Thursday, February 08, 2007
"... deriving their powers from the consent of the governed ..."
The title quote comes of course from the American Declaration of Independance, and I find it highly appropriate as today The Times reports on the latest in the letter bombs which have been afflicting the afflicters as it were.
Now of course this is criminal behaviour and I cannot condone it, if the culprit is convicted, it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence they get. If it's their first conviction for violence, perhaps a course in addressing offending behaviour will be appropriate? What's the betting that for crimes against the government, the book will be thrown at them? But what's the point? After all we all know that long and tough prison sentences are no deterrent don't we? Still it'll make a nice comparison, crimes against an individual as a private person, slap on the wrist, crimes against the government tough prison sentence even though prison doesn't work at all.
Whilst I cannot condone the behaviour, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with some of the bodies' targeted. Take Capita for example, they administer the TV tax and send me a monthly harassment as I have no television and refuse to allow: "... an official to visit to confirm the situation...". The people who work for Capita know how the group operates, and how it harasses people that it shouldn't be concerned with, but they choose to get paid for working in that way - they have no excuse of starvation as with our generous benefit system the state won't let them starve. If they happen to get targeted by someone harassed into criminal behaviour well it's just part of the territory, they take the payment so cannot complain of the risk. The fact they happen to be at work cannot morally absolve them of their actions.
To return to the "consent of the governed", we have seen considerable expansion of the government, and a huge increase in administrative crimes. You know the kind of thing, failure to fill out a form £80.00p fine, failure to tell the government something another fine and so on ad infinitum. All this has been done with the active consent of the House of Commons in which are supposed to sit our representatives, but there's no way it's been done with the consent of the people. What party would stand and include in its manifesto a commitment to creating the SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) with a strict liability fine for non-compliance? None of them would. They know when they pass this legislation that they have no mandate or consent of the people for it, but that doesn't stop them.
In the main these oppressive appratchikisms have been tolerated, but and let's be clear, tolerated doesn't mean some kind of implied consent. It's also true that many people have been actively withdrawing from the system as demonstrated by the DVLA computer fiasco. Where these letter bombs are concerned, those involved have undergone a similar process, but perhaps haven't thought about avoiding the forms, and are now demonstrating their intolerance of oppressive government by criminal action.
What's the prognosis? Will the government start to think hang on a minute maybe we're going too far? Or will we see more government interference in turn, feeding intolerance of government? Well this other report from The Times perhaps gives us a clue: "Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday. All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres."
Oh yes a step in the right direction.
Now of course this is criminal behaviour and I cannot condone it, if the culprit is convicted, it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence they get. If it's their first conviction for violence, perhaps a course in addressing offending behaviour will be appropriate? What's the betting that for crimes against the government, the book will be thrown at them? But what's the point? After all we all know that long and tough prison sentences are no deterrent don't we? Still it'll make a nice comparison, crimes against an individual as a private person, slap on the wrist, crimes against the government tough prison sentence even though prison doesn't work at all.
Whilst I cannot condone the behaviour, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with some of the bodies' targeted. Take Capita for example, they administer the TV tax and send me a monthly harassment as I have no television and refuse to allow: "... an official to visit to confirm the situation...". The people who work for Capita know how the group operates, and how it harasses people that it shouldn't be concerned with, but they choose to get paid for working in that way - they have no excuse of starvation as with our generous benefit system the state won't let them starve. If they happen to get targeted by someone harassed into criminal behaviour well it's just part of the territory, they take the payment so cannot complain of the risk. The fact they happen to be at work cannot morally absolve them of their actions.
To return to the "consent of the governed", we have seen considerable expansion of the government, and a huge increase in administrative crimes. You know the kind of thing, failure to fill out a form £80.00p fine, failure to tell the government something another fine and so on ad infinitum. All this has been done with the active consent of the House of Commons in which are supposed to sit our representatives, but there's no way it's been done with the consent of the people. What party would stand and include in its manifesto a commitment to creating the SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) with a strict liability fine for non-compliance? None of them would. They know when they pass this legislation that they have no mandate or consent of the people for it, but that doesn't stop them.
In the main these oppressive appratchikisms have been tolerated, but and let's be clear, tolerated doesn't mean some kind of implied consent. It's also true that many people have been actively withdrawing from the system as demonstrated by the DVLA computer fiasco. Where these letter bombs are concerned, those involved have undergone a similar process, but perhaps haven't thought about avoiding the forms, and are now demonstrating their intolerance of oppressive government by criminal action.
What's the prognosis? Will the government start to think hang on a minute maybe we're going too far? Or will we see more government interference in turn, feeding intolerance of government? Well this other report from The Times perhaps gives us a clue: "Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday. All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres."
Oh yes a step in the right direction.
Tags: freedom, liberty, government, statism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: freedom, government, liberty, statism
Monday, January 15, 2007
Sick
The Daily Mail on Saturday tells us of NHS "patients" being offered the option to pay for their operation and thereby "jump the queue" and receive treatment.
Of course the "journalist" manages to miss an important point. The treatments have already been paid for, either by the patients themselves or others ("from each according to his means to each according to his needs")in the form of National Insurance (Insurance being misleading as the only side of the bargain is payment of the premium). So by asking for another payment, note there's no suggestion of a refund for the premiums paid, the poor people are being asked to pay twice for the same thing.
All of us who pay the National Insurance tax have all paid for these operations, now they cannot happen, we should all get a refund.
Imagine if this was a private company, taking payments in return for healthcare, then when people fell ill, expecting them to pay for treatment, they'd be an outcry. We'd have pictures showing directors houses and cars, we'd have calls for legislation to "protect" the public, every leftie going would be denouncing capitalism, directors salaries and complaining of how people get conned, and how others profit from their misfortune, the reality is that if you have the money and are in pain, you'll be very tempted to give it to the NHS.
I see the NHS as a huge gravy train, not for the majority of staff perhaps, but those at the top are bigger swindlers and robbers than many others. There's been a programme on BBC2 showing some self-made millionaire trying to get Rotherham hospital running efficiently; the chief executive of the hospital (for me) is no manager, but no fool either, he produces government figures and is probably classed as good at his job, ultimately I think he must know the hospital could be run better, I also think he knows he'll get no credit for doing so, just a lot of hassle, but does he resign? Does he forego his (judging from his house and car) generous salary? Yet (for me) he knows as much as the director of a company that continues trading with inevitable bankruptcy that people are being fleeced.
Years ago, when the worker was portrayed as slaving away for the capitalist, at least the capitalist provided something (capital). Now the worker slaves away for the apparatchik - who waxes fat on the food of the poor, but the apparatchik is supposed to work for the people, the reality is he does nothing, but produce figures and take the salary. What a sick system.
Of course the "journalist" manages to miss an important point. The treatments have already been paid for, either by the patients themselves or others ("from each according to his means to each according to his needs")in the form of National Insurance (Insurance being misleading as the only side of the bargain is payment of the premium). So by asking for another payment, note there's no suggestion of a refund for the premiums paid, the poor people are being asked to pay twice for the same thing.
All of us who pay the National Insurance tax have all paid for these operations, now they cannot happen, we should all get a refund.
Imagine if this was a private company, taking payments in return for healthcare, then when people fell ill, expecting them to pay for treatment, they'd be an outcry. We'd have pictures showing directors houses and cars, we'd have calls for legislation to "protect" the public, every leftie going would be denouncing capitalism, directors salaries and complaining of how people get conned, and how others profit from their misfortune, the reality is that if you have the money and are in pain, you'll be very tempted to give it to the NHS.
I see the NHS as a huge gravy train, not for the majority of staff perhaps, but those at the top are bigger swindlers and robbers than many others. There's been a programme on BBC2 showing some self-made millionaire trying to get Rotherham hospital running efficiently; the chief executive of the hospital (for me) is no manager, but no fool either, he produces government figures and is probably classed as good at his job, ultimately I think he must know the hospital could be run better, I also think he knows he'll get no credit for doing so, just a lot of hassle, but does he resign? Does he forego his (judging from his house and car) generous salary? Yet (for me) he knows as much as the director of a company that continues trading with inevitable bankruptcy that people are being fleeced.
Years ago, when the worker was portrayed as slaving away for the capitalist, at least the capitalist provided something (capital). Now the worker slaves away for the apparatchik - who waxes fat on the food of the poor, but the apparatchik is supposed to work for the people, the reality is he does nothing, but produce figures and take the salary. What a sick system.
Tags: NHS, state apparatchiks, statism, welfare state
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: NHS, state apparatchiks, statism, welfare state
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Shove an RFID up an apparatchik (Not literally)
Looking at various things yesterday, I came across this gem on this DVLA website, scroll down to "Number plates and registration marks" and then "Electronic number plate trial feasibility report" a pdf report on some trails the DVLA has been running.
The idea is for an RFID chip to be included in your number plate, or tax disc, which can then be read by government (and no doubt other) chip readers for various purposes.
I haven't gone through the report myself, a quick look in the introduction tells us all we need to know about how apparatchiks work. Apparently a provision was introduced in the Vehicle Crime Act 2001 to allow this, and deliberately worded so. So these so called civil servants plan their statist oppressions some five or six years in advance.
Of course the wonderfully gender neutrally named "Ladyman" was only to pleased to authorise the trials (perhaps "for the children" or to "protect against terrorism" or maybe there's a new platitude) which have been taking place.
Anyway I know all my readers will be as pleased as I am by the success of the project; it will also come as no surprise to find the EU is also looking into this, and indeed this helped spur on the DVLA trial.
Personally I don't remember seeing any of this reported in the media, (I admit I could easily have missed it), but I suspect our crusading journalists; don't even have enough motivation to check out government websites for snippets of stories. They're far too busy chasing princes girlfriends, reporting on big brother and other banalities.
The idea is for an RFID chip to be included in your number plate, or tax disc, which can then be read by government (and no doubt other) chip readers for various purposes.
I haven't gone through the report myself, a quick look in the introduction tells us all we need to know about how apparatchiks work. Apparently a provision was introduced in the Vehicle Crime Act 2001 to allow this, and deliberately worded so. So these so called civil servants plan their statist oppressions some five or six years in advance.
Of course the wonderfully gender neutrally named "Ladyman" was only to pleased to authorise the trials (perhaps "for the children" or to "protect against terrorism" or maybe there's a new platitude) which have been taking place.
Anyway I know all my readers will be as pleased as I am by the success of the project; it will also come as no surprise to find the EU is also looking into this, and indeed this helped spur on the DVLA trial.
Personally I don't remember seeing any of this reported in the media, (I admit I could easily have missed it), but I suspect our crusading journalists; don't even have enough motivation to check out government websites for snippets of stories. They're far too busy chasing princes girlfriends, reporting on big brother and other banalities.
Tags: statism, state apparatchiks, media
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: media, state apparatchiks, statism
Friday, January 05, 2007
The state will protect you or 124D v Luger
The Times tells us of the death of Ms Clare Bernal and the inquest into the same.
Ms Bernal had the misfortune of a violent ex-boyfriend who then went on to kill her. Were there any indications that this might happen? "The former Slovakian soldier had vowed to kill his former girlfriend..."
Aside from the fact that he shot her, even though guns are illegal, thus making them accessible to him (the criminal), but denying them for defence (to the victim). The gun was purchased by the criminal, who whilst on bail managed to travel to Slovakia and smuggle it back into the UK.
It appears there were errors by the police, you might think a failure to provide armed officers or protection or some other activity, no indeed it was a failure to fill in the paperwork specifically a 124D form. In evidence to the inquest the CPS said: "that Pech was charged correctly with harassment and would have been given a community service order rather than a jail sentence.
He said that if police had taken further statements from Ms Bernal it was possible that she would have given evidence to persuade the CPS to charge Pech with making threats to kill her. However, if he was convicted of that offence he would have been jailed only for two or three months, ..."
This is a devious platitude, because it makes it sound that had the procedures been followed, he might have been in jail, but remember he was out on bail, so even though charged, he hadn't been convicted. My view is the chances are he still would have been on bail anyway.
In any sensible analysis, if someone is out to kill you, and they are armed, you will need to be armed yourself or at least have an armed bodyguard. I favour the first option as it is cheaper. A 124D won't be of much use against a Luger.
Still no need to worry as there's plenty more platitudes in the article:
"PC Shah said that she had done everything she could to protect Ms Bernal"
"Georgina Kent, a barrister for the police, [said] there was “nothing to suggest that the case would end so unfortunately”. "
"Nataliya Sarapionova, Ms Bernal’s friend and flatmate, said that Ms Bernal was “extremely naive” and, despite the level of violence used by Pech, did not realise the seriousness of the situation." Good job the state and the police had it under control then.
The only fly in the ointment comes from: "Harvey Nichols’s security manager said that he became “deeply concerned” about Pech and advised Ms Bernal to call police. He then began his own investigation, interviewing Ms Bernal’s friends and scanning any text messages sent to her by Pech. He said that police did not take the evidence the store had gathered."
Like yesterday there's no mention that there might be something wrong with the system. Not even the glimmer of criticising that the state should be the sole provider of our protection, no mention of liability attaching to the state when it falls down on the job. It is irrelevant whether Ms Bernal realised the seriousness of the situation, what she probably thought was that the police would protect her; if perhaps she'd thought they wouldn't she may have taken effective steps to ensure her safety.
There's a double scandal here, firstly the state removes the legal capability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves and usurps that role for itself; secondly despite taking (with the sanction of the law) the money from the defenceless citizen, when it fails to fulfil its end of the bargain it's no liability and platitudes all round.
Ms Bernal had the misfortune of a violent ex-boyfriend who then went on to kill her. Were there any indications that this might happen? "The former Slovakian soldier had vowed to kill his former girlfriend..."
Aside from the fact that he shot her, even though guns are illegal, thus making them accessible to him (the criminal), but denying them for defence (to the victim). The gun was purchased by the criminal, who whilst on bail managed to travel to Slovakia and smuggle it back into the UK.
It appears there were errors by the police, you might think a failure to provide armed officers or protection or some other activity, no indeed it was a failure to fill in the paperwork specifically a 124D form. In evidence to the inquest the CPS said: "that Pech was charged correctly with harassment and would have been given a community service order rather than a jail sentence.
He said that if police had taken further statements from Ms Bernal it was possible that she would have given evidence to persuade the CPS to charge Pech with making threats to kill her. However, if he was convicted of that offence he would have been jailed only for two or three months, ..."
This is a devious platitude, because it makes it sound that had the procedures been followed, he might have been in jail, but remember he was out on bail, so even though charged, he hadn't been convicted. My view is the chances are he still would have been on bail anyway.
In any sensible analysis, if someone is out to kill you, and they are armed, you will need to be armed yourself or at least have an armed bodyguard. I favour the first option as it is cheaper. A 124D won't be of much use against a Luger.
Still no need to worry as there's plenty more platitudes in the article:
"PC Shah said that she had done everything she could to protect Ms Bernal"
"Georgina Kent, a barrister for the police, [said] there was “nothing to suggest that the case would end so unfortunately”. "
"Nataliya Sarapionova, Ms Bernal’s friend and flatmate, said that Ms Bernal was “extremely naive” and, despite the level of violence used by Pech, did not realise the seriousness of the situation." Good job the state and the police had it under control then.
The only fly in the ointment comes from: "Harvey Nichols’s security manager said that he became “deeply concerned” about Pech and advised Ms Bernal to call police. He then began his own investigation, interviewing Ms Bernal’s friends and scanning any text messages sent to her by Pech. He said that police did not take the evidence the store had gathered."
Like yesterday there's no mention that there might be something wrong with the system. Not even the glimmer of criticising that the state should be the sole provider of our protection, no mention of liability attaching to the state when it falls down on the job. It is irrelevant whether Ms Bernal realised the seriousness of the situation, what she probably thought was that the police would protect her; if perhaps she'd thought they wouldn't she may have taken effective steps to ensure her safety.
There's a double scandal here, firstly the state removes the legal capability for the law abiding citizen to defend themselves and usurps that role for itself; secondly despite taking (with the sanction of the law) the money from the defenceless citizen, when it fails to fulfil its end of the bargain it's no liability and platitudes all round.
Tags: guns, self defence, statism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: guns, self-defence, statism
