Karadzic planned eradication of Bosnian Muslims

The Times reports evidence at the The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia trial of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic of phone taps when he said in 1991:

They have to know that there are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo.... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. They will disappear. That people will disappear from the face of the earth.

Charming.

The vile murderous vision of nationalist slaughter by this thug, his right hand brute Ratko Mladic and the late Slobodan Milosevic was put into practice, while the world watched.

Of course, it wasn't helped by the arms embargo which meant Bosnian Muslims could not readily acquire the means to defend themselves, whilst Bosnian Serbs had already taken control of most of the arms of the former Yugoslav National Army, which had been controlled from Belgrade. It wasn't helped by the UN declaring Srebrenica as a "safe haven" which Bosnian Muslim refugees fled to, only to be slaughtered (the men and the boys slaughtered, the women and girls raped, as part of a deliberate plan to fill Bosnia with "baby Serbs"). The mistakes were many in the international response to this conflict, but nothing beats the pure brutal evil of the likes of Karadzic, proving some Europeans still have the willingness to undertake atrocities akin to those committed by the Nazis.

Of course, no side was innocent of bloodshed inflicted on the innocent, but without a doubt the Bosnian Serb side was the blatant standard-bearer of "ethnic cleansing". The trial of Karadzic reminds us all of how xenophobic chauvinism remains a cancerous tumour that some politicians are only too willing to encourage, and all too many are willing to kill in the name of.

Roger Douglas damns Nats on ACC

ACC is a pyramid scheme. Who says? Sir Roger Douglas

He says of the government's ACC bill:

Nothing in this Bill deals with the fact that, from its inception, ACC was a flawed pyramid scheme. In the beginning, it operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. That meant that for many years, it seemed cheap, as the full cost was not apparent – all of those with long term injuries were not yet making claims. Unfortunately, those years of low cost also saw the entitlements expand – so that by the time the system had absorbed all those with long term injuries, and covered the expanded entitlements, it suddenly seemed to cost an awful lot.

These problems are set to get worse. We have an aging society. An aging society implies not only more payouts, but also a lower proportion of people paying levies to cover the Non-Work Account. Because it is a Ponzi scheme, it will require ever-expanding numbers of people working to pay the levies.

So you can see how it has gone wrong, as it progresses, more and more claim it, stay on it for extended periods, making it progressively more expensive. Concepts completely alien to the economically illiterate left.

He says Labour knew this, and sought ACC to become fully funded by 2014, but it also expanded "entitlements" effectively setting it up for bankruptcy. The nonsense spread by the left that ACC is in fine shape because it receives more than it pays out, ignores the unfunded liabilities it has:

If any private insurance company had the books that ACC has, they would be declared bankrupt. The only reason that ACC is still solvent is that it has the capacity to increase levies. In essence, it is solvent because it can force people to cover its costs.

In other words, it is solvent because it has a state monopoly - it is solvent because you are forced to pay for it.

He suggests competition "The only viable way to ensure that ACC delivers results for reasonable prices is if it is open to competition. If people can get cheaper rates elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If that means risky workplaces start paying higher premiums, so be it – it will encourage them to improve workplace safety"

He makes the same classic arguments about competition, including one I have repeated:

"Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.

By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents. In the private market we have insurance excesses, we have no claims bonuses, we have risk-based premiums. The private market is all about mitigating risk. ACC, on the other hand, is about forcing the good employers to subsidise the bad ones."

The ACC monopoly is classic socialism - all employers pay for the collective risk, the good employers subsidise the bad ones, but who cares, it's all warm fuzzy shared and we all feel good about it, don't we?

After all you hear the left saying privately provided accident insurance will include a profit component, increasing costs, which of course implies that profit should be eliminated, and everything provided by the state, because profit increases costs. Classic Marxism.

All the lies of the left about "privatisation" completely ignore the real debate - why the state monopolises a compulsory accident insurance scheme that means the careful and prudent subsidise the reckless and imprudent? So now, of course, National cuts back ACC coverage to try to fit the budget - meaning all complain about the monopoly delivering less than what people want.

The advocates of state monopoly don't have very good arguments against competition, except use of a Labour commissioned PWC report that had terms of reference to effectively justify the status quo (a classic case of commissioning a study to tell you what you want to hear).

No other country runs this sort of pyramid monopoly scheme for accident cover, it is time to dismantle it and move on. Opening the whole damned lot up to competition is the FIRST step.

Then it's time to look at the next Ponzi scheme - National Superannuation.

Rudman's narrow thinking on drugs

Brian Rudman bemoans opiates as a "deadly scourge" effectively calling for the eradication of opium plants in Afghanistan. He doesn't have a suggestion as to what Afghan farmers should do instead, doesn't consider how this will shift production elsewhere, and doesn't even think that the criminalisation of opium creates many of the problems inherent in the trade. After all, opiates are used for medication, such as morphine.

He says "no one" is fighting it, which is patent nonsense, I guess he missed this. Although the futility of it is clear, since the Afghan government and so many in Afghanistan are reliant on the trade.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which has a vested interest in retaining the status quo, is his main source of information, and of course it is going to play up the threat. Nowhere are the questions asked:
- Is the main reason it is so profitable because it is illegal?
- Are some of the reasons it is so deadly because it is illegal?
- Is the criminal involvement in the trade because it is illegal?
- Will the elimination of opium in Afghanistan end the trade and supply of heroin?

Where does Rudman get this "fact " from, for example "It is triggering the spread of HIV at an unprecedented rate"? Really? So are the reports that in Africa the location with the highest prevalence of HIV, it is about sexual transmission NOT opiate use just nonsense?

Or is it that he has a terribly old fashioned view on the war on drugs, in that the decades of continued failure have passed him by?

London's capitalist paper

I've quoted a few times from City AM. It is London's less well known morning free paper. It focuses on business and finance, so for many will have little appeal. For me it is the one paper in the UK that consistently, without fail, supports free markets and opposes government intervention to prop up failure.

So I recommend looking at the editorials by Allister Heath at least, even if you are uninterested in shares, banking and markets generally. For the philosophy expressed is a positive one. Indeed, Heath wrote last week just this:

"unlike others, we have refused to go down the road of demagogic class warfare and the politics of envy. City A.M is the only newspaper that stands up for City workers and believes in their values. We support a real free-market economy and oppose bailouts as well as crippling tax hikes; first and foremost, we are the paper for London’s capitalist classes. "

Now that's something work looking at for me. So read City AM, and to start how about this little piece on the financial crisis.

It's not libertarian, but it does seek to embrace the creation of wealth and decry those who destroy it. That in itself is a good thing.

George Osborne does not know banking

George Osborne is the Tory Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has never had a real job. He has a second class degree from Oxford and has spent almost his whole working life either as an MP or working for the Conservative Party. His own ample inherited wealth has protected him from risking his own money in business.

So for him to call for banks to limit bonuses to £2000 or hand them out in shares is stupid, stupid indeed, and shows him up for how incredibly shallow he is, and indeed how shallow the Conservatives are.

The Conservatives are going for the envy vote, knowing that those in the banking sector are small in number and will probably vote Conservative.

The Times quotes Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott:

“If state-owned banks such as RBS and Lloyds pay bonuses using shares, they would have to issue new equity, which would dilute the taxpayer’s holdings,” he said. “George Osborne clearly does not understand how shares work . . . His ignorance is toe-curling and he hasn’t a clue how markets and public companies operate.”

Osborne talks of retail banks, but it is investment banks that pay large bonuses. So he doesn't even have a cursory knowledge of the banking sector.

Allister Heath in the excellent City AM got it bang on:

"The Tories are persisting in their belief that there is a moral equivalence between RBS, which went bust and had to be nationalised, and HSBC, which didn’t take any money from any government. Talk of moral hazard: regardless of how well you do, you will still be hammered by the government."

This, you see, is the moral vacuum that those almost across the political spectrum fail to note. Politicians want to punish all banks, yet they rewarded the bad performers, so only the good performers truly lose out. Heath eviscerates Osborne in his editorial and concludes that the outlook is bleak if the Tories really do believe this nonsense:

"expect HSBC and Barclays to start working on their exit plans: no other country, including the US, is planning this sort of separation."

Snooping State drumming up business

(Warning - profanity in last paragraph)

I blogged recently about the Independent Safeguarding Authority - an Orwellian UK bureaucracy which exists to vet adults as to whether they are pedophiles, or more specifically, whether they might be on something like a balance of probabilities. That, of course, gives it the veneer of being judicial, when it is quasi-judicial. In essence, if you EVER arrange to look after children for longer than a few hours, who you are not related to, it is illegal to do so in the UK, unless the ISA vets you. Vetting you is not just a criminal check, it is to check to see if you've been charged, investigated or if someone lays evidence of "doubt", you might be blacklisted - you have the right to challenge it, but the ISA will rule as final (short of you taking it to court for defamation I suspect).

This vile organisation has been under pressure lately, with even the government that spawned it wanting to curb its powers. Childrens' Secretary Ed Balls announced a review. Nothing like government creating something then effectively admitting it got it wrong.

So you might ask why the hell is the ISA effectively seeking to drum up business by claiming that even people who rarely deal with children might want to get vetted.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

"Sir Roger Singleton, the chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, said the scope of the database could increase significantly because companies would fear losing business if they did not have their employees vetted."

He then describes how an electrician business might think it is a good idea, if bidding for work at schools, and that more generally it would be a competitive advantage.

In other words, he wants more and more people to be vetted, for his organisation to hold quasi-judicial judgments about whether people are perverts, and for it to become the norm so that NOT being vetted would make someone suspicious. Not ISA certified? Oh you must be a pervert then.

Sir Roger Singleton has good intentions, but he has paved the road to hell - a hell where every adult is assumed to have dubious intent towards children unless they are found innocent. Where society operates under a burden of proof not of all being innocent, but all being guilty.

It is a climate of mass distrust, a climate that I can only say is paralleled in countries with totalitarian governments - where nobody can trust who is or is not an informant.

The ISA should be disbanded. People should be able to request that others undertake criminal vetting for convictions, for anything less risks barring people who have done no wrong, or those who are victims of false accusations because they are "different".

Most of all, Sir Roger Singleton deserves to be blasted for promoting his little mini-Stasi.

He deserves to be told to get fucked by all those who look after kids without the slightest nefarious intent, how fucking DARE you run a system that implies that without your imprimatur, people are child molesters.

Why don't you and your joyless goons go to the more feral parts of our big cities and start seeing who really ARE the child abusers in this country, the ones who have unwanted children, who ignore and neglect them, leave them to be preyed upon by strangers, gangs, alcoholics and drug dealers? Or is dealing with this sort of thing a bit too frightfully difficult for the upper and middle classes?

Damien Hirst excoriated

Damien Hirst is perhaps one of the most well known post-modernist artists, who would have remained obscure had Charles Saatchi not bought his work. He's known for creations such as "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living", basically a shark in formaldehyde. He devised diamond encrusted skulls ("For the Love of God"), preserved and dissected a cow and calf and even commented on the 9/11 attack as such "You've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible, especially to a country as big as America. So on one level they kind of need congratulating" before apologising to the families and friends of the victims.

I find it all quite vile. Hirst appears to worship death, so perhaps the irony of his latest works is that they have lent themselves to the death of his career. Perhaps art critics were waiting for the day to excoriate Hirst, for having little more than imagination and the patronage of those with the aesthetic values of rats. Hirst handed them the day, and they went for it like sharks.

Jonathan Jones in the Guardian says it beautifully as follows:

"Hirst's exhibition is a stupefying admission of defeat, a self-obliterating homage, that reveals the most successful artist of our time to be a tiny talent, with less to offer than even the most obscure Victorian painter in the Wallace Collection"

You see Hirst has painted, it has been exhibited, and it shows he cannot paint. Many have said so in damning terms:

Peter Conrad in the Observer: "Bumptiously confronting Titian, Poussin and other venerable elders at the Wallace Collection, Hirst is enjoying his temporary ownership of the trampled, desecrated earth. But he's not a legitimate heir and the Wallace Collection is playing host to a jumped-up pretender."

Mark Hudson in the Daily Telegraph: "Hirst's presumption in comparison with the technical inadequacy of the work was simply unforgiveable. For once, chutzpah wasn't enough."

Tom Lubbock in The Independent: "Hirst, as a painter, is at about the level of a not-very-promising, first-year art student" and how about why there is attention at all given to Hirst? "A few quick questions. 1. Are these new paintings, painted by Damien Hirst himself, any good? No, not at all, they are not worth looking at. 2. So why are you writing about them at such length? Because he is very famous. 3. And why has the Wallace Collection decided to exhibit them? Because he is very famous. 4. And why did Damien Hirst even paint them in the first place? Because he is very famous."

The Times "The paintings are dreadful. Think Francis Bacon meets Adrian Mole."


Jones concludes that Hirst himself has now shown this age of art to be a fraud:

Hirst has said: I want to be compared directly with the old masters, on their own turf, in their own visual language. In his eyes, it would seem that all the readymades, all the vitrines – all the ideas that have made him rich – are not real art at all. They are substitutes for the art he wishes he could make. The one truly great art, in his eyes, is the high western tradition of oil painting.

He can't do that at all; can't paint his way out of a paper bag. But don't kid yourselves. It is not just Hirst who is implicated in this exposure. It is an entire idea of art that triumphed in the 1990s and still dominates our culture – an entire age of the readymade stands accused by its own creator of being a charade.

Ouch. So well deserved, may the charade be well and truly over. Do I see Tracey Emin hiding looking confused as to what to do next?

Green brainwashing knows no ends

Australia's Daily Telegraph writes "Tots as young as three have sent letters to Kevin Rudd about their passion for green living and asked companies to reduce their packaging"

At one time the secular left would damn Christians for frightening children with the awful scary stories from the Bible, teaching them that if they sinned they'd go to hell. Now small children are being taught the world is coming to an end, and one of their key responsibilities is to "do something" about it, not unlike the Leninist form of brainwashing of children at schools to support the socialist state and fight the "imperialists".

Young children should NOT be worrying about the world, their chief concerns should be their own life, about school, family, friends and their possessions. To get small children to write to a Prime Minister about the environment is grotesque propagandising.

Imagine if a school got young children to write to the Prime Minister demanding taxes be cut, or that the government expand the armed forces or cut spending so they don't face a huge debt when they start working. The green left would be outraged, but its own scaremongering and politics are treated as "fact".

The Green Party in NZ embraces this as its education policy explicitly states:

"Incorporate environmental education (including energy efficiency and conservation) into the core curriculum at all levels and ensure that teacher education and training programmes allocate significant time for environmental education." and

"# Establish permanent environmental education regional advisory positions and encourage the further development of national resources to develop ecological thinking across the curriculum.
# Expand ERO reporting to include environmental education."

Of course if you want your children to be taught about this, then good luck to you. I'd let schools teach as they see fit, but it should NOT be part of the curriculum of every school. I'd argue strongly it would be far preferable to teach children personal autonomy, so they respect each others' rights to control their property and bodies - something children should learn in relation to each other. Frightening little children to think the world is going to end serves only one purpose, and it isn't the interests of the children.

(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)

Helen Clark is still an MP!

So says the Labour Party website today

(I have a screenshot for when this is fixed)

Remember you trusted the leadership of this organisation to spend around half your money.

Of course given she is more popular than Phil Goff as leader, it might not be surprising.

(Hat Tip WhaleOil)

National adopts Alliance local government policy

With the NZ Herald reporting Local Government Minister Rodney Hide unable to get National Party support to constrain the powers of local authorities, and unwilling to push it further, it seems like New Zealand is now stuck with a policy on local government driven by Sandra Lee when she was Minister of Local Government in 2001.

In the Local Government Act 2002, pushed by Lee and supported by Labour, local authorities were given the "power of general competence" to pursue the "economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being" of their communities. In other words, they not only could do whatever they wished, within the bounds of other laws, but they had a "duty" to consider those four "dimensions" of community development. It implied that councils not only could, but should be involved in economic development, promoting arts and culture and having a social welfare role of sorts.

National and ACT voted against this when it was in Parliament, but just to show "Plus ça change", it means nothing. The concerns expressed at the time have evaporated.

National has effectively adopted the local government policy promulgated by Labour and the Alliance. None of ACT's local government policy looks like coming to pass.

What does this mean for the supercity? Well my warnings that the supercity does not look constrained are right.

Auckland will have a mega city, with mega powers, and no constraints on its power. Even Rodney Hide now believes the majority can pillage the minority by saying:

"If a community want something and are prepared to pay for it, that's fine".

Rodney, if the community are so willing to pay for it, why the hell is the council making them pay? What does local government have to do with choice?

Mildly tinkering with transparency doesn't ratchet things back.

No. On local government the left has won, the ACT enthusiasts who think an Auckland mega city will vote to the "right" and constrain council spending (presumably with downtown railway tunnel enthusiast John Banks as Mayor), are deluding themselves. They have at least surrendered the rest of the country for their rose coloured view of the mega city. Frankly, it's a view that I could understand from National, which is as embedded in local government as the Labour Party, but that's it.

Rodney Hide and John Key are essentially adopting a legal framework and policy of the Alliance and Labour parties on local government.

Is this what you voted for?

British government funds Islamist schools

So whilst the Police chase up grandmothers who don't like gay pride marches, £113,411 was paid by taxpayers to an education foundation run by Islamist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir according to the Sunday Telegraph.

Hizb ut-Tahrir believes democracy is corrupt, that Muslims should be separate from non-believers and promotes a global Islamist state. It presents several faces to the public. It condemned the July 2005 bombings, but has published anti-semitic literature, and been banned in Germany as a result.

The schools teach Arabic from age three, and promote a strictly Islamist view of history and education.

Whilst it is all very well promoting diversity in education, the Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation runs three schools and it is not exactly teaching respect for the constitutional arrangements or fundamental freedoms of British society:

"At least three of the four trustees are Hizb members or activists, including Farah Ahmed, the head teacher of the Slough school, who has written in a Hizb journal condemning the "corrupt Western concepts of materialism and freedom".

On their website, the schools say their "ultimate goal" and "foremost work" is the creation of an "Islamic personality" in children The creation of an "Islamic personality" is a key tenet of Hizb's ideology."

The Centre for Social Cohesion is concerned, indeed whilst much attention is paid to the destructive nature of the BNP, Hizb ut-Tahrir should be at least as disconcerting. It is releasing a report next week outlining its concerns.

"Hizb is a fringe group but it is being given a public platform, legitimacy and funding by the very institutions it wishes to destroy," said Houriya Ahmed, one of the authors of the report.

Whilst most British Muslims do not align themselves with Hizb ut-Tahrir's views, this sort of direct state support for an organisation that is completely contrary to the British political system, effectively producing recruits to hate liberal democratic capitalist free society SHOULD frighten.

For it is exactly this sort of activity, and mainstream political absence of criticism, that leaves the BNP room for a constituency. Indeed, both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not deserve their respective names if they wont raise questions about this.

Complain to council? Police come visit

Now I don't like Pauline Howe's opinions. I think they are quite vile. She thinks homosexuals are "sodomites" with "perverted sexual practices" who "spread sexually transmitted diseases" and can be blamed for the "downfall of every empire". She identifies herself as Christian, and obviously finds homosexual offensive. True to Voltaire of course I'll disagree with her, but agree with her right to express herself.

She objected, in writing, to Norwich City Council about a gay pride march. The response she got was twofold. Bridget Buttinger (let's call her "Norwich Chief Petty Fascist") replied warning her that she could face criminal charges for expressing such views. Buttinger says as a local authority it had an obligation to "eliminate discrimination of all kinds". Her letter was described as a "hate incident" because it was "motivated by prejudice or hatred".

No doubt it was such motivated. Mrs Howe was expressing an illegal opinion.

The letter concluded stating the matter had been passed to the police. Mrs Howe received a visit from two police officers to question her. Mrs Howe is a 67 year old grandmother, and understandably was quite shaken by the experience.

This is, of course, a total outrage. Mrs Howe should have the freedom of speech to be able to write to the council to complain about a gay pride march. It is her right as a citizen to hold her point of view and express it. She was not threatening ANYONE. She may herself hold views that means she supports the state initiating force, but then so does the entire Labour Party and indeed I bet most of the Conservative Party.

The Christian Institute, a campaign group, is investigating whether the council and police have breached her rights to free speech and religious freedom under the Human Rights Act.

Even Stonewall, a group campaigning for gay rights, believes the actions were disproportionate and are glad the police did not take things further.

It's outrageous. Mrs Howe should have every right to complain as she sees fit, even though I'd regard her views with utter disdain, she does not deserve to be threatened or told that her views are to be "eliminated". She can be told she is wrong, she can be ignored, but not threatened and the waste of police time and effort chasing this up is contemptible.

Yet no major UK political party will confront this.

There is nothing liberal about this - and I do wonder, how often the police confront Islamic preachers about how often they express their anti-homosexual views?

(Full story, Sunday Telegraph)

Maldives stunt just lies on climate change

President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives created a widely reported publicity seeking moment on Saturday with images of him and his Cabinet holding an underwater meeting. The whole story was to highlight the alleged threat climate change would bring to the country he leads.

The report on CNN said:

Maldives is grappling with the very likely possibility that it will go under water if the current pace of climate change keeps raising sea levels. The Maldives is an archipelago of almost 1,200 coral islands south-southwest of India. Most of it lies just 4.9 feet (1.5 meters) above sea level.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change has forecast a rise in sea levels of at least 7.1 inches (18 cm) by the end of the century.

So take away 7.1 inches from 4.9 feet and you have, more than 4 feet left. The stunt was a grotesque hyperbole.

Christopher Brooker in the Sunday Telegraph notes that the President of the Maldives was sent an open letter from Dr Nils-Axel Morner, the former head of the international Inqua Commission on Sea Level Change. It says "that his commission had visited the Maldives six times in the years since 2000, and that he himself had led three month-long investigations in every part of the coral archipelago. Their exhaustive studies had shown that from 1790 to 1970 sea-levels round the islands had averaged 20 centimetres higher than today; that the level, having fallen, has since remained stable; and that there is not the slightest sign of any rise. The most cautious forecast based on proper science (rather than computer model guesswork) shows that any rise in the next 100 years will be "small to negligible"."

So it is a monumental fraud to scare the world into thinking the Maldives will be swamped.

Furthermore, Dr Morner has sought to reassure the people of the Maldives, but its government isn't interested:

Professor Morner offered to explain his team's findings on the local TV station, to reassure viewers that their homes were not about to disappear underwater as they had been told. The government refused to allow his film to be shown. Egged on by climate alarmists, successive Maldivan leaders since the 1980s have pleaded for vast sums of international aid to save them from rising sea levels.

Brooker concludes rightly:

"If President Nasheed really believed his own propaganda, he would of course immediately ban all flights into his country and turn off the lights in all its hotels. But since this would put an end to the international tourism which is almost his country's only source of income, he would rather carry on staging his publicity stunts, while holding out the begging bowl which he hopes gullible world leaders such as Gordon Brown will soon fill with large quantities of Western taxpayers' cash."

Nasheed is a fraudster, perpetuating his fraud to whoever will listen, enjoying the tourism from environmentalists that it generates ("last chance to visit Maldives") and with the begging bowl out ("it's not our fault, but come fly to see us").

Of course the Guardian swallowed it like the true believers they are claiming the Maldives would be the first nation submerged.

UKIP may go bankrupt

The UK Independence Party has one key policy - withdrawal from the European Union. A policy that was popular enough for it to come SECOND in the European Parliament elections earlier this year, behind the Conservatives.

It now faces bankruptcy. Why? Because one of its major donors was not on the electoral roll for the year the donation was given. He had been on the roll for years. The Court of Appeal demanded UKIP should be fined, and all up faces a bill of £750,000 including legal fees.

The Liberal Democrats received a major donation from a gentleman found guilty on a £10 million fraud charge, and has been excused.

The whole story is on BBC reporter Michael Crick's blog, with Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph also expressing concern that if UKIP is forced under, it will only benefit the Tories and the BNP (the latter becoming the next possible location for some anti-EU votes to go).

I don't have much time for UKIP, as it is no pro-freedom party, but it does provide an outlet for an important point of view - that the UK's EU membership is largely a one-way street of benefits. It would be rather scandalous if UKIP is shut down months out from a general election.

Delahunty scared of education freedom

To say Catherine Delahunty has said something crazy is to state the bleedingly obvious.

So here we go again. On Frogblog she said:

"It wasn’t much fun waking up this morning to the news that the Ministry of Education will no longer be providing advice to primary schools on arts, science, technology, or physical education – nothing in fact, except the “three Rs”: reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic. This latest assault on the public education system by the National Government is just plain stupid.

It also heralds the undoing of a robust curriculum. There is no educational justification for such a narrow focus, when all the evidence points to the importance of a holistic educational experience at primary school level"

Horror of horrors no more ADVICE to schools on certain subjects. What will they do? How will they cope? How can anyone teach anything without advice from the Ministry of Education?

What this means is that central government will no longer be directing how arts, science, technology and PE will be taught. It is a devolution of power to schools to make their OWN decisions. They wont get central government assistance on those subjects, they will need to figure it out for themselves or get together with other schools (or whoever they wish).

It is clear that the subjects will NOT stop being taught. Principals claim it might make those subjects a lower priority, which of course should be up to each school.

This move is a GOOD thing.

It is only a BAD thing if you believe education should be centrally dictated, that all schools should teach the same and use the same techniques. Schools MIGHT take it as a chance to be innovative, to think for themselves and deliver education in those subjects for what parents want.

Delahunty is spinning it as being the end of education in those subjects, which is nonsense.

In fact, the more central government abandons directing schools the better. Schools should be driven by parents, NOT bureaucrats, as to how and what they teach.

However, I can see why the Greens really are upset:

"Through this same cut, we have now lost all the Sustainability Advisors"

In other words, propagandists for the Green perspective on science, philosophy and history. No more taxpayer funded brainwashing of children to suit one certain agenda.

Another step forward would be for all schools to simply be funded on a per pupil basis and let the school innovate, decide what to teach and how, and then parents choose what school to send their children too. No centrally dictated curriculum (but schools could collaborate and share information and develop their own ones).

Now that really would frighten those who fear education being driven by what suppliers think consumers (parents) would like. Including, of course, the National Party.

BNP on Question Time?

Probably a mild win for the BNP - unprecedented platform for publicity. Nick Griffin came across as defensive, but relatively moderate, claimed he had transformed the BNP from being racist and fascist to being a party for indigenous British people to defend their rights.

He would have solidified his own supporters, except the profoundly racist who might think he's a sellout. However, who knows what other side the BNP shows in private.

For the rest of Britons? He probably gained support for his views on Islam and immigration generally, but every single non-white person who confronted him, he said he was happy letting them stay in Britain.

So in conclusion? Well done BBC - you probably gave the BNP more than it lost.

TV licence fee payers will be thrilled you gave them this oxygen of publicity, paid for by them.

Don't sing in the shower says Chavez

He's calling on Venezuelans to wash quickly and not sing because it wastes water and electricity, according to the Daily Telegraph.

He called jacuzzi's "anti-communist" (so he is a communist then), and his solution to electricity shortages? Create a Ministry. He also demanded all government departments cut energy consumption by 20%.

Why is there a problem? Chronic underinvestment in new electricity generation.

Of course it should hardly be a surprise that with socialism, shortages appear, and the solution to the shortages is not to allow entrepreneurship, market prices and let private individuals find solutions, but to tell people to use less.

Who does that remind you of?

Britain's race problem

The imminent appearance of BNP Leader Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time tonight indicates a growth in interest in the racist nationalist socialist party. Why? Well besides obvious disillusionment from many who would associate themselves with a more leftwing Labour Party, there is a race problem in Britain. It's a problem that incidents like this one provide fertile ground for the BNP to attract membership.

The Daily Mail reports how a 15yo schoolboy was involved in scuffles with a group of young south Asian boys, how he was attacked with a hammer that fractured his skull, and a knife, yet he feared being suspended - because of racism. Now the injured one wasn't completely innocent, but a culture appearing of young Asian youths feeling "untouchable" and able to use claims of racism as part of their armoury against white youths is utterly outrageous. It demonstrates how out of touch multiculturalist teachers are, and how easy it is for the BNP to call this racism against white Britons.

The Labour Party wont confront it because it is part of the problem. It encourages the "racism only runs one way" victim based context to consider race in the UK. It has demonstrably shown it will promote based on race to attract votes and sympathy with certain communities, the likes of Baroness Uddin demonstrating how low Labour's standards can go.

The Conservative Party wont confront it because it is scared of being branded "racist" given its recent makeover to look more inclusive. The Conservatives have long had a history of perhaps being more sceptical of ethnic minority candidates, and are now trying to outdo Labour on this front to attract voters who would otherwise never have thought of the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats are invisible.

So who is left? The party that actively tells young white Britons to be proud and says it "understands".

Until others start to recognise racism can go in all directions, and treat it all as inexcusable, then the BNP will have a policy that is difficult for many white Britons to disagree with. You can't start to accuse the BNP of racism without being called a hypocrite if you also close your eyes to racism instigated by those of non-British descent.

Racism is irrational and wrong - always. Whoever claims racial or national superiority based on birth place or ethnicity is being mindlessly stupid. Yet if the two mainstream parties pander to playing race cards, is it any surprise a minor one will get traction?

BNP on BBC

There is so much hype and talk about the BNP Leader Nick Griffin being invited onto the BBC TV show Question Time tonight, you'd think it was a commercial channel.

Which does beg the question.

The BBC is state owned, compulsorily funded by those who own TV sets. It feels obliged to give "everyone a fair say" and since the BNP gained around 900,000 votes at the last MEP and local government elections, it is seen as a political party of sufficient standing to deserve a say.

Tonight's Question Time will have a record audience of course, but the BBC is commercial free, so wont financially benefit. Yet if there were commercials, would it risk it?

Would a privately owned commercial TV channel, dependent on advertisers, like ITV or Channel 5, risk putting Griffin on when advertisers may regard buying time during the programme as taking advantage of the BNP's presence?

I simply don't know. If I was buying TV advertising, I might think there could be a big audience, but buying advertising endorses the broadcasting of the programme, and some may say Griffin's presence. I may be risking a significant amount of criticism, and maybe even boycotts by people.

Gordon Brown claims it will expose the BNP for what it is. I'm not so sure. Nick Griffin is a vile little man, but he does know how to manipulate coverage. He will deny all that is thrown at him, will throw dirt at the main parties for their own feeding at the trough of taxpayers, he will point out the hypocrisy of banning Gert Wilders, but not Islamists promoting tyranny, and will be seen as mainstream - unless someone can land a serious punch his way.

James Dray at the Guardian suggests ways to break Griffin down.

The Guardian also notes a similar TV appearance made a big positive difference for Jean -Marie Le Pen of France's fascist Front National.

So is the BBC going to destroy Griffin, or give him the best free publicity he could dream of?

The middle ground is hard to imagine, for if he just appears as a politician - like everyone else - it will be a huge win for the BNP.

What's galling is TV licence fee payers are forced to pay for this gamble.

UPDATE: Violent trespassing protests have started at the BBC television centre against the BNP. What fools like this fail to realise is that being violent plays into the BNP's hands. Oh I don't see the same protestors confronting Islamists who say "death to freedom" or call for violence against non-Muslims. Again, playing into the BNP's hands.

Freedom of speech may have caused the Holocaust

Who said that?

A member of the House of Lords. A member of the British Labour Party.

Baroness Uddin said this on BBC Radio 4, when interviewed on the 5pm news on 16 October 2009. You can hear her say this at 38 minutes into the one hour programme, (perhaps only if you are located in the UK), until Friday 23 October (when week old programmes get removed).

What did she say?

"I think when we say that freedom of speech is important and I will support to the death the freedom to speak but we have to remember that maybe what gave rise to the mass genocide of the Jews in Germany was freedom to speak”

Baroness Uddin was lauded for being the first Muslim woman member of the House of Lords. She has already faced scandals of claiming for a second home in Kent, that she doesn't live in, while she lives in London, in a "housing association" home - in other words, public housing which exists for the poor, with rents a fraction of the private sector market rates. Prima facie there is evidence of her pilfering the public purse for her own benefit.

She is a new Labour pinup, her list of achievements are:
- Diploma of Social Work;
- Labour councillor in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
- failed to gain candidate selection to stand for Parliament for the 1997 election.

So New Labour put her in Parliament anyway, in the House of Lords.

A woman who thinks freedom of speech is equated with Nazism.

Why is she not being pilloried by the British media, unless this wasn't picked up? (Notice the BBC didn't challenge her on this outrageous claim).

I'm gobsmacked.

(Hat Tip: Old Holborn who is righteously furious about this and far from speechless)