State control & DNA

The principle of an individual's interaction with the State should be that it assumes conduct of those aspects of life that are best handled on a group level - so, health care, national insurance, defence, criminal sanctions, foreign affairs, public services - the key thing is that all powers assumed by the State are those that the democratically elected representatives of the population have decided to confer on the State. It follows that all else remains in the sole competence of the individual - the State has no rights over us, merely to administer functions that we have devolved to it.

Thus we are able to do and say anything that we wish, unless our elected representatives, in the exercise of the powers that we have devolved to them, have jurisdiction over such matters - in other words, if it's not banned or criminalised with our consent, it is absolutely unrestricted. We seem to be heading to a situation where the State has assumed the mirror image of this disposition of powers - we are at the point where in the UK you can only do what you are allowed to do, rather than being able to do and say anything that is not specifically prohibited. This is incredibly important and is being ignored - we have allowed ourselves to be subsumed into the machinery of government for government's sake, rather than merely giving effect to devolved powers.

DNA is ours, the State has no rights to it, no ability to take it, store it, monitor us or control us - this is not government by consent, it is silent tyranny.

DNA database

How dare the police keep innocent people's DNA records for 6 years - if you have not been convicted of a crime, you are innocent and the state has no place keeping these records - that is the very definition of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" - not “innocent until arrested", not “innocent until charged" but innocent until PROVEN GUILTY" - we are allowing an utterly basic freedom to become cheapened by this grubby no-smoke-without-fire innuendo.

Armistice Day

I wonder how impressed those who gave their lives to defend this country and cherished beliefs about freedom and a better life would be to see the dismal over policed over regulated and chav-strewn horror that the United Kingdom has become.


However, it remains desperately important to pause and remember at 11.00 am.

WTC 7

Most of what's written about it may be bonkers, but I still can't find a sensible beleivable explanation of why World Trade Centre 7 collapsed. Why is that? Why is it that no one in a position of power and influence (who cannot easily be dismissed or sidelined as a nut) seems willing to stand up and say "hang on a minute, that doesn't look possible"? And if it's so obvious to those in authority why it happened, why is your explanation so thoroughly unconvincing to me?

I'd be open to accepting a sensible, scientific explanation but I haven't seen one - just saying "well it fell down, so accept it" is not good enough.

It's not about the Sun

It's about the inability of that dysfunctional, android Prime Minister to empathise or communicate properly. It is very convenient to get hot under the collar about an "evil" newspaper (conveniently ignoring Labour's intense and successful attempts to court them in the 1990s and then allow them to slag off Major for years) and thereby try and divert attention from your shockingly piss-poor leader who no-one (save a few thousand residents of Fife) elected, and who is an international and domestic embarrassment and basket-case.

The Sun has the honesty to declare a change in editorial support, and is now giving effect to that by highlighting (as if further highlighting were needed!) the inadequacies and failings of this power-obsessed control junkie Brown who behaves like a wounded bull in the ring - charging at anything until he collapses with exhaustion, to be finally slain with a blade through the shoulders.

I am sick of the word "offence"

"Oh, you can't say that, it might offend XYZ" - how have we allowed the concept of offence to gain such importance? It has now supplanted any normal attempts at communication, conversation, even basic stating the obvious is now increasingly restricted - this absurd "offence" mantra is now trotted out seemingly as a complete and unchallengeable assertion to control the way we interact with anyone who might remotely be considered a "minority".

Well, perhaps there's a reason why minorities are, by definition, less prevalent and widespread than majorities? Maybe they picked the wrong path to follow, the one that led or contributed to their poverty, their lack of education, their inability to speak, spell or punctuate properly, their failure to create any wealth for themselves or their families? Had they chosen to improve themselves, and actually applied themselves with some effort to that end, then maybe they wouldn't carry around so much "offence-baggage" as sad worthless inadequates who must be protected from the truth?

There's also a difference between offence, and simply stating the obvious. We allow adjectival fascism to control us - a man who can't see is blind; to call him visually challenged is insulting dross, it implies that he regards his lack of sight as a challenge to overcome - how do we know that? He might (probably not, but perfectly possible) be happy with his heightened senses of hearing, touch, smell. He might not want to regain his sight - he is blind, and if that offends him to hear those words, well, tough. I am sighted, he is blind - I am not offended by being called sighted, why is he offended at being called blind? The answer of course is that he is not offended - he has had offence imputed upon him by do-gooding interfering nannies who do him no favours.

Worst of all is the most heinous of crimes, offending Muslims. Well, sod Muslims. Their particular brand of hate-filled intolerance, invective and prejudice is the single greatest cause of misery on this planet, and I rank them along with all organised, controlling religions in that - special mention for Catholicism as one of the worst, too.