Well good morning folks. It's clear I've been away for some time, even going as far as to temporarily delete the blog. There were reasons for that and equally there are reasons for coming back, which I may go on to explain at some point. So if you're an old friend / previous visitor - thank you for taking the time to come back. I hope I write something worth reading, every now and again. Although we're called Restoring Britain, today's post is going to take a jump across to different countries.
As well as being away from my blog I've largely stayed away from political blogs and videos in general, although recently I had a quick whizz around some of my old haunts and stopped by to watch Pat Condell have a couple of pops at a world where reasoning and truth is turned on its head. In one recent video he refers to an incident involving a Danish political activist, Lars Heddergard, recently at the wrong end of an assassination attempt at his own home- Lars Heddergard. It seemed Mr Heddergard (who was attempting a house move - presumably as a safety precaution) was attemptedly followed by a journalist and photographer in what appears to have been an attempt to report his new location. Stupid in the extreme is the most conservative assessment I can give this effort by these supposed journalists.
I mention that because I see that in the US the trial of George Zimmerman has resulted in a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. What I wanted to say in this post has eluded me for days and I've twisted myself in knots on how I wished to word it. The principle reason was that I wasn't so much wanting to concentrate on the what happened, but on the press coverage. I think at the end of the day there are probably only two people who know what really happened and they are the two people involved. So I struggled. Bill Whittle probably summed it up best and in fact I learned something new about the case about the cocktail known as "Lean", despite it being a speculative aspect of Bill's video. I'll let Bill say most of it for me:
I wanted to avoid going over the evidence but in fact it's required to understand the wider point that Bill touches upon and that I really wanted my post to be about.
Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal have sparked a controversy and a backlash. I think that backlash has in part been sparked by the actions and reporting of the press, including those of the BBC here in Britain. By and large, we have seen this story told of a young black man out buying skittles and a drink, shot and killed simply because white man Zimmerman presumed he was up to no good in a gated community. Within that have been lots of commentary about America tearing itself up over a resurgence of its racist history.
The problem is we have learned much of what we have from the press. That narrative I've just described above has come about because of the way the story has been told in the press. Of course it doesn't take much digging around (as Bill Whittle did) to find there are lots of holes in that story. In fact most of that knowledge was available from the outset, hence the police feeling that they had nothing to charge Zimmerman with and initial advice from prosecutors.
So the evidence was there which has to call into question why it failed to make it into the press. Now it was one of two things. It was either sloppy journalism or it was deliberate design. I can partly believe in sloppy journalism as with all manner of stories, it seems to thrive mostly on a diet of low hanging fruit. Except in this instance, there were clearly pieces of low hanging fruit that they chose to ignore - pieces that effectively left the established narrative on shaky ground.
So if it's not sloppy journalism, that pretty much leaves us with deliberate design. We've already seen pieces that didn't make it in to the early stories. As well as that though there is the recording of the 911 call made by Zimmerman. This is the call that news outlets originally presented as including the following phrase:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
When in actual fact the actual recording went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or
something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
So he didn't offer it up, he was responding to a question
Eventually, when this editing was exposed the news station who manipulated the recording was forced to apologise and is being sued by Zimmerman for depicting him as racist. But that still hasn't stopped news organisations repeating this, including the BBC. Although they had previously reported Zimmerman's legal action against NBC, they still ran this article in June in which they appear to do a similar thing to NBC.
So what's my point?
Well my point is this - the media are playing a naive, malign and dangerous game. The angle we have consistently seen from the press around this case has from the outset been based on the omission of salient and readily available facts. Their omission points to someone wanting the story told this way and this way only. In other words someone wants you to have viewpoint that they approve of. They only want a viewpoint that fits their narrative because if you have that viewpoint, you are more likely to repeat it as though it were fact.
What makes it naive, malign and dangerous is that there are (and have already been) consequences for this manipulation. It doesn't just exist in a bubble. They can't just say these things and it not provoke a reaction. People have relied on the press to give them the facts and most probably presume what they have seen to be the facts. People cite such "facts" to justify their reaction. There have been protests, there has been violence. There has been talk of retribution. I could understand all of this had the narrative been true. Heck if I were part of the African American community and this had been true, I'd be filled with anger too. So that's why it's dangerous. Lives have been ruined and lives will be changed and ruined in the future.
But that's not some insight available only to me. It would have been available to the press to. I can only draw the conclusion they wanted to start the fire with their reporting and watch it burn. They've treated it like its entertainment, which for me makes its disgraceful. A young man is dead and another man has become marked for death by people who seek revenge. Anything that happens from here on in, the media which manipulated the story have a hand in it. If there is blood, some of it will be on their hands. It's almost like they wanted their version of events to be true so they can cause a riot and violence. They've also given the race hustlers who pretend to speak to for America's black community ammunition to spout their own self serving bile.
The trouble is they're not only malign but they're naive about the consequences as they are genuinely incapable of seeing their hand in the subsequent reaction. They're like someone who goes into a packed theatre, yelling "fire" for a joke and then when people get killed in the stampede, refuse to believe that it had anything to do with them. This section of the media, like to pretend they're advancing the civil rights cause.
They're doing nothing of the sort. They're setting such a cause back. They're manipulating a section of America for their own ends, treating them like their own plaything.
They're just starting a fire and watching it burn. A young man is dead - it is not a time for games.
End Note
An addition for any trolls who are thinking about commenting on this. Simply don't bother wasting your time, I won't respond or debate with you on this. Why? A few reasons really. Firstly, because no amount of clunky efforts to paint me as racist will actually make it true. You are of course entitled to your opinion but if you knew me, you could not actually honestly draw such a conclusion so you're left with name calling. Secondly it's not a debate you're looking for. You're not interested in it. What you will really have come here for is to shout down any debate. I've read and am familiar with Saul Alinsky and his playbook and I know about trolling. So save your energy and take it elsewhere. Thank you.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
The Last Handbagging
When leader of the British Government, Margaret Thatcher was famed for her handbaggings. These were not literal handbaggings, but occasions in which she put the vain, shallow, irresolute, faithless and power thirsty in their place.
Having watched her funeral today I wonder if even in death she took a metaphorical swing at that same group (albeit much larger). Before our very eyes we saw those sellouts of this nation who understand nothing of service, called to heel to sing praise to a to a nation they have sold out for their own lust for power.
I hope that in that house of The Lord, they felt the chill that comes with having your mendacity laid bare before your maker.
Having watched her funeral today I wonder if even in death she took a metaphorical swing at that same group (albeit much larger). Before our very eyes we saw those sellouts of this nation who understand nothing of service, called to heel to sing praise to a to a nation they have sold out for their own lust for power.
I hope that in that house of The Lord, they felt the chill that comes with having your mendacity laid bare before your maker.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Fatcher!!
It is not news for me to report that Baroness Thatcher has passed away, nor will I be considered the person who makes the landmark comment about her life, her years as our nation's leader, nor her passing. That will come from a lot more informed people than me (and more than a fair share of those more ignorant than me).
As someone in their early 40's I have a somewhat cloudy recognition of the time. Like most young people I suspect, mucking around with my friends was something that took up most of my time. That said I have recollections of Britain in the 70's and it had a jaded and stagnant feel to it. I recall seeing the news with union leaders standing on large platforms "balloting" workers for strike action. Even as a boy, I always questioned how those leaders could tell the majority were up for it on such a rough and ready show of hands. It all looked a bit contrived and pre determined. I also recall seeing the Green Goddess fire engines flying past the end of our street during that strike too and I also remember endless images of men standing around oil drums with a fire on the go in them. Britain generally felt a bit on its knees even to my young and uninformed eyes.
So I am going to find the next few days and possibly weeks amusing as those young bucks who weren't even a twinkle in their father's eyes during her premiership, pouring forth on Margaret Thatcher as though they were right there. They'll even probably refer to her as "Fatcher" with the accompanying flecks of spit in the corner of their mouths.
Baroness Thatcher certainly provokes a range of reactions and it is the same when assessing her legacy. For my own view, like most politicians there was probably both good and bad policy decisions. That said, she was a leader and probably one of the last of her kind. Whilst not everyone got what they wanted when Margaret Thatcher came to power, they certainly got what they needed. They got someone with enough steel to attempt to drag Britain from it's knees who was willing to get in the faces of self absorbed demagogues who took the country on strike at the drop of a hat.
Whatever you think of him, Jeremy Clarkson was right when he suggested that during the 70's the only thing the British car industry was any good at was a fire in an oil drum.
Margaret That also provokes repeated mantras, particularly from her opponents. They say she destroyed British manufacturing. Maybe there where things she did and decisions she made that had a hand in it, but I can't help but think some of her most vociferous opponents, played their own significant role in such a demise.
They also like to say she ushered in the me, me, me generation and it's here I would probably like to draw it to a close.
Their evidence is her famous quote of "there's no such thing as society". Next time you here someone come out with it as evidence, ask them if they can give the full quote. I suspect many of them can't because it's been deliberately framed as being nothing more than that. It is in fact, quite different and forms part of a wider interview she gave to Woman's Own magazine in 1987 and it goes like this:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Doesn't look much like someone ushering in a me, me me society. Looks more like someone trying to put an end to a me, me, me society that was enabled by something or someone that had taken that earned by working people to give to others that thought they were owed.
Let's take another look:
It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.
All I ask is that if you hear the pared down version of the quote, you politely correct the person involved and ask them what they could find offensive in standing up for the working man as the quote so clearly does.
You might enlighten some, but I suspect that most are so wedded to their hatred of her that it will change nothing.
Still you will have some fun listening to them spluttering some right old cobblers as they try to prove you wrong.
As someone in their early 40's I have a somewhat cloudy recognition of the time. Like most young people I suspect, mucking around with my friends was something that took up most of my time. That said I have recollections of Britain in the 70's and it had a jaded and stagnant feel to it. I recall seeing the news with union leaders standing on large platforms "balloting" workers for strike action. Even as a boy, I always questioned how those leaders could tell the majority were up for it on such a rough and ready show of hands. It all looked a bit contrived and pre determined. I also recall seeing the Green Goddess fire engines flying past the end of our street during that strike too and I also remember endless images of men standing around oil drums with a fire on the go in them. Britain generally felt a bit on its knees even to my young and uninformed eyes.
So I am going to find the next few days and possibly weeks amusing as those young bucks who weren't even a twinkle in their father's eyes during her premiership, pouring forth on Margaret Thatcher as though they were right there. They'll even probably refer to her as "Fatcher" with the accompanying flecks of spit in the corner of their mouths.
Baroness Thatcher certainly provokes a range of reactions and it is the same when assessing her legacy. For my own view, like most politicians there was probably both good and bad policy decisions. That said, she was a leader and probably one of the last of her kind. Whilst not everyone got what they wanted when Margaret Thatcher came to power, they certainly got what they needed. They got someone with enough steel to attempt to drag Britain from it's knees who was willing to get in the faces of self absorbed demagogues who took the country on strike at the drop of a hat.
Whatever you think of him, Jeremy Clarkson was right when he suggested that during the 70's the only thing the British car industry was any good at was a fire in an oil drum.
Margaret That also provokes repeated mantras, particularly from her opponents. They say she destroyed British manufacturing. Maybe there where things she did and decisions she made that had a hand in it, but I can't help but think some of her most vociferous opponents, played their own significant role in such a demise.
They also like to say she ushered in the me, me, me generation and it's here I would probably like to draw it to a close.
Their evidence is her famous quote of "there's no such thing as society". Next time you here someone come out with it as evidence, ask them if they can give the full quote. I suspect many of them can't because it's been deliberately framed as being nothing more than that. It is in fact, quite different and forms part of a wider interview she gave to Woman's Own magazine in 1987 and it goes like this:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Doesn't look much like someone ushering in a me, me me society. Looks more like someone trying to put an end to a me, me, me society that was enabled by something or someone that had taken that earned by working people to give to others that thought they were owed.
Let's take another look:
It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.
All I ask is that if you hear the pared down version of the quote, you politely correct the person involved and ask them what they could find offensive in standing up for the working man as the quote so clearly does.
You might enlighten some, but I suspect that most are so wedded to their hatred of her that it will change nothing.
Still you will have some fun listening to them spluttering some right old cobblers as they try to prove you wrong.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
Rats eating rats
In a previous (somewhat rhetorical) post I was expressing my concern about the Cyprus depositor levy and how once out of the bag the concept, would probably fester in the minds of those who think everything is theirs because they will it to be so and that's all there is to it.
Fortunately there are better writers on hand to write more informatively than me, namely Autonomous Mind and The Slog who have been having a look at how the idea has infected the minds of others and what was once not a template, now looks like it could become a template.
The problem for me is that many of its proponents and enablers are operating under an illusion. As well as trying to prop up a political project, what we are in reality witnessing are people trying to keep their vast amounts of wealth however gained. To some that means shafting others in this zero sum game. They are all trying to protect their bit in what is a collapsing system.
Our money system is illusory, in that the wealth of these investments and financial instruments is only "real" whilst they are numbers on computer screens. It's not real money. They couldn't all call on their wealth if they tried to cash it out. The problem we have right now is that leaves them with two options - the first being to maintain the illusion.
Unfortunately we starting to see (although no thanks to mainstream media) that the illusion is starting to crumble. It just will not play ball for them and it has become unstable. What we're staring to see is option two come into play. Option two basically involves making sure in a scramble for the really small pot of wealth that actually exists, you're not the one who loses out. This is the Cyprus template. A lot of people have facilitated this and I presume in doing so they think it will protect their place at the trough.
If that is they're thinking, I think they've made a mistake. I think many of them will in time to come learn a very harsh lesson. The "elite" as we think we see them, looks like a single homogeneous entity. I think it is a mistake that many on the inside of it, facilitating games like we have seen in Cyprus, think it is also a homogeneous group. The truth is, it is nothing of the sort. Even within this "elite" club there will be a pecking order.
I also think the illusion still has a long way to fall. I am no financial expert but it is no secret that I am increasingly of the opinion that the whole thing could well smash itself on the rocks where it gets really desperate as we experience a financial collapse or as the understated language likes to classify it "a significant correction". What they're talking about is serious, serious hardship and poverty.
It is said that rats will turn to eat each other in a starvation situation. I suspect we may well start to see that in a financial sense, amongst those who have lived in a world very different from ours. Why it concerns me, is the illusion needs confidence, even it is crumbling. All it will take is a few of those who think they are in the elite club to be ejected and start to share their scorn, to hasten the lack of confidence in the system, thereby accelerating its downward spiral.
Fortunately there are better writers on hand to write more informatively than me, namely Autonomous Mind and The Slog who have been having a look at how the idea has infected the minds of others and what was once not a template, now looks like it could become a template.
The problem for me is that many of its proponents and enablers are operating under an illusion. As well as trying to prop up a political project, what we are in reality witnessing are people trying to keep their vast amounts of wealth however gained. To some that means shafting others in this zero sum game. They are all trying to protect their bit in what is a collapsing system.
Our money system is illusory, in that the wealth of these investments and financial instruments is only "real" whilst they are numbers on computer screens. It's not real money. They couldn't all call on their wealth if they tried to cash it out. The problem we have right now is that leaves them with two options - the first being to maintain the illusion.
Unfortunately we starting to see (although no thanks to mainstream media) that the illusion is starting to crumble. It just will not play ball for them and it has become unstable. What we're staring to see is option two come into play. Option two basically involves making sure in a scramble for the really small pot of wealth that actually exists, you're not the one who loses out. This is the Cyprus template. A lot of people have facilitated this and I presume in doing so they think it will protect their place at the trough.
If that is they're thinking, I think they've made a mistake. I think many of them will in time to come learn a very harsh lesson. The "elite" as we think we see them, looks like a single homogeneous entity. I think it is a mistake that many on the inside of it, facilitating games like we have seen in Cyprus, think it is also a homogeneous group. The truth is, it is nothing of the sort. Even within this "elite" club there will be a pecking order.
I also think the illusion still has a long way to fall. I am no financial expert but it is no secret that I am increasingly of the opinion that the whole thing could well smash itself on the rocks where it gets really desperate as we experience a financial collapse or as the understated language likes to classify it "a significant correction". What they're talking about is serious, serious hardship and poverty.
It is said that rats will turn to eat each other in a starvation situation. I suspect we may well start to see that in a financial sense, amongst those who have lived in a world very different from ours. Why it concerns me, is the illusion needs confidence, even it is crumbling. All it will take is a few of those who think they are in the elite club to be ejected and start to share their scorn, to hasten the lack of confidence in the system, thereby accelerating its downward spiral.
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
Events, events, events
My next post was going to involve expansions to the Be That Person post and was going to include the comments by Witterings from Witney, regarding things Harrogate and the observations by James over at Nourishing Obscurity / OoL.
All that said, my intention to do so has been somewhat turned on its end following this post over at John Ward's place. The general gist as I've understood the Cyprus bailout is that the level of cash in its banks was regarded with suspicion as to the means with which it was earned. Many considered it to be of nefarious provenance and as such it was felt fair by the scheme's designers to extract a levy on it in order to facilitate a bailout agreement. If I read John's post correctly and some of the comments, there are rumours emerging that the big and allegedly questionable money is taking flight from Cyprus and that the capital controls are only really affecting the everyday folk, in effect saddling them with the bill. In addition, this potentially means there will be a shortfall in the overall take that is raked in and one wonders where that leaves the people of Cyprus.
There is something else that worries me though. We now seem to have a precedent set in which everyday people can have their hard earned cash locked down and plundered by others to fund political hubris / financial speculation gone wrong. At the same time (if the above post is true) parallel arrangements exist (which those with access to extremely smart financial advice) to act as a back door for the big powerful money. It seems to be another tool by which a group, privatise the wins and socialise the losses.
Why it worries me, is that this tool exists at all and that having thought it up, Pandora's box has been opened. If it were a one off, my concern might be slightly less. Having been designed and seen across the world, I am concerned that the government financial institutions might begin to turn their lusty eyes to this tool to access pots of money, never before available to them as part of what has become an unquenchable thirst for money that belongs to others.
Now such a tool exists, you cannot unimagine it and once such covetous ideas exist they tend to grow and become widely adopted. In fact I see that already, one politician has already commented that this could be a model going forward to solve similar issues. With Cyprus having rolled over for the scheme. some governments might feel emboldened to look at such tools for their nation. It's not like they don't have form for raiding investments pots such as pensions. I also find myself worried if it does become implemented more widely, that hybrid tools will be developed as creative ways to access even more money which will saddle the everyday person with even more debt.
But what is it that's really worrying me. It's worrying me because as just an everyday person, events are overtaking not only me, but many others. Its worrying me because as an everyday person, there are ever increasing ways in which I can be put in fiscal headlock and my pockets picked and then tossed to one side whilst my muggers warn me, they'll probably be back for more. Governments and politicians have an appetite for cash that makes Monsieur Creosote look like he's at a finger buffet. What worries me, is whilst all this is happening I'm making an inconsequential noise out in cyberspace where no one is hearing me scream. As a result I just find myself wondering what I'm really doing here, whether it's all just too big for me an whether its time I got about my own business as events toss us about like wood on an ocean wave.
All that said, my intention to do so has been somewhat turned on its end following this post over at John Ward's place. The general gist as I've understood the Cyprus bailout is that the level of cash in its banks was regarded with suspicion as to the means with which it was earned. Many considered it to be of nefarious provenance and as such it was felt fair by the scheme's designers to extract a levy on it in order to facilitate a bailout agreement. If I read John's post correctly and some of the comments, there are rumours emerging that the big and allegedly questionable money is taking flight from Cyprus and that the capital controls are only really affecting the everyday folk, in effect saddling them with the bill. In addition, this potentially means there will be a shortfall in the overall take that is raked in and one wonders where that leaves the people of Cyprus.
There is something else that worries me though. We now seem to have a precedent set in which everyday people can have their hard earned cash locked down and plundered by others to fund political hubris / financial speculation gone wrong. At the same time (if the above post is true) parallel arrangements exist (which those with access to extremely smart financial advice) to act as a back door for the big powerful money. It seems to be another tool by which a group, privatise the wins and socialise the losses.
Why it worries me, is that this tool exists at all and that having thought it up, Pandora's box has been opened. If it were a one off, my concern might be slightly less. Having been designed and seen across the world, I am concerned that the government financial institutions might begin to turn their lusty eyes to this tool to access pots of money, never before available to them as part of what has become an unquenchable thirst for money that belongs to others.
Now such a tool exists, you cannot unimagine it and once such covetous ideas exist they tend to grow and become widely adopted. In fact I see that already, one politician has already commented that this could be a model going forward to solve similar issues. With Cyprus having rolled over for the scheme. some governments might feel emboldened to look at such tools for their nation. It's not like they don't have form for raiding investments pots such as pensions. I also find myself worried if it does become implemented more widely, that hybrid tools will be developed as creative ways to access even more money which will saddle the everyday person with even more debt.
But what is it that's really worrying me. It's worrying me because as just an everyday person, events are overtaking not only me, but many others. Its worrying me because as an everyday person, there are ever increasing ways in which I can be put in fiscal headlock and my pockets picked and then tossed to one side whilst my muggers warn me, they'll probably be back for more. Governments and politicians have an appetite for cash that makes Monsieur Creosote look like he's at a finger buffet. What worries me, is whilst all this is happening I'm making an inconsequential noise out in cyberspace where no one is hearing me scream. As a result I just find myself wondering what I'm really doing here, whether it's all just too big for me an whether its time I got about my own business as events toss us about like wood on an ocean wave.
Saturday, 9 March 2013
The soft underbelly
I see from news reports that Abu Qatada has been arrested for allegedly breaching the conditions of his bail.
Obviously news is a little sketchy at the moment but below are the bail conditions set when the judge in his deportation case decided that he didn't like the Jordanian Government's promises and saddled the UK taxpayer with keeping him here:
The full conditions, published by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, are as follows:
Looking at the news report comment that a search has been taking place over numerous hours and across numerous properties across London, I am curious which of those bail conditions have been brokenthat would require searches of that nature to take place and at the same time fearful of what he's been up to.
I just hope that the judge's overriding concern for Mr Qatada's human rights have not permitted him the time and space to set events in motion, that we will pay a dear price for.
Imagine trying to explain that one away to the British people.
Obviously news is a little sketchy at the moment but below are the bail conditions set when the judge in his deportation case decided that he didn't like the Jordanian Government's promises and saddled the UK taxpayer with keeping him here:
The full conditions, published by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, are as follows:
- Electronic tagging and reporting to a monitoring company
- Fixed address
- 22-hour curfew, with permission to leave home for a maximum of one hour twice a day
- Police and others permitted to enter and search his home
- No travel ticket or papers
- Ban on leaving a small area in his neighbourhood, set out on a map that he has been given
- Banned from attending a mosque
- Banned from leading prayers, other than those in his own family
- He must not publish any statement
- Nobody can enter home other than family, his lawyers and Home Office officials or children under 14
- Any other visitor must be vetted by the Home Office
- He cannot make any arrangements to meet anyone outside the home without permission
- If he meets an acquaintance by chance, he must make his excuses and leave
- No meeting with 27 named individuals, some of whom are in prison
- No meeting with anyone who is held on the new form of control orders known as TPims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures)
- No mobile phone
- No internet connection
- No computer kit that can be connected to the net
- Visitors may not use a mobile in his home
- He may only have one bank account
- He may not hold any bank or credit card not connected to that account
- He may not transfer money out of the UK
- He may not help others buy, sell or obtain computer equipment
- Any educational course or training must be approved by the home secretary
- Any job must be similarly approved
Looking at the news report comment that a search has been taking place over numerous hours and across numerous properties across London, I am curious which of those bail conditions have been brokenthat would require searches of that nature to take place and at the same time fearful of what he's been up to.
I just hope that the judge's overriding concern for Mr Qatada's human rights have not permitted him the time and space to set events in motion, that we will pay a dear price for.
Imagine trying to explain that one away to the British people.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Be that person - part one.
Well, well well. What a week. Everything has been on view this week hasn't it and mostly that By-Election that quite frankly finished with comedy. The result was a comedy in that the comments from the parties justifying their respective finishing positions were frankly farcical. That's where the comedy ended. The real story of what it really says of our democracy, our politics and our politicians has been more ably commented on at other places and it is a sad one, in the history of a once great nation.
Whilst the mainstream media prattle on about what it means for the parties in their commentary, the blogs are setting the pace with questions about what we do about it. It's a very fair question given what we've seen this week in Italy with the emergence of the 5 Star movement. The first I saw on what's next for Britain came in Witterings from Witney. Clearly that post had prompted some comments about Harrogate and so did Richard North's posts on the subject. Rather interestingly there was a theme emerging about what do people do not intimately involved in Harrogate - good question.
The heart of the Italy situation is that it is a movement. A rejection of the circus comprising modern politician ill equipped to lead their respective nations away from the problems they face. It didn't succeed just because of the idea. It succeeded because the people did something about it. It is an action based movement i.e. people stop bleating and lift their backsides off their seats and push the movement forward. They're not waiting for someone to do it for them, they carried their bit and so did everyone else. That's important stuff and critical to any movement. Movements die when people simply sit around and expect the idea to propel itself. I don't know where 5 Star is going long term, because it's going to have to get serious about solving Italy's problems at some point otherwise it too will lose the goodwill of the people and will wither.
This takes me back to this post, which I have previously commented on and namely two particular sections that I think ring true:
What is needed is a new settlement. What is needed is a constructive blueprint for the future that empowers people and makes them want to support it for positive reasons. What is needed is something that is borne from the grassroots and evolves and grows, rather than something imposed from on high.
and
The seed might have been sown. But it will only germinate and take root if people who care are prepared to help nurture it and play a part in tending it to maturity and strength. The time for complaining is over. The time for positive and constructive action is at hand.
The 5 Star movement is not Beppe Grillo. The movement is its constituents, the ones that move it along. They all start with one everyday person who has had enough who will take the first step. There's one of those in every locality. I know that, because they come here and they go to other blogs, some of which I get to read. Every movement that grows always start with a collection of one single person in lots of areas across the country.
All I ask (and maybe many others do) is that you be that person that gets the ball rolling where you live. I ask that you start to take it forward. I ask that you be the one that gets out of the chair and starts something. Every movement starts with just one person, that no one ever heard of, starting to spread the message and helping it thrive. If you hope for a better Britain, I'm asking will you be the person that helps build it.
I'm not asking for anything illegal or subversive here. Far from. I'm asking for clean, open and honest engagement in democracy and a restoration of the culture with opportunity for all, honesty, integrity, decency and one that will catch those who fall (and I mean fall) and will protect its elderly in a dignified and decent way. I also want a Briatin whose institutions work for the good of the people they were built to serve and in the genuine best interests of the natiion.
My beliefs are in a restored Britain, one which has been in the vision of great men and women from years gone by. That Britain was fought and died for because people held that notion dear. Many of those that held that vision dear lie in graves across the world, never to return to the nation they loved. Some lie in marked graves in manicured cemeteries and some lie under ignominious piles of soil and will be forever hidden and walked past by people with no idea of the sacrifice made just yards from their feet.
Britain has gone wrong in ways too numerous to list here and the work must start soon. The size of the challenge means everyone has to grab a metaphorical shovel and start the clean up. If we all stay sat on our chairs expecting someone else to do, I do not believe I can articulate the disaster we will face as a result. If people start and spread the message, others will find them. Movement attracts attention. From them, hope will grow. I'm not talking about the mirage of Hope that was peddled over in the US for electoral gain. I'm talking about genuine hope.
So my question is - will you be that person that starts it moving where you are?
Whilst the mainstream media prattle on about what it means for the parties in their commentary, the blogs are setting the pace with questions about what we do about it. It's a very fair question given what we've seen this week in Italy with the emergence of the 5 Star movement. The first I saw on what's next for Britain came in Witterings from Witney. Clearly that post had prompted some comments about Harrogate and so did Richard North's posts on the subject. Rather interestingly there was a theme emerging about what do people do not intimately involved in Harrogate - good question.
The heart of the Italy situation is that it is a movement. A rejection of the circus comprising modern politician ill equipped to lead their respective nations away from the problems they face. It didn't succeed just because of the idea. It succeeded because the people did something about it. It is an action based movement i.e. people stop bleating and lift their backsides off their seats and push the movement forward. They're not waiting for someone to do it for them, they carried their bit and so did everyone else. That's important stuff and critical to any movement. Movements die when people simply sit around and expect the idea to propel itself. I don't know where 5 Star is going long term, because it's going to have to get serious about solving Italy's problems at some point otherwise it too will lose the goodwill of the people and will wither.
This takes me back to this post, which I have previously commented on and namely two particular sections that I think ring true:
What is needed is a new settlement. What is needed is a constructive blueprint for the future that empowers people and makes them want to support it for positive reasons. What is needed is something that is borne from the grassroots and evolves and grows, rather than something imposed from on high.
and
The seed might have been sown. But it will only germinate and take root if people who care are prepared to help nurture it and play a part in tending it to maturity and strength. The time for complaining is over. The time for positive and constructive action is at hand.
The 5 Star movement is not Beppe Grillo. The movement is its constituents, the ones that move it along. They all start with one everyday person who has had enough who will take the first step. There's one of those in every locality. I know that, because they come here and they go to other blogs, some of which I get to read. Every movement that grows always start with a collection of one single person in lots of areas across the country.
I'm not asking for anything illegal or subversive here. Far from. I'm asking for clean, open and honest engagement in democracy and a restoration of the culture with opportunity for all, honesty, integrity, decency and one that will catch those who fall (and I mean fall) and will protect its elderly in a dignified and decent way. I also want a Briatin whose institutions work for the good of the people they were built to serve and in the genuine best interests of the natiion.
My beliefs are in a restored Britain, one which has been in the vision of great men and women from years gone by. That Britain was fought and died for because people held that notion dear. Many of those that held that vision dear lie in graves across the world, never to return to the nation they loved. Some lie in marked graves in manicured cemeteries and some lie under ignominious piles of soil and will be forever hidden and walked past by people with no idea of the sacrifice made just yards from their feet.
Britain has gone wrong in ways too numerous to list here and the work must start soon. The size of the challenge means everyone has to grab a metaphorical shovel and start the clean up. If we all stay sat on our chairs expecting someone else to do, I do not believe I can articulate the disaster we will face as a result. If people start and spread the message, others will find them. Movement attracts attention. From them, hope will grow. I'm not talking about the mirage of Hope that was peddled over in the US for electoral gain. I'm talking about genuine hope.
So my question is - will you be that person that starts it moving where you are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)