Tag Archive: Andrew Gilligan

The mind-control continues

Autonomous Mind posts on an article by Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph. Who is Andrew Gilligan, I hear you ask. Come, come, you know Gilligan; the one who believes he is an investigative journalist.

As AM points out in his article, this one by Gilligan is but another attempt to implant in the British mind that leaving the European Union would leave us isolated and rudderless. I pointed out in an earlier post that where ‘matters EU’ are concerned, the Lib/Lab/Con rarely talk about that and that when they do it is invariably pro-EU, misleading or incorrect. AM picks up on this when he writes that truth is not an ally of Europhiles, but something to be concealed from the populace; that instead of matters of substance on the subject of EU membership what we receive are narratives of superfluous nonsense – and it is not just the Lib/LabCon that indulge in these practices – Ukip are just as guilty.

At the end of his post AM poses two questions that he believes should be posed to every europhile in the country, a suggestion which, needless to say, I second:

  • Why does it require the surrender of control of our country, identity, money and self determination to an unelected and unaccountable power overseas to realise any supposed benefits?
  • Why can’t benefits be achieved through cooperation and agreements, without rule from Brussels?

In addition to those two questions for politicians, there is perhaps one that can be asked of the public:

  • Who, but a nation of idiots would continually fund a venal, unprincipled and dishonourable group to lie to them when the people of that nation are perfectly capable of doing that to/among themselves – and also save themselves £millions?

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Elected Police Commissioners

In The Localist Papers – which were a forerunner to “The Plan” – a series of papers authored by Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell (who also authored “The Plan”) and published by the Centre of Policy Studies was one entitled: “Send for the Sheriff”, in which in the Summary the following was called for:

  • International treaties should come before Parliament for annual re-adoption, lapsing if they fail to secure a majority
  • Senior judges should be appointed following open parliamentary hearings
  • The deployment of police resources, the prioritisation of offences ad the control of budgets should be the responsibility of Sheriffs, elected on a county or city basis.
  • Sheriffs should also take over the functions of the Crown Prosecution Service, acquiring the right to set local sentencing guidelines (although not to interfere in individual cases).
  • Parliamentary supremacy over foreign law codes and domestic courts should be guaranteed in a Reserve Powers Act.

In the Conservative Party manifesto for 2010, it stated (page 57):

“We will replace the existing, invisible and unaccountable police authorities and make the police accountable to a directly-elected individual who will set policing priorities for local communities. They will be responsible for setting the budget and the strategy for local police forces, with the police retaining their
operational independence.”

In the coalition programme for government it is stated (page 13):

“We will replace the existing, invisible and unaccountable police authorities and make the police accountable to a directly-elected individual who will set policing priorities for local communities. They will be responsible for setting the budget and the strategy for local police forces, with the police retaining their
operational independence.”

The idea of an elected sheriff who would have control of all matters police and sentencing was ‘sold’ to the electorate as replicating the situation that existed in the USA (Sheriff Apaio of Arizona) – it may have been unsaid, but it was ‘suggested’ by the Conservative Party and condoned by the Coalition Agreement. Consequently the current terms under which we are being asked to elect Police Commissioners is nothing like that we were led to believe – but then when have politicians not misled us with their manifestos and ‘election talk’?

Let us then turn to an article in the Sunday Telegraph by Andrew Gilligan who ‘homes in’ on the candidacy of Mervyn Barrett for Police Commissioner. Assuming that Gilligan’s facts are correct – and why should they not be – one has to question the situation whereby foreign backing should be allowed a candidate when it is obvious said backing is being provided with a view to obtaining financial gain. Where was such a situation mentioned in either manifesto?

Should it not be the case that any funding to promote a candidate seeking office – an office which will be funded from taxpayers money – said candidateshould raise the required funds from within the locality in which he/she seeks office and donations only be accepted from those proving that they live in that area?

What is obvious here is yet another example of politicians hinting that we may well get one thing, while having every intention of delivering something totally different – while at the same time retaining that element of central control. For example, I have yet to see anyone explain how ACPO will fit into this new ‘regime’ that the politicians are desperate to have accepted and implemented.

This element of ‘outside interference’ has been kept very, very quite. There is a petition in existence to stop the election of Police Commissioners – although it has to be said it is a tad late to have much effect on the elections which are due next month. However, were sufficient signatures obtained, we could then see the farcical situation whereby Parliament is forced to hold a debate on the ‘legality’ of having elected Police Commissioners after they have been elected. The fact that Parliament will decide the issue can only be doublely ironic – but again, where the question of democracy is concerned, I digress.

Yet again this entire subject illustrates an example wherein the Harrogate Agenda has a solution. Why should judges be approved by a parliamentary committee? What the hell has it to do with central government? Why cannot they stand for election within the area in which they wish to ‘sit’? As law and order would be that decided by that ‘area’, judges would have the option of delivering sentencing acceptable to those that have decided the parameters of law and order; and decided by those that will be paying those judges. The alternative said judges would face would be  deselection  – once again, a  choice that has to be made by someone standing for public office. As always when it comes to democracy – and local democracy – whats not to like?

Discuss.

Addendum: With thanks to Ian Parker-Joseph for pointing me to the Gilligan article.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

But politics, per se, is a fraud

Graeme Archer, Daily Telegraph, writes posing the question since when did Britain become a country that tolerates voting fraud. This article is no doubt prompted by a series that Andrew Gilligan (here and here) has been running about what appears to be a highly organised, illegal, activity in Tower Hamlets.

This is not a new phenomenon – remember, only two days before the last general election the Mail was alleging potential voter fraud in Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green, Bradford, Calderdale, Derby and Surrey. So what has been happening to those police investigations? What have the Electoral Commission been doing for the last two years? Only now do we find that, as reported in the Evening Standard, the Electoral Commission have written to the police following their receiving a letter signed by 6 Labour councillors. If the Electoral Commission are aware of instances where postal votes have been cast by people who no longer live within a ward or constituency, why is it only now that they have decided to write to the police?

The manipulation of the postal voting system is but only one aspect of fraud when considering our political system.  Yesterday I posted on the fact that at the last general election every Conservative candidate committed a form of fraud by campaigning on a manifesto which contained a promise that their party knew full well could not be achieved. Even our politicians are frauds; witness Jeff Randall’s article from 2005 to which Richard North links today in a post which refers to another ‘Cameron Big-up’ article by Charles Moore in his usual op-ed Saturday Daily Telegraph slot. If even a van load of Viagra would fail to make a politician thrilling; if a politician has the mien of a middle manager, promoted beyond his pay grade; if a politician has something faintly louche about him to the extent that an observer feels he could not trust said politician with his daughter’s pocket money, then what the hell are they doing in positions where their power knows little limit?

Another fraud perpetrated on the British electorate are political manifestos, documents full of statements – all of which are ‘loosely’ worded – some of which may or may not be actioned and which bear hardly any relation to that which an incoming government does. In fact a quotation, reportedly by Michael Heseltine, shows how a politician views party manifestos:

“I keep telling my Tory colleagues: don’t have any policies. A manifesto that has policies alienates people. In 1979 the manifesto said nothing which was brilliant.”

Can it not be considered fraudulent of the Cabinet Office to refuse to disclose details of how many hours Sir Alex Allan, Cameron’s anti-sleaze advisor, works or what he had been doing since his appointment – especially when his salary is paid from public funds? Where the governance of this country is concerned, is it not fraudulent for someone in a non-job, one that no longer holds any degree of dignity, the point of that job which is not clear, to accuse another of exactly the same?

Is it not a fraud when politicians promote a form of democracy known as representative democracy when that system is anything but, resulting in no more than an elective dictatorship? Is it not a fraud when a government – one not elected but contrived by politicians for the exercise of personal power – produces a programme for government in which, for example, it promises the electorate recall of their MP but ‘conditions’ that promise by insisting that the final decision rests with their own political class? Is it not a fraud whereby politicians use the title Rt. Honourable and Honourable when that title, which encompasses the need for principles and a sense of morality, is abused as a result of those using it having no principles, nor morality?

Our politicians continually advise us that change is required, that we cannot continue as we are – and boy, are they right. They do, however, have a large problem looming on their horizon in that the change that will hopefully be forthcoming is one that they most certainly are not going to like – and it couldn’t happen to a nicer (not) group of people!

 Afterthought: Is it also not a fraud for people to present themselves as politicians when they are but college kids?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012