Tag Archive: David Cameron

A guantlet thrown down (2)

The first post in this series has resulted in WfW being subjected to a number of DOS attacks directed at that article, so it may be time to ‘up the ante’ as it were by repeating the charge levied against Nick Clegg and this time directing it at David Cameron.

The Conservative Party has just issued a video for the forthcoming European elections:

Cameron did not veto any treaty as there was no treaty on the table to veto; Britain still contributes to euro bailouts through its membership of the IMF; and Cameron did not cut the EU budget as Britain ended up contributing more.

The video states that Cameron will bring back powers from the EU by: taking back control of justice and home affairs; yet he is in the process of agreeing to cede some of them; by taking control of our borders intimating that Britain will control who enters our country, yet knows he cannot stem immigration from  any of the other 27 member states of the EU; securing more trade intimating the setting up of trade deals, yet the negotiation of trade deals is an EU competence; giving the people a yes/no referendum by 2017 following a renegotiation of Britain’s membership terms, yet the only way he can do this would be by invoking Article 50 of the TEU – something he has not mentioned.

Based on the claims he makes in this video  not forgetting his infamous claim that Norway is governed by fax, it is necessary to state that David Cameron is a liar and a charlatan – and pointing out that he has the same opportunity as that offered to Clegg.


Witney: Another example of ‘dictatorial democracy’?

This story was the lead page of Wednesday’s edition of the Witney Gazette, one that filled the front page – and raises a number of what may be considered worrying questions.

We find Duncan Enright stating that as councillors they are elected to represent and that the proposed draft policy is outrageous.

We find the Witney Gazette stating in their Editorial that the proposed draft policy is an affront to democracy.

We find David Cameron being quoted as stating: Witney Town Council, as is the case with all public bodies, needs to ensure that its business is conducted in an open and transparent way as possible.

 What is outrageous is:

1. Duncan Enright, along with every other councillor quoted, makes not one mention of those he and they are elected to represent – and therefore not raising the point about ascertaining what they may think or want.

2. The Witney Gazette pontificating about democracy when it so obviously has not one iota of understanding about the total lack of that about which it writes. There is also the point that had they bothered to read the press statement issued by Witney Town Council they should have immediately, themselves, queried Sharon Goth’s statement attributed to her and not just relied on one from NALC’s spokesperson Kate Groves.

3. The head of the largest public body in the land calling for business to be conducted in an open and transparent way as possible when he does anything but – exemplified by his (a): avoiding the real reason for HS2 and (b): obfuscation over this country’s membership of the European Union.

To each of the above the accusation of Pot/Kettle can be levied.

One group to whom the aforementioned accusation cannot be levied is the Witney public, who like the British public, have allowed themselves to become conditioned to accepting a form of democracy that equals democratised dictatorship – resulting in their serfdom.








Out of the mouths of idiots

David Cameron, this afternoon, in Brussels:

We know from our history that turning a blind eye when nations are trampled over and their independence trashed stores up far greater problems in the long run.

Fear ye not, Mr. Cameron; the pigeons are coming home to roost!




Planet Cameron

Richard North writes about Planet Cameron and the, in his words, inability of politicians to come to terms with the fatuity of Cameron’s EU renegotiation/reform fantasy, It is therefore pertinent that I reproduce the content of an email that I have just received from David Cameron, one headed: Europe – have your say.


Make sure you have your say by registering for a postal vote on the About My Vote website.

Since becoming Prime Minister, I’ve taken action to stand up for Britain: 

  • Securing a cut in the EU budget to save British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds
  • Vetoing a new EU treaty that would have given more power to Brussels and would have been bad for British businesses and taxpayers
  • Refusing to spend British taxes bailing out the euro 

But I believe the EU needs fundamental change so it works for Britain.

I will negotiate a better deal for Britain – and when I’ve finished, I’ll give the British people a say on whether we should remain in the EU with an in-out referendum before the end of 2017.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats oppose this plan and want to deny the British people a say – while UKIP simply can’t deliver.

Only the Conservatives can deliver real change in Europe, and this election is a hugely important step to securing it.

So make sure you have your say by registering for a postal vote today.

Even if you decide to vote in person, you can still take your postal vote to your polling station and put it in the ballot box.

Best wishes,

David Cameron signature


David Cameron

Readers will note that besides continuing his meme of having renegotiated the UK’s terms of EU membership and put it to a referendum by the end of 2017, his email above contains three blatant untruths – there was no cut in the EU budget; there was no treaty to veto; and we are still liable, through the IMF, for funds to bail out the euro.

But hey, when was truth a prerequisite when one is desperately trying to cling on to the reins of power?



The non-event of the year (so far)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel Visits The UK

Well, the much heralded visit of Angela Merkel has come and gone – and one can only presume that journalists and the political pundits are extremely busy this evening wiping egg off their faces. We have been informed by some that she would be throwing open the door for Cameron to have his ‘renegotiation’, while others informed us that she would be slamming that door firmly shut – in the event she did neither, informing us very early on in her speech that both would be disappointed.

What we had, in effect, was what may be termed a typical ‘EU fudge’ speech, one talking about the need for a more competitive EU; that any reform would follow the normal step-by-step method (aka mission-creep); and more importantly that the four freedoms were not, per se, up for renegotiation.

On that point about the four freedoms, it was interesting to note that, practicing what is now the norm, statistics were issued today, under cover of the Merkel visit, detailing the levels of immigration.

Official statistics showed net immigration to the UK was 212,000 in the year to September, up 58,000, which is a long, long, long way from the “tens of thousands” promised in the Conservative Party manifesto – and subsequently. Merkel was kind enough to suggest to Cameron that she could work with him on changes to the freedom of movement rules – but only in relation to benefit claims; while also stating that the fundamental right of labour to move freely would most definitely not be ‘on the table’.

Another unfortunate consequence of Merkel’s speech – and obviously not one Cameron intended – was the fact that it showed the uselessness of the Coalition’s Balance of Competences Review in that (a) they are so skewed in favour of EU membership as to be worthless; (b) Cameron has yet to put any demands on the table; and (c) most of the ‘demands’ for which he wishes he ain’t going to get – let alone discussed.

All in all, one thing becomes clearer by the day: (i) the longer Cameron continues this fiasco of maintaining he will hold a referendum in 2017, knowing as he must that with treaty change coming that date cannot be met, the more ridiculous he and his policy looks; and (ii) while politicians, especially Conservative politicians, continue their misinformed comments and remarks – coupled with their failure to acknowledge the elephant in the room (flooding?) the more ridiculous they look, too.

As an aside; if we as taxpayers have to foot the bill (which we no doubt have) for what was obviously going to be a non-event from the outset, should we not have been asked whether we agreed in the first place?



David's Musings


Comments Closed

Cameron at Davos

Our esteemed Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been speaking at Davos and his speech can be viewed here (starts 1:50) with the text here.

What is more important is that which David Cameron said, at what I presume was a press conference afterwards (At the time of writing I am unable to find any visual record of this). We do however have what appears to be a syndicated article, one which has appeared in Swissinfo. From this we learn that he can renegotiate Britain’s relations with the European Union to allow it to remain in the 28-nation bloc.

I’m confident that we’ll have a successful renegotiation and a successful referendum………I’m confident this is do-able, deliverable and, as I say, winnable for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union.

Cameron’s strategy is doomed to fail for a number of reasons which I have no intention to re-hash, they having been covered in depth both here and on other blogs. Suffice it to say there would appear to be a cost to the public purse of this ‘renegotiation’, likewise a cost to the only viable way to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership.

I think it worthwhile asking Cameron exactly how he intends to conduct this renegotiation; and for an estimate of how much of taxpayers money will be expended on a fruitless exercise, bearing in mind that cost will no doubt be replicated, even more so, when he finally has to resort to implementing Article 50. The question needs to be asked and then Cameron informed that he, in turn, needs to ask the taxpaying electorate whether they agree to meet that fruitless cost.

Bearing in mind the idea of ‘Referism’ – just a suggestion………

Afterthought: It would appear both Cameron and Farage do have one thing in common – they are both in a world of their own.


Inappropriate behaviour?

It is not very often that I concur with anything coming from Iain Martin – in fact I am unable to recall the last time, if there was one – however I can but concur with his thoughts here.

That of which he complains is this, a ‘selfie’ being a picture of oneself taken on a mobile phone:


My initial distaste I initially put down to the generation gap twixt those pictured and myself, but having seen the reaction on twitter I am now not so sure.

Accepting that varying societies have different ways of showing grief, just what happened where a British sense of decorum and reverence is concerned What happened to the idea that a Prime Minister of this country – and who is representing his country -should not behave like a gurning idiot?

Maybe I’m over-reacting? I don’t think so, especially bearing in mind the comments of James Harding, director of BBC news, reported at the end of this article. Was not Margaret Thatcher one of the most significant politicians of the last 100 years? I do not recall Obama or any of his Cabinet attending her funeral – presumably they were invited; and if not why not?

Sigh: you just cannot get the staff these days………..



I have avoided writing about the recent case of an Italian woman whose pregnancy was forcibly terminated by a caesarean operation, for a number of reasons. It is with a certain amount of bemusement that I notice the furore that has resulted in connection with this story. What exactly is different in this story, compared to that which Christopher Booker has been writing about, almost on a monthly basis?

Regular readers will be aware that I have posted many articles about the dubious practices of our social workers and our Family Courts. They will also be aware that my own Member of Parliament has refused to accept any further correspondence from me on this matter among others.

It is noted that John Hemming, reported in the Guardian, has said that he intends raising this matter in Parliament. From They Work For You it would appear that he did not do so this week – presumably not having any opportunity – and there would appear to be no opportunity this coming week – especially as the coming week is ‘shorted’ by, first: the ‘Mandela Fest’ planned for Monday; and second: Parliament not sitting on Friday.

There are times when I wonder why I bother to blog. My readership is not that large, compared to others, but when one publishes a letter from ones Member of Parliament advising that he refuses to entertain any further communication from his constituent; and that post receives but one comment; I really do wonder why I bother.

In that context, my heart doth bleed for Christopher Booker who appears to be ‘talking’ to a brick wall. Just where are letters from his readers to their Member of Parliament? How many have in fact been written? Why can an outrage, such as exists in the Family Courts, not provoke  an outcry of public condemnation?

In conclusion I can but refer to the last three paragraphs of my article, linked above. The silence of those whose children – through a ‘quirk of fate’ – could well be next is remarkable, if not unsurprising.

I can but remind readers – and the public – that when the boot of the state is on a throat, it matters greatly if that throat is yours!

Just saying………


Time someone laid down the law?

Yet again Christopher Booker finds cause to highlight the ‘goings-on’ in our Family Courts where children are concerned.

Immediately this begs the question, where it is illegal under current law for anyone to be sent to prison except in open court so that their name can be known and, likewise the reason – just why have they been jailed? Yet still this practice continues, writes Christopher Booker. So, one can but ponder, why no immediate appeal by Defense Counsel on behalf of their client at what is totally illegal?

I have posted previously on the subject of Family Courts here (which kindly got me a mention in Booker’s column) and here. My efforts resulted in my Member of Parliament replying thus.

If the head of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, seems unable to ‘lay down the law’; if Members of Parliament seem unable/unwilling/frit to ‘lay down the law’; and one’s own Member of Parliament appears likewise (doing, seemingly in the process, a ‘Pontius Pilate’) then just what hope is there for ‘rule of law’?

In view of which is it not time that we, the people, ‘laid down the law’? Not just in the matter of Family Courts, but generally? Do we not have the right to decide the type of society in which we wish to live?

Where democracy is concerned, if those we elect are able to disregard the wishes and complaints of those they are supposedly elected to represent, just why are those elected, elected? This begs the further question of just why do those of us, who are taxpayers, continue to agree to fund them?

Democracy: where is it and why do we not have it? In answer to that question, it is not the political class who should hang their heads in shame – it is we the people who have allowed said political class to bastardise democracy per se, willingly it could be said, through our disinterest in ‘matters political’.

Do we not deserve the state of democratised dictatorship under which we all live? Just how much longer must time pass before we finally raise our voices to demand the equality that our political class so crave?

One again, just asking………..



Why do we accept this state of affairs?

…… But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Ronald Reagan – First Inaugural Presidential Address (1981)

The concept of ‘government’ must be the greatest confidence trick ever practiced by man on his fellow man/woman. Think about that statement by Ronald Reagan and ponder: Why do we allow it to continue? At this point I would also repeat two quotations from Monday:

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors;

Government is a parasite – a cancer that, by nature, tries to spread deeper into society.

Much as I admired Reagan it would appear he very quickly – and conveniently – forgot that against which he questioned; as it has to be said, each in their own way, did Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown.

We are informed that  it is suggested with age comes wisdom and knowledge. Where our political class is concerned I can but look at the picture in this article and comment that when considering he on the left (who seems hardly out of ‘nappy-stage’), age most definitely has not imparted wisdom, nor knowledge!

If a Conservative MP has to write that it is pretty difficult to distinguish his own party from Labour; then just why do we allow such similarities to exist and, more importantly, vote for them?

A cartoon in NEUES DEUTSCHLAND casts a satirical look at Forbes’ list of the most powerful people in the world. At this point I digress to suggest, in having got down to #72, that possibly Jose Manuel has ceased his subscription…….?

In his ‘Evening Briefing’ James Kirkup (Daily Telegraph) refers to this article and also states that Cameron said: Let’s see how it goes to see if more can be brought on camera, in front of the people who’s justice it is rather than hidden behind closed doors. If justice is hidden behind closed doors – which it is – then if we are to accept the concept of ‘government’ then hows about the cameras (and the media) also show that which is hidden behind closed doors? If justice belongs to the people, then does not government?

So a man and a woman had an affair? What does that matter to us, the people? Only if, during ‘pillow-talk‘, it showed that the media and government were ‘in cahoots’. Previously, when querying where the relationship twixt government and the media is concerned I posed the question: in whose pocket is who – perhaps that question needs amending to: in whose bed is who? One can legitimately ask whether, if Coulson questions not who he ‘shafts’, just what chance do we, the public, have from one hired to advise our government? I also recall that Edwina Currie has a ‘Major’ affair – so just how much did that ‘influence’ government policy?

Does not the foregoing demand that we assume the responsibility of governing ourselves? Does the foregoing not mean that we must assume our own responsibilities – and thus embrace the 6 Demands?

Just asking……….










Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012