We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The Gibraltar government called a referendum and Gibraltarians have turned out in force to vote in a referendum that is expected to overwhelmingly reject attempts by Britain and Spain to negotiate joint sovereignty over the British colony. Here are just a few things that caught my attention:
- Both London and Madrid say the referendum carries no legal weight. I know, I know, legal is far from democratic, let alone commonsensical but are they not even going to pay lip service to the wishes of the governed population?
- A party atmosphere prevailed in Gibraltar, where streets were decorated with red and white pennants and many houses flew Britain’s Union Jack or the Gibraltar flag. One man walked down the street wearing a “Proud to be British” tee-shirt. Yeah, that’s how you can tell it wasn’t in Britain…
- There is no official “yes” campaign. The overwhelming sentiment of campaign posters and of people ready to give their opinion was a rejection of joint sovereignty. What are the chances of replicating this in the UK with a rejection of abrogating our sovereignty to the EU?
Gibraltarians say they have been British since the 18th century and culturally are not Spanish nor do they want to be. They also believe they are better off economically as a British colony than they would be if they joined Spain. (Spain ceded Gibraltar to Britain under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, but has been attempting to recover it ever since.)
At least the Gibraltarians seem to know what is at stake in their referendum…
Rowan Williams, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, has stated that it is more important to “maintain the society of states” than to depose a murderous dictator, namely Saddam Hussain.
Now if Williams was of the opinion that Saddam Hussain was just the victim of western calumny and he was in fact the generous benefactor of the Iraqi people, then it would be quite understandable that he would oppose starting (or more accurately, completing) a war with the object of deposing him and crushing Ba’athist Socialism.
Yet that is not the case: Williams describes Saddam Hussain as “brutal and violent” and yet still takes the view that the stability of those collective edifices called ‘states’ is more important that the right of Iraqi civilians not to be murdered in order to ensure the supremacy of the Ba’athist Party.
Here is a man who, as an Anglican Archbishop, is presumably concerned not with geopolitics but with Christian morality and yet takes the view that the political stability of the Islamic world’s sundry despotisms matters more ending the nightmare of the 23 million people who live or die at Saddam Hussain’s whim. The fact Hussain is “brutal and violent” matters less than the needs of Realpolitik.
This is exactly where collectivism can lead even an Archbishop, because morality and collectivism are antithetical.
Not only has monitoring the real level of crime in the UK failed but the deterrence value of the law grows weaker by the day.
The main reason that a burglar has a one in five hundred chance of spending three months or more in prison is the “efforts” of the Crown Prosecution Service. I have often thought that if one were to burn all the graduates of the Ecole Normale de l’Administration, that the Gross National Product of France would rocket. In the case of the Crown Prosecution Service, its staff are too soggy to serve as fuel. However, the removal of that bunch of hopeless failed lawyers (think about it) from the gene pool would doubtless lead to a drop in crime.
The bungling over the prosecution of Paul Burrell last week is a case in point. Let’s not forget either that these are the people who prosecute shopkeepers for selling a pound of bananas to someone who asks for them and who decide that Tony Martin is a criminal.
Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason,
why gunpowder treason,
should ever be forgot!
– Traditional English, sung on 5th November.
I wonder if in the future, the ‘Guy’ burnt in effigy on the bonfires around Britain on the 5th November will be known by the name of other more recent traitors, as a ‘Chris’ or a ‘Ted’1 rather than a ‘Guy’.
Rest in peace, Guy Fawkes… the only honest man to ever enter Parliament.
Eurosceptic views are not a new thing in Britain
1 = Thanks to Patrick Crozier for the link
I didn’t think it would happen quite this quickly but it does appear as if the much-predicted disintegration of the British Conservative Party is now well and truly underway.
It has been brewing for a while. The party is riven with squabbling factions such as traditionalists versus modernisers, pro and anti-EU, liberal versus authoritarian and mercantilist versus free marketeers. No party can long survive, let alone thrive, the eruption of that many running sores. Had they had the benefit of a leader strong enough to unite them (in the way that Tony Blair has managed to stamp his authority on the equally fractious Labour Party) then they may have pulled off a revival-trick but I was not alone in believing that Iain Duncan Smith was not that leader. And so it has proved.
On the face of it, the crisis issue (whether to allow non-married couples to adopt) hardly qualifies as the kind of major rock on which political ships could be expected to flounder. More likely, it has been siezed upon by a posse of the discontented as the means of launching an ‘intifada’.
It is always possible that the Tories will pull off some sort of miracle and survive as a major political party of state but I am doubtful for they are not just batting against an unassailable Blair or their own brittle consensus; they are also the first high-profile victims of the radically changing political fabric of Britain and the increasing disconnect between the public and established politics.
So, I think the end is near for the Tories as we have known them and that leaves New Labour in the role of ‘the establishment’ to be challenged.
But, by who or what? That’s the real question.
I don’t often base my postings on comments but this one in conjuction with yesterday news was asking for it. A comment on the famous ‘1984 Poster’ article left by lawyer Martin Pratt goaded us:
Oh, and street crime in London is down 30% from last year. Don’t see you rushing to post anything about that.
One reason for responding to Mr Pratt’s otherwise unremarkable comments is that he claims to have worked for the Crown Prosecution Service (the UK equivalent of Office of the District Attorney). I suppose that was to give him an air of authority or at least credibility when venting his frustration with Samizdata and the posting. It didn’t work then and certainly not after reading about a report that confirmed what everyone in Britain apart from former CPS lawyers has known for quite some time – the crime is rising and the massaged official statistics are plainly wrong!
The report, compiled by the think-tank Civitas and based on Home Office research, much of which is unpublished, discloses that the official total severely underestimates the real level of crime. The last survey showed about 13 million offences a year. The true level of crime is four times higher than official figures have previously shown with more than 60 million offences committed each year in Britain.
David Green, the author of the report, identifies the underlying problem:
…many, if not all, statistical reports are still being submitted to ministers for approval of their content and the timing of their release. In an open society, there is no justification for the involvement of party politicians in regulating public access to information. Inevitably they use their control of the flow of facts to gain advantage over their opponents.
The intriguing bit about it is the note at the end of the report: Civitas wishes to record its thanks to the Home Office for checking and confirming the accuracy of the comparisons between the BCS and recorded crime. This is because the head of the Home Office crime statistics unit, has seen the figures used by Civitas and has confirmed that they are accurate, saying that he is “content” with the report’s findings.
Watching them lie to us
It takes a former Russian dissident to stand up to the BBC, no offense to Natalie Solent who has been collecting evidence of their biased reporting, but she can’t beat Mr Bukovsky’s dedication. In the true dissident tradition Vladimir Bukovsky said yesterday that he was prepared to go to jail in protest at the BBC’s lack of impartiality, particularly towards the subject of Europe. He plans a mass civil disobedience to protest against being forced to pay the £112 licence fee accusing the BBC of being both “sub-standard” and “politically biased” on many issues, including the Conservative party, Israel and the question of Europe.
The BBC insisted yesterday that everybody who owns a television must possess a valid television licence.
Sixty year old Mr Bukovsky defected to Britain after more than 10 years in labour camps and psychiatric hospitals. I guess he is qualified to spot the bully…
Though most of our readers will doubtless be unaware, the BBC has been running a competition to find the ‘All-time Greatest Briton’.
I have, thus far, been indifferent to the whole wretched exercise but it has been brought to my attention that, currently, Lady Diana is topping the voters poll.
I am no longer indifferent. If Lady Diana wins, it is not just a victory for sentimentality over reason but a gross insult to this country’s glorious history. I cannot allow that to happen without let or hindrance.
So may I please urge all contributors and readers to go to the BBC vote page and vote for Cromwell, Brunel, Shakespeare, Newton, Churchill or anybody except Lady f*cking Diana!
I thank you in anticipation of your kind and worthy assistance.
[My sincere gratitude to Hadrian Wise for the alarm bell]
I can’t quite remember when it was that my sense of outrage at HMG obscenities gave way to grim resignation. I don’t believe it was any single defining event, nor any specific date. Rather, I think it was a gradual and cumulative process.
Whatever the causes, though, I am rather glad I went through that transition because now I can confront news like this and still keep my blood pressure at tolerable levels:
“Under plans to be published by the Home Office in the next fortnight, the Race Relations Act is expected to be tightened to include private householders as part of sweeping changes expected to trigger a flood of new tribunal cases. Householders could be taken to tribunals if they behave in a racist manner towards domestic help, for example, by refusing to hire a black carer for children.”
Now, all anti-discrimination laws are misconceived and for so many reason that I would almost be required to start a new blog in order to list them all. They are intolerable enough in the workplace but by their extension to the home, HMG is making it clear that the distinction between the private and the public is the thing that they find intolerable. Surely I am not alone in regarding the matter of who one does and does not allow in one’s home to be a matter requiring the utmost discrimination?
Still, there is a get-out clause (of sorts):
“The only exemption would be if they can show a ‘genuine occupational requirement’ to hire someone of a particular racial group – such as an elderly Muslim woman who wanted a home help who was also a Muslim.”
And, naturally, by extension an elderly Catholic woman, say, will be able to insist on a Catholic home-help. Yes? Well, I have this nagging feeling that the answer to that will, in practice if not theory, be ‘no’. → Continue reading: Beware of non-whites
And back in Enlgand, the home grown idiotarians tie themselves into knots over capitalism.
Michael Meacher, the environment minister, told BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions: “We do not believe in capitalism. Capitalism is something that threatens inequality across the whole of society1.”
The responses are fun to follow. Downing street refused to endorse his claims and referred the Sunday Telegraph reporter to the Labour Party spokesman who said: “Socialism or capitalism is a sterile argument. The world has moved on.”
The comments caused ideological confusion among MPs identified with New Labour giving rise to gems like these: “I think there is rather a philosophical black hole here. We really need an economist to sort his out.” and “Of course unbridled capitalism is very dangerous but we cannot deliver the advances that we want in equality outside the market economy.” (Barbara Follet, MP and Glenda Jackson, MP respectively.)
The Left-wing MPs were delighted: “The party is moving away from New Labour back to its roots…”
This may place Mr Blair under pressure to spell out his attitude. In the summer he claimed that “we are moving away from Thatcherism now”. Care to tell us where you are heading, Tony? We have seen the posters…
1 = Mr Meacher is, of course, right, capitalism does threaten inequality across the society. It threatens it with prosperity, property rights and individualism. Marvellous!
12:00 noon GMT… That ghastly song with the refrain ‘The answer is blowing in the wind’ may have been hippy nonsense but everything else here in Central London bloody well is blowing in the wind.
The radio has just reported the winds have hit 75 mph downtown and whilst writing this blog article I have just seen a chair go flying past my window. I am on the third floor!
Serial comment writer Molly does not like the look of Britain’s future
The poster of the ‘kindly’ authorities watching us that Perry de Havilland wrote about on Wednesday scared the hell out of me. Is that really how they see themselves? Do they really think we want to have our movements watched? Do they actually think that a bunch of gobshites full of beer on a bus are going to be made to behave by a camera?
The fact is if you have ever had your house broken into in Newcastle (and I have lost count) then you know that the boys in blue, when they turn up a day later to take down your details, are never ever going to catch them. They are just going through the motions. If you are assaulted and raped by someone you do not know, they will take a statement and look around for evidence for a few minutes (like, maybe he dropped his f**king business card perhaps?) and then give you the telephone number of some tax funded and utterly pointless ‘counsellor’ to talk to who will keep forgetting your name.
And yet if you take a baseball bat to a burglar, they will throw the book at you because they know who you are and where you live. Of course they do because you foolishly called them to come.
All the people who live off my taxes, both the ones who empty my meagre bank account to ‘provide me with services’ and the ones on the dole who break into my house to steal what I have left, seem to me to be on the same side most of the time. David Carr is right that if ‘security’ is why the state is watching us, it certainly does not seem to be our security.
No, I am not sure why the cameras are going up but it sure as hell has nothing to do with my safety. The people who put them up do not give a f**k about that, this much I know for sure.
Molly
The future?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
