Translate

Showing posts with label principles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label principles. Show all posts

Friday, 26 June 2020

Ten questions on masculinity

1) Can a man be said to be masculine if he has no principles?

2) Can a man be said to have principles if he does not subscribe to any religion or known moral system nor the three basic ones of submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality?

3) Is a man who refuses to declare his principles or his moral system a nihilist?

4) Is a nihilist someone saying "I have no principles I am prepared to defend"?

5) Would you ever choose or trust a leader you know to have no principles?

6) Is there a crisis of masculinity in the West?

7) If so, is this crisis of masculinity anything to do with the fact that no senior politician is prepared to defend a principle and this cowardice has percolated downwards?

8) Do women instinctively despise unprincipled men who are afraid of them and want to topple their statues?

9) What would happen to the nations of unprincipled men who cannot defend any principle verbally, let alone to the death?

10) Do unprincipled men deserve to live in an advanced civilisation?

Sunday, 9 September 2018

Diversity, identity and the importance of having fixed principles

"Diversity" these days is not just about race and religion, it includes varieties of what the Abrahamic faiths would consider sex offender eg those guilty of fornication, adultery and sodomy. If Westerners feel that their government is incompetent and their childless clueless leaders corrupt, they should understand that they are in fact living in a matriarchy.

If the problem is matriarchy, then the solution must be patriarchy.

If the destination is patriarchy, the vehicle must be theocracy.

A theocracy is a society governed by the laws of God to ensure that His laws - particular the ones on on marriage - are obeyed from generation to generation, otherwise degeneracy will be the consequence, and the decline and fall of your civilisation will be the inevitable result.

Sadly for humanity, our global village is now a matriarchy with only a few pockets of resistance here and there.

Pakistan launched its gender neutral passport in 2017.

Matriarchal dementia will engulf our global village unless something is said and done.

On the question of identity, it is not something we worry about until and unless there are other people we perceive to be acting against our interests to worry about.

As for our own individual identity, this needs to be fixed to a degree, or we will go mad. Can you imagine looking in the mirror and every time seeing a different face or a person of a different sex looking back at you?

Our political parties do not have principles, so principles of Liberalism or Conservatism are only what those who are said to represent these ideologies say they are. Recently, the British have been informed that British Conservatism means gay marriage after it was introduced by an unprincipled Conservative Prime Minister.

As we can see, political systems that are undeniably man-made eg Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Communism. Fascism and Nazism do not last very long before, particularly if they do not support marriage. Moral systems that are said to be divine ie the five world religions which do support marriage have a rather longer shelf-life.

In the West, there are only two possibilities for the gentile: Christianity or Islam, because Judaism is for Jews only.

Christianity has failed because it has been idolatrous for nearly 1800 years. We know it has obviously failed because Christianity and Liberalism are now indistinguishable from each other.

Since you have to believe that Christ is the co-equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God to be Christian, the only people now who say they do would be priests, bishops, archbishops and Popes. If you say you believe this, you are perhaps too credulous. If you only claim to believe it to keep your job, you are undeniably corrupt.

It is not too much of a surprise that the world's most powerful church - the Catholic Church - is now mired in sex scandals of sex offenders in its senior ranks. One lie leads to another and lying corrupts our morals and intellect, leading to a kind of paralysis that stops one from using truth, logic and morality to solve and avoid problems.

Matriarchy is established on a foundation of widespread illegitimacy caused by tolerance of the widespread practice of fornication. Catholic priests who have lost their moral authority in a tsunami of sex scandals will not be in a position to condemn fornication with any moral authority at all.

It has been said the West is a civilisation of Islamophobes. I do not think the Western Man is so much afraid of Islam as of the prospect of having to marry a woman of his own race and fathering and paying for her children. It is this prospect that dismays him more than anything else. He feels no woman can be trusted but, if he insists on chastity and virgin brides, he too must observe those rules against extramarital sex. Clearly, the sacrifices the grandparents and ancestors of the degenerate Westerner made to bring him into being are too great now for him to contemplate making himself. Instead, he looks forward to a future utopia where the working classes are eliminated and when people amuse themselves by having recreational sex with each other and their sexbots.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book

Yuval Harari is a civilly partnered Israeli whose ideas have been given credence by the former Chief Rabbi Sacks:

If you have at home a teenage son who likes computer games, you can conduct your own experiment. Provide him with a minimum subsidy of Coke and pizza, and then remove all demands for work and all parental supervision. The likely outcome is that he will remain in his room for days, glued to the screen. He won’t do any homework or housework, will skip school, skip meals and even skip showers and sleep. Yet he is unlikely to suffer from boredom or a sense of purposelessness. At least not in the short term.

Hence virtual realities are likely to be key to providing meaning to the useless class of the post-work world. Maybe these virtual realities will be generated inside computers. Maybe they will be generated outside computers, in the shape of new religions and ideologies. Maybe it will be a combination of the two. The possibilities are endless, and nobody knows for sure what kind of deep plays will engage us in 2050.

In any case, the end of work will not necessarily mean the end of meaning, because meaning is generated by imagining rather than by working. Work is essential for meaning only according to some ideologies and lifestyles. Eighteenth-century English country squires, present-day ultra-orthodox Jews, and children in all cultures and eras have found a lot of interest and meaning in life even without working. People in 2050 will probably be able to play deeper games and to construct more complex virtual worlds than in any previous time in history.


The environmentalists are for this on the grounds that the fewer humans there are in the world, the less they will pollute and damage the environment. It is not entirely a coincidence that environmentalism is synonymous with sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and parenting.

We can no longer bear our vices nor their cure.

Why we must never lose sight of our principles

My review of Morality in the 21st century presented by Rabbi Sackstury.html

Thursday, 1 February 2018

On the necessity of hierarchy and the men who have a problem with authority

Does anyone else get it that logically and necessarily we must have hierarchy if we are to have patriarchy, and that marriage is the best way of ordering the rank of individuals in society?

The antithesis of patriarchy is matriarchy, and in a matriarchy it is impossible to establish your rank or indeed to pull rank on anyone at all.

This is because matriarchies are egalitarian. Women tend to be feminists and feminists are socialists, and socialists are egalitarian. Socialism means a nanny state without which feminism cannot exist. Feminism cannot exist outside an overbearing nanny state because a society of men with male solidarity simply wouldn't put up with feminism.

How is male solidarity achieved? It can only be achieved when men agree amongst themselves that sluts have to be shamed. Since most men are atheists and only think in the short term, they are incapable of thinking beyond their own lifetimes or immediate prospect of pleasure. Since this life is the only life they expect to have, any threat or bribe would work with them. This means they are incapable of making any sacrifice or showing any courage because they fear loss of status, income and employment and most certainly sexual access to women which they think is a badge of their virility.

In an egalitarian society, individuals will not receive constructive criticism gracefully. Everyone is asking anyone else who tries to correct their behaviour "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?"

If the person attempting to do the correcting says "Well, it is true that you do X and X is wrong" you would be told mulishly "Even if what you say is true, I still won't do what you say and you can't do anything about it, so fuck off."

This could be said to the person supposedly higher in rank to the mule, or lower in rank.

Why would any aspiring male with leadership qualities who is also atheist, cowardly and not prepared to make any sacrifice for any principle wish to lead a herd of mules? Far better to trick, bribe or threaten them than appeal to their reason and good nature which is mostly eclipsed by their massive egos.

The British used to be known for their rules of fair play. The 21st century British male if he is working class is usually someone who has problems with authority, said to be something commonly suffered by delinquent black youth who underachieve in life.

If you have a problem with authority, you will only want to be the leader. If you only want to be the leader, you will not be prepared to obey orders, follow rules or observe the boundaries of correct behaviour.

If you are defiant, rebellious and rude, then people who do actually have something to teach you will reject and avoid you, and this will stop you from making the most of your opportunities.

People who have problem with authority are of course atheists. Their ultimate authority is themselves guided only by their ego, appetites and emotions. Such people would hate the idea of having their behaviour restricted by anything as banal as rules, which they think is for losers, little realising that they are themselves the losers.

What rules should we obey?

From the standpoint of survival, we should always acknowledge truth, logic and morality. However, we all know people who are so egotistical and stubborn that they will never admit that they lost the argument. We might have at some in our own lives be guilty of this trait ourselves and already know that a majority of the households in the land does not have a responsible adult capable of making their offspring acknowledge the error of their ways. Most children are badly parented by their irresponsible single mothers and even married fathers are often weak or allow themselves to be undermined by their wives. This is a great shame because people who never admit they are wrong are condemned to repeat their mistakes again and again and again.

In a matriarchy, all males are beta males. This is unhealthy and dangerous because no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male.

This means beta males will have no one to represent their interests. In a matriarchy, there are at best only beta males with alpha male qualities, but they tend to be flawed characters who have a problem with authority, unable to either obey or lead properly or be guided by religious or moral principles, since they are overwhelmingly atheist, and atheists only worship the False Idol of Expediency.

If they claim to be religious, this really means nothing more than a vague belief in some higher power. If you suggest to them that this higher power might be the Abrahamic God who has taken the trouble of making laws for humanity, they will immediately say that they don't subscribe to that kind of religious fanaticism.

Such people tend to prefer the religions with the vaguest possible rules so they can interpret these principles in any way they like, to suit themselves. Such people are always on the lookout to enjoy spiritual experiences while being disinclined to obey anything as pedestrian as rules, which they think are for losers and uncool people.

To be an alpha male, you must be a leader of beta males and be chosen as leader by beta males without females interfering with their choice of leader. Otherwise, such a leader will end up being chosen by the worst kind of promiscuous and irresponsible female who is a bad mother to her variously fathered illegitimate offspring.

A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers while a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.

We know what we are, don't we?

The average voter in the UK is a 40 year white single mother who hates white men. Sadly, the plebeians of the West overwhelmingly have a problem with authority while the patricians are terrified of being divorced by their feminist wives under the rules of no fault divorce with the consequence of being deprived of their matrimonial home and children for no good reason at all. They are also terrified of being accused of a historic sexual offence by a female and feminist Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am just here to record the fall of the West and explain it to future generations since there is really not much more I can do other than explain and chronicle this process. After all, no one ever listens to me.

I am not really complaining, because men don't listen to each other either. In a matriarchy, all men are beta males and no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male. Leaderless beta males think and behave exactly like women and the most telling way that this manifests itself is that these men, like women, cannot ever grasp the principles of truth, logic and morality, however often, clearly and loudly you explain it to them.

If you cannot give them immediate gratification eg sex, success etc, they are not interested. Such men will never be able to make sacrifices for the principle of the thing. In fact, they would openly sneer at anyone prepared to do such a thing as a fool or a fanatic. Not only will they lie to you, they will lie to themselves, even worse and even more. The most bemusing thing about them is that they will always be doing the equivalent of saying "No, thank you" when you offer them something while reaching out a paw to take it. They genuinely don't even know they are doing it, and when you point it out to them, they will be puzzled and offended. Principles are of course the key to moral reasoning so that one knows what one's principles are, and will notice when they are being broken. British men are entirely bereft of the ability to use moral reasoning to check themselves, and instead rely on their emotions and caprice, just as women do.

http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/20-struggles-of-having-issues-with-authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Tuesday, 5 September 2017

Narcissism and Principles

Some people claiming to be interested in political causes are really more interested in increasing the total number of their followers on Twitter and YouTube followers, Facebook friends and Facebook group members rather than advancing the cause, to the extent of tolerating people who actually retard the cause, because their numbers are greater than the lesser number of principled ones.

This of course makes for mediocrity rather than excellence.

Women exemplify mediocrity and prefer safety in numbers. They then expend their energy manipulating the various factions, which is what they enjoy doing after all.

Male alt-right YouTubers are doing the same thing because they confuse numbers with quality.

How is one to judge the quality of political activism?

I would suggest:

1) the memorability and originality of the content

2) adherence to principles, truth and logic

3) preparedness to engage with detractors and challengers rather than preaching only to the converted

4) preparedness to challenge detractors who refuse to engage because they are insecure

5) consistent and principled activism and speaking the truth as one sees it, even if it means being ostracised by people supposedly on the same side

6) creativity in terms of propagating the message including preparedness to consider new methods, new audiences and different platforms.

Monday, 19 June 2017

Why we should hold on to our principles

Supposing our religion is to worship polygons. We therefore have the moral principle of worshiping polygons.

What is a polygon?

An n-gon is a polygon with n sides; for example, a triangle is a 3-gon. A polygon is a 2-dimensional example of the more general polytope in any number of dimensions.

This we must commit to memory so we can define and recognise a polygon when we see one and then worship it in accordance with our religious principles, or we will one day find ourselves worshiping circles or other irregular shapes, which is the antithesis of polygons because they will have no sides at all.


Now the West is worshiping evil instead of good, because so many Westerners saw nothing wrong in playing fast and loose with their religious principles.

I will give you another another more practical example.

A paid to have his rising damp fixed by B.

When the work was done, B told A not to have the walls painted for at least 6 weeks.

C, a decorator, asked the B if it was OK to paint A's walls after 2 weeks. B, having forgotten his own rule, said yes.

A was approached by C to paint his walls. A agreed, having forgotten B's prohibition.

Will A's damp problem recur because his walls were painted too early? Whose fault was it? What was the guiding principle that should have been remembered and A and B which was not told to C? How much is it going to cost A to have the problem fixed if the damp problem recurs? And all because the principle of not painting the walls for at least 6 weeks was not remembered or passed on.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/principles-in-nutshell.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/politics-of-principle-discuss.html

Tuesday, 12 May 2015

On those who keep wittering on about the British constitution as if they knew what they were on about


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Joseph#1974

“A high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world.... Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness…. They are producing problem children…. The balance of our human stock, is threatened….”

The response was outrage that despite his repeated apologies sharply undercut Joseph's campaign to replace Heath as party leader. The speech was largely written by Alfred Sherman but the most controversial sentence was inserted by Joseph himself.

It has now 41 years since a male politician dared to criticise Slut Single Mothers who are bad mothers to their bastard offspring. Expecting this lot to start doing it now would be like expecting a drug-addict who only cares about his next fix to call the cops on his drug-dealer. Ain't gonna happen. Only Secular Koranism is strong enough to cleanse this country of so many decades of sluttery, bastardy and degeneracy as well as five generations of feckless fuckers



If members of the Conservative Party have no rights and can have their membership cancelled at the absolute discretion of the Secretary of the Board of the  Conservative Party, then this must also mean that the Prime Minister himself is vulnerable to being expelled from the Conservative Party without ceremony.

Claire Khaw's membership of the Conservative Party cancelled

The Conservative Party has no principles and its members have no rights

The Conservative Party pretends it has principles

Why the Conservative Party is a public body whose administrative decisions should be subject to judicial review


Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate

What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about - Theocracy v Secularism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant

The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character, bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator

The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency.

There is much talk of a Caliphate, which I believe means Regent of God. It is basically a dictator who is bound by Koranic principles. Better government by a rightly-guided Caliph, I would have thought, than government by a psychopathic political establishment suffering from dementia not bound by any principles, not even their own, which they will not or cannot state. When you start breaking your own rules and lying about what they were and why you break them, I think it is time you called it a day.


Wednesday, 22 January 2014

Khaw v Con Party Renewal hearing on 21 January 2014 at the Royal Courts of Justice

I am sorry, but I really can't be bothered to write this up properly.


Claire Khaw, what precisely is expected to happen in court tomorrow regarding your case against the Conservative Party?
  • Claire Khaw 20 minutes for me, 10 minutes for the Tories. 

    I am representing myself, the Tories will be legally represented.
  • Andy Kimber looks like you are 3rd on,and if the first one is at 10.30,you would on at about 11.30?
  • Leon What precisely will you do? Lay out the skeleton of your case, nothing too in depth?

    Where can the court case times be found?
  • Andy Kimber the RCJ website
  • Leon Could you post the link on here, please?
  • Claire Khaw http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-rcj

    COURT 27

    Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLACKETT
    (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
    Tuesday 21 January, 2014
    At half past 10
    FOR DISPOSAL
    CO/2869/2011 The Queen on the application of Nowa v Secretary Of State For Home Department

    Applications for Permission

    COURT 27
    Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLACKETT
    (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
    Tuesday 21 January, 2014
    At half past 10
    FOR DISPOSAL
    CO/2869/2011 The Queen on the application of Nowa v Secretary Of State For Home Department

    Applications for Permission

    CO/2822/2013 The Queen on the application of Masoud v Westminster City Council 
    CO/9046/2013 The Queen on the application of Ukaegbu v Middlesex University
    CO/8019/2013 The Queen on the application of Khaw v Conservative Party
    CO/7762/2013 The Queen on the application of Tank v Secretary Of State For The Home Department


    www.justice.gov.uk
    Administrative Court at the RCJ daily cause listShare thisCause list Friday, 17 ...See more
  • Anthony Hubert Codjoe It makes no sense for any sane person to want Claire put performance for tomorrow's court hearing here for what ? Somebody to evaluate or what ? Her blog has indicated enough of her case and what she deems senseless about her removal from the Conservative Party. In the blog a lot of so called violations against the party by her are shown. And Claire refutes them. She asked questions about what constitutes violations , free speech and when the violations were committed.
  • Claire Khaw The Conservative Party constitution does indeed give them the right to remove any member without warning or explanation at its absolute discretion.
  • Andy Kimber i cant get there til about 12.30 and i think that will be too late 
  • Claire Khaw This would exclude the right to being heard by an unbiased tribunal according to the rules of natural justice. 

    They will no doubt argue that the Tory Party is not a public body and therefore not subject to judicial review. It is only a private club and the courts must not interfere, they will say.
  • Claire Khaw You can always meet us for drinks later!
  • Leon Actually, Anthony, I wholeheartedly support Claire's actions here. The Conservative Party does not seem to know what a principle is. If I were around, I would be in the court early in excitement!
  • Andy Kimber the court bit is the bit i wouldnt want to miss!
  • Claire Khaw I will say it is far from being a club, since it exercises powers that affect the rights of individuals and society. 

    Not only that, the Conservative Party has a role in choosing who becomes a member of the Legislature (ie Members of Parliament) and 
    the Executive (ie Prime Minister) and these have the power to start wars as well as change the meaning of marriage. 

    Saying that a political party is like a club is to totally misunderstand the nature of both. 

    A club exists solely for the benefit of its members and of course members of a club should be able to remove any of its members if they decide for any reason at all that they don't want him any more. 

    A political party has the purpose of promoting a political ideology. What then is the political ideology of the Conservative Party? 

    Nobody knows.
  • Claire Khaw There is actually a shocking Australian case of a sitting Premier of Victoria, who was expelled from his own party.
  • Anthony Hubert Codjoehttp://tonyhubertcod.mywapblog.com/logic-and-justice.xhtml

    tonyhubertcod.mywapblog.com
    Logic and Justice are related. There Can be no Justice without Truth. Logic is a way of knowing certain Truths. Spiritual Truth escapes domain of
  • Claire Khaw He sued them in 1934 but received no satisfaction.
  • Claire Khaw I will say that the Tory Party does indeed exercise the functions of a public body and Datafin supports this. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/.../R_(Datafin_plc)_v_Panel_for...


    en.wikipedia.org
    R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc is a 1986 case decided...See more
  • Leon I have just read out Claire's intentions to my grandmother, and she SUPPORTS her! Ahoy Khaw!
  • Claire Khaw Donaldson MR

    “No one could have been in the least surprised if the Panel has been instituted and operated under the direct authority of statute law, since it operates in the public domain. Its jurisdiction extends throughout the United Kingdom. It
    s codes and rulings apply equally to all who wish to make take-over bids or promote mergers, whether they are members of bodies represented on the panel. Its lack of a statutory base is a complete anomaly.
  • Leon “Conservatives KHAWnered and KHAWterised in KHAWt by sure KHAWrageous Khaw!”
  • Claire Khaw Lloyd LJ:

    "It is helpful to look not just to look at the source but the nature of the power. If the body in question is exercising public law functions, or if the exercise of its powers have public consequences, then that may be sufficient to bring 
    the body within the reach of judicial review. The essential distinction is between a domestic or private tribunal on the one hand, and a body of persons who are under some public duty on the other."
  • Claire Khaw Part IV 17.7 of the constitution. 

    17 The Board shall have power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party. It shall oversee all activities within the Party and in particular be 

    responsible for – 

    17.7 the cancellation or refusal of membership, in its absolute discretion, of any Party Member or prospective Party Member; 

    Yet on page 28 of the constitution, it states:

    Natural Justice 

    28 Any removal of rights of membership of, or removal of office or other position from, any Association or other body within the Party will only be made after due consideration of natural justice.
  • Leon After the Secular Koranist revolution, I will insist that ‘court’ be re-spelt as ‘khawt’ thereafter.
  • Claire Khaw To say that any member can be expelled without warning or explanation can only mean that that provision excludes the exercise of the rules of natural justice. 

    It is clearly a very confused and capricious piece of drafting. Perhaps it just means that only certain members will get a hearing that adheres to the rules of natural justice, but only if it feels like it, and it is a blue moon.
  • Claire Khaw Below is what they said when they dismissed my appeal:

    Decision of the Conservative Party Disciplinary Committee in the matter of the appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against her expulsion from the Conservative Party by the Board


    The Committee met at Conservative Campaign Headquarters, 30 Millbank on Wednesday 27th March 2013 to consider an appeal by Ms Claire Khaw against the decision by the Board to expel her from membership of the Conservative Party.

    Members of the Disciplinary Committee who heard the Appeal on the papers were:

    Simon Mort (Chairman)
    John Flack
    Pauline Lucas
    In attendance: Marcus Booth
    The Committee DISMISSED the appeal.

    Based on the evidence provided (including by Ms Khaw), the Committee concluded that Ms Khaw's publicly stated views and values, together with her conduct (that the Committee were in a position to appraise) are such that they are not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party, which is not an absolute right.

    The aims, objectives and ******policies************* of the Conservative Party are freely available to read and Ms Khaw should have reasonably appraised herself of these before applying to join the Party.

    [It is interesting, is it not, that the Defendant is referring to its POLICIES when what is at issue is its PRINCIPLES.

    The Defendant is being misleading or is genuinely ignorant of the difference between a policy and a principle.]
  • Claire Khaw A policy is what you say to others you do, and your policies should conform to your principles, if you are a political party.
  • Leon Principles are underpinned by ideology. If the Conservative Party has no principles (or does not know what this word means), it has no ideology at all — least of all conservative principles derived from a conservative ideological foundation.

    The party should be renamed.
  • Claire Khaw What should it be called?
  • Leon I can think of a few suggestions:

    (i) No-Principles Party;

    (ii) Blank Party;
    (iii) Nothingness Party;
    (iv) Unsure Party;
    (v) ‘A Party’.
  • Claire Khaw The Whateverist Party.
  • Claire Khaw which supports Whateverism ...
  • Leon The Anything Goes Party.
  • Claire Khaw The Whatever the Voter Will Accept Party
  • Claire Khaw Such a party is a fraud its members as well as a fraud on the voting public.
  • Leon The logical conclusion of establishing that the Conservative Party has no principles, is that it can no longer be said to advocate or promote conservatism.
  • Claire Khaw That is bad enough, but there is worse to come. It gives its members NO RIGHTS AT ALL. 

    In theory, even the Prime Minister himself could be expelled from the Conservative Party! 

    This was what in fact happened to the Premier of Victoria, Edmond Hogan in 1932.
  • Claire Khaw Who are the members of the Board of the Conservative Party? 

    It seems they have the power to topple the Prime Minister!
  • Leon Will any representative from the Conservative Party, excluding their lawyer, make an appearance tomorrow?
  • Claire Khaw I have no idea.
  • Claire Khaw I hope so. I want there to be as many people as possible in court.
  • Claire Khaw The Conservative Party Board is the party's ultimate decision making body, responsible for all operational matters (including fundraising, membership and candidates) and is made up of representatives from each (voluntary, political and professional) section of the Party.[91] The Party Board meets about once a month and works closely with CCHQ, elected representatives and the voluntary membership mainly through a number of management sub-committees (such as membership, candidates and conferences).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)...


    en.wikipedia.org
    The Conservative Party, officially the Conservative and Unionist Party and collo...See more
  • Leon How did it go, Claire?
  • Adrienne Hartley Yes I'd like to know too.
  • Leon Claire sent me a text earlier to say that the judge believed that whatever his decision, the other party would appeal, so he decided that the best way forward would be to refuse Claire's application on the grounds of legal precedent so as to allow her to appeal.

    Appeal Court, here she comes!
    8 hours ago · Unlike · 3
  • Claire Khaw Yes, he seemed quite encouraging. To say he refused it on the ground of legal precedent, if you read between the lines, was that he was minded to accept my arguments but felt tied down by precedent. 

    I tried to persuade him to grant me my application and leave it to the Tories to appeal, but he was having none of it.
    51 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw He did advise me to seek professional legal advice (which is standard procedure for litigants in person) even though he said there was nothing wrong with the way I had presented it, which was jolly nice of him.
  • Claire Khaw Jeffrey Marshall and Eddy Butler did say unkind things about my rather shambolic presentation, and in particular my failure to bring the judgement of Datafin with me. 

    When I got home I found it on my unmade bed.
    42 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw The other side was quite funny though. The solicitor advocate did a Manuel in court: "I know NOTHING. My clients have not been in touch with me all these months. I do not even have the papers the Claimant is referring to. I do not have the Conservative Party constitution the Claimant is referring to and is claiming is contradictory, confused and capricious. I have not prepared and was under the impression that the Claimant's application is certain to be refused. I shall seek an adjournment if this carries on!"
  • Claire Khaw Judge: "There, there. Would you like me find in your favour and advise the Claimant to go to the Appeal Court?" 

    Tory Party solicitor nods head eagerly. 


    Me, delighted that he seemed to be telling me that I should appeal: "I would be amenable to your suggestion, My Lord."
    31 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • Claire Khaw I did go on about Lord Rennard a bit to the bemusement of the court, saying that how he was being treated is in fact typical of how activists are routinely abused by the leadership. 

    3 important legal principles were being set aside in the case of Lord Rennard:

    1. The retrospective nature of his punishment. Retrospective legislation is against the rules of natural justice because it punishes someone for a crime that was not a crime when it was committed. It has already been admitted by Lord Greaves that half the members of the House of Lords have pinched the bottom of a woman. When they did they had no idea that they would be taken to court and their names dragged through the mud for so doing. 

    2. The principle of double jeopardy. How many investigations and hearings are they going to have in order to find him guilty of something or other? 

    3. The principle of being treated as innocent until found guilty, after a fair trial. 

    The other point I raised was that the legal fiction of a political party not being a public body and therefore subject to judicial review should now be finally done away with. 

    The Conservative Party constitution allows *any member* to be expelled without warning or explanation. This means the PM himself could in theory be expelled if the Board of the Conservative Party decide to get rid of him. 

    This did indeed happy in Cameron v Hogan when a sitting Australian Premier of the State of Victoria was expelled from his own party. 

    I pointed out that if that happened it would provoke a constitutional crisis, and this cannot be denied.
  • Claire Khaw After lunch, all he could come up with was that if the every member of the Conservative Party left the party, it would be no more. 

    I still have no idea what point he was making. 


    Of course he went on about the Tory Party being a voluntary association and how precedent has always treated it as such, blah blah. 

    But nothing substantive.
  • Rafal Pruszyn-ski outline the positions, Claire Khaw: why are you in court?
  • Claire Khaw Because I want the Conservative Party to be subject to judicial review.
  • Claire Khaw So that when the party activists are routinely abused by their leader and party there is a legal remedy. 

    If I had sued them in contract they would just have given me back my £25, which is not what I seek.
  • Claire Khaw Poor Lord Rennard, who has done so much for his party, is just being thrown to the wolves for no other reason than the LibDem leader is a pussywhipped wimp and wants to please his wife and the vociferous, implacable and malicious female activists who want to be served with Lord Rennard's head and testicles on a platter.
  • Claire Khaw What I should have done was dispute the costs. 

    Even if I win and don't have to pay the costs of the Conservative Party, they shouldn't be paying nearly £1500 for what their solicitor did, which is precisely nothing. 

    He handed me a photocopied bundle of documents which I already had for which I thanked him, but that was the extent of his preparation.
  • Claire Khaw You should have come anyway at 12:30, Andy, which was when the hearing started.
  • Claire Khaw Oh, and I said that to persistently conflate their principles with policies found in their manifesto, which are but mere promises which they may not even keep, and which would change every 5 years, made for the purpose of inducing voters to vote to them, is evidence of a fundamental philosophical error as to the nature of what a principle is and what principles are for.



If you claim Jesus is God, you should be able to entertain the idea of mortal sin and Hell

0:50  Gangsters don't use diplomacy. 1:00  Tarred by the same brush 2:00  Has the government gone mad? 3:00  TLC is a microcosm of Ameri...