Claire Khaw asks Professor Laffer a question about David Davis MP

http://www.iea.org.uk/multimedia/video/art-laffer-are-international-taxes-at-a-tipping-point

It begins at 44:30.  

Unknown organisations behind Freedom Festival have declared Claire Khaw and Martin Sewell personae non gratae

Wednesday, 12 March 2014, 18:51
Subject: The Freedom Festival

Dear Claire,

When you contacted my colleague, Sharon Jones, on 12 February, you wrote, "I am thinking of coming along but believe my presence may be a bit of a problem with some of your speakers and organisers."

Whilst, as you know, I was prepared for you to attend The Freedom Festival, The Freedom Association is only the principal partner in an event organised in conjunction with a number of other organisations.

As you suspected, your presence has indeed proved a problem for some of those organisations. Consequently, I have to inform you that both you and Martin Sewell will not be able to attend The Freedom Festival.

Naturally, we shall refund both your payment, and Martin Sewell's, in full. If either or both of you have purchased any travel tickets for which you cannot obtain a refund, please provide me with the appropriate receipt/s and we shall reimburse you for the full cost.

Yours sincerely,
Simon Richards
Chief Executive
The Freedom Association
☎ +44 (0)7985 550356


12 Mar 2014 19:36
Dear Simon
May I know which organisations objected to my presence and Martin's?
Yours sincerely
Claire

Wednesday, 12 March 2014, 20:31
Dear Claire,
I'm not at liberty to disclose that.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Richards


Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:19:49 +0000 (GMT)
Dear Richard
Would you be able to disclose the reason why my presence and Martin's
would be considered a problem?
Yours sincerely
Claire

http://thefreedomfestival.net/index.php/partners/

I wonder which of these "libertarian" organisations didn't want us there and why. If we are indeed such dreadful people not fit to hobnob with these libertarian grandees, they should have no problem telling us why.

I like to think it could be just a terrible misunderstanding.

Our Partners

The Freedom Association

Adam Smith Institute

Big Brother Watch

Centre for Policy Studies

Conservative Way Forward

Global Vision

Institute of Economic Affairs

The TaxPayers’ Alliance

Young Britons Foundation

Jonathan Davis Wealth Management

It is possible that one of these speakers listed at
http://thefreedomfestival.net/index.php/speakers/ may also have objected to my presence.

The ones with Twitter accounts are as follows:

1. Andrew Allison  https://twitter.com/andrew_allison
2. Donal Blaney https://twitter.com/Donal_Blaney
3. Ryan Bourne  https://twitter.com/MrRBourne
4. Sam Bowman  https://twitter.com/s8mb
5. Ted Bromund  https://twitter.com/Bromund
6. Rory Broomfield  https://twitter.com/rorybroomfield
7. Conor Burns MP  https://twitter.com/Conor_BurnsMP
8. Dr. Eamonn Butler  https://twitter.com/eamonnbutler
9. Emma Carr  https://twitter.com/EmmaFrancesCarr
10. Dia Chakravarty https://twitter.com/DiaChakravarty
11. Tim Congdon  https://twitter.com/Tim_Congdon
12. Charles Crawford  https://twitter.com/CharlesCrawford
13. Jonathan Davis  https://twitter.com/jdwealthmanager
14. Alex Deane CC  https://twitter.com/ajcdeane
15. Martin Durkin  https://twitter.com/Martin_Durkin
16. Matthew Elliott  https://twitter.com/matthew_elliott
17. Dr. Tim Evans  https://twitter.com/DrTimSEvans
18. Daniel Hannan MEP  https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP
19. Jack Hart  https://twitter.com/MrJacHart
20. Roger Helmer MEP https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP
21. Adrian Hilton   https://twitter.com/Adrian_Hilton
22. Jonathan Isaby  https://twitter.com/isaby
23. Ruth Lea  https://twitter.com/RuthLeaEcon
24. Stephanie Lis  https://twitter.com/Stephanie_Lis
25. Mark Littlewood  https://twitter.com/MarkJLittlewood
26. Adam Memon  https://twitter.com/AdamMemonCPS
27. Brian Monteith  https://twitter.com/TheBluetrot
28. The Rev’d Dr. Peter Mullen  https://twitter.com/His_Grace
29. Iain Murray  https://twitter.com/ismurray
30. John O’Connell  https://twitter.com/jjpoconnell
31. Simon Richards  https://twitter.com/simplysimontfa
32. Rory Sutherland  https://twitter.com/rorysutherland
33. Grant Tucker  https://twitter.com/GrantTucker
34. Mark Wallace https://twitter.com/wallaceme
35. Toby Young  https://twitter.com/toadmeister

http://www.tfa.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Programme-updated.pdf

Shamefully, I have not heard back from Simon Richards about the reasons for my exclusion.  Yes, I do know that I am controversial, but since I do have a view on almost everything, I cannot tell what I have said exactly to make cause me to be persona non grata.

In deliberately withholding the reason it is clear that they already know they are on weak ground.

They won't give me a reason because they don't want to be even drawn into a discussion about the reason why they excluded me.

They are not the only ones though.

https://twitter.com/ntfem/status/444060022830825472

I have a few ideas though, when supposedly libertarian men exclude me from their libertarian gatherings while not daring to say the real reason.

If I had been allowed to speak at the conference I would have addressed the question of "Are Libertarianism and Feminism Fundamentally Incompatible?" based on
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-feminism-dangerous-to-free-speech/221315967999943

This is what feminism has turned men into - neurotic and unprincipled - but feminists are too selfish to think of the long term consequences of having such an abysmal quality of masculinity in their country.

We already know that the male suicide rate is three times higher than the female suicide rate, but nobody really wants to do anything about it except throw money at it.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/how-to-prevent-male-suicide.html

Feminists never think of the long term national interest anyway because these ideas are too abstract for them and they can only think of what they want.  Most women and feminists are incorrigibly materialistic and venal.

This rather explains why 83% of female MPs voted for gay marriage while only 48% of male MPs did.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/177877#.UyLc8fl_tqU
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html

Martin Sewell's response on being told we are now personae non gratae.

"Goodness, we are political agitators.
I wasn't too impressed with them anyway:
I was never offered the shared room discount.
The written confirmation of my booking was delayed.
I asked if I could speak.  No reply.
I asked if I could speak again.  No reply.
I asked what the dress code was.  No reply.
Indeed, the one and only thing they were good at is taking our money!
Plus they never informed me that I was no longer welcome, I only received your forwarded email.  I was going and paying independently, so it is rather odd anyway.
I wasn't sure how big the conference would be.  So much for freedom to attend!"

I just hope no one paid for a ticket in the hope of spending a weekend with me, so to speak ...

The elephant they should be discussing is feminism.  

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-feminism-dangerous-to-free-speech/221315967999943

Why I am suing the Conservative Party, in language a layman would understand

• With politicians working hard to seem amiable, it's refreshing to be reminded that they rarely leave home without the iron fist within that velvet glove. That realisation must be dawning on that horrible controversialist Claire Khaw – who was expelled from the Tory party earlier this year when party bosses discovered nasty things she had previously said about the disabled. You are not our type, the Tories said. Which seemed fair enough. But Khaw, being Khaw, went to the high court and applied for judicial review. Cue a letter from the Tory party lawyers – and it's a beauty. We "strongly advise" that you take legal advice "before taking any further steps", it says. "Your application for judicial review will fail." You can't challenge our disciplinary committee because we are essentially a "private members'" association. Even if you could, the decision was a sound one. We have to respond to your application by 22 July, they say. We will fight and we will win, and make you be liable for costs. "You have a choice. Withdraw your claim and prove that you have done so by 1200hrs on Thursday 18th July. If you do this our client will not seek to recover its legal costs from you." If you don't, on your own head be it. No surrender, says Khaw. I'd rather risk legal fees, if they are reasonable. Reasonable legal fees? She is odd, isn't she?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/hugh-muirs-diary-mps-chelsea-flower-show

It won't be a big legal bill because they are saying my claim is so crap that they just have to tell the court it is crap and the court will agree with them pronto and refuse me permission, in which case that will be the end of the matter.  If I have to pay their costs at all, then it would be for the cost of the Conservative Party instructing its solicitors to file a defence saying that my claim is utterly without merit and should not be entertained for one moment by any High Court judge in his or her right mind.  

What I am asking for is in fact really very modest. The Conservatives have no principles (or mistakenly think that their principles are contained in David Cameron's Foreword of their 2010 General Election Manifesto at http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf). I just want them to publish a formal Statement of Principles.

My theory is that the reason why Western governments are now foundering is because none of parties that are supposed to promote social conservatism - such as the Conservative Party - have a Statement of Principles.  Because social conservatism is never defended and the need for it not properly understood, extremist liberalism and feminism and their irresponsible social policies have caused social problems that will not be dealt with, let alone solved, for a few generations.

I will be suggesting to the Conservatives that they might like a principle along the lines of "The principle of the Conservative Party is to conserve the long-term national interest."

The national interest could be defined as, for example, solvency and social stability which would mean the promotion of fiscal prudence and marriage (between a man and a woman only) for social stability.

I know people will find it very difficult to grasp, but what I am suing the Conservative Party for is this:

For claiming that I have said and done things that were 'wholly inconsistent' with their aims, objectives and principles AND THEN BEING UNABLE TO TELL ME WHAT THEIR PRINCIPLES ARE.

To judicially review a decision of a public body you have to cite the following legal grounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#Grounds_for_review

I recognise that my legal action may fall at the first hurdle, because their lawyers have already claimed that the Conservative Party is not subject to judicial review because they are not a public body and are instead "a private members' association".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Panel_on_Take-overs_and_Mergers,_ex_parte_Datafin_plc is the case that I will cite that argues that any organisation that can make decisions affecting individual citizens and society at large will be deemed to be a public body, whether it likes it or not.

This decision is important in the light of an increasing "privatisation" of public powers. In recent years, the Government has delegated many of its powers to formally private bodies, which nevertheless can make decisions affecting individual citizens and the society at large. Following the Datafin case, such decisions are now amenable to judicial review by courts.

Cameron could not have become Prime Minister if he had not joined the Conservative Party.

Now that he is PM and proposing to legalise gay marriage, this would clearly affect individual citizens and society at large.

Organisations such as

The Marriage Foundation http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Default.aspx

Christian Concern http://www.christianconcern.com/

Christian Institute  http://www.christian.org.uk/

Coalition for Marriage http://c4m.org.uk/

and anyone else who is against gay marriage and the way the Conservative Party is running this country should really be supporting me in this.

This would include UKIP and the BNP and any organisation that considers itself Libertarian eg

The IEA  http://www.iea.org.uk/

The Libertarian Alliance  http://www.libertarian.co.uk/

Adam Smith Institute http://www.adamsmith.org/

If the court is minded to favour my arguments, then it will be what lawyers call a landmark case.

I expect anyone who is a member of any political party to take an interest, because this case highlights really how powerless the individual political activist is and how likely his rights will be abused by the leaders and his cronies with impunity by his abusers.  Any complaint of ill-treatment will be treated with indifference by one's friends, family and associates because everyone hates politicians and think they deserve to suffer for presuming to tell them what to do.

They are of course claiming I am a very bad egg: an antisemite and a Nazi for one thing, and for daring to discuss controversial subjects in a way that has caused great offence to liberals and feminists.

My intention is to prove that it is impossible for me to be a Nazi and deny that I am an antisemite.  I will however put my hands up to discussing controversial subjects. One goes into politics precisely because one has a view about controversial subjects. Discussing controversial subjects and expressing controversial opinions should not be a reason for expulsion from any party, should it?

It is shocking that no political party will defend the right of any of its members when they say something liberals and feminists dislike.

I have a made a point of not saying anything that is logically, morally and intellectually indefensible, but it seems that these rules of rational discourse are unknown even to what passes for the intelligentsia in this land.

No one is interested in discussing whether something is moral, practicable or rational, only that it is offensive in this easily-offended and morbidly feminised country.

The Truth is ugly, boys and girls, and I think it is time that you were told that this is a fact of life.   Santa Claus does not exist and Mummy and Daddy (if you have one) will not be around forever to look after you and bail you out.

Surely political activists are allowed to discuss controversial subjects without being vilified and their political careers ruined, in what we fondly imagine to be a society which is supposedly free because the principle of free speech is upheld  by the state?

Is there anything at all in the Conservative Party constitution that forbids a member from discussing the disabled in terms that they or their parents might find offensive?  I rather suspect not.

Just because one is not taken out and shot for saying something found to be offensive by the easily-offended - usually women - does not mean one has free speech.   Many are easily intimidated and the threat of a much lesser punishment, such as loss of a Facebook friendship, loss of status, is usually enough.  Many men fear being considered odd by women with whom they wish to have sex and so toe the feminist line in order not to offend the women whom they hope to fuck.  Men, as we know, will do anything for sex, and telling a few lies, or, more likely, refraining from criticising feminism during courtship in order to gain sexual access to women, is easily done.

All this is enough to make self-censorship the rule in this supposedly free country.

Probably, China has more free speech than Britain.   

Swinton Circle speakers: Lord Viscount of Massarene & Ferrard and Simon Heffer

Tuesday 19^th March 2013
Alan Harvey with the Viscount Massarene and Ferrard

Tuesday 19^th March 2013
Sarsons vinegar bottles used as paperweights, or should I say "flagweights"?

Tuesday 19^th March 2013
“The Decline of Europe and the Western World, and what the future holds” 

Tuesday 19^th March 2013
Viscount Massarene's talk consisted of a trot through English history.  If only I had heard it when I was doing  History A level!

23^rd April 2013  –  St.George’s Day
Robin Willow, the minstrel before Simon Heffer talking about Powell.  I asked Heffer which actor he would most like playing the part of Powell if ever the BBC adapted his biography of  Enoch Powell LIKE THE ROMAN.  He said Eric Porter after saying that that was as unlikely as a pig flying to the moon.  I also asked him which Tory MP he would most like to see replace David Cameron and he admitted he didn't know.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Like-The-Roman-Enoch-Powell/dp/0297842862

Years ago at the 50th Desert Island Discs Party, he nearly entered the room we were in.  I remember him standing at the threshold, with the light behind him, looking alarming like the Messiah.  His eyes swept the room to see a friendly face.   I was a slip of a girl then, and wondered what I would say to him if we were ever introduced to each other.  I don't think he found a friendly face, and it seemed he left the party without speaking to anyone.  I later popped my head out of the room to see if he was still there, but he had gone.

How I remember the group joshing Melvyn Bragg about his TV series A Time To Dance, saying "It wasn't that bad!"

Years later, I met Pam Powell at the memorial service for Lord Harris of High Cross of the IEA.  This was at St John's in Smith Square. I had arrived early and had sat down.  Mrs Powell then arrived with her two friends and Christopher Gill asked if I wouldn't mind moving so they could all sit together.  I was delighted to do this for her.  After the service was over, Pam Powell herself came round and thanked me for giving up my seat, which I certainly did not expect.  It was then that I felt a sudden and profound connection with the late Powell, thinking how much he must have loved her for being such a proper memsahib, for being so charming and for being so gracious. They don't make Englishwomen like her any more.

Eric Porter

23^rd April 2013  –  St.George’s Day
Robin Willow singing in Mandarin

Mark Littlewood, Director of the IEA has defriended me

Mark Littlewood, Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs - a Libertarian Think Tank - has defriended me on Facebook.  I think he did not like my constantly harping on about how welfare-dependent women are our main obstacle to rationally small government, especially when I repeatedly urged him to speak up against single mums who are a burden on the state.  

But what did I expect anyway?  He used to be a member of the LibDems. 

My alternative to Professor Becker's idea to make immigrants pay to come here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7833428/Nobel-Laureate-Gary-Becker-says-immigrants-should-pay.html

I never got the chance to ask my question though I had my arm raised the whole time.  Professor Roger Middleton who was chairing the panel looked in my direction many times, but it was as if I was invisible.  My arm even adopted a slight swaying motion, but it was hopeless.

The question I would have asked was this:

"Would it not just be simpler if we just reintroduced slavery in the form of a five-year period of indentured labour?  Then all the illegals would flee of their own accord or stay and be of service to the British Nation.  They would be taken to a National Slave Processing Centre where their skills could be assessed and categorised.  British employers would apply for the slave labour of their choice and these slaves would be deployed, for a fee, to the slave-hirer.  Ownership of the slaves remains with the State.    

After 5 years they are free to go home.  But if they submit to another 5 years of  indentured labour, they become full British Citizens.  All the labour they gave to the country would be rewarded with a sum of money - a Manumission Grant - to assist them in starting life in this country as British citizens.

Slave-Visitors will be a new public sector job title.  This is to see that slaves are not abused.  This is unlikely to happen as ownership of the slave vests in the state and the government would demand compensation if state property is damaged by the slave hirer.  

This country could also export slaves in the form of single mothers who are a charge on the state, including their variously-fathered feral children.  There is a shortage of women in China so this would go down rather well with these single Chinese men who can't find a wife.  This would also assist in servicing the National Debt.   

There is no reason why bankrupts and ex-bankers who have brought this country to its knees with their casino banking should not be enslaved too, is there, Professor Becker?"

The 90 second speech I thought I would be allowed to make at the IEA

http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=event&ID=229

At the end of the evening we will conduct "90 second hustings". Four people will be chosen at the beginning of the evening and they will speak for 90 seconds on the issue they believe is the most important issue facing Britain that has not been discussed in the main part of the debate. If you want to be considered for the "90 second hustings" please email pbooth@iea.org.uk with your topic: radical ideas only will be considered.

[They said it but they didn't mean it!!]

Below was the exchange that led me to think I would be allowed to speak, but on the evening they chose duller and less radical speakers.

Sent: 30 March 2010 22:23
To: Philip Booth
Subject: 14 April - 90 second hustings

ELECTORAL REFORM - ONE PARTY STATE.

Do you need more details or is the topic enough?

Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:40 AM
To: Philip Booth

Subject: RE: 14 April - 90 second hustings

that's enough, thank you. Look forward to seeing you on the night

THE 90 SECOND SPEECH I WOULD HAVE MADE HAD MY REPUTATION NOT PRECEDED ME

The welfare state is the root of all evil. It is also the Sacred Cow that the British worship - a rapacious and over-indulged pet that is now eating them out of house and home and dropping cowpats all over their nice carpet. The truth is that the British are addicted to welfare, foreign workers and cheap sex, which are the policies that the Liberal Left unquestioningly support.

Proposing to deprive the British of their welfare state is tantamount to proposing taking the bottle out of the hands of an aggressive drunk.

The British Nation is that aggressive drunk.

This explains why we have a Tory leader of the opposition who promotes Compassionate Conservatism (also known as Socialism) and the Big Society (also known as Big Government), instead of uncompromisingly demanding lower taxes, selective education and a smaller state.

I propose that there be no representation without taxation and the end of universal suffrage. In other words, I propose direct democracy or government by referenda under a narrower taxpayer-only franchise in a one-party state.

A one-party state need not be totalitarian if the party constitution protects the rights of its members against the leader and his cronies.

It is an open secret that that the Tory Party constitution gives its members virtually no rights at all, least of all the most precious one of all, especially if you are a participant in the political process - free speech. As we know, Enoch Powell, Patrick Mercer, Howard Flight and Alan Duncan were either expelled or demoted for speaking their minds.

If we cannot have a one-party state then we can at least propose that the Tory Party democratize their constitution. However, the only way of making the Tories reform their constitution as soon as possible is to see to it that they remain out of office for another term. Or until they have elected a leader who is actually a Conservative.