Saturday, 11 September 2010


Over the past decade, I've noticed people try and have a go at grasping the essence of "Britishness". You know, that thing that Socialist, Communists and everyone else that wants a piece of UK PLC hates. The fact that those in charge and those that want to be in charge hate Britishness so much is the reason the country is in the fucked-up paranoid state its in at the moment. Those at the top have an identity crisis because the identity the majority of us want to project, the image that gets tourists flocking here and gets us respect around the world, is the very thing they want to snuff out and replace with their own regime.

Many would argue that iconic Britishness is stuff like cricket, pubs, quirky practices passed on from history.

But I'd argue that Britishness isn't about the visuals, its about ideology.

Its about fair play, respect, democracy and yes, sticking the boot in to teach people a lesson when we're threatened.

So, if fair play and democracy are quintissentially British, why are we in the corrupt, undemocratic European super-state?

The same question can be asked of Sharia Law: Why in some cases is it being allowed to supercede Bristish laws and conventions, to the detriment of (especially female) British citizens?

Why have we recinded age-old acts of Parliament, in favour of new rules from the EU?

Why have we swapped our age-old legal system with all its enshrined protections like "innocent until PROVEN guilty" for a flawed, unfair one?

Why haven't we, as a nation put the boot in and stopped this subsumation of Britishness by foreign ideology?

It really is time the wholesale destruction of all things British was halted. Lets be honest, I've long since argued that things can't be preserved in aspic and progress will always happen. But why replace something that has worked for centuries with something worse?

Its about time we stopped apologising for being British, stopped the Bristish-haters in their tracks and started to reverse the aparrent slide into a Muslim/Marxist super-state.

It makes you wonder why people want to destroy everything that stands for Britishness. Is it because they know, in the end its a far fairer, far better way of life than the one they have?

Our mottos should be: "We are British, we stand for freedom from tyranny, we stand proud, and we'll kick the living daylights out of anyone that denys us our Britishness".

Sunday, 5 September 2010

21st Century Policing

Just to remind ourselves, this is the 21st century. Not the 19th, nor the 20th. This is a new millenium, only 10 years old, bright things were spoken of it at its coming: new politics, new socialism, new aspirations.

The fact of the matter is a good deal less.

This 10th year of the new millenium has shown us that policing has slipped so far from its founding priciples that Robert Peel would be mortified.

So far this year, two Policemen have been let off assaulting citizens at last years G20 protests. In both cases ordinary citizens would have been convicted of assault: in the case of Ian Tomlinson, an ordinary citizen would have been facing at least a manslaughter charge.

Many of us have borne witness to the disconnect between the Police and the ordinary citizen, something Peel tried his utmost to prevent. Police now regularly patrol in para-military uniform whereas Peel developed uniforms designed not to stand out , they are equipped with military technology, whereas Peel kept his men in touch with ordinary citizens. Its quite clear today's Police Officers are not the citizen police of Peel's time. Instead they swagger about our towns and cities with an arrogance borne of the fact that they really have to go overboard to risk prosecution.

Don't even get me started on the ill-trained and arrogant PCSOs that clutter up our towns, attempting to promote their superiority over mere ordinary citizens that a high-visibility jacket and cap aparrently assures you of these days. Everyone knows someone that has been the subject of of petty vindictiveness like this one.

Those of the underclass have suffered under this para-military regime for decades, but now the rose-tinted veneer of British policing is wearing thin for the middle-cleass as well. This report and its associated video on the BBCs website shows the true state of policing today.

The Police today is as far removed from Peel's principles as it could possibly be. It dabbles and interferes in politics and law-making, when the laws should be made by the representatives of ordinary citizens and enforced by the Police on their behalf. Not the cosy stitch-up we have now where the Police request new laws without public consent and MPs enact them on the Police's behalf.

Not that its easy to see who is steering Police strategy: Thats controlled by ACPO, a public limited company with no public accountability, who "advises" on Police strategy. Again, as far from Peelian principles as you can possibly get.

Now we have the New York Times article alleging collusion between a private media organisation, the government and the Police. Just how impartial are our Police force? Just how far have they moved from the citizen police that Robert Peel envisioned. A Police force that weren't even allowed to eat with the public lest they be accused of corruption.

Just how far does this have to go before the public rebel?

New York Times Article: How deep could this go?

Its all around the blogosphere about this New York Times article, alleging that there was a wider scandal at the News of the World that was investigated by the met Police.

It alleges collusion between the Met and News International in order to suppress a wider investigation and brings the role of Andy Coulson, editor of the News of the World at the time and now chief spin doctor for the Tories into sharp focus.

The British media are reluctant to push the matter further at present and you have to ask why.

The answers aren't very far away.

IF News International have influence in the British government, then the media would be unlikely to proceed, knowing that there could be serious repercussions.

The NYT article already hints and speculates on NIs relationship with the government and the recent attacks on the BBC.

So, you have to ask yourself, is the alleged cosy stitch-up between News International, the Government and the Police healthy for the country?

I've said it so many times in the past: we cannot continue with the current status-quo in politics. We NEED to start voting in totally independent MPs. Currently with the dominance of the political parties, an organisation only has to influence a handful of people in the ruling party in order to influence our political system.

If we voted in 646 independent candidates, that same organisation would have to influence 646 different people, a far harder task.

Those of us in the blogosphere that are independent of any political aspirations and allegiances need to start promoting that message and influencing the public. Its in the national interest and failure to do so would be a crime against our country.

And yes, hopefully I'm back. Not counting my chickens as nothing is firm or long-term at the moment.