Monthly Archives: September 2012

Redwood is generally considered to be hard or thick

Redwood as a form of wood is generally considered to be hard thick, consequently it is often used for flooring.

It would seem that we have politicans of the same density as their timber cousins if this post is any yardstick.

From this post:

“Then they came for the elected governments. The Irish, Portuguese, UK, Spanish and Greek governments all were dismissed.”

As I commented on his blog (awaiting moderation):

“…Really? Last time I looked we still had your leader at the head of a government comprised of the crud from your party and that of the Liberal Democrats……”


Afterthought (by way of explanation): Crud: a deposit of unwanted impurities – Concise Oxford Dictionary.

Just saying………

A request (2)

Following the preceding post I have decided to email my Member of Parliament with a view to resolving exactly what or what not was said.

In view of the importance of the omitted words – which in themselves constitute not only a commitment by David Cameron but a definitive statement of future policy – clarification is most necessary.

For the avoidance of doubt readers may wish to refer to Article 50 of The Treaty on European Union (TEU) because by using Article 50 it would mean that David Cameron is stating that he would be seeking the cessation of the UK’s membership of the European Union and would be negotiating a new agreement.

With the aim of complying with my wish for political transparency please find below copies of my email to David Cameron (which has been sent to his PA in Parliament and to his local constituency association with a request that they confirm that my email has been passed to him) and the FOI request submitted to the BBC.


“Dear Mr. Cameron,

When you were interviewed by James Landale, BBC, in Rio  – BBC report: a friend of mine and his wife are adamant that,when pressed by Landale, you were heard to say: “that in the next parliament we would use Article 50 to renegotiate a new relationship with the EU”. On BBC iplayer that passage was omitted and the entire 6 O’Clock News broadcast is now no longer available. On Radio 4’s news – – 5 minutes in, there is a break in the interview in which Landale uses the word ‘opt-out’ and it is just before that ‘intermission’ that the alleged words were uttered.

I would be grateful for your confirmation that the words alleged were said and, if possible, for you to provide a transcript of the interview. As you will understand it is vitally important that this matter of what, or what was not, said is clarified. If you did indeed say the words alleged then this is a commitment on your part and would, under the terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, mean that it would be your intention to formally notify the EU of the wish of the United Kingdom to leave and negotiate a new agreement.

In view of the seriousness of the words omitted in respect of the method by which you will seek to ‘renegotiate powers’ it is important that everyone should be aware of who made the editorial decision to omit the alleged words – and why. To this end I have also submitted an FOI request to the BBC seeking that information.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

David Phipps”



I wish to make a Freedom of Information request in respect of the BBC1 and Radio 4 editions of the 6 O’Clock News broadcast on 28th September 2012

During the interview – as originally broadcast – by James Landale in Rio with David Cameron, when pressed by James Landale David Cameron said: “that in the next parliament we would use Article 50 to renegotiate a new relationship with the EU”. Those words were omitted from the clip contained in the following BBC article: – likewise not only in the edition that was available on iplayer but is no longer – – but also in the Radio 4 news: – and in view of the importance of those words when considering David Cameron’s planned policy of seeking repatriation of power it becomes a commitment, because if using Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty it would mean that he intended to seek cessation of the UK’s membership of the European Union and then negotiate a new form of membership – and bearing in mind David Cameron has never previously said that was his policy, those words are very very important and must be considered newsworthy.

In view of the foregoing, I would like to know:

  1. Who made the editorial decision to omit the words in question;
  2. On what basis;
  3. Was the omission made at the request of a third party – specifically, someone employed in 10 Downing Street, David Cameron or someone acting on his behalf;

I look forward to your response within the statutory 20 days.

Yours sincerely,

David Phipps
(Address & Tel Nbr redacted)”

Needless to say readers will be kept informed of any responses that may be received.

A request

Yesterday evening on the BBC 6 ‘Clock News David Cameron was interviewed by James Landale from which the clip in this item was taken.

In a telephone conversation with a friend of mine (who can ‘out’ himself in the comments if he so wishes) about an unrelated matter, the conversation eventually got round to matters EU

In that conversation I was informed that Cameron, when ‘pushed’ by Landale stated that as part of his “renegotiation” of our terms of membership with the EU that in the next Parliament he would use Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

I watched on iplayer the 6 O’Clock news (which surprise, surprise contained no mention of this snippet) and on returning to check a few minutes ago found that it was no longer available.

This can only mean that a bit of editing has been done which begs the question at the request of whom? One can only presume that someone in No10 had a ‘hissy fit’ at such a commitment and made a few phone calls – which can only lead to the assumption that censorship has been practiced for the benefit of political gain.

As to the heading of this post: I don’t suppose anyone recorded the 6 O’Clock news last night and can make a copy of that available? It might be worth checking the 10 O’Clock News too if anyone recorded that.

Just asking……….

Manifestum – Opiate vox populi

Dictator: 1. a ruler with (often usurped) unrestricted authority; 2. person with supreme authority in any sphere; 3. a domineering person

Concise Oxford Dictionary

Manifesto: A manifesto is a written public declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government. It often is political in nature, but may present an individual’s life stance. Manifesto is derived from the Italian word manifesto, itself derived from the Latin manifestum, meaning clear or conspicuous.


James Forsyth, another media-parrot of our political class who writes for the Spectator and the Mail on Sunday, states:

“The next election is going to be about which leader can show the country that they can change things.”

There, in one sentence, we have illustrated why our system of democracy is rotten to the core – and as a result, shot to hell. If politicians were so damn good at their jobs, aka looking after us – something they would have us believe – why would it then become necessary to regularly change things?

If politicians did not intend to act in the manner of a dictator, why is their party manifesto so loosely written to the point of being anything but clear? If politicians did not intend to act in the manner of a dictator, why do they propagate a system wherein for a, now fixed, 5-year period they can enact any law they so wish; and why do they make it virtually impossible, during that 5-year period, for the electorate to “rein in” what is at times their excessive behaviour? If politicians did not intend to act in the manner of a dictator, why do they attempt to affect change, said change being based partially or entirely on their “life stance”?

If politicians did not intend to act in the manner of a dictator, why do they not offer the people the Harrogate Agenda?

Icelandic political logic

Public Service Europe reports on Iceland’s continuing economic “rebound” and that country’s progress in their accession talks about EU membership. For the purposes of this post we can set aside the question of whether or not the UK and the Netherlands, either together or individually, decide to veto the application if they don’t receive their respective ‘pieces of silver’.

What strikes me is the political mindset which allows a process to continue that involves joining a currency which is failing and will probably have failed by 2013/2014 if all the prognosis is correct, coupled with the important fact that the Icelandic people are so set against EU membership. As an aside, would that we in the UK had such a lead in our opinion polls that the Lilley requirement might, I repeat might, be of no consequence.

While we in this country complain about the fact that our political class act in the manner of dictators – disregarding the views of their people – it would seem that we are not alone.



Not one of these three MPs “get it”

Quite by chance we have three unrelated articles appearing in three different newspapers today all of which deal with an aspect of democracy.

Gloria de Piero, Labour MP for Ashfield and shadow crime minister, has started a campaign to, as she puts it, get to the bottom of the democratic rot in politics.

Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and Labour’s policy director, writing ahead of his party’s conference states that the Opposition would consider “in depth”, as the party drafts its next manifesto, whether the public should be given a vote on our membership of the European Union.

From the opposite side of the political spectrum, Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP for Clacton, in an article promoting his latest book writes that the West’s political and social model is in crisis – but emerging internet technology will make it possible to survive without big government.

It is necessary for readers to visit each link in order to answer the question; what is missing from each article?

There is no need for de Piero to waste time and money travelling the United Kingdom to find the democratic rot in politics – she could do so on foot, walking round the Palace of Westminster. Cruddas acknowledges “fault lines” within the Labour leadership, yet cannot acknowledge obvious “fault lines” within our system of representative democracy. Carswell maintains that in ages gone by government was kept small as those with “karatos” (power) were answerable to the demos (people) and in so doing fails to acknowledge that never have the demos had total control of the kratos – never.

And the missing “what”? Not one of the three can bring themselves to admit that it is not Parliament that is “sovereign”; it is not MPs that are “sovereign” – it is the people that are “sovereign”.

Until such time as MPs do acknowledge that the present system of democracy, both national and local, in this country is rotten to the core, then my personal opinion is that they should adopt the practice which is usually the result of a religious vow and usually taken in a monastic context.

Musical interlude

It has been a while since I posted one of these – and for those to whom it is of no interest: click away now.

One aspect that makes a song appeal to me is the use of different rhythmns combining to form the whole, harmony and use of various instruments which enhance the overall effect. Such is the case in this first offering:

The second is one that I may have posted before, in which case my apologies for repetition. However, while we all no doubt have favourite love songs, this next stands out for me because of the gift of being able to present to the woman you love an offering which is all your own endeavour and truly comes from the heart.



Who is the bigger fool?

Brendan O’Neill, writing on the Daily Telegraph blog, posts about the sentence handed down to Michael Coleman of the BNP for the use of the word “Darkies” on his blog. For this Coleman was found guilty of racially aggravated harassment and given 240 hours’ community service and a suspended eight-month prison sentence.

Coeman was accused by the Stoke-on-Trent councillor who made the complaint of writing something “offensive” – but what is offensive to one person does not necesssarily mean it is offensive to another. What is “offensive”? I find some of the ‘descriptive’ language used on Twitter offensive, especially when female body parts are used as nouns, but I do not complain; rather taking the position that I find their lack of vocabulary a tad ‘sad’.

It is odd that “pom”, as used by Australians to describe the British and “Aussie”, as used by the British to describe Australians, is not considered “offensive”; neither is the word “honky” or “whitey”, used by some immigrants to describe British people – yet the use of the word “darkie” is. If depreciation of someone by referring to their colour is offensive, then should not action be taken for the use of “whitey” -after all white is just as much a ‘colour’ as black.

This type of ‘instruction’ – about words that we can or cannot use – is part of the groomingthat is taking place in our society, something that is being carried out by the political class and their lobbyists. Neither is it confined to the use of language as there is little in our thoughts and actions that is not now controlled, or attempts are made to control.

So who is the bigger fool: the Stoke-on-Trent councillor – or we who bow our heads and silently acquiesce?

There they go again

Politics Home advises us that a national forum to combat the ‘grooming’ of underage children is to launch after the revelation hundreds of children were abused by a gang of men in Rochdale.

So how about a national forum to combat the ‘grooming’ of the electorate by our political class for their own perverted ends?

Once again it seems to be a case of one rule for them and one rule for us.


Afterthought: And before vilification pours in on my question and comment, allow me to point out that the second is just as despicable as the first.



AK Haart questions whether democracy was wasted on us, illustrated with a superb cartoon, in the course of which he points out:

“For example, why would anyone but a lunatic vote for Dave, Nick or Ed? ……… We voted for them and will do so again and again and again until it doesn’t matter any longer. Waste, incompetence, routine lying, bungling, expenses thieving and an endless litany of failures make hardly any discernible difference.”

Mark Wadsworth – and if you want cool analytical de-bunking, especially of political lies crap, then he is most definitely ‘the man’ – rips apart a statement by Nick Clegg about welfare spending, summarising:

” The whole thing is meaningless guff and the closer you look at it, the more meaningless it becomes.”

If we are talking about ‘meaningless guff’ and it becoming more meaningless, then the latest offering from Ed Miliband must be in contention:

“I have a real sense of the pain lots of people are feeling and the struggle in their lives……I went to my local comprehensive and that was an incredibly good education for me, not just about how to pass exams, but about life.”

Even more ‘meaningless guff’ comes in an ‘interview’ published by the Guardian, in which Ed Balls assures us that:

“The public want to know that we are going to be ruthless and disciplined in how we go about public spending.”

So why do we vote for Dave, Nick and Ed? Why do we accept incompetence, routine lying, bungling, expenses thieving and an endless litany of failures? Why do we accept, unquestioning,  all the political crap that is regurgitated by our media? Just how does Miliband ‘sense’ the pain we suffer – and forgive me asking, but just who was party to creating an education system wherein the means to pass an exam appeared to be the core aim? Why should we accept an assurance of ruthlessness and discipline where public spending is concerned from someone who was party to financial-mismanagement during his mentor’s terms in office? Why do we allow politicians to control our economic pursuits which means they then control everything? Would not negating that ability deprive  governments of not only damaging our economy and subjecting us to restrictions of our freedom, but also deprive government of one of its chief causes of expansion?

One of the criticisms of representative democracy is that the more power an elected assembly acquires by way of inflicting taxation on one group to benefit another, the more it lays itself open to opportunity for lobbying. Such lobbying groups support and promote those politicians and parties that promise them benefits; and by promising enough such groups political parties secure a majority for government. That process is, as FA Hayek stated, legalised corruption. So why do we accept this?

If the public have been so ‘conditioned’ by our political class to the extent that they appear not to have even one brain cell left between them with which to reason, then those of Harrogate do indeed have mountains to climb.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012