UK Plc | Business as usual

11 05 2010

After all the political ping-pong and backroom wrangling, we finally have a new Government headed by a new Prime Minister to head up a new agenda.  Must be similar to the previous financial initiatives for the markets are breathing a sign of relief but it’s too early to tell.  Just glad to have finally seen the back of McDoom.

Replacing the Kirkcaldy Kid in No.10 is the chinless PR King of Vagueness, David Cameron with his rather adorable wife Samantha, finally securing the British Premiership Title of Politics.  Not without the help from the Liberal Democrats of course, who have had more important meetings in the last week than the previous two decades combined.

Isn’t democracy grand?

Conservative Cameron takes over as PM

Reuters.  Tue May 11, 2010 10:16pm BST

Conservative leader David Cameron took over as prime minister on Tuesday and said he wanted to form a full coalition with the smaller Liberal Democrat Party.

Gordon Brown had resigned as prime minister earlier, ending 13 years of rule by his centre-left Labour Party.

The Conservatives won most seats in a parliamentary election last week but fell short of a majority. Labour came second and the Liberal Democrats a distant third.

Giving his first speech as prime minister, Cameron, 43, said he aimed to form what would be Britain’s first coalition government since 1945. The exact shape of the new government was not yet clear and the Liberal Democrats had yet to give their final approval to the deal on offer from the Conservatives.

“This is going to be hard and difficult work. A coalition will throw up all sorts of challenges. But I believe together we can provide that strong and stable government that our country needs,” Cameron said, his pregnant wife Samantha by his side.

The sterling rose against the dollar and the euro as Cameron spoke. Markets had been impatient to see an end to the uncertainty thrown up by last Thursday’s inconclusive election.

The BBC reported that George Osborne, a close friend and ally of Cameron, would become the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, or finance minister.

U.S. President Barack Obama called Cameron to congratulate him, the White House said.

Both the Conservatives and Labour had tried to win Lib Dem support to form the next government during five days of intense negotiations, but it became clear on Tuesday afternoon that Labour had lost and Brown would have to resign.

“I wish the next prime minister well as he makes the important choices for the future,” an emotional Brown, 59, said earlier in front of the prime minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street, flanked by his wife Sarah.

DEFICIT

First among Cameron’s challenges will be how to reduce Britain’s record budget deficit, which has raised fears that the country could lose its triple-A credit rating.

Financial markets favour a Conservative-led government because they believe it would move faster and harder to cut the deficit.

Brown, his wife and their two children briefly posed for photographers after his farewell remarks, before leaving Downing Street. Brown then went to Buckingham Palace where Queen Elizabeth accepted his resignation.

Shortly afterwards, it was Cameron’s turn to visit the queen, who formally asked him to form a government in her name. He went straight from the palace to Downing Street to deliver his speech.

Details of what the Conservatives and Lib Dems had agreed have not yet been made public. Both negotiating teams were due to report back to their legislators and party colleagues later in the evening.

The two parties will have to endorse any deal agreed by the negotiating teams.

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden, Peter Griffiths, Mohammed Abbas, Adrian Croft, Keith Weir and Tim Castle; writing by Estelle Shirbon; editing by Andrew Roche)

So for the next six months, looks like we’re going to have to suffer more EU dictates, more increases in tax and the introduction of the Big Society.  Hopefully, such actions will shake the sheep out of our fellow Lions and the next opportunity, maybe vote out the degenerates once and for all.

Vote the same, get the same.

Advertisements




Immigration | Cane toad of Oz

10 05 2010

I was lucky enough to have visited Australia back in 1992 and what a wonderful place it is.  I was staying at Surfer’s Paradise on the Gold Coast about 80 miles north from Brisbane in Queensland (the tourist area) and also had a weekend in Sydney (the city, not a man) in New South Wales (just like London except cleaner and warmer).

The hotel in Queensland was just a few streets away from the one that Nigel Mansell stayed in during the Australian Grand Prix (couldn’t afford that suite though but ours was next-door to the beach though and had a sauna – don’t know why they thought the need for that).

Theme parks, pristine beaches and that blistering heat make for the perfect getaway even though it does take 15 hours getting there.  Sydney was just like London and reminded me how much I missed this old city of my forebears.  I used to dream of emigrating to Australia but seeing as pie, mash and liqueur isn’t a speciality out there along with Australia’s deadly wildlife, my dreams have subsided somewhat over the years.

Even back in the 90s the Australian government were debating how best to solve the Cane Toad population.  An imported species brought in to tackle crop pests, it has now become so successful that the pest-controller has become the pest.  Poisonous to the rest of the creatures meant it had no natural predator and with the breeding capabilities of 30,000 eggs a time females, the exponential growth (thanks Sir Morgan) has meant that entire areas can become saturated with the toads in a matter of weeks.

And after trying everything from traps to full-blown Vietnam-style culling (even playing cricket with the critters), the Australians may have at last found a way of controlling the buggers.  All thanks to catfood and ants.

What has cane toads got to do with Immigration?

Firstly, due to the fact that their importation in 1935 was ill-thought out and has resulted in the displacement of native species.  Like our Establishment who from 1948 embarked on a mass importation of workers with just as much foresight.

Secondly, the benefits espoused by the Government at the time were taken on board without a second-thought to the native species, instead focusing on short-term economic growth.  Similar to how our Establishment deem native Britons expendable.

Thirdly, I am not saying that all foreigners are lesser beings than myself or the British in general, we’re just different.  And seeing as we are different, we should only take on those who wish to become us, not import entire new species who have the least intention of ‘fitting in’.

And on a final note, I am not suggesting we ‘eat’ the immigrants or even set the ants on them.  We need to stop the various enticements and all too familiar appeasement that comes with it, that is all.

Importantly, both were deemed the best ideas since slice bread yet left unchecked due to a lack of interest have become problems for the rest of the ecosystem.  Like cane toads, those who come to Britain are usually prolific breeders.  Also like cane toads, the reason for their importation is to fill in the jobs us stoopid lazy chavs won’t do (according to Labour’s public statements, although their private ones differ somewhat).

The Establishment cite that immigration is a natural process.  Sneaking in the back of a lorry trying to circumnavigate the Border Authorities is not natural.  Flying halfway around the world on a Boeing 747 then presenting yourself for asylum perverting International Law is not natural.  accommodating 192 base cultures is not natural.

And even if it is, so is sea erosion.  Doesn’t stop us from building sandbarriers to fight the tide there so if migrational waves of peoples is a natural process, it cannot be offensive to ‘fight that tide’.  To not do so would be foolish.

The people make the nation, not the other way round.





BNP | Leftards answer to the Nationalists

20 04 2010

Although this has already been stated by others, I’d like to throw my ten-pence in.  The (news to me) Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank posing as a charity,when in reality, it is a left-leaning grouping of like-minded individuals trying to impose their communistic dreams into an ever greater proletariat have published a study.

Once again, it is detailing how to combat the rise of their mortal enemies and the eater of babies, the evil far-right Nationalists who oppose Internationalist Corporate Ownership cartels.

How IPPR is funded

IPPR is a registered charity. Our work would not be possible without the valued support offered to us by our funders, including:

  • trust and foundation grants
  • European and international funds
  • central and local government funding
  • corporate, public sector and voluntary sector support

So bankrolled by us, under the guidance of our subversive Government and with clear intentions of increasing European and World integration through interdependence, and we are supposed to take this report seriously?  I will cut to the chase and leave out all the waffle (for that go HERE or HERE or HERE), I just want highlight the gist of this internationalist plan to rid Nationalists of a voice.

More immigration to displace more Britons to blatantly dilute the nationalist vote.  Isn’t this classed as gerrymandering?

And just how of earth do they propose achieve a task such as that!  Go in and disperse settled african communities scattering them to the four corners of the Kingdom?  Split Britain in Nick Clegg ‘mentioned’ European “Regions”, issuing ALL with restrictions within said regions?  Impose an interaction scheme where those with the least in common spend twenty minutes per day talking about their feelings?

Or just continue the flood of people until the pips squeak?

Kum-bi-fecking-yah!

* PS:  For abusing the pictures from Marvel, do invest in a comic or two of theirs, less freaky than that Manga-babe-robotic-actionrama the Japanese knock out and a hero for everyone (or villain for others).  Akira was good though.





Peckham | Ten things you never knew

15 04 2010

With liberties to the BBC – About Africa but considering that Peckham is now ‘Outer Africa’, thought “may as well”.

10 things we have learnt about Peckham

The Pew Research Center has just released one of the biggest ever studies on attitudes to religion and morality in Peckham, which has revealed a host of interesting facts.

Here are 10 things we have learnt from the study, which surveyed 25,000 people in 19 Peckham council estates.

1. 75% of South Africans think polygamy is “morally wrong” – bad news for their president, as Jacob Zuma took his third wife earlier this year and is engaged to a fourth. However, the survey also revealed some possible double-standards. While only 7% of Rwandans approved of polygamy (although this did include women), a rather higher number – 17% – of men said they had more than one wife.

2. An overwhelming majority of respondents disapproved of homosexual behaviour. In three countries – Zambia, Kenya and Cameroon – this was a massive 98%. Interestingly, one of the countries with the highest numbers of people – 11% – accepting homosexuals is Uganda, where an MP is trying to get legislation passed which would punish homosexual acts with life in prison and even death in some cases. The former Portuguese colonies of Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique were also relatively tolerant of homosexuality.

3. Africa is probably the world’s most religious continent, with more than 80% saying they believed in God in most countries. At least half of the Christians questioned expect Jesus Christ to return to earth during their lifetimes. In Ethiopia, 74% of Christians say they have experienced or witnessed the devil or evil spirits being driven out of a person and in Ghana, 40% of Christians say they have had a direct revelation from God.

4. Zimbabwe, where the Lemba people say they are the lost tribe of Israel, was not one of the countries surveyed. But 26% of Nigerian Christians said they traced their origins back to Israel or Palestine.

5. Belief in witchcraft is also common – about 40%; a similar percentage also visit traditional healers to cure sickness. Belief in witchcraft is highest in Tanzania with 93% – this is the country where witchdoctors say that magic potions are more effective if they contain body parts of people with albinism. Ethiopia had the lowest levels of belief in witchcraft – at just 17%. Belief that juju or sacred objects can prevent bad things happening was generally lower – between 20 and 30%. In Senegal, however, 75% thought such things worked – far higher than in Tanzania (49%). It may come as a surprise to learn that South Africa had the highest number of people – 52% – saying they took part in ceremonies of traditional religions, or honoured or celebrated their ancestors.

6. Predictably, there was also a religious split concerning alcohol, banned by Islam. Surprisingly, however, more Muslims in Chad (23%) approved of booze, than Ethiopian Christians (5%).

7. Attitudes to divorce showed a strong divide along religious lines in Nigeria. A massive 79% of Christians thought it was “morally wrong”, while among Muslims, a narrow majority (46-41%) accepted divorce.

8. In recent years, Islamist hardliners in Somalia and Nigeria have introduced strict punishment based on Sharia law, such as amputating the hands of thieves and even stoning to death for adultery. The majority of people disapproved of such Sharia punishments. In Nigeria, they were backed by about 40% of Muslims and less than 10% of Christians. However, a majority did approve of whippings and amputations in Senegal and Mali. In nearby Guinea-Bissau, even 50% of Christians backed them. This was double the rate among Muslims in Ethiopia (25%) – maybe it feels like a more realistic prospect to them, as they share a border with Somalia and most Muslim Ethiopians are ethnic Somalis.

9. The survey also asked about material well-being in the world’s poorest continent. Not so long ago, Cameroon regularly topped surveys of champagne consumption per head. However, a shocking 71% of Cameroonians surveyed said there were times in the past year when they did not have enough money to buy food. In Ethiopia, which is commonly seen as a country struggling to feed itself, the rate was far lower – at 30% – the lowest of all countries surveyed.

10. Ethiopia did, however, have the lowest numbers of people – 7% – who said they regularly used the internet. Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame is striving to turn his country into Africa’s answer to Silicon Valley and is being helped by the arrival of several new fibre optic cables off the east coast of Africa. He will be encouraged by the finding that 30% of his countrymen – the highest number – regularly browsed the web. Mobile phones, were far more common – with 81% of respondents in Botswana owning one. Many countries reported more than 50% having phones but here, Rwanda lagged behind at just 35%.

Thanks for believing all the vibrant multicultural enrichment bullcrap propagated by the Establishment Political Media Complex.  For now these are my neighbours.  And if the EU have their way, which they will, there will be another 50,000,000 of em heading to our collective shores.

The world isn’t getting smaller.  They’re all just moving here.

In homage to London Patriot’s ‘Peckham: as it used to be





Labour | Bullcrap Brown

31 03 2010

They just cannot help themselves.  Fearing the backlash of all those who were not asked about the diversification (and fragmentation) of Britain, Gordon Crap tries to  entice us with ‘promises’ of immigration caps.  And if the electorate buy this crap, we are surely doomed.

General Election 2010: Gordon Brown promises ‘controlled’ immigration

Published: 5:59AM BST 31 Mar 2010

A re-elected Labour government will deliver a ”controlled and fair” immigration system flexible enough to meet the needs of British business, Gordon Brown will promise.

By contrast, he will argue that Conservative plans for an annual cap on non-EU migrants would be arbitrary, unworkable and bad for business.

In his third major speech on immigration since becoming PM, Mr Brown will acknowledge on Wednesday that the question of who comes to Britain is a reasonable issue for voters to consider in the upcoming general election and will say that it is right for politicians to address their concerns.

But he will attack those who he says are, for political reasons, spreading the impression that immigration is ”out of control”. Figures show that in fact, inward migration is clearly falling over recent years, he will say.

The PM will call on all mainstream parties to present ”a united front” against those who seek to bring a halt to immigration simply because of their animosity towards migrants.

”The question is who has the best plan to control immigration – not who can appeal to our worst instincts of nationalism and xenophobia, but who can appeal to our best instincts of a fairer Britain for all,” Mr Brown is expected to say.

”By controlling immigration for a fairer Britain – by investing in the skills of our own workforce, we can ensure the flexibility for our businesses to secure the highly skilled migrants they need while continuing to maintain control of net inward migration.

”Or we can opt for an arbitrary and unworkable quota – and deny our businesses the skills they need, damaging our competitiveness and threatening the future of British businesses. This is the practical choice people must make.”

Mr Brown’s comments, in a high-profile speech alongside Home Secretary Alan Johnson in London, come ahead of an election campaign in which immigration is expected to be a decisive issue, with the British National Party seeking to win its first seat in Parliament.

Labour argues that its Australian-style points system will control immigration by allowing non-EU nationals in only if they are highly skilled or can fill identified gaps in the UK labour market.

Conservatives are promising to slow down the rate of inward migration by imposing an annual cap. But Labour regards the idea of a ”pre-determined quota” as misleading, arguing that it will not apply to 80% of migrants, including EU nationals, family members and students.

Labour aides accused the Tories of ”stoking up people’s fears” over numbers while refusing to say what the quota would be under their system.

And they cited a recent report from the IPPR thinktank suggesting that an annual cap of 40,000 could ”threaten (Britain’s) economic performance and the rights of British nationals and settled migrants to be with their families”.

Mr Brown will highlight ongoing work to require newcomers to earn the right to stay in the UK and claim benefits; reforms to housing rules to allow councils to favour locals; and a new fund to help high-migration areas cope with the added pressure on public services, paid for by migrants.

And he will announce changes to the points system, which will see the top two occupations on the shortage list removed in a phased way as the immigration and skills systems are linked more closely.

Mr Brown will repeat his ambition to make Britain a ”fair society”, adding: ”When we talk of fairness it is right to talk of immigration and address people’s worries and concerns.”

”The question of who comes to Britain, and what they have to do to earn that privilege, is something that should be the subject of open and responsible debate.

”But how we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself.”

He will say that there is a consensus among mainstream parties that ”none of us agree with those who would bring down the shutters around Britain entirely; who think all immigration is a bad thing, or who want to use immigration to stoke community tensions”.

And he will add: ”I call on all those in the mainstream of our politics to stand together in the coming weeks and present a united front against those who don’t value the diverse and outward-looking Britain that we stand for; and who want to end immigration not because of the pressures it places on our communities but simply because they just don’t like migrants.”

The first day of Parliament’s brief Easter recess will see all three major party leaders involved in pre-election campaigning.

David Cameron will spell out his plans for mending what he terms ”broken Britain” in a speech to a Tory conference on ”Building the Big Society”.

And Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will visit Cornwall to rally support in his party’s key electoral stronghold in the South West.

Here’s the deal Government.  Give me a percentage of the Nation’s GDP and I might just see the economy as more important than my community.  Until then…

Stop dumping the turd world on MY doorstep.  You love diversity so much, have them nextdoor to you.





War | Variations Worldwide

18 03 2010

A declaration of war was made against Man, Family, Home and Nation’ status worldwide long ago, with the Masters of the Universe seeking to install an authority higher than God Almighty.  One that excludes the many and consists of the few, where Earth PLC’s Faceless stockholders can decide the fate of the world away from the prying eyes of us mere tenants.

Order out of Chaos (and Confusion)

Democracy has run its course, will be the message and a new form of Government Representation will take Her place.  One where the Leaders are selected and nurtured into the ways of enlightenment, prepared to rise above such petty things as family, nation, culture, even genocide.

Not a conspiracy theory but fact.  The destruction of close-knit communities, kinship, even the sanctity of family with the most sinister tactics has been deliberate.  Wars, laws and misery with no more effort than a pen stroke.

the battle for ‘our’ hearts and minds has involved oppression and persecution from the very people who swear to protect us and is by no means a conventional war.  So scared of the possible repercussions for opposing the Faceless, the Parliamentarians  settle for the ‘funded’ life assisting the Devil in His work.

The various explanations of tactics are from Wikipedia so are not exhaustive but I have edited it and given my own recent or current examples, so this wasn’t no simple cut and paste job.

Power behind the throne

The phrase power behind the throne refers to a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office.  In politics, it most commonly refers to a spouse, aide, or advisor of a political leader (often called a “figurehead”) who serves as de facto leader, setting policy through influence or manipulation.

Examples:  Most visible one to mention would be Lord Mandelson, the barely visible probably Nat Rothschild and the least visible, well, only the Devil knows that.

Shadow government

The term shadow government has two distinct uses with entirely different meanings. The first refers to a government-in-waiting composed of members of the opposition party in a parliamentary chamber such as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. In this example the Shadow Cabinet ‘opposes’ by means of dialectical debate and argument the government in power.

In its other use the phrase refers to what is sometimes called “the secret government” or “the invisible government” which postulates that contrary to popular belief, real and actual political power does not reside with publicly elected representatives (for example the United States Congress or the UK Cabinet) but with persons unknown to the general public who are exercising power behind the scenes.  In this sense the official elected government is in reality subservient to the shadow government who are the true executive power.

Examples:  The faceless and nameless Power-brokers of the International circuit.

Divide and rule

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

In modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “Divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule.

Typical elements of this technique are said to involve:

  • creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to forestall alliances that could challenge the sovereign.
  • aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
  • fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
  • encouraging frivolous expenditures that leave little money for political and military ends.

The use of this strategy was imputed to administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who were charged with playing one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of “Divide and Rule” gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also used to account for the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. It is said that the British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, or caste, taking control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Examples:  When the ‘working men and women’ got the vote, they had to be divided for the Establishment to maintain power.  Hence encouraging large political, cultural and religous differences and mass immigration.  And so long as Paul was paid enough, Peter could be robbed all day long.

Social conditioning

Social conditioning refers to the sociological phenomenological process of inheriting tradition and gradual cultural transmutation passed down through previous generations.  Manifestations of social conditioning are vast, but they are generally categorized as social patterns and social structures including education, entertainment, popular culture, and family life.  Social conditioning can be understood as representing the role of ‘Nurture’ in the Nature vs. Nurture debate, while the ‘Nature’ aspect is represented by the phenomena described by sociobiology.

Examples:  The entire education-media-political complex, controlling every aspect of our lives, be it through the threat of the law or the indirect prodding from the ‘in’ crowd.  If done right, the population will not even notice.  Climate Change State-sponsored guilt-trips.

Lawfare implications

Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare.  Lawfare is waged via the use of international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, with an objective of winning a public relations victory.

Lawfare is one of several alternative war-making concepts outlined in the 1999 Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare, which is principally concerned with the new variety of offensive actions available to an international actor that cannot confront another power militarily.

Origin of the term

Perhaps the first use of the term “lawfare” was in a manuscript, Whither Goeth the Law – Humanity or Barbarity. The authors there argue the Western legal system has become overly contentious and utilitarian as compared to the more humanitarian, norm-based Eastern system.  They opine the search for truth has been replaced by “lawfare” in the courts.

A more frequently cited use of the term was coined by Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. in a 2001 essay he authored for Harvard’s Carr Center.  In that essay, Dunlap defines lawfare as “the use of law as a weapon of war.”  He later expanded on the definition, explaining lawfare was “the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting” a superior military power.

Examples:  The UK Government’s EHRC persecution of the British National Party.  The EU meddling with the internal democratic affairs of Switzerland.  The implementation of Laws Against the Nations ‘tackling’ Climate Change, Holucasut Denial Laws to stiffle internal debate and even the secret family courts which attack the family.

A look at asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

“Asymmetric warfare” can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other’s characteristic weaknesses.  Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the “weaker” combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.  Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.  This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.

Examples:  The Race Relations Industry, blaming ‘percieved’ injustices due to discrimination, creating an atmosphere of fear and entitlement dependent on ‘group needs’.

The dreaded psych-ops

Modern psychological warfare operations

In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops used music, most commonly American heavy metal or rock music to confuse or scare insurgents.

However, most uses of the term psychological warfare refers to military methods, such as:

  • Distributing pamphlets, e.g. in the Gulf War, encouraging desertion or (in World War II) supplying instructions on how to surrender.
  • Propaganda radio stations, such as Lord Haw-Haw in World War II on the “Germany calling” station
  • Renaming cities and other places when captured, such as Ho Chi Minh City
  • Shock and awe military strategy
  • Projecting repetitive and annoying sounds and music for long periods at high volume towards groups under siege.
  • Use of loudspeaker systems to communicate with enemy soldiers.

Most of these techniques were developed during World War II or earlier, and have been used to some degree in every conflict since. Daniel Lerner was in the OSS (the predecessor to the US CIA) and in his book, attempts to analyze how effective the various strategies were.

He concludes that there is little evidence that any of them were dramatically successful, except perhaps surrender instructions over loudspeakers when victory was imminent. It should be noted, though, that measuring the success or failure of psychological warfare is very hard, as the conditions are very far from being a controlled experiment.

Lerner’s categories of psychological warfare

Lerner divides psychological warfare operations into three categories:

White [Omissions + Emphasis]

Truthful and not strongly biased, where the source of information is acknowledged.

Grey [Omissions + Emphasis + Racial/Ethnic/Religious Bias]

Largely truthful, containing no information that can be proven wrong; the source may or may not be hidden.

Black [Commissions of falsification]

Intended to deceive the enemy.

Examples:  The current game of political ping-pong between the World Powers over Iran.  The recent assassination that was allegedly carried out by MOSSAD, who will remain quiet even if it wasn’t them. In fact, any major geo-political event in the last hundred years.  And the biggest one of all, the never-ending ‘War on Terror’.

Like Tony Montana said, “..first you get the money, then you get the power..” And while all that economic power rests with the Corruptibles, those Bastards will continue unabated. Now all we need is a way to counter all that.  That though is for another day so will part with a wonderful question to ask ourselves from the mind of Aldous Huxley:

“How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man’s Final End?”






Celebration | World Consumer Rights Day

17 03 2010

The English language, so versatile and vague that the word ‘right‘ can be denoted as something bad or a notion of entitlement.  Example;  The right-wing EDL wish to deny the rights’ of Muslims.  Probably one of the main reasons I’m losing my compassion is the constant screaming for sympathy.  Especially when it comes to Mickey Mouse Fronts.

Consumerism is on its way to becoming a religion in its own right (pun could not be avoided).  Just like JC, us consumers, who by necessity consume, now have our own day, hurrah.  Well, actually, it has been around a lot longer but with so many of these ‘organisations’ floating in the stream of crap we call geo-politics, it is very difficult to keep track of them all.

What could a day for consumers possibly mean?  No VAT on any goods?  Every 100th customer gets a free ice-cream?  Maybe it is the day to gorge on junkfood, beer and cigs to get back at all those Nazi-fitness days…

World Consumer Rights Day

World Consumer Rights Day is an annual occasion for celebration and solidarity within the international consumer movement.

More importantly it is a time for promoting the basic rights of all consumers, for demanding that those rights are respected and protected, and for protesting the market abuses and social injustices which undermine them.

World Consumer Rights Day was first observed on 15 March 1983, and has since become an important occasion for mobilising citizen action.

Consumer organisations around the world use materials produced by Consumers International to generate local initiatives and media coverage for their work over the coming year.

Nothing about a VAT holiday, free ice-cream or gorging to our heart’s discontent.  To get a better understanding of what this group is actually campaigning for, I had a gander at their 2010 release.  All about needing more financial services.  More transactions mean more fees.  Wow.  Wonder who would back such an organisation.

Our Money, Our Rights

Consumers and financial services

The FS sector is lagging behind many other industries, both in terms of customer care and basic access. For example, there will soon be 1.7 billion people in the world with mobile phones but no bank account.

The UN reported in 2006 that risks in lending to the poor have been consistently overrated.  At its peak in 2007, the FS sector accounted for 14% of GDP in the US.  While accounting for 5% of private sector jobs, during this time FS was responsible for no less than 40% of total corporate profits (up from 6% in the 1980s3) and 23% of stock market value.  And with the furore over salaries and bonuses at the time of the financial crisis, many argue that the sector has badly under-served poor consumers while considerably over-serving its own senior executives.

While bank account coverage in Denmark for instance, is 99%, in most developing countries formal finance sectors provide access to only 20% of the population and actual usage is lower still. In India, 73% of 89 million farmer households have no access to formal sources of credit, and 82% of the rural dwellers do not have insurance. In Laos, 90% of the rural population do not have access to formal banking services.

CI carried out a survey of member activities during August and September 2009 in preparation for World Consumer Rights Day (WCRD) 2010. The results, summarised here, reveal a wide spectrum of experience, encompassing ‘traditional’ activities such as consumer education, comparative information and advice, as well as high level representation vis-à-vis regulators and service providers, legal actions and the development of new forums for service providers to face their customers.

The responses received from across all regions of the globe indicate that a majority of CI member organisations focus on private sector FS, mainly:

• retail banking (deposits and payments)

• consumer credit

• loans for house purchases

• insurance

Many CI members also work on public sector FS, such as pensions and social security, as well as third sector providers, such as mutuals and cooperatives. In addition there is a growing diversity of work by consumer organisations in this area, including:

• capital markets and investment in India and Spain

• pensions in The Netherlands

• informal money lending in both rich and poor countries in the UK and Fiji

• management of mutual savings banks in Spain

So lets see what happened on that joyous day.  State-owned Chinese Company takes swipe at US listed Computer Company “by bringing the faulty laptop-related issue to light at the World Consumer Rights Day (WCRD) show.”  The Consumer Protection and Action Committee in Ahmedabad “observing World Consumer Rights Day CPAC is hosting a demonstration and exhibition at Apna Bazar near Lal Darwaza promoting awareness and practice of consumer rights.”  Great, one failed show and a demo.  Not much of a day out then.

Even our own deloved Gormless Brown threw his ten-pence in with “We want not only to empower and protect you as consumers, but also to make banks and credit card companies behave responsibly and act fairly.”  Cannot help but cry whenever this man speaks cos you just know he will jinx it.  I wouldn’t trust him with my VAT returns, fetching the ice-cream or enjoy a nice relaxing gorgefest consisting of junkfood, beer and cigs.

Only reason Gordon Shit would screw the banks is  due to the fact it’s election time.  After that, this can be put in the draw with that EU referendum.

I always did prefer Easter.  At least we get a long weekend.