Prescott opens mouth

A hunting girl:

As he got back in his bus, he picked up a loud speaker and, addressing Miss Sluman and her colleagues, said: "Thank you very much for turning out Countryside Alliance. Thank you for coming out, lovely people, Right to Roam, Vote Labour."

Honestly, why do they let him out?

BBC UKIP have your say

Haha! I've got another comment up on one of those BBC have your say things. Can you guess which one it is?

Do they need to get a room?

Tom and Mike are heading up an Electoral Commission campaign to get people to take an interest in politics and get out and vote. Apparently these two chums want to point out that when talking politics is off their social agenda their conversation quickly dries up. I can’t imagine a pair less typical of your average social group who seem to get by rather well without touching on politics at all.

This leads me to suspect that these two have little in common so one has to wonder why they continue to hang out together? What are they thinking during their extended pregnant pauses? What possible agenda draws the two down to their local haunt late at night?

Labour drops commitments to angling and shooting

New Labour have dropped their commitments not to put further restrictions on the sports of shooting and angling:

In addition the manifesto pledges to "tighten the law on air guns"

Look out for further attacks on minority groups in any third Labour incarnation.

Do you ever get the feeling...

...that the big men, the ones in charge, have absolutely no idea how the little people are actually feeling? If you need proof then look no further than this little snippet from the Labour manifesto (via the CEP):

In our first term, we devolved power to Scotland and Wales and restored city-wide government to London. Britain is stronger as a result.

I hope, for the first time ever, that these politicians are lying because if they honestly believe that Britain is stronger then they have clearly devolved themselves to their own particular region called cuckoo land.

The language they use in that particular region of fantasy seems to be specifically designed to undermine faith and confidence in the Union. Just look at the heading they use: The nations and regions of the UK. Those of us who have taken an interest in this issue know exactly what they mean by this. We know who they are looking at when they say nations and we know who they are looking at when they say regions.

That kind of language, that kind of phraseology, simply cannot be designed to build faith in the Union. Just look at it!

Here's the thing. Consider a class of political spin doctors and government speech writers. You are in charge and you give them the following requirement:

Hello all. We need to be seen as the party that is building a stronger Britain. I want you to come up with a strategy and some phraseology to frame this idea firmly in the minds of the voters.

Two weeks later they come back to you with the following offering:

Here you go boss. From now on we will refer to Scotland and Wales as nations and to England as regions. Our suggested phraseology is The nations and regions of the UK. What do you think?

You'd look at them, mouth open, not knowing where to begin. I mean, they didn't even use the word Britain.

The inescapable conclusion is that building a stronger Britain is not actually their intention. With language like that coming out from a professional political organisation how could it be?

Collect Britain

Lots of good stuff on this site.

Who should I vote for?

This seems to be doing the rounds so I thought I'd have a go.

Labour -6
	Conservative 41
Liberal Democrat -39
	UKIP 34
	Green 2

You should vote: Conservative

Take the test at Who Should You Vote For

Of course there is no real surprise there and as soon as a conservative party comes along I will be sure to vote for them.

Are my eyes deceiving me?

It’s a cold, wet, and windy day over here in dear old Blighty so what better time to pay a visit to an Englishman’s Castle for a spot of warm comfort. What a mistake. Now I am not only cold but also rather annoyed:

Members of the European Parliament rejected moves yesterday to clean up scandal-ridden arrangements for their travel allowances and expenses. Their decision prompted anger and disbelief from British MEPs, who voted for proposed reforms.

In a series of votes carried by a margin of six to four at a full session of the parliament in Strasbourg, MEPs resisted proposals for audits of their accounts and turned down calls to impose sanctions on those found to have defrauded the taxpayer.

I think this latitude for deciding ones own fate should be extended to the rest of us. Imagine, if you will, how annoyed the tax man would be if we all chose, by a six to four ratio, in a free vote to prevent access to and auditing of our own personal accounts.

Of course, such a vote would never be permitted. We would not be afforded the latitude of which I speak. So, what is so special about these EU architects? Why are they even given the option?

Because they are powerful men and women working for a powerful organisation in command of the processes, procedures and structures that granted them their privileged positions in the first place.

Imagine, if you will, the UK parliament voting for the same toadish outcome. How long (no need to be exact, an approximation would suffice) do you think it would be before they were turfed out on their collecive ears by a rightfully righteous public and judiciary? Or worse.

Lamp posts would bend under the strain.

But not so with the EU parliament. They are different somehow. As they dish out to us various rights and privileges (thanks very much for that by the way) in their stinky constitutional document they do the same for themselves in their own despicable way (it's called The Constitution Plus) arguing that they have every right to because they have the mandate from the very people who can't vote for them and who don't give a brass farthing about them.

Give them and inch and they'll legislate that you should be using centimeters.

It's the law don't you know

Apparently the peasants are preparing to take the law into their own hands. The unfortunate thing about this is that these particular peasants, feeling the need to arm themselves against a threat they believe to be all too relevant to them, have been purchasing various items which, to their surprise, are illegal to own. Some come with a mandatory minimum five year prison term.

”How can it be so?” they wonder. ”I certainly don’t feel like a criminal” they say. But that’s the thing isn’t it? It’s all well and good turning a blind eye or presenting a completely disinterested front when the state shakes its warn out ban stick at one group or another from a window in Westminster, after all it’s no skin of your nose. But it sure grabs your undivided attention when all of a sudden there’s a policeman in your face for the first time in Lord knows how long and he’s staring at you. Pointing, even.

”Sorry sunshine, that’s illegal.”

”But……”

”Don’t you but me matey. You’re nicked!”

”But……”

”Tell it to someone who cares.”

”But…….”

”Look, both ACPO and the government have been campaigning for years to ensure that this kind of stuff does not find its way onto the streets….”

”It was for my bedroom.”

”….onto the streets, or into your bedroom. Years I tell you. This kind of stuff is for the police only.”

”Who are ACPO? I didn’t vote for them.”

”Now let’s not have any of your cheek. Mind your head when you get into the car.”

And so it goes on. I suppose these criminals can take solace in the fact that the number of policemen they are about to see in their daily lives will improve immeasurably. After all, low numbers are something they’ve been complaining about for years.

As an aside, did you know that the experts at the Times say replica handguns, which, using materials that can be bought at any DIY store, can easily be converted into lethal weapons? I have a number of replicas at home and have been giving this matter some thought. I’ve come to the conclusion that if I strap an iron mallet to the side of one of my replicas these Times reporters could well be right.

The Times feels it neccessary to clarify the law regarding the legal use of an illegal firearm.

Also, I'm wondering, are these the first signs of an emerging gun culture in the UK? No, not that gun culture, this gun culture. I doubt it.

It's written here, look, in our working practices documentation

Police and emergency services help youth gunshot victim in complete safety.

More examples of proper working practices here and here.

This from the Times, which I am sure must be quoting out of context or something:

A police spokesman said that when shots are fired and someone is injured police had to make sure the gunmen were not still in the area before moving in.

I mean, it must be. Surely.

Blunkett's Bang

Hello, my name is David Blunkett. I used to run a government department called the Home Office. That, I think, makes me uniquely qualified as an expert in the area of infidelity.

You know, the main problem with the fight against infidelity is that we don’t know which people are giving each other one.

I’d like to see an end to that.

National biometric ID cards are an important step in solving this problem. After all you need to be able to tell people apart before you can work out which people are at it. You know, like rabbits.

Yes, ID cards are an essential tool for any modern government. They are the Cillit Bang of crime prevention. Crime rhymes with grime and although infidelity is not yet a crime making it one will be given the highest priority during our next term in government.

Trust me like an uncle. ID cards are the solution to everything.

Quote of the day

Via Neil Herron we have the following on the withdrawal by Trafford Council of their membership of the North West Regional Assembly:

This assembly does nothing of real worth. People round here don't even know that is exists, and that they are paying for it. The assembly is an expensive debating chamber for political insiders. If it disappeared tomorrow, nobody in the real world would notice it was gone - Sale Moor councillor Christine Bailey

Pollard in the Times

This article in the times by blogger Stephen Pollard (who obviously writes for other outlets too) requires linkage. It concerns the hosting of an event by Labour life peer Lord Ahmed for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

We don't vote for toads

I’m going to vote at this general election. Almost certainly anyway. Now that I’ve got that out of the way I’d just like to add that not voting is a valid action and it is also an action that has consequences. It is not a nothing. It is not a wasted vote. It certainly sends a message and if you think that message is of the “I am not interested in democracy or in the sacrifices people made to get me the vote” then you are not listening carefully enough. A vote is never as cheap as one cast for an undeserving recipient.

Can I imagine a viable government which taxes my wages at source, then taxes my wages to pay for local government services, then taxes my wages whenever I buy a consumer product or private industry service and then taxes what little wage I can invest for my future when that government has a mandate from only 20% of the eligible population. No, I can’t and neither should you. The message in not voting is “must try harder – must do better”. The threat in not voting is not an idle one. It is the ruination of the conspiracy of the toads.

Pie in the sky? Yes, of course. But ask yourself why? Is it because the no-voters suddenly become aware of their ephemeral responsibilities and start taking notice of politics again or is it because the politicians suddenly start noticing that people aren’t voting and do something about it?

The ICR and the refusal of donations from a member of the shooting sports

Regarding this issue. I have recently been informed that the response I received was likely a standard one. The same reply has been received by a number of people I have been in contact with. On this kind of issue it is not acceptable. Certainly not to me. I have sent out the following:

To: Philip DOT Black AT icr DOT ac DOT uk

Dear Mr. Black,

It has come to my attention that the above response you sent me has also been sent to other members of the shooting sports. I trust that it is not a standard reply sent to all enquiries about the ICR's refusal to accept Mr. Atkinson's request to donate £30,000?

I would be very interested to know in what manner my comments have been carefully noted as standard replies do not build the necessary confidence that they have been.

I would also like to receive answers to the questions that I asked in my previous email (I understand that you are on holiday on the date I sent this and my previous email in which my questions were asked and that you will return on the 11th April).

To aid you in this process I will include the content of my previous email here:

Yes, but what were the circumstances? Did you refuse this donation simply because the donation came from an aspect of the shooting sports? If so, does your refusal to accept donations go for the whole of the shooting community or just parts of it? If so, which parts?

Would you also refuse donations from industries that exploit animals for profit, such as various parts of the food industry? If not, why not?

I have a number of readers who are waiting expectantly and with some distress for some clarification on this issue.

Currently the fact that the situation is cloudy is resulting in further donations tragically being held back and this situation will only get worse as time goes by without clarification.

Sir, do not misunderstand my intentions. I would like nothing better than to receive from you a compelling (and consistently applied) reason why the ICR refused this particular donation. I could then explain to the people I have talked to that their looks of shock and their remarks of utter disgust were misplaced. It would make us all feel a great deal better.

Copied: Julie Mills, PA to Mr. Philip Black.

His new blog has landed

Well, the blogosphere’s accidental spaceman is back on his new blog In Actual Fact. He's an Englishman living in Germany; you may have heard of him. Anyhow, one for the blogroll.

Extra absorbent

Honestly, I had to check the date on this posting from England Expects to make sure it wasn't an April fools. Those paper napkins would make excellent toilet paper.

The Cleaner

Today Blair will ask the Queen to make like a 4 in 1 powerball tablet and dissolve parliament. Yes Mrs. Muscle, put on the rubber gloves, get out your scrubber and wipe away the scum, grime and cloud-making lime scale that clings to this beautiful land of ours. At least temporarily because, like all putrification, it comes back eventually.

Still, let us not be downhearted. For one brief moment in time our once dusty recipe books of legislation will once again gather a few grains of detritus.

For the next few weeks this current parliament, which has been such a sticky stain on our inherited and cherished tabletop of freedom, will have been wiped away.

Yay for us! Yay for The Cleaner!

Two words

I’m looking for two words. Given the richness of the English language I am confident that they already exist or that the framework is there for them to appear as if by magic.

The first word describes a group of people who are, loosely speaking, a majority. Looking from the perspective of a minority group this group of people are, effectively, the others. Everyone else. The rest. The word needs to reflect the fact that, to all intents and purposes, this majority group has many of the characteristics of a minority (feel picked on, bullied, down trodden, ignored, not particularly well represented, feeling like they are doing all the compromising etc; you know the kind of thing) yet because they are the many they are not afforded the luxuries of representation, “pressure for change”, media bleating, hippy dancing etc. that are often afforded to smaller numbers of people. The word needs to reflect the unfairness of the situation. This is an important word because, more than likely, it describes you.

The second word describes a group of people who are indeed a minority group but who are not on “the list” of approved, special, “deserving”, cuddly etc. groups. Consequently they continue to be pushed around, bullied, made to pay because of what they are or what they do rather than because of the affect of their actions upon everyone else. The kind of people who are sacrificed at the alter of political expediency or subject to witch hunts (say by the media) on occasion. This minority group has no political agenda except self preservation. A word that describes those that are general supporters of minority groups (or who see it as important for minority groups to be well represented and protected) but for some reason do not support this particular group is “hypocrisy”.

I think these two words are important because they encapsulate important issues. Important issues that the blogosphere constantly talks about but which are never named. Because they don’t have names we find it hard to frame the bottom line of the issue we’re talking about. See those categories you create on your blog? These two words should be there.

So, any ideas? If these words don’t exist we should invent them because historians of the late 20th and early 21st centuries are going to need them.

Well, that's nice

I've just this minute got off the phone. The Tory party phoned me up asking why I'd let my membership lapse and, more importantly, asking if they could rely on my vote in the election. I told the very nice young lady that I let my membership lapse deliberately this year and that this would be the first election in which I would not be supporting the Tories.

She enquired why, naturally, and I said that it was because of the Tories unconvincing stance on Europe and their support for ID cards.

I also told her that I am looking forward to the day when I might once again give my support and that this would be when the Tory party started being conservatives again.

I also put in a quick jibe about the current leader being an issue but she failed to ask me why so I didn't offer any further information.

A lost Tory vote. I meant it when I said it.

Those bizarre Liberal Democrats

From the Countryside Alliance:

The Liberal Democrats have spoilt an otherwise positive manifesto with a bizarre pledge to ban young people under the age of 14 from 'participating in shoots'. There is not, of course, any evidence that such a move would achieve anything other than discriminating against thousands of law abiding youngsters including game shooters, rough shooters, clay shooters, target shooters and service cadets. We have made it clear that the Liberal Democrats risk losing significant rural support by proposing such pointless and discriminatory legislation.

The BASC joins in:

While welcoming the Lib Dems assurance that they have no plans to introduce further regulation on shooting, BASC is dismayed at their intention to ban anyone under 14 from shooting, or even participating in a shoot.

This flies in the face of Home Office opinion that there are positive benefits for young people to be taught to shoot in a disciplined and responsible way. It would also damage Britain’s international sporting potential; shooting has brought a string of European, Commonwealth and Olympic medals.

Shooting in the UK has an exemplary safety record and this is widely attributed to the fact that the principles of safe shooting are drummed into those who shoot from an early age.