"After the Next Election..."

I predict will become the most over-used phrase of Labour's election campaign.

Always with the promise of Jam tomorrow, all you have to do is put a tick in their box at election time.

But we know already, that Labour are the party of broken promises, having already gone to court to prove that election manifestos don't need to be ahered to.

So why would anyone vote for a party that have have proved, legally that its ok to lie in order to get elected?

Why would you vote for a party that promises lots of new and wonderful things if they are able, quite legitimately to withdraw those promises once they get in?

You might like to vote for one of the other parties, but to be honest, if the legal precedent applies to Labour, it applies to them equally.

Instead, vote a local independant MP. At the very least, they will vote as their concience dictates. You can also talk to them and maybe influence their decision-making. Certainly they'll not be voting as dictated by half a dozen elite people and a perty whipping system.

Just another thing, what is it with all the tears in the Labour party. Suddenly they've gone all soft or something. Is this a viable election strategy, to get us to vote for them because we pity them? NEVER make decisions based on pity.

Somethings Stirring....

Over at EUReferendum.

Looks like more holes in the IPCC's last report. Its got to look like swiss cheese by now surely?

Certainly the huge questions regarding the stewardship of the IPPC with so many flaws and unfounded claims in their reports must now be answered and action taken.

O . M . G . . . . .

A passenger in a car has been jailed for dangerous driving.....

WTF?

"At an earlier hearing, Nichols, the owner of a packing firm BM Partnership Ltd of Ely, Cambridgeshire, was found guilty of two counts of causing death by dangerous driving because he had failed to tell his fellow company director and partner to slow down."

Hang on a minute: just because he knew she was drunk, let her drive and didn't tell her to slow down, that somehow makes him responsible for the actions of his driver?

Some people might applaud this, but to me, its a step too far. Guilt by association is wrong. He was not driving the car, therefore he can not be guilty of dangerous driving. End of. Had he snatched the wheel of the car and caused the accident, then he holds the responsibility.

I'm sure the families of the bereaved will see it differently, but he didn't hold a gun to her head. Yes he handed the driver the keys, but she could have refused. She agreed to drive knowing full well that should anything happen she would be responsible.

I'm sorry, but to me this is just courts pandering to emotion and public opinion and has nothing at all to do with justice or the enforcement of personal responsibility. This is the law of the playground: "He made me do it, so he's guilty as well..." I would hope that by adulthood we all would accept our responsibilities, but it appears not. So now it seems the law is using "You're all staying behind for detention" as a valid deterrent. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, on so many levels. It seems the Nanny State is here with a vengance.

UPDATE:

Having thought about this a bit more, I just wonder where this new responsibility we've all been handed ends? Is the publican responsible for selling them drinks and/or letting them get into their car? Does it extend to the rest of the patrons in the bar, who saw that they were too drunk to be in charge of a car and did nothing to stop them or alert the Police?

Will therefore landlords be forced to request driver's car keys unpon entry to the bar and only return them upon a negative breathalyser test? Will it now bcome the norm that we can all be prosecuted for any offence if we fail to notify the Police of the crime in progress?

More on Big Pharma and the Nicotine Supply War.

Remember not long ago I had a rant about big pharma corporations? Dick Puddlecote has more details here.

How Policing Has Changed...

I came across this video on YouTube of a demo in 1979 demanding Citizens band Radio in the UK.

Ignore the 70s clothes and haircuts and look at the Policing style. Remember, the people on the demo were at the time most probably engaged in an illegal activity (using illegal imported AM CB Radios) and are seen here on a demo actively promoting that this illegal activity be legalised.

What do you think would happen these days? Dawn raids on those illegal radio users? Something to be stamped out before it got started? Online profiling and surrepticious infiltration of the demonstrators by plain clothes Police? Intrusive recording of the demonstration? Huge databases of names, addresses, vehicle number plates? Police tooled up in anti-stab vests, crash helmets and riot shields? Aggressive Police tactics?

Look at the video. Look at how our Police have changed from being part of the community with respect for the public and in return being respected.

Look at the video. Look how much we have lost.