Tuesday, 30 November 2010

So Mandy has already got a job while I am still going around saying gissa a job. Perhaps Mandy will give me a leg up if not an actual legover. I could be very useful to him if he allowed me to be ...

I have written in the following terms to WPP (which is the acronym for "Wire and Plastic Products", I discovered to my surprise!) for whom Peter Mandelson will be acting as consultant. has a few posts on Peter Mandelson whom I have today heard will now be your consultant, which should be of interest to WPP.

I am the blogger and wonder if it would be appropriate for WPP to consider me as a candidate in any secretarial or administrative or any capacity at all that he may require and desire. 

If not perhaps my excellent ideas and communication skills could be of service to WPP in some other way.  I have after all been legally as well as comedically trained.

The personality cult I have already created for myself, whom liberals love to hate and fear, is I believe quite impressive, and my reputation precedes me.  My notoriety is such that there have been Facebook campaigns by Leftists to make my Facebook friends defriend me, and I have even had fake accounts set up by my detractors dedicated to mocking my views.  My Google footprint has also been said to been described as "giant".  

I look forward to hearing from you as to how I may assist in generating ever greater profits for your company with my undoubted talents for self-promotion, irresistible suggestions and revolutionary ideas.

Sunday, 28 November 2010

Does John Bercow need to read this book?

For Men, Boys, Wannabe Men, and Women Who Are Disappointed In Their Man,

If you are with a woman who is numb towards you, and is rude, cruel, moody, angry, defensive, crazy, flirts with other guys, cheats on you, has a history of cheating on other men, won’t have sex with you, uses sex as a weapon, uses you for money, disrespects you, humiliates and embarrasses you, or makes you afraid of her tantrums or put-downs and looks down on you as a man, then I have the knowledge you need to turn things around and be a REAL MAN!

But if you are with a woman who takes pride in her ability to NOT care about you, who doesn’t care if she hurts your feelings, who defends her choices that cause you hurt, who doesn’t care that you even have feelings, then reading this letter just got very urgent for you. Being with a woman like this will suck the life out of you unless you know how to handle it with brilliant expertise.

You don’t want to get divorced or break-up, you just want to know how to handle the situation, right?

It doesn’t matter what mistakes you have made or how you have been hurt, it’s all okay, I am here to help you become a better man no matter what you are going through.
He after all has a taller wife who insults him and his beliefs every day with her Tweets.

Saturday, 27 November 2010

The sooner they are published, the sooner the war will end.

We need to hear what a bunch of pathetic tossers the Americans think we and our leaders are.

We need the British in Muslim lands to fear for their lives so they come back and stop interfering in matters that they do not understand and which it is beyond their competence to influence.

Publish everything, Julian Assange!

John Major is slowly coming round to the idea of a one-party state. Frank Field has already. It is called a National Government.
has a draft constitution for the incipient one-party state that should be the logical conclusion of these ideas.

It is tiresome how easily frightened so many British politicians are by these ideas.  Those who are frightened are reminded that Ancient Athens and Republican Rome from which the West draws its democratic traditions were in fact one-party states with shifting factions.  A party is administratively necessary to attract members, field candidates, change rules, count votes etc. 

It will not result in a totalitarian dictatorship if its constitution protects the rights of its members (the most important of which is free speech) against the leader and his cronies. 

China will show us the way.  Whatever you think of its human rights records, the average Chinese Communist Party member has more rights against his party than the average MP against his.  Check out their Article 4.

Also note that the Chinese Communist Party periodically revises its constitution to reflect changes in reality.

Can we have a sensible discussion about this, please?

Friday, 26 November 2010

Tom Harris MP has defriended me on Facebook

Maybe it was something to do with this comment.

"Labour is the party of trade unionists, single mums, women with non-jobs in the public sector, Feminazis and benefit scum mingers and whingers."
Hey, it's OK, Tom, keep your hair on.  So are the Tories and the rest of the LibLabCon.  No personal offence intended.

If Dan Hannan wants to become MP and leader of the Tory Party ...

... there is a by election coming up at Oldham East and Saddleworth.

He would have to take a pay cut though, if he gets the job, because the UK government is not quite as generous as the EU government of which it is but a vassal state.  The missus will complain, but do it anyway.  The payoff comes later. 

If the Tory Party won't let him stand (and if that happens we already know why that that cunt Cameron would do his damndest to prevent him standing, won't we?), he would have to stand as an independent, just like my mate Lutfur Rahman who is now Mayor of Tower Hamlets. 

Once he is MP, he can ask to rejoin the Tory Party and become its leader.

There you go,  Dan.  I have just planned the rest of your life for you. You can reward me when you are in power.

A pox on that cunt of convictionless Conservatism Cameron

Every day and in every way my hatred for that cunt Cameron who has a policy of sacking or demoting colleagues that speak the truth quickens and deepens.  I pray for the arrival of the buses that he will be found under. 

Thursday, 25 November 2010

The Limpest Dick

Maybe there should be a contest for Tory MPs to see how long they can go without apologising for saying what the rest of the country thinks anyway, with a prize for the one who holds out the longest.

We can call it THE LIMPEST DICK. 

You are the Limpest Dick.  Goodbye.  

Howard Flight is a pissy little limp-dicked fucking wanker who's afraid of cunty Cameron

On being accused of "extremism" by the Liberal Left

Extreme error requires extreme correction. "Extremism" is therefore relative to the error being corrected. It would be a fallacy to assume that the status quo is the perfect place to be.

What if the status quo were the Inquisition or the Cultural Revolution?

Or indeed the advanced stages of Matriarchal Dementia?

Why did Tom Harris MP stop blogging?

Is he supporting the House of Commons Disqualification Act (second reading 10 December 2010)?

Has he been "got at" by Rosie Winterton, the Labour Party Chief Whip, about the damage speaking his mind could do to his career?

What is the point of becoming MP if you are afraid of discussing politics?

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

The Lord and Lady Mandelson Show after "The Real PM"

I feel quite extraordinarily fortunate to have once sat next to Patrick Diamond (who was featured in the documentary reporting to Peter) at a Fabian Society dinner.  I just want Peter to know that I do get around.  Patrick is simply just too out of touch with ordinary people to be electable.  I was actually shocked at how out of touch yet senior in the Labour Party hierarchy he was.

"I’m not quite sure what [I will do], but amongst other things I have to earn a living. I don’t have an income any more."

You and me both, Pete!

All we have to do is to have a few dinners in a few fashionable restaurants, and let the paps and papers do the rest ...

We would of course be meeting to discuss the Lord and Lady Mandelson Show.

It would be a studio creation of our living room and guests would be invited, entertained and interrogated by the both of us in turn.

It will be a hit!

We will be the new Richard and Judy! You will be loved at last, as you truly *deserve* to be, and not just by me!

I have just written to him in the following terms and can only keep my fingers crossed:

Dear Lord Mandelson,

I will show you *exactly* how you can get a talk show on TV and bask in the admiration and affection you so well deserve, if you get in touch to arrange a dinner to discuss this possibility. 

Yours sincerely,

He is the perfect age and star sign for me, and would complete the trilogy of the wonderful men I have known in my life.  I have consulted my stars again and again they tell me "Go for it, girl!"

China has a benevolent dictatorship, we have a malign oligarchy.

“A benevolent dictatorship has one advantage; it can get things done. When China decided to build monopoly in rare earths, it goes about it without opposition or debate. In the US democracy, it's almost impossible to choose a course for the nation. Every idea, every strategy is debated and opposed by one or both political parties. As a result, in national emergencies the US responds only slowly. China has the advantage of being able to hire the best minds in the West and then apply their experience and know-how to China's growing store of knowledge. The Chinese population has a fierce work ethic. The people of the West (particularly in Europe) have a ‘vacation ethic’ and a ‘government will take care of me’ psychology that is rendering them less competitive. China is patient, and thinks in terms of the future. As a result, China is running around the world buying up reserves in raw materials and staking out claims for agricultural land and mining sites where ever they can find them. In contrast, the US is building up ’impossible’ debts and in doing so mortgaging its future.” - Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, 11-22-10

Time to dump the dollar, folks

Russia and China could both short the dollar and destroy America.  It is actually ridiculously easy to do.  It is probably worth taking the losses such a move would entail to bring America to its knees.  Cheaper and quicker than war, with fewer casualties. 

Monday, 22 November 2010

British Armed Forces and Government being girly about Jimmy McGovern drama

What was all that huffing and puffing and hissing and spitting all about? Any displays of cowardice should be punished severely, surely? Jimmy McGovern's drama series is about doing something stupid and ending up in the dock. Two CHAVs join up and find they are not up to soldiering. One kills himself after being made camp "bitch" and is bullied relentlessly by Corporal Buckley for being unable to return fire. The other stupid CHAV kills Corporal Buckley for making his mate kill himself thus depriving the army of a good fighting man and is sentenced to 25 years. What is the fucking problem??

Is there just a hint that they should have been given counselling and that they may sue the MoD for hurting their feelings, not showing them enough respect, ignoring their human rights and causing them emotional distress?

Has the army gone girly? We are assured by Chief of General Staff Sir Peter Wall, Colonel Tim Collins and now Sir Richard Dannatt, that bullying doesn't go on at all. Patrick Mercer MP is "offended" on behalf of everyone in the Armed Forces, apparently. But isn't it actually necessary for martial discipline? Cowards should be victimised and given a bad time to discourage the others from similar behaviour in a war situation. Why is the government behaving so oddly in this quite morally uncontroversial drama?

The Libertarian Party UK is intolerant, totalitarian, authoritarian, stupid and scared

1.  It expelled Matt Davies for helping UKIP,  not getting it that a party is just a vehicle that commands no loyalty if it doesn't say what it does on the tin.

2.  It thinks in its totalitarian way that working with other parties is a betrayal of the cause.  How dumb is that?

3.  It doesn't appear to realise that all anti-discrimination legislation is thoughtcrime and refuses to explicitly state a desire to repeal them, either because they are stupid or because they are scared.  Who knows?

With "friends" of freedom like that, who needs enemies?

If you want to make a protest against the LibLabCon at the Oldham East and Saddleworth By Election, vote UKIP or BNP (if they are standing).

My attempts to give the Libertarians a few big ideas to further the cause not received well by ingrates and incompetent amateurs is the Libertarian Alliance blog whose Director Sean Gabb would not give me the £1000 prize for my brilliant essay in 2007 about how to move from big government to rationally small government. 

I seem to have upset Anna Raccoon at who thinks I am in no position to criticise the Libertarian Party's totalitarian and fascist rule that you cannot join it if you are a member of another party.  Indeed, it expelled Matt Davies - one of the more courageous Libertarians I know, just for supporting UKIP. 

This is my suggestion to them which is currently awaiting moderation:

A small unknown and unregarded party with high entry requirements seems to me to be a peculiarly self-destructive formula. Pride is after all a deadly sin.

There is a history of incompetent amateurism in the Libertarian Party and I am only trying to help.
If I were to become a member of the Libertarian Party after the appropriate changes in the constitution allow me and others to join your party, then I could be more of a help.
The yawn factor of yet another hopeless small party would be greatly reduced if I were to join or indeed if I were myself to lead it, as I do after all have ideology in truckloads, already prepared earlier.
A charismatic, media-savvy leader with an eye for the soundbite backed up with my legal training would attract a great deal of publicity, particularly with my BNP connections.

If reported it would give both the BNP and the Libertarian Party the oxygen of publicity and air the vexed subject of party democracy.
Anna Raccoon did however display this:

I believe the quickest way to rationally small government is through a narrower taxpayer-only franchise operating under a direct democracy in a one-party state with a party constitution that protects the rights of its members against the leader and his cronies.

The West derived its democratic traditions from Ancient Athens and Republican Rome which did not have parties, only shifting factions.

Party democracy is therefore crucial to the quality of democracy we have, but no one – not even MPs it seems – get this.

Peter Bone’s House of Commons Disqualification Bill (second reading 10 December 2010) will regrettably not get the support it needs. explains why it matters so much.

I suppose I shouldn't be so didactic, because people don't like to be told.  But then what is the point of not explaining things in the clearest possible terms when Libertarians are being so incompetent and amateurish, and give libertarianism such a bad name?

I would gladly give way to anyone who can do what I do better, but as far as I know, no one does it better.  I suppose it was a bit cheeky of me to suggest that I would be a better leader than Andrew Withers, just because

  1. I already have a certain notoriety
  2. I can write reasonably grammatical and clear English (unlike Andrew Withers)
  3. I have been legally trained
  4. I have a history of creative political activism, eg Jury Team, joining the BNP to stand up for the rights of white working class people to complain about immigration and being one of the first to point out that all anti-discrimination legislation is THOUGHTCRIME
  5. I have a bit of a following on Twitter and Facebook
  6. I am responsible for
  7. it has been said by my Facebook friends, detractors and supporters that I am "dangerous" and "scary"
  8. I am a bit of a political anorak with some knowledge of theology, history, philosophy, current affairs and finance 
  9. have Facebook friends who span the entire political spectrum
  10. I am in the process of building up a personality cult
  11. I just know I would be good on TV

Sunday, 21 November 2010

What Cameron *really* means to do with his Happiness Index

Happiness should be measured by its opposite: unhappiness, which manifests itself in homicide, divorce, crime, suicide, war, famine and pestilence.

The government plan is quite simple. It will ask for people to participate in a happiness survey. When they start saying they are unhappy they will start “disappearing” these unhappy people so that, in the end, only happy people are left.

You have been warned, and heard it here first.

Friday, 19 November 2010

Fox: 'We're not going to leave' Afghanistan in 2015

Defence Secretary Liam Fox says large numbers of UK forces "may or may not stay in Afghanistan" after the end of "official" combat operations.

Liam Foxes message is what is called "mixed signals" showing infirmity of purpose, self-doubt while hinting at ultimate defeat and national humiliation, which he wishes to deny until it is in fact practically impossible to do so.

If I were the Taliban I would be insisting on unconditional withdrawal while staring fixedly at the British invader.

It is only a matter of time before the British look down, burst into tears, and run away with their tails between their legs.

They can't take any more of dying for Israel, Bush, Blair, Brown and Cameron in a cause that is clearly against their national interest, can they surely?

They are not that strong anyway but are they really that stupid to keep taking the casualties for such a dubious cause as Neo-Connery?

Neo-Conservatism is nothing more than the US going around behaving like a bull in a china shop, with the British poodling along while the rest of the world vows terrible vengeance.

If only the British would realise that such blind adherence to an ignoble tradition of canine servility is not in their best interests, particularly when the Americans will soon run out of credit and goodwill.

In the meantime the war radicalises its significant Muslim population who are doubtless plotting more 7/7s, driving the police into a frenzy of over-surveillance, racial antagonism and the passing of liberty-killing laws that will affect non-Muslims too.

The trouble too is that the non-Muslims who hate the war hate Muslims more than they hate the war.

They are also very sentimental and treat Remembrance Sunday like a sacred national ritual when it is in fact nothing more than a dreary annual act of remembering death and defeat, while refusing to deal with present realities. It would appear that the British are keener to remember their dead soldiers than strive to prevent further pointless sacrifices of life and limb in their currently live soldiers.

Such is the sentimentality, mawkishness and irrationality of the typical Briton that there is no reasoning with him.

We should not underestimate the stupidity of the people or indeed of our government. Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Asghar Bukhari of MPAC defriends me for saying Muslims MUST and SHOULD continue to protest offensively against the war

Asghar Bukhari has defriended me on Facebook because I said that anti-war protests must necessarily be offensive to work and that Muslims Against Crusaders  were doing a good job really.  No pain, no gain and all that.  

I suggested that MAC would do better for themselves if they pretended they cared about white working class British soldiers being sent to Afghanistan to die for Israel, Bush, Blair, Brown and Cameron and all the warmongering MPs who voted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.  Instead of the MAC calling British soldiers murderers, rapists etc who deserve to roast in hell, they should instead express their deep concern that these soldiers are dying for a lost and dishonorable cause which is in any case against the British National Interest and invite the BNP to join them in protesting against the war

It could be pointed out to the Wootton Bassetters by MAC in slightly more emollient tones that dying in a dishonorable and disgraceful unwinnable war is far far worse than converting to Islam in prison after having been court martialled for mutinying.. 

Asghar response was:

"Claire what are you on about? If you think that faking it is the best wat forward you have serious problems."
and then he defriended me without waiting for an answer. 

I just wonder what's so wrong about that though.

Understandably Muslims are nervous about being hated even more than they are already, but if the war carries on and the MAC carry on the way they have been doing, the hatred against Muslims would rage more ferociously anyway. 

It does seem that Roshanara Choudhry (is she any relation of Anjem's, I wonder?) has probably done us all a favour by stabbing Stephen Timms.  If more of them are stabbed, this would make it more likely for for MPs who voted for the war at

to express remorse, regret and recant, like Clare Short.

Once enough of them do - whether out of genuine remorse or because they fear for their lives - our boys will be home sooner with less loss of life.  Once the war ends, there will be no more Wootton Bassett coffin drive-bys for the MAC to attend in order to provoke the local populace, and Muslims will not be quite so hated. 

Will someone please tell me exactly what is wrong with this piece reasoning?

Sometimes you have to keep pushing at something until it gives.  Half measures are just a waste of time.

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Melanchthon's (Dan Hannan's?) Trilogy of Essays promoting Islam as British state religion

Could Dan Hannan be "Melanchthon"?

I think it is Hannan because he is the only Conservative politician that has anything resembling his own mind and is not afraid of articulating Conservative principles.

Like John Bercow he has the ability to speak elegantly.  Unlike Bercow, who appears so enslaved by lust that married a woman who would betray his principles in the blinking of an eye, Hannan articulates principles that are recognisably Conservative.

I like to think that Hannan has heard of me and occasionally reads my blogs, especially on the subject of Anglican Islam, being my Facebook friend and all.

If Cameron had a gram of honour in him, he would call a leadership and a by election at once so that his safe seat in Witney Oxon can be Hannan's for the taking.  It is quite clear to me anyway who should really be leader of the Conservative Party.

Monday, 15 November 2010

My Facebook friends outed as Nazis by Zionist Liberal Fascists at Harry's Place

My walls have ears, and Big Brother is watching me!

Is Phillip Blond gay?

Is Philip Blond gay? Not that there is anything wrong in being gay at all of course, I hasten to add. It is just that cheesy, oily sub-Kenneth Williams accent that has put me on notice. 

I think we should be told as Cameron gets his social policy from him.

I am not saying that they are all promiscuous and irresponsible.  Peter Mandelson is after all very talented.  (Indeed he is the best available Prime Minister that we cannot have because he has been kicked upstairs.)  Nor are they all effeminate, for the Spartans were great warriors.  But I am just thinking that gay or even just people cannot help their lack of understanding for the concerns of ordinary people AKA hardworking families, being invariably DINKies if they are in a long-term relationship.  

Perhaps that is how he came up with the arse-achingly stupid idea of making parents run schools while a Tory government tells parents who want more grammar schools to go fuck themselves.  Just look at the way they have been pissing on Toby Young.  Poor lamb, he has to take it because he lives in Acton, can't afford to go private, doesn't want to send his four children to the local comp that is full of successful asylum seekers who are Muslim, and thinks being at university with Cameron is somehow going to help.  No, Toby, he is still going to stab you in the front and back while sending his children to a church school (thereby like Blair taking up a place a needy middle class child could have had).  At least Diane Abbot did the decent thing and had her son go private when she could afford it.  

If Cameron is serious about education he should send his precious children to the Peckham Academy and then take an interest in the running of that school.

Sunday, 14 November 2010

A sea change in political thinking? shows a certain willingness from someone in the Conservative Party to think the unthinkable, ie making Islam the British state religion.

It is now generally agreed, even in military circles that being the poodle of America (who is the poodle of Israel who will become the Sarajevo of the 21st century century) is not demonstrably in the British national interest.

If I were PM I would break off diplomatic relations with the US just to show how very sorry we are for being the poodle of a warmongering rogue nation and want nothing further to do with it.

The relationship is only "special" if the US is the world's strongest nation. Since it is clearly showing signs of poverty and dementia, the only specialness of this relationship would be in the "special needs" sense.

If the UK is to be a canine country of some sort, becoming a Pekingese would serve its interests better.

Thursday, 11 November 2010

Remembrance Day claptrap

There is no need for Remembrance Day.  Before Remembrance Day there were plenty of stupid fuckers prepared to do and die and not question why.  Plenty more where they came from.  Soldiering is a vocation, just like politics, because some people just like fighting and others arguing.  You do it because you want to.  So shut it with the sentimental claptrap.  They dead and still living soldiers don't need you to shut up for one minute.  Stopping the stupid war by stabbing a pro-war MP would be more constructive, if you want to stop more people dying for Bush, Blair, Brown and Israel. But you don't care, do you, not until everything starts hurting a whole lot more. 

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Actively inviting the Argies to invade the Falklands

Five senior military figures have written to the Times asking the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to scrap Britain's Harrier jets. One of the signatories, Lord West of Spithead, outlines his arguments for keeping the jets.

What a deliciously manly voice the Sea Lord has.  It is comforting indeed to know that there are such men as Lord West left in this country while I choose the best possible men to run the military dictatorship I have in mind.  That Colonel Richard Williams sounds like he's made of the right stuff too.

If only men like him were in charge of the ship of state, instead of the mewling contemptible cowards who toe the party line. 

It is something in their voice that indicates masculine virtue.  Abdal Hakim Murad also has a voice that is both manly and mellifluous.

I'll bet the Argies are preparing to take back the Malvinas now. Prepare therefore for national humiliation, coming to your country soon. 

I wonder if others share the ability to predict the political views of a man just by the spinelessness of his accent and timbre.  Perhaps that is why I so hate Cameron's voice.  He has the voice of an overly earnest conman. 

Together they can more than deal with flibby flabby LibDem scum like Nick Harvey MP.  No LibDem should be left in charge of this country's defences if we know what's good for us, which we don't of course.

Still don't quite get why Harriers are so essential though.  Would be grateful for an explanation if anyone knows.  

Al Qaeda killing Christians in Iraq

is a strategy of defeating the West that is ruthlessly rational and chillingly effective.

Perhaps they will convert us all by the sword after all.

I hope that my antidote of Secular Koranism will be considered worthy of discussion when things get worse. 

EHRC -v- Griffin at the Royal Courts of Justice - Day 2

It was only a half day this time, but it confirmed to me that counsel for the BNP should have put up his hands on behalf of his client yesterday, after counsel for EHRC finished his submissions, and said "It's a fair cop, gov.  You got me bang to rights.  Very sorry, sir.  Won't happen again."

Instead much time was expended submitting arguments that were later dismissed as "superficially clever" by the EHRC counsel.

BNP counsel went through the BNP constitution (which I now believe to be cursed) referring to the home visit requirement that new potential and non-white members would be required to endure before being admitted as a member.  A member of the BNP Reform group remarked later how awful it was.  "It makes us look like retards.  We are retards!" 

I forget exactly why he thought it would be helpful to mention this damning evidence of intention to evade the spirit of the order which asked that the party cease and desist from  inserting clauses that were either directly discriminatory or indirectly so.

It was only a technical defence which was meant to support the argument that while paragraph 1 and 2 of the order were clearly breached by the party, paragraph 3 was not.

Moore Bick LJ gently questioned the helpfulness of making this submission to BNP counsel who was nevertheless quite determined to put it, though I cannot imagine that it would have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving meltdown.

Indeed, I suspected him of even feeling a little sorry for David Reade QC for having such a hopeless case and even helped him in suggesting arguments and procedures for him to employ on behalf of his client, such as on the nature of an  application and the possibility of judicial review.  

It seemed that Mr Reade was simply oblivious to hints and the assistance rendered to him to which the appropriate response would have been "I am grateful to your lordship for anticipating my argument and putting it so succinctly." Instead, he was fumbling with his words while using language quite woefully inelegant compared to Mr Allen's. 

Very interestingly, Mr Reade looked to me to be mixed-race and seems an interesting choice for the BNP.  If I were leader I would have gone for the blackest bestest barrister in London. 

Ramsey J did the same thing too, by summing up in a few succinct sentences the argument he was so laboriously and lengthily trying to make.

Justice Ramsey was incorrectly addressed as Lord Justice Ramsey by Mr Allen for EHRC, who opportunistically and flatteringly declared that he was certain Justice Ramsey would very soon become Lord Justice Ramsey in any event.  We all laughed.  He also remarked that the county court order whom Mr Reade alleged to be ambiguous was in fact quite clear on any reasonable construction of its wording.  Indeed, it was quite prescient in that it exactly anticipated what the Chairman had in fact done.

Orders are not made to be evaded, he said.  Quite so.  Too bad then that this tricksiness has been done at the expense of members and donors while enriching lawyers both very competent and not particularly competent. 

When Mr Reade pleaded in mitigation the anxiety his client must have been feeling at his imminent punishment, Moore-Bick LJ's response was "I do hope for your client's sake that you are wrong."  This provoked general hilarity in court.

The question was asked what the benefits a BNP member with non-voting rights enjoyed.  Mr Reade's answer was that he was afraid he could not help his lordship on that.  Moore-Bick LJ suggested that perhaps being a member of a party in support of a common cause might be the answer.

Towards the end, counsel for Tanya Lumby the co-defendant Mr Lay stood up and said that there was no benefit to being a member, none whatsoever.  The constitution was a stitch-up and no member at all can make a decision in either the AGM or EGM that could not be immediately vetoed by the Chairman.  The only thing a voting member could use his vote on was in a leadership election, and that was it.  (The subtext of this, it was suggested to me, was that all white members are just as disadvantaged ultimately as any non-white member would be by the BNP constitution, believed to be cursed.  To lift the curse the constitution must of course be changed, but will the Chairman tolerate any dissent or criticism?)

Moore-Bick LJ remarked that he could not quite see what relevance this statement had to the proceedings, but doubtless his aggrieved client who had been dragged into this whole sordid affair must have demanded that he say such a thing (in the hope that the press would pick it up) since he has just been sitting there for the past two days with nothing to do for the fee she was paying him.

All in all a very entertaining two days watching British justice operating with such judicious elegance.

Judgment reserved till probably the second week of December.  Eddy Butler predicted c £150,000 of costs awarded against the party.

Below is Eddy's version:!
Eddy Butler and Richard Edmonds outside the RCJ commenting on the hearing.

Tuesday, 9 November 2010

EHRC -v- Griffin at the Royal Courts of Justice


Monday 8 November, 2010
At  half past 10
Applications for Permission
CO/9651/2010 Commission For Equality And Human Rights v Griffin

Lord Justice Moore-Bick (who enjoys music, literature and gardening) is never more dangerous than when he smiles benignly upon counsel with a suggestion or a question.  Gracious, patient, polite and fair, he was the embodiment of the kind of Englishman I feared had become extinct. 

While a Nationalist behind me was at times gargling rather audibly with boredom, incomprehension and frustration at the sheer length of the evidence and arguments, there were times when the court was positively electric with excitement to those who were following it.  These were the moments when Lord Justice Moore-Bick would be smiling at counsel.

He was being rather dangerous when he suggested to counsel for the EHRC that "suspended animation" of the offending clauses may not necessarily mean non-compliance, bless him.

Robin Allen QC for the EHRC led the court through the evidence with courtly competence though I was frankly a little surprised to learn that the barrister representing the party was in fact a QC, so unimpressed was I by him.  I had simply assumed he was a cheaper junior because the party couldn't afford to find someone better.

At the end of it, it seemed to be game, set and match for the EHRC.  The Chairman was clearly guilty as charged in the sense that he clearly was dragging its feet as regards compliance, in way that was clearly "tardy, reluctant and partial".  We were taken chronologically through the events that constituted serial offending as regards non-compliance and it was shown that the Chairman was quite clearly "playing" with the Commission in

1.  not deleting a clearly directly discriminatory clause after giving an undertaking to do so
2.  not deleting a clearly indirectly discriminatory clause after giving an undertaking to do so
3.  confusing them with the many versions of the constitution they were using
4.  claiming that he had not been properly served with the order
5.  claiming he did not understand the terms of the order (when it could be inferred that he had understood its terms because of his reluctant, tardy and partial attempts to comply with it)

The solicitors acting for the Chairman at the time are no longer acting for him.  He is suing them for negligence, apparently,  and they could be called as witnesses for the EHRC, presumably on the question of whether he understood the terms of the order as well as how he was made to understand the terms of the order.

David Reade for the BNP seemed bent on arguing that service on the Chairman of the order requiring him to comply with what the EHRC demanded was somehow not valid service. A mere technicality may not be quite strong enough to remove the "persistent offender" impression he has given to perhaps too many people. 

Moore-Bick LJ did more than once hint that Counsel for the Respondent should perhaps be addressing other issues other than "historic breaches" which have now been remedied to save on costs, but David Reade appeared not to be listening, or if he was failed to understand this point. 

Sometimes it is cheaper and quicker to admit it's a fair cop rather than argue endlessly and dig a hole rather deeper than the one the client originally fell in, ie save on costs, for your client's sake rather than win a Pyrrhic victory because you have already prepared those particular arguments and would rather like to use them whether or not they do your client any good.  

Being a libertarian who believes in the principle of freedom of association, I am against the state dictating to a political party whom they can or cannot exclude, even if it is supposedly for their own good.

However, since such a law has come into force, the Chairman should have adopted one or other of the following strategies.

1.  Comply with whatever the EHRC required to stay out of trouble.

2.  Defy the EHRC and dare them to do their worst while appealing to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that their freedom of association has been infringed.  Article 11.

If the party win they are vindicated.

If the party lose then it proves that the law is an ass. 

Instead, he adopted a zigzagging middle way of quasi-compliance and mickey-taking. 

If I were leader I would have done one or the other.  The incompetent and ruinous mismanagement of this legal action has to be heard in court to be believed.  Perhaps Nick Griffin is himself really a Searchlight spy sent to destroy and bankrupt the party?  (This is only half a joke.)

Below is Eddy's version:

Friday, 5 November 2010

Whether the stabbing of Stephen Timms was a Good Thing

I wonder if Stephen Timms would vote to invade Iraq again if he could turn back time. Not very clever of him as his constituents are mostly Muslims. Not the brightest bulb in the box then, but then that is the typical profile of lobby fodder in the LibLabCon. Why are the stupid who don't even know how to look after themselves in charge of the ship of state? Why does the government always insist on stupidity and spinelessness as qualifications to be an MP?

Let me clarify my position very very carefully.

1. I am delighted that lobby fodder Stephen Timms got his come-uppance.

2. If he had died it would have made a better story because it would have put the fear of God into these lobby fodder MPs.

3. Their fear of further attacks on their numbers would bounce them into recanting and expressing remorse and regret to avoid a similar fate.

4. Loss of support for the war amongst more than half of the House would have a significant impact on the conduct of the war.

5. It would mean the withdrawal of British troops *sooner* rather than later, and the reduction in the numbers of lives lost on both sides.  (This would of course be a Good Thing for both Muslims and non-Muslims, Britain and Afghanistan.)

6. Do my views make me complicit in the stabbing of Stephen Timms? No.

7. Was the stabbing of Stephen Timms a Good thing? Yes, because it demonstrates that violent acts (such as voting for a dishonorable and unwinnable war just because your leader said so) begets violence.  There is a philosophical argument that the morality of an act (eg stabbing a politician) can only be judged by the intended consequences of that act (eg the prevention of further lives being lost unnecessarily on both sides in the prosecution of a dishonorable and unwinnable war, sooner rather than later). 

8. Would his death have been a better thing? Of course, because it would result in the war ending sooner rather than later because of the haemorrhaging of support for the war amongst our politicians, if not an actual stampede to denounce it, especially if there were further attacks on other MPs.

9.  Would I be pleased if another MP were attacked?  No, because there is no need for anyone else to be hurt if they are already earnestly discussing the best way of dealing with the situation.   But are they though? 

I hope this is all reasonably clear.  

ANTI-ANTI Muslim march anyone?

If the Islamophobes demonstrated against this march, then it would be called an anti-anti-anti Muslim march.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Now, where did I put my black leather trench coat with its BNP rosette, which I shall wear with my niqab to the march? 

Proposed survey for MPs who supported the invasion of "Afraq"

The stabbing of Caesar on the Ides of March

In  the light of Stephen Timms' stabbing by an anti-war Muslim constituent, may I suggest that the BBC conduct a survey amongst the MPs who voted for the war?

They must be gravely concerned about their personal safety.  Indeed, some of them may even have  nightmares of being stabbed, Ides of March style, by their Muslim constituents, especially the ones who have constituencies in Muslim majority areas.

Below are 10 questions that could be put to them:

1. Now that you have the benefit of hindsight, would you still vote for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan if you could turn back time?

2. Was any pressure applied on you in any way at all to vote for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

3. Was this pressure applied by the party whip?

4. Do you think the existence of the party whip has the effect of alienating a politician even further from his conscience and integrity?

5. Are you aware of Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill due for a Second Reading on 10 December 2010?

6. Has any pressure (explicit or implicit) been applied on you to not support this bill?

7. Did this pressure (explicit or implicit) come from your party whip or your leader?

8. Will you be giving in to this pressure or resisting it?

9. If you intend to give in to this pressure, ie not support the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, what are your reasons for doing so?

10. Would you like to express remorse for voting for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of reducing the likelihood of being stabbed "Ides of March" style by your Muslim constituents?

The very real physical dangers of being lobby fodder

Stephen Timms, stabbed Labour pro-war MP for East Ham

""I am an MP and I am lobby fodder. Lobby fodder are stabbed in the back by their whips and leaders or by their constituents in the front. Lowlife scum with no principles and no conscience with shit for brains deserve nothing better."

Even when you think you are playing safe by doing exactly what you are told by your leader and your whip, you are not safe.  

If we are to die or just get stabbed for anyone, let it not be for a warmongering leader whom we unquestioningly obey.

There were 395 MPs who voted for the war.  There must be one near you now even as you read this, conducting a surgery and fearing for his or her life.

I imagine that a public statement of remorse and also a declaration of support for Peter Bone's House of Commons Disquaification Bill whose Second Reading will be on 10 December 2010 would assist in getting them off the rather long list of those who would wish to stab them in their surgeries.

Will Stephen Timms be supporting it?  

Why should politicians who vote to invade another country be surprised at a violent reaction?
lists all the MPs who voted to invade Iraq.
is where the list of MPs who voted to invade Iraq was said to be found, along with instructions on how to meet your MP at surgery and where to buy knives, presumably to facilitate the stabbing thereof.  But I couldn't find it. 

At least Ms Choudhry exhibited thought processes that followed a certain logic: you hate the war, so you punish the people who started the violence in the only way they can understand: with violence in return.

MPs who have so far not been stabbed and do not wish to be stabbed by their Muslim constituents for the disastrous, disgraceful,  unwinnable and unpopular war that they voted for could always publicly recant, express their deep remorse, and perhaps explain the circumstances under which they came to make their regrettable decision.

Perhaps they had their arms twisted by their party whips?

You should write to and demand that your MP support Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Act.  If they do not you will know what to think of them and withhold your vote accordingly at the next election.
contains details of the Bill.

I am thinking of commissioning a poll with YouGov on the following lines:

  1. Do you think the quality of democracy in this country could be improved? 
  2. Do you think the reason why politicians are so cowardly and hypocritical is because they are frightened of being demoted by their leader? 
  3. Do you think the reason why they are so unpopular is because they are perceived as cowardly and hypocritical? 
  4. Would you be prepared to assist them in becoming less cowardly and hypocritical by sending a letter to your MP demanding that he help himself and his constituents by supporting Peter Bone's Bill?  (This Bill proposes to abolish the position of the party whip.)
  5.  Do you know what a whip does to an MP when he is required to make him vote against his principles and conscience and vote as his or her leader demands?  
  6. Do you know that the tactics involved in making this recalcitrant MP vote as the leader would wish amounts to blackmail and threats? 
  7. Do you think an MP who is vulnerable to threats and blackmail is in a position to serve your interests and the nation's? 
  8. Do you think an MP free from threats and blackmail would be in a better position to serve your interests and the nation's? 
  9. Did you approve of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? 
  10. Were you aware that the whips were used to blackmail or threaten to make MPs vote as the leader of their party wished and against their better judgment? 
  11. Do you think your MP should support Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill?

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Why did the BBC cave in over the alleged defamation of Bog Beldof's Live Aid?

How curious that the issue of the burden of proof in defamation is not even being explained to the listener by Peter Horrocks, who sounds a right softie while Michael Grade came across as just a little bit self-righteous and fascistic, and that is comment that would surely be regarded as fair by any right-minded jury if not a lawyer.

The person making the statement has to *justify* the statement being complained about by the plaintiff, and only *truth* justifies a statement that brings the complainant into hatred, ridicule and contempt by right-thinking members of society.

The BBC has issued an unreserved apology to the charity Band Aid after BBC World Service radio broadcast a documentary alleging that aid money sent to Ethiopia in the 1980's had been stolen by rebel fighters. The former BBC chairman Michael Grade, who is a Band Aid trustee, reacts to the apology.

The BBC has apologised for a documentary that gave the wrong impression that money donated to Band Aid in the mid 1980s ended up in the hands of rebel soldiers in Ethiopia. The documentary was first aired on the radio World Service and the allegations provoked a furious response from the Band Aid founder Sir Bob Geldof. BBC Global News director Peter Horrocks explains what went wrong.

Are the Toady journalists trying to suppress the reasons for this spectacular cave-in? Was it for ideological reasons?

Making the already over-burdened taxpayer give money to the Third World is after all totemic to bleeding heart Western liberalism.

Perhaps there are no longer enough right-thinking members of society left in this country after so many decades of demented liberalism, but I am sure there are still some left who are also taxpayers who could be put on a jury. 

Why Neanderthal Man died out

Because homo sapiens discovered marriage and supported family values while Neanderthal man did not.  (There is of course a moral in this somewhere.  Can someone tell me what this might be?)

Neanderthal man was matriarchal, homo sapiens patriarchal.  The latter defeated the former because the patriarchy is clearly better-organised, more cohesive and stronger as well as more likely to ensure that the male who is the best provider gets to reproduce, thus producing a better quality next generation, instead of the  free for all fuck-fest you get in a matriarchy in which the poor and depraved breed with the stupid and slutty, lowering moral and educational standards as well as the quality of the next generation, as we are seeing now in the 21st century Britain.   Currently, most babies born in Britain have mothers who are Slut Single Mums who couldn't find a husband or who didn't know or weren't told by their slut and bastard liberal parents not to have a child out of wedlock.

If a patriarchy is a society that condones male promiscuity, then the matriarchy is society that condones female promiscuity. It should be reasonably clear by now which is the lesser evil.

Of course, there is no evidence of this to support my contention and the few anthropologists I have approached are either too busy or too afraid to discuss this with me ie that Homo Sapiens, who institutionalised marriage, easily defeated the Neanderthals who had not.  In any case, I do not see how the institution of marriage can be inferred from archaeological evidence anyway. Even if archaeologists claimed they found wedding photographs, wedding rings, marriage contracts, decrees nisi and absolute belonging to long dead homo sapiens but none to Neanderthal man, those of us who remember the Hitler Diaries would treat it with healthy scepticism, I hope.  

My point is that they *cannot* prove my theory wrong. It is quite simply unassailable. 

It is so obviously, beautifully simple. Is there a prize for me to claim? No anthropologist can disprove this theory anyway.

My penetrating insight astonishes even me. It seems that I am after all a genius. It is really now time to stop being modest. If I don't blow my own trumpet, no one else will.

I have already contacted the Royal Anthropological Institute
and was advised to contact the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology.

It is to be hoped that a Claire Khaw Anthropology Prize will be created in my honour and awarded every year to prize-winning anthropologists.  I have in mind that Bruce Parry and fancy giving him one.  Actually, I wouldn't mind giving the delightful and delectable Dr Alice Roberts one too.

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Totalitarian thoughtcrime legislation from Michael Gove

Why don't they just ban the BNP and be done with it? Because they dare not. This is of course a species of totalitarian  THOUGHTCRIME legislation. The liberals are too scared to kill you outright and instead prefer to poison you slowly, like the cowards they are.

If the BNP are so evil and nasty they should be banned altogether, shouldn't they?

What are these despicable liberals so afraid of?

They are afraid that someone might question their right to discriminate against someone on grounds of their political beliefs, which is of course not what liberalism was about in its pre-dementia days, was it? 

So they prefer to pick off people one by one rather than kill the whole party in one fell swoop, because that might raise a few eyebrows in the international community who may have been under the impression that we live in a free society and are a model of freedom and democracy.  

Now, if only one brave BNP teacher would just out himself and dare his school to sack him.

When they do he could then sue them for unfair dismissal. 

That would be the way to play it.

Solidarity Trade Union

Posted By: Patrick Antony Harrington
To: Members in Solidarity Trade Union


The announcement by gaffe-prone Education Minister Michael Gove that 'extremist' teachers were to be banned from teaching was condemned by the nationalist Trade Union Solidarity.

General Secretary Patrick Harrington said "It is not clear who would fall foul of such legislation since although the BNP was mentioned by name Gove talks of those of an 'extremist tenor' (perhaps Socialist, Anarchist and Islamic?)

The last Government at least had the good sense to commission an independent inquiry into racism in schools. It decided that any ban would be unnecesary since there were so few incidents. The head of that enquiry, to whom Solidarity submitted evidence, even stated that any ban would be a political rather than professional act.

The fact that the Police and Prison Service apply a ban is a red-herring as it has yet to be tested in Court. Ultimately we believe that European legislation will overturn such bans."

He added "Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT teaching union, however let the cat out of the bag by stating 'the issue is one of making sure that a clear message goes out that membership of the BNP and other extremist groups is incompatible with being a teacher.' This makes it clear that the aim is bullying and political and not about individual conduct."

Michael Gove really needs to do his homework since the whole issue of banning citizens from teaching due to their political allegiances has already been thoroughly debated and no neutral professional or academic body would back such a ban. If Gove however intends to go down a PC route he will find himself frustrated at each turn as Solidarity, as a Libertarian Union, would fight tooth and nail against any political ban."

Earlier this year Solidarity successfully defended a teacher Adam Walker at the General Teaching Council from accusations of intolerance and a possible life-ban from teaching. Solidarity is the only Union actively defending freedom of expression, belief and association for teachers.

Here are some things you can do to oppose the ban:-

Contribute to Internet discussions opposing the ban
Post this bulletin on to five friends
Text your friends with a message 'I support freedom and oppose a ban on BNP teachers'
Put the above message as your Facebook status
Twitter and post links to articles opposing this attack on Freedom
Write to your local newspaper opposing the ban
Join the Nationalist Trade Union Solidarity

Solidarity Trade Union

Join for just £5 a month by clicking on this link:-
If you prefer to pay by Standing Order you can request a form from:- Solidarity, P O Box 93, Spennymoor, DL16 9AN, United Kingdom.

Feminists like Nazis storming the Church called Feminazis by Bishop Benn (not quite!)

Hitler had the best of intentions for Germany and the German people, did he not?

But he still led this countrymen into defeat and disgrace.

Tory immigration policies get turned back

I copy this because I know I shall be constantly and referring to this to make a point.

From The Week - 29 October 2010 page 24 - politics & economics

In their manifesto, the Conservatives "promised a cap on immigration from outside the EU", says the Daily Express.  This "is now shown to be full of holes".  "A secret deal between the EU and India is being negotiated which would allow an unlimited number of Indian experts to take jobs in Britain without first making them open to British workers."  Sure, "if there's a shortage of specific crucial skills, attracting the best talent from wherever" makes sense.  "But allowing foreign companies here to recruit from home without limit is yet another case" of Britain being "captive to EU policies we neither like nor need".

Yet the problem with finding skilled workers isn't just confined to top-level jobs, says The Guardian's Bridget Anderson.  "Demand for migrant labour is deeply embedded in the British economy."  Training and apprenticeship programmes are well developed in many European countries, "producing workers with a wide range of transferable skills."   These staff do construction jobs in Britain "such as groundwork or foundation-building".  Social care also couldn't operate without migrant workers.  These jobs are low-paid and unattractive in some ways, but, even if they wanted to do them, "British workers may not have the hard skills for construction occupations, or the soft interpersonal skills required in many service sector jobs".

[This sentence means British workers are perceived to be the worst option.  A joiner from Essex I met in a pub assured me that he would never ever hire a local.]

Indeed, "trying to turn the Tory manifesto pledge into workable policy is proving as easy as grasping mercury", says Richard Ehrman in The Times.  "Rules and visas" will "no longer provide all the immigration answers, if they ever did".  Meanwhile, "millions of Britons are eking out their lives on benefits - an extraordinary indictment of the failure of our education system to provide many school leavers with the basic skills and motivation to get into work.  Barring productive non-EU workers isn't the answer.  Only benefit and education reforms will solve the problem."

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Liberal dementia and the lie of "inalienable" human rights - origin USA

So-called inalienable human rights are very clearly and obviously alienable. That is why these idiot liberals have to declare an intention to protect them.

It is the stupid American constitution of course, which uses grandiose-sounding words that ultimately have no meaning or means the opposite of what it says.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are inalienable rights declares the US constitution, despite the fact that anyone can murder us at any time (and only get 10 years in prison or even less) and our liberty and pursuit of happiness is not defined.

Many of us are clearly not at liberty to park our cars in the street outside our homes, are we?

If we find we no longer love the person we married and resent having to look after our children whom we have not brought up properly and are now a nuisance and burden, are we at liberty to pursue our happiness away from these people?

Why are liberals such fools? Because they believe in lies and fairy tales, just like ignorant children. Most children want to grow up. Liberals want to remain children forever and force the rest of the world to be like them.

Are liberals evil, or just stupid?  

Human Rights Big Fat Con when politicians incapable of moral reasoning
Liberals want taxpayers to pay for prisoners to vote.

Non-liberals think it is a stupid idea to let prisoners vote because they are officially bad people and should be punished.

Liberals pretend not to get it because they are evil.

Or, liberals cannot get it because they are stupid. Take your pick. 

The concept of human rights is also a big fat con.

We really must understand that genuine human rights are never conferred but *asserted*.

The pigs contented wait for rights to be conferred upon them, just like cattle might go through a broken fence that fails to hold them in.

The philosophers discontented will assert their rights even if doing so means death or at any rate some form of sacrifice which they will willingly make in service of a point of *principle* because, you see, only humans are capable of the kind moral reasoning required to act on a principle. 

Liberal politicians would not be able to speak intelligently and intelligibly about what a principle is and would not pass this test at:

Monday, 1 November 2010

Graham Brady MP - a politician of principle

The government's policy of setting up "free schools" is all about giving parents more choice. So should they be able to choose to send their children to a grammar school? So thinks the Conservative MP Graham Brady. He resigned as a shadow minister three years ago over his party's policy of not supporting more selection in schools and outlines his views.

Wow.  A Tory politician who resigned on a point of principle!!  I thought they had become extinct.  Graham Brady is obviously someone to watch then.

He may also be interested in my idea of  the New Model Comprehensive which is a kind of selective comprehensive for all.