in contravention of the law.

 

"The Court held that the treaty was a matter for the exercise of the sovereign power of the Crown (exercising the Royal Prerogative) but that it was not binding unless and until ratified by an Act of Parliament, and once there was an Act of Parliament the treaty became the ordinary law of the United Kingdom to the extent that Parliament decreed.  In that Judgement Lord Justice Salmon also stated that the Courts have no power over, and are not concerned with political decisions."

 

Here it seems the Court rightly passed the buck onto the Monarch who in turn declined to uphold her sworn duty and obligation to govern according to and within the constraints of her coronation oath. The ECA72 was passed but for reasons explained above could never be recognised as lawful. Lord Justice Salmon's statement was correct, but the Courts according to the obligations of their office are or should be very much concerned with unlawful practice in public office be it in or outside of Parliament. It would seem that Lord Justice Salmon did not have the intestinal fortitude to face up to a despotic political force in Parliament or the establishment which was protecting the Queen from accusations of dereliction of sworn, statutory and moral obligation, allegations that still stand and might now be also well directed at out politicised judiciary and police forces.

 

In conclusion, something to consider: The ratification of the Treaty of Rome surrendered the sovereignty of the nation and the supremacy of the Crown  to a foreign power. There can be no sovereign head of state in a nation which is no longer sovereign and no governor of a nation which is no longer self governing. In effect it meant the abdication of the Monarch and the end of the monarchy. In legal terms this is to 'imagine the death of the Monarch' for the Monarch takes office for life. Anyone so doing is then subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848 and treason is at the head of all crime. If it is no longer the responsibility of the police to investigate serious crime then to whom does that obligation fall?

 

To which I will add my own thoughts.

 

My research, and my understanding of the way the UK is governed is as follows:

 

We have a tri-partite system. The triangle of "power" is the monarch, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The monarch sits at the head of the triangle, is supreme and has the final say.

If any of the three elements are removed, the triangle breaks and the jig is up. 

As we know, the monarch has violated her oath many, many times, and is therefore null and void. She cannot breach her contract with the people and expect to carry on as if nothing has happened. As you read above, she is not just in error, she has broken the contract, and in law, when one party breaches a contract, the contract is over. 

Now, all police officers, court officials, judges, magistrates and the like, swear an oath to the monarch. If the monarch is in breach, so are they, by default. It cannot be any other way. If the monarch-since 1992 a mere citizen-, and is therefore no longer monarch, where do the police and the judiciary get their authority from? The short answer is that they don't. No-one else in the land can give them authority. They are, for want of a better word, toothless. There is absolutely no need to obey any court order, any court official, or any serving police officers. They are all acting ultra vires. None of them are acting lawfully. None of them are acting legally.

I asked Bob this question: "Where is it written that a Madge cannot be a monarch and a citizen at the same time?"

Bob replied: "It isn't written because it doesn't need to be. In the same way that a general cannot be a private. That isn't written anywhere either".

A great analogy and it surely makes absolute sense to anyone reading this.

The ramifications are great. 

Anyone (no matter how heinous the crime) gaoled or fined or punished by the UK courts since (at least) 1992 were punished outside the law as we believed it to be in this country.

And until they fix the problem, as a start by leaving the European Union and repealing ALL legislation emanating from Brussels/Strasbourg, the judiciary (and anyone connected to it) is a toothless tiger. Their having all the guns is not a defence either. Their ability to swoop at dawn and cart you off to gaol is no defence.

They have no power. None at all.

CR.

 

Nigel Touches A Raw Nerve

But will they react?

Hell no.



The historic statement he refers to is here 

And is it any wonder the wheels are coming off when you read reports like this ?

These thieving bastards have no self-control. They will waste trillions and not lose a nanoseconds sleep.

Because it isn't their money they are wasting.

It's ours.

Angry yet?

No?

Then you aren't paying attention.

CR.

Freedom Awaits...

...but you need to set aside some time to listen to this.



Michael is a wonderful speaker. He walks the walk and gives us some fine examples of his victories against the system.

Listen closely to his philosophy too.

Can you imagine a country/world run like that?

I can.

And I want a piece of the action.

CR.

Mary Portass And The Death Of The High Street

(Guest post from Gaius)

Mary Portass, the well known television presenter produced a report a couple of months ago about saving the high street. She came up with 28 recommendations most of which are totally stupid and would only cost struggling businesses money. Only a couple of recommendations were sensible yet they only lightly brushed on the real problems that the high street faces.

 

So what are the real problems?

 

The first one is cost, an average shop may well cost £35,000 a year in rent and £30,000 a year in business rates. Employees would cost £40,000 a year for 3 on the minimum wage (and that includes employers NI).

Already the costs have spiralled to £105,000 a year. Assuming that the mark up is 33%, it means that the shop needs to sell at least £315,000 a year to cover their three main costs. Thats sales of £6,000 a week and they haven't even made a profit yet.

 

Rent is so high only because there isn't a free market in providing shops, this is due to planning laws, IOW its the fault of the govt.

 

Business rates are also set by the govt, so that's also their fault as well.

 

Govt are also responsible for the minimum wage and employers NI, both of which do nothing more than drive up the cost of employees.

 

The second problem is over regulation, ranging from what you can do or sell in your premises to the sort of signage you are allowed to use. Again the fault of govt.

 

So why hasn't Mary Portass pointed this out?

 

Maybe its because she doesn't really know. After all, she worked her way up from the shop-floor to the boardroom in Harvey Nichols, a shop for overly wealthy fashion victims. She then became a self employed consultant and worked for large corporations who needed to justify their failures to the "city" by paying her consultancy a large fee.

Her advice to independent shops includes getting in premium brands that simply wouldn't be interested without the telly exposure.

She has NEVER made money from her own shop due to her own efforts. The H of F is a concession that only works because of the free publicity from the tv show. The overpriced knickers idea only works because of the massive advertising due again, to the television series.

 

If Mary Portass is a retail expert then I'm the Queen of Sheba.

 

However I am an expert of the corrosive actions of govt, corrupting everything they touch like a malignant cancer.

 

Govt is not the solution, it's the problem.

 

Gaius.

How Anti Smokers Think

Or not, as the case may be.

I have been having a dialogue with an anti smoker today on Twitter.

Want to see the exchange?

It started with this:

@buckmyoldfoots If a Mother 2be smokes whilst pregnant that child should be on "At risk" register before it's born! Must decide most important; fags or baby!

@CaptainRanty At risk of what? Studies show that the very worst risk is that the child will be born a few grams lighter. MSM lies. A lot.

@buckmyoldfoots "Studies show" always sign there aren't any! Smokers great excuse makers becos most important thing in addicts life is the drug!

@buckmyoldfoots Also at risk of passive smoking when born, lighter baby not only problem. what next, "Smoking is good for babies?"

@CaptainRanty Oh please! Humans have ingested carcinogenic smoke for 50,000 years. Our lungs can handle it. SHS is a myth. No-one dies.

@buckmyoldfoots I can honestly say that is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever heard; even from a drug addict!

@CaptainRanty Clearly you believe the lies of Big Pharma. Try some more research. Follow the money. Open your eyes.

@buckmyoldfoots my my, you really are addicted! Shall we get into the "Smokers stink, Smokers are scruffs?" You have NO defence, addict!

@CaptainRanty Have you even read the science? I have read over 80 studies. Never lost the science debate yet. All you have is the smell.

@buckmyoldfoots That's it then. Smoking is good for us;apart from smelling like a dogs arse, risking lung cancer...I feel so sorry for addicts

@CaptainRanty 84% of studies say SHS is statistically insignificant, 9% significant, 7% show positive effects. Read the damn studies.

@CaptainRanty A non smokers risk of contracting lung cancer is 2.4%. I smoke 20 a day. My risk? 2.6%. Like I said, read the science.

@CaptainRanty Nice work Clive. In five tweets you managed to call me an addict four times. Is this the best you can do?

@buckmyoldfoots but you are an addict or you wouldn't defend such a revolting habit! All the "Science" is funded by Forest & Tobacco companies!

@CaptainRanty Actually, all the science I have read was funded by YOUR side. Deal with that, my anti smoking friend.

There are a few more after that but you get the gist. Our pal hasn't read a single study, and he proves it by saying exactly what the MSM has taught him to say.

He offers me his pity at one point. I don't want or need your pity Clive. What I do want, what I do need, is a polite "Thank you" from bile-ridden, ill-informed, apartheid-supporting control-freaks like you. You can thank me for chipping in five times more tax to the NHS than you do. You can thank me for keeping your income taxes down. You can thank me for keeping 100,000 people employed in the UK. If you are a globalist, you can thank me for keeping over 100 million people employed around the world.

Tobacco and slavery gave this nation it's start in the world, in more modern times. (Both built America as well). Both are still legal. Yes, slavery still exists. In fact, it never went out of fashion. They just disguised the law, slightly.

They (the MSM and TPTB) tell us, ad nauseum, that second hand smoke kills millions around the world. I sent an FOI to the Ministry of Health years ago asking them to name three. I waited. I waited. And then I waited some more. They could not name three people, from an alleged list of millions, that had died from second hand smoke.

They lie. They lie all the time. About pretty much everything.

Friend Clive is convinced, and I feel sorry for him. And millions of others, who don't even dare to double-check what the papers have just announced as "a fact". It says so in the Guardian, or the Mirror, or the Sun, so no further proof is required.

Some people don't like tobacco smoke. I get that. But FFS don't tell me how harmful my smoke is whilst you stand around a BBQ inhaling more carcinogens in an afternoon than you would in five years in a smoky pub. Don't you dare scream about my smoke when you happily walk down a road with diesel & petrol fumes being pumped directly into your lungs and those of your kiddies in prams-right there at exhaust level.

No-one likes a braggart, but I studied tobacco. Extensively. From seed to smoke. I studied the studies. I know they are wildly inaccurate. I know they contain blatant lies. I am disgusted that men and women of science put their names to this shit. Have they no shame? No personal integrity? Have they fuck. They sell their professional opinions for 30 pieces of Big Pharma silver. A pox on them.

Chip in by all means, but FFS, do not bring the "smell" argument. This is the 21st century. We do not need to legislate against smells. If we do, I have a list of dozens of things I don't like to smell, but to legislate them is both futile and infantile.

Bring facts. Bring science. Bring opinion if you must. I warn you now: I can win the finance debate. I can win the science debate. I can win the debate based purely on libertarian philosophy.

I am NOT saying that smoking is good for anyone. Although, it does offer protection against colorectal cancer, Parkinsons Disease and Alzheimers Disease, to name but three. AND, asthma rates have soared as smoking prevalence has plummeted. Is there a connection? I don't know. Nobody does.

What I do know is that smokers hold all the records for longevity. A startling, but absolutely true fact. Google Jeanne Calment of France. She died at 123 years of age. She quit when she was 118, and then only because of failing eyesight-she was too embarrassed to ask for a light. She smoked for 106 years.

Lastly, if you want links to any of the claims I have made, just ask. I have thousands of them. I would prefer that you sought them out yourselves though. A common complaint is that "your source is tainted", even if the source is the anti-smoker sites themselves. And no, they see no hypocrisy in this at all.

Nor do they mind taking our body parts when they need them. Don't smoke in pubs, clubs and restaurants, but if I need your corneas, your kidneys, your lungs or your liver then I will happily take them. But because I am an anti smoker I will scream blue murder when I find out a smelly smoker saved my life though. Like I said, they don't do hypocrisy. Don't smoke in the street, don't smoke in your car, don't smoke in your home, but by fuck, keep buying them smokes because I need you smokers to keep my taxes down.

Twats.

CR.

Friday Funnies-Delayed Edition

Salutations!

Apologies for my absence for the last few days. My son and I went to big fancy London as he was a finalist in the Laughing Horse stand-up competition. This is the biggest national competition we have for new acts and my son had beaten over 1,000 entrants to reach this stage of the competition. Sadly, he did not make the cut. I thought the result was wrong. The audience warmed to him very quickly and he had us all in stitches. Even the barmaid, who laughed at none of the other eleven acts, was shrieking with laughter. I had him placed first or second, but it was not to be. Still, we had a good time together, and that was important for me. We had arranged to meet fellow blogger Ampers, but the judging dragged on longer than we thought and the rendezvous at The Wellington near Waterloo never happened. Sorry mate, let's do it again another time.

Anyhoo, here are some pictures I found on the interwebs this week for you to look at:

Sound advice this. Lord Ahmed probably missed it. Although, 16 days in an open nick is punishment enough for killing a man on the motorway, non?

This is a disturbing advert from 1910 or so.

Erm, yes. But only if both parties are willing.

The new security team at Selfridge's were keen to get started. (As were the shoplifters...)

One for the religious.

Are you a child living in Clairmont? Be afraid.

Very true. Let's go find the baptist preacher in Clairmont and put this into practise...

I hereby dedicate this one to all lefties. And trolls.

Since we have already offended the Christians, it seems fair to upset the Muslims too.











And finally....

This is happening right now. In your breadbin.









Have a great weekend.

CR.

PS-Late entrant:

Don't do it love. It'll go straight to your hips....

Starve The Beast, Does It Work?

Starving the beast, or to put it another way, doing everything possible to not give the state any money does work.

It works extremely well and the state is simply unable to do anything about it. The state could put up taxes more, in fact they already do this every budget but the law of diminishing returns means that their taxes bring in less every year and high taxes simply lower investment so growth in future years is less anyway. The state really is between a rock and a hard place.

Consider this new report by the Tax Payers Alliance. Clearly £28bn is one hell of a lot of money that the govt hasn't managed to get its rapacious hands on.

But remember, this only covers the black market. It doesn't include those who for example grow their own tobacco, brew their own booze and walk to work instead of taking the car.

The govt is still going to borrow an additional £120bn this year despite all the cuts. (In reality there hasn't been any cuts, govt spending is still growing year on year).

This situation cannot last forever and every pound that we keep safe from the state brings our victory closer.

Gaius.

Dear David Cameron,

I am an ordinary man.

I find myself being driven to extraordinary lengths in my efforts to defy you, your colleagues, your peers, and every agent acting for or on behalf of the UK government.

Daily, my outrage reaches new highs. My disgust reaches new highs. My disappointment reaches new highs.

In the 2010 general election I voted Conservative. Before you pat yourself on the back, you should know that it was a wasted vote, but I knew that when I ticked the box for your man here in Aberdeenshire. He was the least worst choice, so infected are we here with the SNP. Had UKIP fielded a candidate I would have joyfully voted for him or her. Hindsight offers a clarity of vision like no other and I should have simply spoiled my vote. Alas, I did not. Lessons were learned.

You had promised so much, but the very best thing, by a long shot, was that Cast Iron Guarantee of a referendum on the EU. It never came. You sir, are a liar. A liar and a cheat. You also promised a Great Repeal. So deluged are we with legislation it is absolutely impossible for any Briton to know the law. You said you would reduce the size of government. You said there would be a bonfire of the quangos. You said that you would reduce regulation so that businesses could flourish. You did none of that.

I'm willing to bet that no more than a handful of people in government (and by that I do not include you and the other 649 MPs) have any idea how many pieces of legislation (including statutory instruments) were enacted in 2011. You don't know? I'll tell you. It was a staggering, a record-breaking 4,116. That's FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN. As of today, 99 days into 2012, you and your team of inepts have vomited another 1,277 mostly useless "laws" at a population already drowning in rules and regulations. Don't believe me? Check your own website (bottom left).

Proud of yourself?

Even de Montforts parliament, the first parliament ever created in England in 1265, suddenly granted power beyond imagination, struggled mightily to produce legislation. I admire them greatly. Why? Because by 1267 they had only produced 2 (TWO) new laws. Almost 3 years into it, they managed to produce just two new pieces of legislation. Oh how I long for a time machine, to go back and extract some of their DNA to re-inject into the foul corpse that British politics has become.

Back then, of course, we had no need for almost five million CCTV cameras. We had no need for legislation allowing GCHQ to listen to every phone call, to log every Tweet, or to capture every single email sent by 60 million innocents, in order that we might catch one bad guy. Your own government study proved that it takes over 1,000 cameras just to nail one bad guy. Clearly we do not have enough cameras. To effectively watch every man, woman and child, you will need to install another 60000000000 cameras. And then? You might miss someone, doing something, somewhere! Better fill every home with another sixty or seventy cameras!

Where does it end, Dave? And who do you have in mind to read all those emails and tweets? Even if the phone calls you log have any useful intelligence, just who is going to read them all?

Is this your idea of reducing the size of the state? Is it? Is this your idea of less interference? By increasing surveillance? What are you so terrified of? Because I'll tell you something for nothing: not one of my friends, acquaintances, peers, neighbours, or fellow-villagers are in the least bit worried about Al Qaeda. But they are scared to death of you and those control freaks you work with and surround yourself with.

You may not know this Dave, (Labour certainly didn't), but the very moment you stop listening, the end is nigh. People can put up with all sorts but they will not be ignored. Labour didn't lose the last election because they were crap at running the country-they were, but we Brits are a forgiving bunch-no, they lost because they stopped listening.

Hear this:

We want out of the EU. Today.

We want less surveillance, not more.

We want more freedom, not less.

We want our sovereignty back. All of it.

We want the ECA 1972 burnt. Publicly. At prime time.

We want pretty much ALL environmental legislation burnt as well.

We want affordable fuel-petrol, diesel, electric and gas.

We want less waste of taxpayer money.

We want to kill off ALL quangos.

We want an end to all faux charities.

We want banks to fail if they mess up.

We want to stop all but emergency (humanitarian) foreign aid.

There are several dozen other things we want, but this will do for a mornings work.

Start earning your money Dave. Start listening. Start taking action.

Or we will.

Sincerely,

Captain James Edward Ranty (R'td).

PS-Since there are so many laws, I have decided that I cannot possibly obey them all. I will, therefore, obey none. I sent you an Affidavit to this effect, and I let yer pal Madge know as well. Consider this a reminder.

Red Ken. Hero?

(Guest post from Gaius)

 

In praise of Ken Livingstone (yes, really)

 

Ken Livingstone might be on the demented fringe of the loony left but he's no moron when it comes to his own tax affairs and paying as little tax as possible. With the release of his tax details it appears red Ken has done everything legally possible to minimise his own personal tax liability. London's mayoral candidate is clearly a tax avoider, which I must make clear is perfectly legal and above board, it simply means arranging your affairs within the law to minimise your liability.

 

In fact Ken should be praised for his avoidance, after all the govt will only waste his money in exactly the same way that they do with everyone else's by spending it on white elephant high speed rail links, illegal wars and the mass murder of innocent foreigners and a "big brother" surveillance state right out of George Orwell's 1984. So, well done Ken.

 

However, all is not well in the in the la-la land of Kens loony left stupidity. Ken has actively railed against tax avoidance, this rank hypocrisy is typical of the socialist mindset whereby tax is only for the little people and not their rightful masters.

 

But the little people are starting to wake up, The LabourUncut blog has already mentioned that 31% of Labour supporters will not be voting for the tax avoiding hypocrite. After all, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

 

The day of reckoning is getting closer and closer for all the two-faced sanctimonious shysters.

 

Gaius.

David Icke: A Tour Of His "Mansion".

I expect many people to think only this of David Icke: that Wogan show.

The truth is often different to commonly held misconceptions. At Ranty Barracks you get to decide for yourself.



To me, it's fairly obvious he is not chasing money, or fame, (but his high profile helps to put bums on seats), and that to him (and thousands of followers), his message is sincere.

Some will call him a shill (for something or other), others will call him a fool. They will concentrate on one or two odd things he advocates and decide that his whole message is tarnished. I do not believe that. Whatever you do believe, this man has been through an awful lot, and it seems that the path to where he now is, was not paved with gold.

Another truth is that many of us do what we do, or say what we say, in a genuine effort to bring you a different truth. It isn't always palatable, indeed, it is often uncomfortable and we reject it out of hand. We do that (mainly) because we have been conditioned. 12-16 years of "education" will do that. It will close off all obscure, or untrodden paths. It is done this way for a reason: they need compliant robots. They need unquestioning cash-cows. Cows they can milk from 18-65. And then some more when they retire. And finally, just after they die, these robots will yield one final bucket of milk.

I've never earned a penny from activism. Actually, that's a lie. I did once get paid £125 for a 500 word article I wrote for a magazine. The cheque came, and even before it cleared I had transferred that £125 to the organisation I was involved with at the time. I may even have paid some tax on that amount.

Dozens of bloggers do the same thing: they offer a variety of truths for you to think about and accept or reject. The last thing on their minds is money. I know that some carry advertising but I doubt it makes them rich. That is fine for them but it isn't something I have ever considered. It seems to me that you can't move in any direction without being bombarded with adverts and it isn't something I want to subject my readers to.

As in all things I place here, you either believe it or you don't. No-one is castigated for disagreeing. This is not North Korea. You are free to make up your own minds. And you are equally free to express your thoughts here. Until quite recently I ran this blog with unmoderated comments. Thanks to one fool that has ended. Although he leaves only insults here, he does adopt others' persona's when he comments elsewhere, including mine. I think there is a tragedy to that. A terrible sadness that he cannot offer rational thoughts of his own. I am sympathetic but only to a degree. Freedom of speech does not run to posting the same garbage all the time. This individual needs some professional help. I hope he gets that help soon. And I mean that sincerely.

Anyhoo, I have decided that David is not such a bad a lad after all.

I'm still not happy about the lizards though. But hey, what do I know? They may be real. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence so far.

An open mind. That's all we need.

Your gut will tell you if it's bullshit. Trust your instincts.

Every time.

CR.

The Nasty, And The Stupid.

(Guest post from Gaius).

The public see the conservatives as being generally perceived as the nasty party, even by the party themselves with attempts to "detoxify" the brand by the party bigwigs. The Labour party are generally regarded as being well meaning but out of their depth and stupid, hence the loony left meme.

(The lib dims are simply the billy no mates party).

But how true is this? In other words is there any difference between the perception and reality?

Many Labour councillors and activists have not concealed their delight with the ill health of a former prime minister and their hopes for her speedy death so they can have a party. Many Labour ideologues are apologists for the most appalling behaviour from socialist govts overseas. Indeed Labour views Tories as bad irrespective of what their policy differences are. I was once on the panel (as a libertarian) of a public meeting organised by a trade union, I described all the bad things the welfare state was responsible for and how I wanted to totally abolish it, the Tory spoke in favour and support of the welfare state and the mainly Labour inclined audience had a right go at him, whereas several members of the audience whilst disagreeing with my views said I had raised several fair points.

Clearly, Labour are the nasty party.

Now lets turn to the Tories, why did they not win an overall majority against a clearly failing Labour govt when it was theirs for the taking? Why did they pick an out of touch toff as party leader instead of someone would clearly had the common touch and could connect with ordinary voters. Why do they want to maintain the Union instead of actively supporting a breakup that would give them a massive majority in an English parliament. I've never heard of any conservatives who will cheer when Gordon Brown dies, they simply see him as an out of his depth idiot with mental health issues. They only wanted him to go away.

Clearly, the Conservatives are the stupid party.

But why am I telling you this? It is because I want you to understand that there is a difference between perception and reality and I want to explain why this is and how we can use it to our benefit.

Perception and reality can be explained by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis where language influences how we think about things.

So how can we use this to our advantage?

By ridicule. 

Mockery, derision, scorn, contempt, jeering, make fun of and laugh at. By pointing out how absurd, preposterous, ludicrous, irrational and insane our enemies are.

Let me explain, Gordon Brown had no chance of winning the general election when ordinary people held him in ridicule as started by Guido Fawkes calling him a snot-gobbling loony madman which was repeated in the press and television. Similarly Cameron has real problems with the accusation of him being an out of touch toff.

The reason why ridicule works is because it is impossible to counteract.

Let me give you a concrete example.

Deborah Arnott is the director of fake charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and as such this mean spirited piece of shit wants to completely ban all smoking.

Some commentators refer to her as the "Dreadful Arnott". However a synonym of "dreadful" is "terrifying".

Terrifying has connotations of being big and powerful and something to be afraid of.

But is there anything to be afraid of from 'a snivelling little schoolgirl who gets her knickers in a twist over a whiff of smoke'?

So next time you meet a statist, simply use mockery and take the piss out of them.

It works, there is no defence and it encourages other members of the general public to think likewise.

Openly laugh at them.

Gaius.

Friday Funnies

This week, in pictures.

Tip of the beret to those people I nicked the images from.

Fact: 95.623512% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Drunks: every family has one.

Are YOU going to hell? I can tick at least two of these...

We know HMS Blighty is going down, it's just a question of time, thanks to these two muppets.

Charlie Sheen. Much misunderstood. By his home help.

 People think this is an old advert. It isn't. This is how we will all be communicating when the snooping legislation kicks in.










And finally, something for the weekend...

Have a good break,

CR.

Irish Government Served With Summons

Good old Ben Gilroy!



When will we do the same?

CR.

Mind Your Fingers...

...slam!!

If this short clip is to be believed, there will be 10,000 arrested and gaoled in the next few weeks.



Make of it what you will.

And if you have the time, watch the full version here. I haven't watched it yet but I imagine it will contain all the details to support the statements in the three minute clip.

Even if it doesn't come about, I get some comfort from imagining the elites being terrified at the prospect.

One thought: those FEMA camps we all hear about, maybe they were constructed to house these nasty, greedy people, and not ordinary American citizens?

We can only wait and see.

CR.

What Is Free Speech?

Well, just what is free speech?

 

It is the right to say something that someone else will find offensive, rude, derogatory, nasty, evil etc, nothing more nothing less. And as with pregnancy, you can't have a little bit. You either have free speech or you don't, and with the jailing of some drunken fool for 56 days for saying bad things about a rather ordinary premier division footballer and using the words "nigger, wog, cunt and twat" we no longer have free speech.

 

Of course, the reason why the state wants this sort of legislation is not to deal with rather silly and immature young men like Liam Stacey for saying something uncomfortable and wrong but to silence those who say things that are both uncomfortable and right.

 

Like for example that Tuberculosis is again on the rise in the UK because of immigration from Pakistan and India, or the recent revelations about grooming young girls from the Muslim community.

 

Gaius.

Had Enough Yet?

Democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, is it?

The bloggosphere and the twittersphere is aflame today with the news that our darling government has instructed GCHQ to listen to all our phone calls and log all our emails, tweets and blogposts.

Yep. To catch a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our society plotting against the government they have reacted swiftly: they now plan to eavesdrop on 62 million people. That should work well. Only last year we learnt that the police, using Stop and Search legislation, managed to arrest just 5 people out of the 400,000 they stopped and questioned. As initiatives go, this must surely rank as one of the worst ever.

Undeterred, the government will now repeat that exercise by storing billions of email and trillions of tweets in an attempt to locate those....what? Terrorists? BNP'ers? Racists? Benefit cheats? Illegal immigrants? Any of them? All of them?

Somebody once defined lunacy as repeating the same experiment and expecting different results. It is harder to find a more perfect example of that supreme stupidity than this latest violation of our rights.

As I wrote at Rosie's Hoose earlier:

"Rosie,

I am more than a little miffed by this latest move.

If the government, or its agents (the police, PF, or in England and Wales the CPS) thought I was up to no good, they must first obtain a search warrant to come to my home to go through my files, my paperwork, my drawers to look for evidence.

Why do they now assume they can bypass this vital protection simply because our files (and paperwork) are stored and sent electronically?

This is a gross violation of our rights and should be fought against.

If we, the great unwashed, simply stand idly by whilst they rake through our stuff, then we deserve it. We really do.

Time to wake up folks.

And once you are awake, stay awake. They will not be happy until there is a camera in every room in your home. Motorola have a couple of billion microchips (small enough to be delivered by a syringe) on the shelves and ready to go.

How much will you take? How many liberties will you let go of, before you will react?

Will you wait for that thousandth cut before fighting back?

Rights are not snatched away outright. They are eroded over time so that we don't notice. They are replaced with benefits.

Benefits are plastic.

Rights are solid gold.

Which do you want?

I've made my choice and I will fight all the way to hang on to them.

CR."

This latest rape, for that is all it is, must be fought with everything we can muster, for as long as we can fight, because if we do nothing, we truly deserve everything they do to us.

The government do not want us talking. That is dangerous for them. Freedom of speech is mighty fine, just as long as you are using government mandated speech. If you think about it, this all started back in 2006 with the smoking ban. What, (when you look at it openly and honestly), was its only achievement? Overwhelmingly, the ban served to shut down our pubs. Five years on it continues to do so at a rate of four pubs per day. Possibly more. Closing down pubs meant fewer people getting together to talk. Most conversations end up involving politics and that had to be discouraged.


Blair must have known what to do about our talking. So his government brought in that infantile legislation but he overlooked the internet. At least we could still get together virtually and continue the conversation. Moves were made by the last Labour government to wrest control of the conversation, but it was shot down by the LibDems and the Tories. The corpse was subsequently revived by the coagulation and will become animated very soon.


It seems that iDave is not so enamoured with us talking either. We are talking about the wrong things.


I maintain that the only way to stop the insanity is to use the two tools we can most readily access: we know them as Starve The Beast and Just Say No.

Both weapons are easy to deploy. Whenever you have the choice between adding to their war chest (which as we can see is being used against you, not for you), just....don't. Do without whatever it is that will add a few pence or a few pounds to the money they will spend on new repression tools.

Back this up by saying "No" when they send the begging letters.

If enough of us did this they would receive the message loudly and clearly.

Make them afraid.

Make them very afraid.

Remind them why they are there: to serve us. 

So I ask again: have you had enough yet?

If the answer is yes, then do something about it.


CR.