Quote Of The Day

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. - Ayn Rand.

Quote Of Day

" Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me. " George Orwell

Happy New Year

Hopefully once my new years resolutions kick in there should be a big increase in the amount of posts on Bert's Blog. Have a happy and prosperous 2007.

As Predicted And As Expected.

That is as Bert predicted in my post about political policing, Nick Griffon and BNP party activist Mark Collett have been cleared of the remaining charges against them. This should be welcomed not for the propaganda victory it hands to the thinly veiled racism of the BNP but for the fact that an English jury gave a two fingers to a politically motivated prosecution. As expected from the most legislative government in British history nuLabour immediately announced plans to do the only thing they are good at. Change the law, again even though parliament amended the laws only last week. Nick and his chums could very well see themselves caught out by the new laws which come into force next year.

Political correctness stems in part from a view that people, groups or races should have a right not to be offended. From the BBC's report:

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Muslims were offended and must be sure that the law would protect them.

Poor, poor Muslims offended again why they must be the new Jews! Or not. There is no right not to be offended . Taking and giving offense is part of life and religious groups need to get over themselves. If you are offended then you are simply:

A. Wrong
B. Wrong and have a crap argument, position or view.
C. Right
D. Right but you haven't made a very good argument.
etc.

That is anyone can be offended by something said. Giving people, groups or religions protection from offense is a doomed attempt at thought control by removing certain ideas from debate. This is idiotic especially for religions. By their nature religious ideas are incompatible they can't all be right. Religious extremist may think they have gained by getting laws against free speech. For example the primitive texts on which the Islamic faith is based (made up primarily from the Qu'ran) contain texts which quite simply incite religious hatred against Hindus. They have simply cut off their own tongues. More form the Beeb report:

A Home Office spokesman said Mr Reid would "think carefully and take time to study and reflect on this [court] judgment and its implications, including taking soundings from his ministerial colleagues".

But the minister believed the "poisonous politics of race" could be defeated only by argument, politics and community engagement, the spokesman added.

Take note Mr Reid we don't need any more moronic laws curtailing free speech.

Quote Of The Day

Dear Mr Blair, 1984 is a satirical novel of a nightmare future. It is not the instruction manual on how to do it.

Posted by a Mr Michael Ney in the comments after Anthony bLiar's article arguing for ID cards in today's Telegraph. The fact that barely any of the comments were in favour of the new internal passport was a least heartening. The fact that Toni dismisses the civil liberties argument as not carrying much weight is profoundly scary.

Official, Beeb Read Bert

While checking my hit statistics I noticed the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation had a referral to my site. It seems some Beeb journalist saw fit to link to my rather dry and boring post about a Panorama program's last year in an article called So what's the point of blogging? Bert won't be getting a Pulitzer any time soon though, I'm only getting one hit a day.

Reiterating A Point, Visually

With the current Hizbullah/Israeli ceasefire looking looking rather shaky this evening. It seems worthwhile reminding ourselves who we should be supporting once things kick off again. Hence:

Jewish Princess Anyone? Reporting for ahem, Duty. Or if your a raghead you probably fancy Fat Fatima(see below). Maybe Burka's for Muslim women ain't such a bad idea after all.
Did the nasty Israelis flatten you home? Well that's what you get for being a bunch of terrorist supporting medievalists. F[l]at Fatima has become a bit of a internet star. Here & here.

Guardian Garbage

Remember last year when the Guardian leader stated the Sun was 4.5 light years from earth? It took them about three days to issue a correction. It seems the quality of their science pieces is still just as bad as the rest of their Lefty twaddle. In today's Guardian in the space of one article Andrew Smith makes two fundamental errors. First up Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard respectively the first man and the first American in Space. Smith writes:

an up-and-down, sub-orbital lob such as Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard first rode back in 1961.

Balls. Alan Shepard did make a rather impotent sub-orbital lob but Gagarin made a full orbit of the earth before landing. Secondly after throwing in some obligatory guff about global warming, Smith makes his second clanger:

Other rockets run on hydrogen and oxygen, or (as in the case of the Saturn V moon rockets) liquid nitrogen

Liquid nitrogen? Does anyone remember Squire's phrase "some product of a university humanities department" well never has there been a more appropriate one. Why can the Guardian not employ journalists who can a least check basic historical facts(try their own website) and if they are going to write about rocket fuels know some basic chemistry. From the wiki on Saturn V rockets:

Fuel Liquid hydrogen and
liquid oxygen

Duh!

P.S. to be correct the first stage burnt a form of kerosene.

Taking Sides

Just in case anyone wondered which side Squire is taking in the ongoing Israel/Hezbollah war. I urge you to follow this link and give generously. Hat tip Guido Fawkes. Squire found comment number two on Guido's post darkly hilarious:

Do they deliver to UN observers too?

Yes but they don't do addresses only GPS coordinates! He-he snigger, snigger. Bert IS EVIL.

More on this soon.

Dave For PM, Maybe

For one very simple reason:

Under my leadership, we'll always strive to do the right thing.

That means saving our energy to oppose the government when it's wrong.

Like on ID cards.

Labour can't decide what it's for.

They can't control what it costs.

They can't explain why they're making it compulsory.

Labour's plastic poll tax has no place in modern Britain.

It's an ugly monument to the waste, chaos and vanity of intrusive, over-mighty government.

I promise you this... .in office, we will pull it down.

They may try in vain, I think it is unlikely the Tories will win the next election. Labour will probably sneak in with a small majority in the commons, unless the economy starts to go tits up in the next couple of years. The current government promise to make the possessionn of the cards compulsory at a latter date could conceivably be defeated by a Tory/Libdem coalition. Of course as the head of our state security apparatus Charles Clarke has made clear ZaNulabour has engineered the scheme to make it very difficult to pull it down. Anyone with a brain in their head realizess that the problem is a lot more to do with the NIR than the cards themselves. And registration on the NIR is already compulsory for the 80% of UK subjects who wish to hold a UK passport. The government recently rammed the relevant act through parliament by allowing people to refuse issue of an ID card when getting a new passport. "See it's not compulsory just like we said in our manifesto" they tittered with glee. Or not, as you will still be photographed, bioscanned and fingerprinted whether you want the silly plastic license to exist or not. So the question for Boy Dave should not be about the cards themselves but instead should be: "Dave will you abolish the NIR as a priority on taking office no matter how much has been spent by ZaNulabour on the wretched scheme". I fear the answer may not be an unequivocal no and the argument would be that they can't possibly make passports less secure by scrapping the NIR, due to EU and other international obligations. Other future arguments for not deleting the whole thing include:

1. Contractual obligations with the private sector, which include financial penalties for the state if the scheme is scrapped.

2. The fact that financial institutions may have started to accept biometric ID as a gold standard to speed up transactions currently requiring more than one form of ID, Tories don't like pissing off banks after all.

3. The sheer momentum that the scheme is building up. Let's be clear this is a massive IT project and government departments and local government our going to have to spend massive amount of your money implementing it.

ZaNulabour as I said before has engineered non-scrapability from the beginning. All the time aided and abetted by empire building Home Office mandarins and politically appointed special advisors. After all, this massive scheme means more jobs for loyal Labour voting civil servants, but that is another story. This comment on NO2ID's front page about the new Identity and Passport Service is particulary scary/funny

"Charles Clarke started by sneering at the public, saying anyone who opts out of the scheme is "foolish". Now the Home Office shows its utter contempt for the Parliamentary process by having a 'new agency' ready to open, and choosing April Fools Day - a Saturday - to do it.

This joke agency is going to nationalise you and rent your identity back to you with your passport. What a hoot for Mr Clarke! What fools we are to resent it!"

Mr Clarke is probably right, you will have to spend £93 pounds on being treated like a criminal whether you accept the card or not. The state is not your friend.

What A Brilliant Idea!

I spotted this gem over at Peter Hitchens' blog

And if we brought back the old pre-1914 rule, that nobody who received a public salary or welfare payment could vote, then governments would have to stop trying to bribe people to vote for them by giving them jobs or handouts. Instead they'd have a real reason to keep taxes low and to cut the public payroll. So that won't happen.

If I could have just one wish...

Britain Today

Every time NuLabour supplies the Police with more power to harass, search, arrest, detain or otherwise deprive us of our hard won liberties. The British people are told that such powers will only be used against extremists, yobs, drunken louts and anti social people. Well rather shockingly (or not) the police have been using their new powers against the aforementioned groups (except of course these extremists because they are scarred shitless by The Religion of Peace®). The problem is they are now also using them against nice law abiding people. At least they would be law abiding if it weren't for the fact Nulab keeps making things illegal.

Since 1997 Nulab has placed over 700 new criminal offenses on the statute books. In their frenzy of legislating the gov has introduced numerous badly drafted not to mention pointless laws. Most will gather dust, rarely if ever used. Other laws like the recent incitement to religious hatred bill will also rarely be used. Simply passing the law has done what the gov intended, chilled freespeech of non Muslims and bought votes in marginal NuLab constituencies with big blocks of traditionally Labour voting Muslims. This is of course electioneering by legislating rather than legislating in the interest of the British public as a whole. A concept presumably alien to any contemporary socialist only interested in victim groups and minorities.

Seemingly desperate to be seen doing something the Gov spews out new initiatives, consultations and unnecessary laws, all the time centralizing power in the office of Prime Minister and his unelected cronies. bLiar ever the political genius is creating a sort democratic dictatorship in which the Sun and the Daily Mail say jump and Mr bLiar seems to say "how high?" The fact is real freedom seems to be a somewhat abstract notion to a people kept in fear by a gov becoming addicted to power. We should of course be afraid of the threat that Islam poses to European freedoms. However we must not let the fear agenda be used by Nulab in its hopefully doomed attempt to create a system in which it can crush all but the most benign forms of dissent from how Nulab and its apparachniks want Britain to resemble. They want total control of the populace and the detail of peoples lives. Perry De Havilland on the "Radical Centre":

The Radical Centre seem to have the same obsession with control that the fascists and communists had but unlike them, it is control for control's sake rather than in the service of some clear ideology: there is no Blairite or Clintonite (or even 'Bushite') 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'Mein Kampf'. They do not seek the triumph of Volk or the dictatorship of the proletariat, they just seek to replace all social interactions with politically mediated interactions. They seek to regulate everything via a total state that does not organise mass rallies or collectivise farms, it just wants a world in which nothing whatsoever is private, everything is political. Their symbol is not the Hammer and Sickle or the Swastika, it is the CCTV camera.

And:

The Radical Centre has also been called 'Authoritarian Populism' because it seeks to impose the popular will by force and it does not much care what that will is. Just as liberty for liberty's own sake is the objective of the Classical Liberal/Libertarian rather than some 'overarching narrative' as was the case with the radical statist left and statist right in the corpse filled 20th century, the Radical Centre seek control for control's own sake with no particular grand reason in mind other than to perpetuate a political class whose reason for existence is to make decisions about other people's lives.

Wake up from you slumber Britain.

1 Year Old

Dwainsibly aka Bert's Blog is one year old, er yesterday. YAH!

As Of This Week Illegal In The UK

This funny flash animation sticks two fingers to Islam in a somewhat bigoted fashion. If it were posted on the BNP's website they would surely be prosecuted for incitement to religious hatred. Thanks to the internet and the fact that the good-ole-US-of-A still has free speech enshrined in it's constitution you can watch it too (it is hosted on an Floridian server).



The cartoon is of course juvenile in the way that it groups Muslims together, but it is done for comic effect. The BBC's very own comedy The Vicar Of Dibley does exactly the same with Anglicans. Which rather makes the point of the cartoon very well. That nobody gives a shit about offending other faiths because no other world religion can muster the kind of mass outbursts of hate and violence that Muslims and the Islamic world can muster.

While the rest of Europe stood up for free speech over the last few weeks. Our leaders cravenly continued in reducing our civil rights. Simply because some Labour seats are in Muslim areas (think Straw Man himself) so Islamic sensibilities are put before traditional British rights like free speech. The cartoon is available in larger format here.

Winston Pedicts Britain Under Socialism

This text is from Winston Churchill's first party election broadcast in 1945. It is simply excellent (italics my emphasis) :

My friends, I must tell you that a Socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Although it is now put forward in the main by people who have a good grounding in the Liberalism and Radicalism of the early part of this century, there can be no doubt that Socialism is inseparably interwoven with Totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State. It is not alone that property, in all its forms, is struck at, but that liberty, in all its forms, is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of Socialism.

Look how even to-day they hunger for controls of every kind, as if these were delectable foods instead of war-time inflictions and monstrosities. There is to be one State to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the archcaucus boss.

How is an ordinary citizen or subject of the King to stand up against this formidable machine, which, once it is in power, will prescribe for every one of them where they are to work; what they are to work at; where they may go and what they may say; what views they are to hold and within what limits they may express them; where their wives are to go to queue-up for the State ration; and what education their children are to receive to mould their views of human liberty and conduct in the future?

A Socialist State once thoroughly completed in all its details and its aspects - and that is what I am speaking of - could not afford to suffer opposition. Here in old England, in Great Britain, of which old England forms no inconspicuous part, in this glorious Island, the cradle and citadel of free democracy throughout the world, we do not like to be regimented and ordered about and have every action of our lives prescribed for us. In fact we punish criminals by sending them to Wormwood Scrubs and Dartmoor, where they get full employment, and whatever board and lodging is appointed by the Home Secretary.

Socialism is, in its essence, an attack not only upon British enterprise, but upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy, tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils. A Free Parliament - look at that - a Free Parliament is odious to the Socialist doctrinaire. Have we not heard Mr. Herbert Morrison descant upon his plans to curtail Parliamentary procedure and pass laws simply by resolutions of broad principle in the House of Commons, afterwards to be left by Parliament to the executive and to the bureaucrats to elaborate and enforce by departmental regulations? As for Sir Stafford Cripps on "Parliament in the Socialist State," I have not time to read you what he said, but perhaps it will meet the public eye during the election campaign.

But I will go farther. I declare to you, from the bottom of my heart, that no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them.

No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil. And where would the ordinary simple folk - the common people, as they like to call them in America - where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?

I stand for the sovereign freedom of the individual within the laws which freely elected Parliaments have freely passed. I stand for the rights of the ordinary man to say what he thinks of the Government of the day, however powerful, and to turn them out, neck and crop, if he thinks he can better his temper or his home thereby, and if he can persuade enough others to vote with him.

But, you will say, look at what has been done in the war. Have not many of those evils which you have depicted been the constant companions of our daily life? It is quite true that the horrors of war do not end with the fighting-line. They spread far away to the base and the homeland, and everywhere people give up their rights and liberties for the common cause. But this is because the life of their country is in mortal peril, or for the sake of the cause of freedom in some other land. They give them freely as a sacrifice. It is quite true that the conditions of Socialism play a great part in war-time. We all submit to being ordered about to save our country. But when the war is over and the imminent danger to our existence is removed, we cast off these shackles and burdens which we imposed upon ourselves in times of dire and mortal peril, and quit the gloomy caverns of war and march out into the breezy fields, where the sun is shining and where all may walk joyfully in its warm and golden rays.

Shamelessly copyed from Blognor Regis.

What was I saying about political policing? Blair (the other one) is Britain's most senior policeman and guess which part of the lefty establishment doesn't want him to resign. Which he clearly should after the de Menezes murder and the implemetation of selective, plainly political policing of recent months. bLair and Sir Blair are two parts of the socialist elite now ruling Britain.

BTW parliament just banned smoking in pulic places.

British Liberty's Slow Death

Last night NuLabour removed another chunk of British Liberty by voting the ID register bill through the Commons for the second time. They rejected even the minimal amendments the Lords had made to the bill. Such as removing the voluntary registering of private biometrics when applying for a passport. Since 80% of British subjects hold a passport the gov has very effectively made the scheme compulsory by the backdoor. It seems to me that there is very little chance of stopping the wretched scheme by any means now. By the time any future parliament comes to vote to make the scheme "properly" compulsory, a large section of the population will already be entered on the citizen/criminal register. This fact will then be used by the gov of the day to show the scheme is a success and compulsion should therefore follow. Even if the Tories win the next election they are not likely to suddenly pull the plug on the register. The scheme would have too much momentum by then. They would be portrayed as weak on crime and immigration. Besides when in power the idealism of opposition soon evaporates as Mr. bLair clearly demonstrates:

"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities"

That was Toni to the NuLabour party conference in 1995. The only hope is perhaps a major recession in which the scheme becomes the new poll tax. Gordon do your worst.

More Cartoons

Wankers.

Mickey Mouse As Crime

Some Memehacks And Cartoons For You

More here.

The Internet Is For Porn

As a blogger posting 2 month old limks is pretty lame however this is simply brilliant. Turn the volume up.

Straw As Quisling

From the Times:

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, condemned the decision by some media outlets in Europe to republish the cartoons, calling it “insensitive, disrespectful and wrong”.

He said that freedom of speech did not mean an “open season” on religious taboos, and he praised the British media for what he called their “considerable responsibility and sensitivity” for not publishing them.

Discraceful words from a minister of the Crown. At least his French opposite number is showing some backbone, from the Lebanese Daily Star:

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy condemned the protests in a television interview.

"I am totally shocked and find it unacceptable that - because there have been caricatures in the West - extremists can burn flags or take fundamentalist or extremist positions which would prove the cartoonists right," he said.

Perhaps Mr Straw should take a look at some truly repulsive cartoons.

Political Policing

Check out these pictures of yesterday's protests in London by raghead extremists. This one from Samizdata is particularly telling. Now think about some of the events which have taken place over the last few days. On Thursday Nick Griffin and one of his cohort's in the BNP were acquitted on 2 and 4 charges respectively for using words likely to incite racial hatred. The case then collapsed as the jury failed to reach a verdict on the remaining charges. I am pretty much an absolutist on freedom of speech so I am glad that the BNP men are as of now free men. However the crown prosecution service has decided to retry the men on the remaining charges. Juries don't seem to believe in thought police however NuLabour most certainly does. We must therefore ask ourselves one simple question will the raghead extremists be prosecuted with the same venom?

This in the Guardian is not very reassuring:

(A)Passersby stopped police officers to ask why the marchers were being allowed to carry banners threatening further suicide attacks in the city. One police officer replied: "Don't worry. We are photographing them."

Taking pics eh? Very reassuring, why those crafty Muslims have wrapped their multi purpose towels over their faces, I hear you cry. Not very sporting of old Johnny foreigner that. Coming from the same NuLabour boys in blue who baton charged countryside protestors outside parliament it's hardly surprising. You see it's all about being a "victim group" and understanding victim group syndrome is key to understanding Britain today. To join the club you need to be either:

Gay

Lesbian

Can't make up your mind.

Transexual

Any colour other than white unless you have any other "afflictions" mentioned on this list.

Any religion other than Christianity or for that mater Judaism.

Disabled

A Woman

It appears that there is some kind of points system going on here so that a female ethnic Chinese lesbo would be more of a victim than say gay white man. Anyhow back to my original question will these people be prosecuted? As the photo appears to show the extremists being escorted by the police it seems unlikely. For a start the Police seem to have made themselves accessories to a crime under current English law, that is incitement to violence. A point which would surely be raised by a competent defense team. Again I am a free speech asolutist but the point I am making is about equality under the law. No matter how much the BNP tries to make its supporters into a victim group they will fail. Can anyone imagine what would happen if The BNP marched in London with Kill All Muslim placards? Baton Charge, plastic bullets perhaps?

NuLabour and the Met lead by Sir Ian Blair are scared of what might happen if they treated Islamic extremist marchers the way they treated Countryside Alliance marchers or would surely love to do to the BNP. In the mainstream media there is also fear. No British newspaper has dared print any of the offending cartoons. It has only been hinted in the press that there is some discrepancy in the way that the two branches of the far right have been treated by the British establishment.

I hope that the Islamic extremists are prosecuted and are in turn acquitted. The BNP are unlikely to be convicted by a British jury. These two outcomes and the legal precedents set might show the Islamic world that British people take their freedoms more seriously than the NuLabour thought police.

Tell Muslims Were To Get Off Part III

So go get some Danish produce or products today. Quite by accident I had the pleasure of purchasing £2000 pounds of Danish technology today in work. While you may not be in a position to spend quite that much (unles you want a shiny new Bang & Olufsen) you could always start with some Lurpack Butter or some tasty Danish Bacon.

Other Danish Stuff:

Danish Havarti cheese

Carlsberg and Tuborg Beers

Lego the best toy ever!

Danish Food Shop - Worldwide delivery of Danish Food.

Danish Deli Food

SupportDenmark.com

Vote Shami

Those of you who take your personal liberty seriously should take the small amount of effort required to vote for Shami Chakrabarti as C4's Most Inspiring Political Figure Award. Do it here now. That is an order. Bert out.

Paying For Your Government Propaganda

Over at the UK's super state security agency other wise known as the Home Office. The civil servants responsile for insuring the introdution of a system that would have been a Stasi officers wet dream (aka the national ID Register), are at it again. The cretinous fuckers have decided to waste £71,892.96 of your money on a DVD to promote their wretched scheme. You can view a clip here. Those of you in the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear camp" should take note of the credits of the film, they really give the game away:

The Identity Cards Programme would like to thank the following organisations for their help in producing this video:

-UK Passport Service
-Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate
-Department for Work and Pensions
-Criminal Records Bureau
-Kent Probation Service
-The Post Office

That's right folks from the day you are born you are simply citizen-criminal number xyz987654321 and you're on permanent probation.

Any of Dwainsibly's readers who find my posts are written "emotive language" can find a dry select committee report which considers that the ID card scheme may contravene the ECHR. A small clipping:

13. The systematic collection and storage of information on the Register therefore engages Article 8, even without any further use or disclosure of the material.[19] The information which the Bill envisages will be held on the Register allows for significant intrusion into private life. This is particularly the case since a person's record on the Register will include a record of the occasions on which his or her entry on the Register has been accessed by others (clause 1(5)(h)), for example, in the use of public services, or by prospective employers, or as part of criminal investigations (regardless of whether these result in prosecutions or convictions). Thus the information held on the Register may amount to a detailed account of their private life.

14. Information may be held on the Register for as long as consistent with the statutory purpose of verifying the registrable facts about an individual. This implies that information will be held at least for a person's lifetime, or at least where they remain resident in the UK. The interference with Article 8 rights is likely to increase as information on an individual is held for lengthy periods. This is particularly the case since, as noted above, the Register will hold a record of the occasions on which a person's records have been accessed by others, potentially providing, over time, a detailed picture of private life. The ECtHR has emphasised that holding information concerning someone's distant past raises particular Article 8 issues.[20] As regards each of the registrable facts entered in respect of an individual, it must be shown first that the consequent interference with private life pursues a legitimate aim listed under Article 8.2; and can be justified as necessary in a democratic society, proportionate to the aim it pursues, and in pursuit of a pressing social need. This requires that privacy rights should be interfered with to the minimum degree necessary.

15. We are concerned at the range of the information which may be held on an individual's record on the Register, and at its apparent lack of relation to the statutory aims, and to the aims listed as legitimate for the purposes of Article 8 ECHR. In particular, we do not see why the statutory purposes necessitate a record of a person's previous residential status, where, for example, someone has previously held a temporary residence permit, but later acquired UK citizenship. Neither do we see why it is necessary for the statutory purposes to record not only a person's main residence, but also any second homes they may have. Thirdly, it is not clear why it is necessary for the statutory purposes to retain records of each occasion on which a person's entry in the Register has been accessed by others, a provision which is potentially highly intrusive of privacy, if the information is disclosed to third parties. We have written to the Home Secretary asking why the gathering and storage of this information is considered to serve a legitimate aim, and to be a necessary and proportionate interference with Article 8 rights

I am still hoping this turns into Labour's Poll Tax.

The Philosophy of Liberty

Interesting flash animation here.

Blair Abolishes Silly Elections

Here.

Tell The Muslims Where To Get Off Part II

Instapundit the American uber blogger echoes my last post with another example of self imposed British dimmitude. I just don't know what to do other than have a nice bacon sarnie for breakfast.

Tell The Muslims Where To Get Off

This is getting ridiculous. So what if I am a feminist, and find a woman in a headscarf offensive? Are the misguided fools of Dudley council going to ban them because of my sensibilities? Of course not. Has anyone ever heard of something to do with pigs being banned to express tolerance for Jews? Of course not. Do Jews plant bombs in London? Of course not.

Nerd Gets His Spicy Puntang

A case of "me Tarzan you not Jane". Eh Nerd? Click here for sound.

Pravda At It's Worst

This is a disgrace. Scroll down to the paragraph headed "Silver Lining" quote:

Whatever Hurricane Katrina's long-term effect on the way America thinks about global warming and oil dependency, it is probably going to make GM animal feed more expensive in Europe. Almost all US maize and soya goes through New Orleans and the port of Destrehan, and nothing is expected out for some time because of silting in the Mississippi. This should cheer up anti-GM activists in Britain who have been trying to persuade supermarkets to stick with non-GM supplies and not to accept produce that has been given GM feed.

Nothing like gloating about you fellow human beings suffering to perfectly sum up the America hating enviro-lefties at Al Guardian. Not to mention the increase in price of a cheap protien source for poor Europeans who can't afford to shop at the local organic co-op, like all good Guardian journalists surely do. The global warming paragraph is pretty shody stuff too, quote:

If anyone can talk authoritatively about climate change in Britain, it should be farmers, and a National Farmers' Union survey of its members' experience of climate change has found some welcome unanimity. The average length of time those surveyed had been farming was 25 years, and all agreed that winters are now warmer and wetter and summers are hotter and drier. Among the comments were: "the balance of nature has changed"; "the way we used to make hay is impossible now" and "some areas are permanently waterlogged"

Oh it must be true the noble land workers say so. Piffle.

Via the excellent EnviroSpin Watch.

Stan The Man Interviewed In Al Guardian

Here.

Priceless

Go to Google, type failure and press the I'm feeling lucky button.