Thursday, 24 November 2016

Schrodinger's Sources of Unionism

You wouldn't think "Where did you get that from?" was a controversial question nor that it would be grounds to get huffy and defensive yet with many Unionists (And especially Yoons) asking for a source is akin to calling them gibbering madmen.


Okay so perhaps I was more snarky than I needed to be but there was a particular reason I was so incredulous over these numbers being provided.

The claim is over the course of the year, 2015/16, 177'042 more bed days were occupied by a person.
That's roughly 485 beds per day.
Now let's be clear, this isn't a total tally of all patients, just patients who were kept longer than perhaps was needed, maybe, and the number quoted by Edinburgh Western CLP is around 20% of the Lothian population.


Now it's entirely likely that there were patients that were kept around for more than one day but even so this is on top of patients whose discharges from their hospital were not delayed.

Yet it actually gets funnier as the number per day? 485, The Western General Hospital in Edinburgh holds 570 beds.

So by the information given, every day close to an entire hospitals worth of patents ate up beds which may or may not have been around 20% of the Lothian population.

Naturally, I had questions, so when Western came back with vague 'It's from the NHS' that was, in fact, no answer at all I went looking to the Information Services Division, part of NHS National Services Scotland provides health information, health intelligence, statistical services and advice as I figured they'd have the answer.

Where I found this;


Allow me to quote the Introduction;

"This is the first annual publication of delayed discharge information and presents a summary of the number of bed days occupied by delayed discharge patients and the number of patients classified as a delayed discharge at each monthly census point. Figures are presented up to March 2016. "
What the ISD is telling us, is that per month, 213 bed days were lost over 2015/2016.
Western is telling us that 485 bed days were lost per day.

I bet that last snarky tweet doesn't seem snarky enough now does it?

Oh but it gets better.



We have a freedom of information request is not an answer to the question I asked.
There are no restrictions on sharing an FOI either and simply saying that you have a source is not proof that you have a source, and wanting to see said source so you can find out how you came to this conclusion is not Unreasonable.

In fact, the refusal to show simply invites the suspicion that it doesn't exist.
It is Schrodinger's source, in effect.

This is a frustrating theme with Unionist twitter, ask about where they got their information and a lot of the time you'll have to commandeer their twitter notifications before you'll get an answer. It's the silliest thing to do when you're providing facts to be seen to be as credible but then refuse to provide those facts to prove credibility.

Then western did what frankly pushes this from Unionist actions into outright yoonery.



Okay, yes In this article I am questioning whether or not this alleged source of information exists but that's only because I don't have it to know it exists.

Up to this point, all I had done was ask if I could see it and been a bit snarky. I had in fact not questioned it as I hadn't seen it. I had at most, found contradictory information, was asking to see his information to compare and come to an informed conclusion.

Western's response is to go trawling through my twitter feed and deny me based on the contents because that worked so well for the Chicken Coups leadership bid. 

At the time of writing, I still haven't gotten a reply asking for a copy of this FOI.

So naturally all I have to go on is ISD assessment of the year.



The sum total shows that the number Western quoted is fictitious to the point of outright lie, that nationally the entirety of delayed discharges are down 9% from the previous year, three-quarters of those are aged 75+ which account for just 1 in 12 of the occupied bed total and happens because they either need more time to be secure in the accommodations post-release or because they're incapacitated.

Assuming that NHS Lothian doesn't possess a disproportionate share of these statistics then this comes off less as a failure of their hospitals and more that sick people aren't being shoved into the cold as soon as they're fit to be wheelchaired out the door.

That doesn't sound like any failure to me, certainly not as Western makes it out to be, and I know a country that agrees.


Perhaps if this vaunted FOI had been more forthcoming I might not have come to that conclusion but ultimately I can only put my confidence into sources I can actually see as opposed to just taking a Labour branches sneering assurance that it exists as they refuse to show it.

It's actually funny when you think about it though because;

A sneering contempt for explaining yourself to the electorate?

The self-entitled belief that you're word is better than evidence?

The faulty belief that your lacking wit and put downs is enough to end a debate?

Could swear that sounds familiar...


Oh yeah right, that's the tactics of the Tories, the same party that Labour claims to abhor and takes every chance to demonise.

I don't know why Western thinks emulating their parties supposed greatest enemy is a way to prove his faulty numbers are accurate, I can only suspect It's because they're not all that confident in this mythical FOI.

All of that could have been avoided for what would have taken but a few minutes to either scan in a letter or copy a link and tweet it to avoid it.

No wonder Labour are in dire straits if this is their idea of voter engagement.

Yours Sincerely,
Ethan Blair

Thursday, 3 November 2016

Bloody typical


So there's been a new Petition to bring in proportional representation to the Uk, one of many recently, however, the call for a proportional representation is not something that is going to happen anytime soon.



That's right, we had our Proportional representation vote and it was rejected by the electorate and as such First Past The Post is here to stay forever.

It is the most insulting of arguments especially as the Alternative vote system was not a proportional vote system.
To quote the electoral reform society;
"In a UK-wide referendum in 2011 the British public were asked if they wanted to replace First Past the Post (FPTP) with the Alternative Voting system for electing members of parliament. The referendum produced a definitive no vote against AV.
AV is not proportional representation and in certain electoral conditions, such as the 2015 General Election, could have produced a more disproportional result than First Past the Post (FPTP)." - Alternative Vote 



So the reason we can't have Proportional representation is because people voted against something which isn't proportional representation and wouldn't have worked like proportional representation which means the country doesn't want proportional representation. The twists and turns that Westminster goes through to justify refusing any change that could conceivably improve the Nations democracy are no doubt charged back to the electorate through expenses for nifty yoga classes.
Not to worry though, FPTP, a system of voting dating back to the mid victorian era, is quite robust, fair and has very few downsides.



http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/first-past-the-post

Look forward to either a lot of silence and tutting or bemused politicians quizzically asking why, if we wanted PR we didn't vote for it.

Yours Sincerely,
Ethan Blair.

Edit; Three of these pros for FPTP can be summed up with "it's simple to understand and operate." and I very much doubt this "Centrist" encouragement at the end, Fs.

See also;

Can't Get There From Here

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Stop helping people.


Have a look at this video.

What kind of nation do we live in where trying to reunite a child with their family is an Imprison-able offence?

I realise the hard issues at play here, the difficult situation of nations having to safely resettle immigrants is complicated by matters Legal, Social and political but then things like this happen and you see that in lot of cases people are just stuck because they've fallen into cracks of the system after fleeing terrible situations.

The apathy of the political elite to do something in the face of the defenseless is... well let's face it, that's just par for the course now isn't it.

Are any of us really surprised?

These are not voters, not taxpayers, not citizens nor even particularly well represented in the media, The Calais camp and the Refuge Crisis are just the product of larger problem within Britain and the EU.

Governments have for sometime now ceased trying to be more than bureaucrats, year in year out they enact policies that are by and large merely supposed to appeal to a small section of society that polling says vote for them.

What ever happened to Leaders changing their country to help people?

Instead it seems that the Etonian prefer to make life as difficult as possible while at the same time making sure that it is impossible for the people of the nation to help those in need.

Just look at the sneering contempt our government has towards Unions and Charities.

It's not even as if this is an isolated case, take the legal case of an asylum seeker's court fines being paid by a magistrate. [Source]

Professional organist Nigel Allcoat, a magistrate for 15 years, said he was despairing at the mounting fines and costs being accrued by an asylum seeker at Leicester magistrates court.
“As a magistrate, my job is to prevent more crime, but now the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) would have me sent to traitor’s gate,” he said. “But it is something I take very seriously.”Howard League criticises 'unfair and unrealistic' court fees The 65-year-old magistrate said the young man in his 20s had appeared before him in early August having defaulted on his fine, and had to also pay £180 in mandatory court charges, The 65-year-old magistrate said the young man in his 20s had appeared before him in early August having defaulted on his fine, and had to also pay £180 in mandatory court charges, under legislation introduced late in the last parliamentby the former justice secretary, Chris Grayling.
Allcoat said he had been deeply affected by images of refugees facing riot police in Hungary. “These people have travelled for hundreds of miles to reach us, I wanted to show what British justice meant, to show him the character of this country is actually compassionate.”
The man had £35 on a top-up card to use in specified shops, and was not allowed to take any form of work. A £60 victim surcharge he had owed in June had already been paid by a sympathetic burger stall owner who fed the young man occasionally when he was destitute, Allcoat recalled.
“What can someone do in that situation, when you tell them they need to find £180 or they will go to prison, but they cannot work?” Allcoat told the Guardian. “They could steal the money? Commit another crime? That would cost the state even more money to have him put in prison. It costs more to keep someone in prison than to send a boy to Eton.”
Let's be clear though, these charges were the result of an asylum seeker being taken to court because he couldn't pay a previous fine where he was then given £180 "mandatory court charges" where the magistrate decided to pay part of his charge since, as and Refugee, he is not allowed to work to earn money to pay of a fine.

So naturally a magistrate, someone who perhaps wants to see court cases seen through rather than just toss people in jail for it being impossible to pay the fine, is suspended because the poor should not be able to afford justice and woe betide anyone the state does not deem it acceptable to help.

I really question the sanity of this Kafkaesque nightmare that Tory Britain has descended into.

Yours sincerely,
Ethan Blair.

Friday, 23 October 2015

That which unites us, Apparantly

 The Recurring Theme. 



For the last few years the purpose of the union has been the focus of the mainstream political debate more than at any other time and what was far more amazing than the floundering lack of a clear positive case for the union was not the feeble explanations as to what it's goals and Ideals were but why it had continued for as long as it did.

It was the same theme time and again, put simply it's that there are other people in the world who are different from us and we should band together lest they get us with their "Otherness".

During the early days of the union there was Spain and France to contend with, Then the empire had restless natives threatening to "overthrow us and cast down civilization", we must never forget the Germans and those Arab types were never trustworthy so stay with us so we may fight them and any others like them.

Reading dime a dozen articles about the Union this was the common ideology for why the union existed.

Scottish independence was about what we were capable of as a people but what the British state and it's citizens were capable of was pushed aside for an argument of fear and hatred that so exemplified the better together campaign and their media outlets that I honestly never thought of the majority of No voters as belonging to the likes of Blair McDougall who exalted in his tactics of "Project Fear" to make his case for the union.

It was not really surprising, Even in platforms that hold to a veneer of respectability fell into this pattern, such as the Financial Times;

Former common rallying points have disappeared. Peace and European integration have deprived the UK of a frightening “other” to unite the public in the way that 19th century France or 20th century Germany could. The end of empire has killed the imperial vision of wealth, power and employment.

Not all articles were quite as blatant as this, often it was subtly inserted into articles that without Scotland the UK's political, economic and military might would be diminished leaving us vulnerable to the "Forces of darkness!" that so wish to destroy our truly British way of life, sometimes this rhetoric slipped as above but the same underlying tones were always there but how can we be surprised at this, after all, is this not simply the same political manoeuvring that surrounds the hysteria around Immigrants in this country?


 False Britishness. 

Try as I might I can't really think of an ideology that is less British, it's not even Scottish, Welsh, Irish or English but the false sense of Britishness that drive so many of the daily mails antiForeigner campaigns, an ugly shadow the blights serious debate about ourselves and the UK's place in the world.

One of the major selling points the official No side ran on was to be united against those that were different, Demonizing any one who questioned their position as a power mad tyrant, crazed loons looking only to start trouble or literally Hitler because those on the opposite side of the debate had become the other to them, something different, something not entirely like them in every way and what could be more evil than that.

After all, if Scotland became independent then the Scots would become the most detestable of all things to the false brits, Foreigners.

If Independence Happens, my grandchildren will become outsiders and friends ovr decades will become foreigners. To me and many with cross- border connections that is unthinkable.
To my Scottish granddaughter: `It's time to chose whether to stay with your family, or be a foreigner'

It's an appalling opinion that has been treated as if this is what it means to be British, though it was always there it has been magnified by the realisation that the established authorities power base is threatened and just like with Immigrants the only reaction many could manage was blind irrational hatred and rage that they had to justify their power and identity to the people they represented and those they should call family.

We must ask though, if a passport changing means you can no longer call your family your own if you ever truly loved them, as it is the person that you should value not a box that gets checked in legal paperwork 

It's a queer belief as Britain by definition contains four distinct countries, that even have differing cultural traditions each within themselves.

The other and it's related Ideology should be a political and cultural death sentence (metaphorically speaking) to any who try to use this brand of fear to advance their views but like all extreme points of view it holds a crazed logic of its own and only has to tap into enough people's fears to gain an advantage not build a majority on it's own or or reach out to those that would decide based on informed decisions and moral values.

Yet this philosophy of fearing that which is different is ultimately flawed to win the loyalty of Scotland and to placate the English, we have seen the rising anti Scottish sentiment, the drive to force Scottish mp's from Westminster and the battle to restrict the advancement of meaningful devolution to Holyrood.

How can this false sense of Britishness be resolved then that demands reactionary panic to "otherness", when Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are different counties, for a long time the belief that the Scottish are inferior to the English because they are Scottish has been inflamed by the idea that they are foreign and a biased Press and media's monstering of that group with little representation.

It has been an underlying currant to a section of the UK's populace but now the ties that were once forged in days past that did meaningfully tie us together have withered away and Westminster may have delivered the death blow.



Amid Ukips rise, greater Euroscepticism and anti Foreigner sentiment the unspoken realisation that Scotland is a foreign country hangs over our heads, threatening the most awful reckoning.



That in order to be truly free of these "Others" a number of things must go.


The great Madness

It would be easy to dismiss if it wasn't for Ian Duncan Smith's cheque book euthanasia, David Cameron's sneering contempt for due legal process, accountability or any number of blatantly corrupt actions from the conservatives and amidst it all the is the same undercurrent that is at best simply racist, sexist or just generally corrupt.

The Scottish are often depicted as being fiery-tempered, alcoholic, militaristic and miserly, we all play bagpipes and are dressed in kilts, primitive and ungrateful we argue with our betters out of spite incapable of understanding our place in "Their" society.



It can be found throughout many of the major news outlets, in July 2006, MacKenzie wrote a column for the Sun newspaper referring to Scots as Tartan Tosspots, rejoicing in the fact that Scotland has a lower life expectancy than the rest of the United Kingdom, a view repeated by Kate Hopkins and by more, often this is blamed on ourselves, proof of our inferior nature.



We can't be allowed our own country, we would be destroyed by self determination, they say we are Subsidy Junkies as if we couldn't or don't raise enough taxes to support our country, we can't be trusted with greater devolution or we'll ban abortions and become HitlerStalinkim jong Il  and date rapists.



These views have been repeated again and again as to why Britain must survive.

It's nothing new, these views didn't come from nowhere but have been around for a long time.

On my best day, I cannot do Scottish people. I don't even believe that's a real accent, to be honest with you. I think they probably sound like us when they're in the house. It's how they keep people away from them. - Russell Peters


The BBC also made an article on the same subject under the title "Have you experienced Racism for Being a Scot?" as if the very idea was preposterous. 

It's not like Scots are attacked for being Scottish, except when they are beaten for having an accent, Or if they have anything else that shows them to be Scottish, or attacked because "Kill The Jocks" or just because their better than the jocks.



"The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads to England." - Samuel Johnson
Nor is it that those who claim to work in our best interests or claim to represent us in the press work to undermine our efforts or flatly state they resent our attempts to do so ourselves.








One of the very, very exciting things I have found here in L.A. is that no one talks to you about being Scottish. Whereas, if you are in London and you are trying to put films together and be a film-maker, there is a kind of unspoken sense that, if you are Scottish, you have something to overcome or else you cannot really do that project. - Peter Capaldi

I often have scripts sent to me with allegedly Scottish characters where I end up telling them, 'You're going to have to rethink this whole thing!' - Robert Carlyle
Amidst all this hate there are so many Unionist, irrelevant of country, that just can't fathom why we aren't United as one people, why we would do everything within our abilities to create a new country, even with all the benefits but the risks that could happen too, over putting these same efforts into building a better union. 

Louder and Louder

Keep this mind, this is the atmosphere that has been present in the UK for a long time and has only been magnified by the referendum, there's actually a poem that best explains the problem.

While Boris Johnson was shadow minister of culture he was also working as editor at the spectator he published this Poem by James Michie who he described as a "Gentle Genius".

Friendly Fire
 by James Michie

The Scotch - what a verminous race!
Canny, pushy, chippy, they're all over the place.
Battening off us with false bonhomie;
Polluting our stock, undermining our economy.
Down with sandy hair and knobbly knees!
Suppress the tartan dwarves and the Wee Frees!
Ban the kilt, the skean-dhu and the sporran
As provocatively, offensively foreign!
It's time Hadrian's Wall was refortified
To pen them in a ghetto on the other side.
I would go further. The nation
Deserves not merely isolation
But comprehensive extermination.
We must not flinch from a solution.

Satire.
You can do allot with it, expose the irrationality of others, It can challenge ideas and force others to confront and reflect on themselves yet there is also an issue where when you create a thing but instead of simply making fun of an idea, it is simply another example of that idea having not actually criticised it's subject.

Because in all seriousness, What's the difference between this and the unfettered hatred that's been directed against the pro independence side and Scots in general over the last few years? 

When you exceed your own parody, It's time to ask hard questions about what's happening because honestly I read that poem and I know what it's supposed to be but I look at it and see so much of what has been said about us and it is the best mirror of this climates undertones.

The biggest problem with this tactic of pandering to the crowd that hold these beliefs of course is simple and readily apparent to all, It's really not the majority opinion, Just the loudest one that quickly gets attention.



It'd be easy to dismiss the no side and Unionists in general as bigots or irrational as the image on top does but such claims are nonsense, consider the Highest group of No voters, the 65+ age bracket.

These people were around when the UK was really pulling together, the struggle and victory over the Nazi's had created a strong bond between the differing countries it is true but what made it more binding was following it up with massive reform to help those in need, creating the NHS and the Welfare state, these were noble goals and if Better Together had managed to reclaim this philosophy they wouldn't have needed project fear.

Pulling together only works when two parties are willing to do so yet It is the Westminster establishment that have left the country to itself focusing on the betterment of London and only the few surrounding areas as an after thought, the answer to the question what could unite the British people together is not fear and hatred of an external enemy, it is simply US, we could do it.

We don't need a bogey man, there are many problems in our country and we could come together to fight against poverty, illness, Ignorance and crime because these are the enemy we all have in common and it is just to fight against them.

The bonds this could create would be far greater than a tangible enemy, perhaps we could never stamp them out completely but we would be standing side by side working in our own interests and in each others that would truly recapture the post war spirit that is the true meaning of being British.

It will never be the message though, Labour, The Conservatives, Ukip and the lib dems are not the same organisations that built the modern institutions that served and protected us as a people, the country that No voters sided with is a dream, beautiful to be to certain but for forty years we have seen that country being hollowed out and disparaged.

Can we be blamed for trying to build a better country?
Can we be blamed for trying to recapture the British Spirit?



Of course we can, because they're not trying to do this any more, we were always here ready to do it but we waited so long that we can no longer believe in the dream and decided "why did we have to wait for others to build it for us?" why not simply endeavour to change the world ourselves.

And for this we were met with scorn and the question of why we were so determined to leave.

We never left Britain or it's ideals to build a better world, it was Westminster that left us, we just tried to fill the empty space that was left.

Sincerely
Ethan Blair


Further Articles










Why I changed my mind from no to yes in BellaCalledonia

Reposted From facebook Notes in the wake of EVEL progress.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ethan-blair-writes/that-which-unites-us-apparantly/290567364475449

Sunday, 30 August 2015

The State of the Union.


Our government is not acting in the interests of our nation, countries nor people.

We are told through the BBC and the wider mainstream media, the majority of which controlled by Tory Donors as well as by friends and family of sitting Tory MPs, that we are privileged to live in Great Britain.

The story goes that the nations economy is bouncing back after the previous successive Labour governments irresponsible spending habits, that the inefficient benefits system is being retooled and modernised to better help the people it serves, that the union and it's people is as united as its ever been, that our democracy is stronger than ever and the envy of the world as well as so many other things that create a backdrop on which a single premise is reliant about.

That it is insanity to wish to leave the Union.

So much time and effort is spent puffing up the various groups and other interests that run this country but they all subscribe to the same narratives and assumptions about the Scottish Independence movement.

The first foolish notion is that it all fits into one singular group spear headed by The SNP, the second that the reasons for the movement are all the same single reason, "Anti-Englishness".

The problem with this type of assumption backed by an anger fuelled confirmation bias is not only that it blinds the unionist parliamentarians and media is that it blinds them from dealing with the actual issues that drive their opposition.

Worse it drives them to extremes, Anti-English sentiment driving Scots is one of those truthy comments that sounds right, after all much of Scottish and English history constitutes being at war with each other yet the civic nationalism that has been at the heart of the independence campaign is not directed at attacking England but at improving the state of Scotland.

When particularly dim unionists are presented with the difference between what they think they are arguing against vs what is actually there they become irrational falling back on racists stereotypes or farcical comparisons.

Like calling us Nazis, Stalinist, Marxist or any number of small petty insults they can use to try and force the conversation into the frame that suits their frame of mind just as long as they don't have to confront their own biases and failure to comprehend what is happening.

I think I know though, I get it, hard truths are hard to face but hiding from them doesn't stop them being true.

There is a reason I support Independence from Westminster.

I don't purport to represent everyone's view nor even that I could sum up the total reasons and motives of such a wide movement.

Mine own is large and far reaching, It's not because of a difference of philosophies between Scotland and England, a desire to permanently kick out the Tories nor even the simple belief that Scotland deserves to be free.

It is seeing the outcome, where this all seems to be heading, the final result of a myriad issues that have become hallmarks of The Westminster Government regardless of what party controls it.

My reason is that I do not for five seconds, not for a long time, see this nation continuing. No I don't mean that Scotland will inevitably become independent but that due to the lessening importance of good governance over political gains and manifold other crimes The United Kingdoms of Great Britain are racing towards a revolution.

It's going to end badly.

Consider the emotional and personal stress that is being caused by Ian Duncan Smith's Ideologically driven benefits reform that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths that we know of.  

Despite his claims otherwise Ian Duncan Smith has not helped the poor of this country back into work all he seems to have done in his role an official representative of this country is help people into their grave.

The sick and vulnerable have been the target of these beliefs, people like David Clapson who after missing one of his meetings at the jobcentre lost his allowance.

He was diabetic but without that money to keep the electricity on, insulin needs to be refrigerated or it starts to break down.

He was found dead next to a pile of CV's.

Ian's personal beliefs on welfare are so atrocious that he has fought tooth and nail to prevent any data on the full number of related death's from his policies not that it hasn't stopped people from managing to get pieces of that information.

Death has become such a part of the welfare system that the United Nation are investigating him for human rights violations.

And of course it should come as no surprise that Atos has links to the Tory party and that they didn't even bother to pay their taxes.

What else can we expect of a man who laughs at the idea of a woman being raped.
"You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”  - Terry Pratchett, Going Postal. 
There's more of course, take for example the police, It's a sad moment when you find out that a section of our law enforcement agency have stopped investigating burglaries at odd numbered houses and you find that tame.


The rampant sexism and racism endemic to it's practices, a police force that receives 3'000 reports of corruption but will only investigate half of them and even then the most likely people to be punished are those that reported the corruption, a police force that views oversight as unwanted meddling and uses means big and petty to stop it, a police force that views brutality as the tools of their trade, a police force whose "Undercover" operations are so corrupt as to be laughable, a police force that doesn't even respect the law, a police force that often doesn't feel the need to Investigate the reports of crimes or their assistance on covering up high profile members of the Paedophile information exchange like Peter Hayman whilst using that to their own advantage but of course the establishment did that as well.


The government has always been perfectly comfortable with corruption just as long as it's not working against them.

That's why cuts to legal aid don't bother them, that only affects the poor after all.

You may wonder how these two things are connected to the UK falling apart, Simply put, why should anyone put up with these injustices?

Consider the cultural backgrounds that led to revolutions in America, France and Russia.

These calls to rebellion were inflamed by an unjust society ruled over by corrupt and abusive leaders, men starved, Laws were designed to rob the people of wealth and imprison them on whims but no where was there anything to hold up their respective nations.

The truth about evil is that It's self destructive, eventually it's own practices collapse it and the same is true of corruption.

You might think these things are unrelated, that in this day and age violent uprisings against a corrupt authority are not acceptable in a "First World Country" and it certainly isn't going to happen here.

Except it already has.

In a small way but big things come from small things.

The England riots that burned parts of England's cities to the ground were fuelled by the murder of an unarmed man by this nations police.

The injustice sparked protest, the police never like protesters let alone when they are the ones it's directed against.

It turned violent and then people who only need an excuse joined in and it lasted days.

Whilst this nation is being accused of crimes against it's populace it's police and government are viewed with contempt, after all, these are just two of the societal tensions that are puling the union apart.

If you think that the end of the England Riots put to rest the issues that drove it then your mistake, people aren't like balloons, a brief spat of violence doesn't deflate them.

People are still protesting and it's just a matter of time and a big enough spark will set it of again but worse.

Take immigration, another thorn in it's side, the mass injustice of the right wing actions had people chasing off police in Rotherham.


People cannot toil under a corrupt system and with enough time will no longer feel the need to obey the law but the problem with that is simple.

The Russian and French revolutions didn't end well and weren't exactly happy fun times while they were happening either, the American revolution didn't free the slaves nor stop the genocide of the native Americans.

Violent revolt is a flawed methodology in that it justifies rule by violence, you can see this still in American society through it's refusal to hand over it's gun rights, after all, a heavily armed populace keeps "guberments" honest.

I don't know what shape the English revolution will take nor when it will happen but a society betrayed by a corrupt government will over throw that government.

Just like the England Riots those that only need an excuse to wreak mayhem as well as those that see it as an opportunity will join in and have shape whatever happens next.


I voted yes to escape it.

Sincerely,
Ethan Blair.


Sunday, 9 August 2015

To be a Tory.



In my previous article I asked whether or not the Tories were fascists and to cut a long story short ended up with the fact that Fascist was a wide term that could be applied to many things. That it was counterproductive to give them a label, that while emotive in its imagery, ultimately only provided an easy way to deflect real criticism by explaining that they were 100 percent fascist.

That Tory was a far more damning title which has for some time stood to mean corruption.


The easiest way to explain that is with what Tory means;

Tory is derived from the old Irish derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe, itself from the word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men" because tóraidhe and Tory mean outlaw, robber or brigand, a criminal of low moral character out to rob you.

Honestly, that sounds like our David Cameron but like many rich old men before them they realised they could get more money by changing the law than by holding a gun and really consider this for a minute, Tory has always been an insult, it's how it started and what it remains.


Now think of all the times you've heard Conservatives referring to themselves as Tories, one well-known example here;





These people are literately telling you they are thieves every time they say that.

I would uphold a separate point to that, though, that Tory-ism and Conservatism are not the same things, that in fact, the modern Conservative and Unionist party has been so corrupted as to be unrecognisable by an ideology that is morally bankrupt.



To be Conservative.

"I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few."Benjamin Disraeli, in a speech at High Wycombe, England (27 November 1832); published in Selected Speeches of the Late Right Honourable the Earl of Beaconsfield, ed. T. E. Kebbel (1882), volume 1, p. 8.


To preserve, to defend, to ensure the unity and happiness of the nation.
Certainly doesn't sound like the Tories does it?

At it's best Conservatism is not something to be feared, it is only when, like many beliefs, these ideals become corrupt or absolutes that we see the most harm.


There are some common themes to the philosophy and naturally, I'm going to go at it from a positive point of view to illustrate the higher ideals and what Conservatives should be.


The preservation and enhancement of society.



All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope.  Winston Churchill

Defending the democratic will of the state (such as upholding the Welfare state and the NHS which could have been reversed after Atlee's government but wasn't) as well as fighting corruption within government that undermines such things.


The moral obligations of institutions.
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.
Edmund Burke

That power is not an end in of itself, might must be tempered by, and used for, what's right.
After all, what is the point of a government or country if not to work towards creating a better nation and that by allowing unfettered corruption, only invite the question of why no one has ousted such evil.


The betterment of individuals through self-reliance.

Often through laws improving the conditions of the populace such as through Fair wages to increase the standard of living (Which past Conservatives have done), better-working conditions and industry practices as well as various programs to build a skilled workforce, better systems of education, equality in employment, etc.



"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston Churchill.


That change must occur naturally at a controlled, tested pace.


“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” ― Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays

Conservatism tends to view radical change as unpredictable but inevitable and try to affect such change gradually to both ensure change happens in a stable and effective manner preventing these changes from causing chaos in an unpredictable manner.

Now, of course, I've simply stated what I feel are the most prominent features of a positive conservative ideology, not really going into the differences that appear from a more authoritarian or liberal dimension nor something I myself want, simply how I see a Conservative Ideology the would be at least respectable.

Cautiously tinkering with the established institutions to improve them, defending the rights of the poor and needy while providing means to improve their capabilities, using sound judgement and ethics to improve the conditions of the people and ensuring the intuitions responsible for all that are free from corruption.

I must ride with my knights to defend what was, and the dream of what could be. Arthur, Excalibur. 
In this base form, it is an ideology that makes sense and one that can be understood but it is not what a Tory believes in.

The Tories


Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell.
Edward Abbey

Neo-liberalism is one of the oldest stories in the world, I often hear it told that Thatcher pioneered the economic thought and brought much-needed aid to western economics, that without it some great and terrible age would have continued to disrupt something or other, what these reasons/policies/social conditions/boogie men change allot though and I don't really feel like dignifying the flimsy rationale by repeating it.

This, of course, is often said by people who benefit off of a system that is rigged to favour the 1% because Neo-liberalism is no different from the oligarchies of the dark and middle ages, it is an ideology that removes regulation from the banks, industry and financial services, a system the promotes institutions as unassailable.

The best example of this corruption comes from the banking crash in 2008, around the world Financial institutions revealed in the deregulations being pushed forward by their governments, Subprime Lending, The housing bubble, predatory lending, the collapse of the Shadow banking system and more served to create an economic system to corrupt to survive.

Once the metaphorical pyramid scheme ran out of ways to keep juggling its problems in the air it came crashing down.



The free markets ideals are that the market should be free of government to operate, objecting to regulation from governments they fund parties that will continue to remove restrictions on unethical or corrupt practices yet when the crash hit they begged for that same interference in a way that's best summed up thus;


Banks: We've run out of money.
Governments: oh no, what will you do?
Banks: well, We'll need you to lend us the money.
Governments: But we get our money from you.
Banks: Yes, so will lend you the money to give to us.

It sounds ridiculous because it is, it was just a way to move the debts from the private banks onto the various countries they operated in.



Throughout it all, we've been fed a tale about Government Borrowing and debt, the comparisons to household budgets have been made to justify this myth, that the recession and austerity that followed were created by irresponsible governments, not by a corrupt banking and financial industry.

Our good David Cameron and the rest of the Tories even have the nerve to ply that it's out fault, that building public services is what caused this, the NHS can't be run but don't worry, I have some good friends in the financial sector who want to take it and "Modernise" it.

All with the promise that if we allow this it will make us successful again.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, “make” something of ourselves. You don’t need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master’s degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.
 [Source]

The truth about modern Tory economic policy is that it isn't about handling the countries economy, It is a web of lies, half-truths and, at best, assumptions designed to keep hold of power and hide the damage that has been done to the country.

It is purely and utterly a doctrine in service to the select privileged few, Iceland didn't follow this course and flourished but Greece tried to break free and was crushed.

Our good Cameron is just bought and paid for, just through the money and influence needed to keep him and his fellows in power to work for those who keep him there.


And of course, there's just the unpleasant nature of many of their beliefs;

"In its worse forms, conservatism is a matter of 'I hate strangers and anything that's different.'"P. J. O'Rourke
"People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture."   Margaret Thatcher, in a Granada TV interview, January 1978
"One shark turned to the other to say he was fed up chasing tuna and the other said, 'Why don't we go to Morecambe Bay and get some Chinese?'"   Ann Winterton MP, making a joke about the deaths of Chinese cockle pickers, at a dinner party in Whitehall in February 2004
"The only solution is to kill 600 people in one night. Let the UN and Bill Clinton and everyone else make a scene - and it is over for 20 years." Alan Clark MP, on how to deal with the IRA
"Hang Mandela." campaign slogan of the Federation of Conservative Students during the 1980s, during which time its chairman was John Bercow, now Speaker of the House of Commons

Really I could go through it all, from Thatchers war against the British people to Ian Duncan Smith's version of smother with a pillow welfare in great detail but that would make this article even longer than it is, so I'll just go with one story, one tale of a real conservative against what Tories consider acceptable business dealings.


The sad Tale of Geoffrey Dickens.



By all accounts, he was the sort man who is often described as a clown.

A plump jolly man who acted ably as a councillor and constituency MP, he still had a tendency to take himself more seriously than his peers but then would do things like holding a press conference to announce he was leaving his wife.

Without telling his wife first.

So had a bit of reputation for that kind of headline-grabbing actions or being a "rent a quote" but was otherwise a fine man.


He was also the man who assembled the dossier about high-ranking individuals in government that Leon Brittan "Misplaced" never to be seen again.

Accounts seem scarce as to when Geoffrey Dickens began his investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange and it's various supporters in Westminster and Whitehall but the first time I can find that he acted to reveal them was inside parliament itself to publicly expose Peter Hayman.

Needless to say the reaction of the establishment to Peter Hayman's activities being brought to light under parliamentary privilege, Which allowed Geoffrey Dickens to ask why after being found to have been in possession of violent child pornography without being sued for slander, was shock and horror that one of their own could be disrespected in that manner.

Peter had left an envelope of the aforementioned materials on a bus in an envelope that had been through the mail system, so an investigation into the envelope revealed an apartment in Bayswater, London that Peter used the pseudonym Peter Henderson to receive such material as well as discovering 45 diaries describing six years of "sexual fantasies" concerning children.


So with such evidence against him he was naturally released, he even got a warning not to send any more Indecent images through the mail, bet he even got a finger wag along with it. Don't let the futurama meme deceive you, though, there was a reason, oh was there one.

You see, everyone agreed he owned these images, the diaries and was a member of The Paedophile Information Exchange.


The response as to why Peter Hayman wasn't prosecuted given by the attorney general in parliament in response to Dickens perfectly reasonable question was, and I quote;
"That prosecution was against persons alleged to have been involved in the management or organisation of PIE. Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the recent trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.
I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence." [Source]

That although Peter Hayman having received Pornography of children in an envelope proven to have gone through the royal mail (actually two crimes) leading to a flat were further correspondence were found connecting him to all of it, where they even told him of not to send any more such thing through the mail.

That there was no reason to prosecute him for this since there was a trial for running an organisation related to his offense he was originally named in, not trafficking child porn.

So despite being a member of an organisation dedicated to the finding, creating and sharing of Child pornography, the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, actually in parliament said, that though Hayman was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, he was not actually a member of the executive committee, so was they couldn't prosecute him as others were for all of the things he did in P.I.E. because he wasn't in charge of the entire thing.






The really sick thing though is the outcry afterwards, oh you'd think it's because a man so clearly at risk of abusing authority was put in several high authority positions over the decades and who, as Dickens asked "How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highly sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?", but no.

Oh no, see, just having an entire flat of evidence that he possess child Pornography and belonging to an organisation dedicated to disseminating and/or creating them at a profit wasn't enough to be outraged for him... possessing and potentially distributing Child porn, no no.

The outrage was at Geoffrey Dickens asking why someone arrested for an illegal activity, with clear evidence and no actual denials he possessed the pornography or belonged to P.I.E. wasn't being prosecuted, was itself the scandal because how dare he ask that.

Just listen to some of this.




This is the battle Dickens had to fight over one question about publicly available information, what he had to go through to get the information he did for the many dossiers he distributed I'll never know.


It came at risk, to quote him;


 "The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the Floor of the House. Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer's hit list."

Sadly, he wouldn't take them down.


He'd continue to fight as long as he could but ultimately there was one key problem, reporting a crime does not matter if the people who commit the crime can tell the police they can't investigate because it's a threat to national secrecy.

You can't seek legal help when they control the courts.

You can't rally the morally indignation of the democratic institutions to meet out justice when corruption and abuse of power are part of the bedrock foundations.

This is what it means to be a Tory but why do this?

The news program Sixty Minutes created a documentary called spies, Lords, and Predators.






Listen to the views they hold, the actions that these guys took and the things they did as well as the lengths people went too to keep them concealed.


Think on what we do know about The Elm Guest House Scandal, Jimmy Savile's use of his charitable works to find and groom children, Dolphin Square and Kincora Boys home, they all have common links, The use of the state to acquire children and through various means keep it secret.

And you know, I was going to posit this as an Idea, no really, I had no proof that it was definitely the reason but something changed in between my starting this article and finishing it.

Edward Heath, a former prime minister is being investigated for Child Abuse.


As sad as that is, it led to Scrutiny that turned up this Quote from his Chief whip.

























Don't believe me? Don't think anyone on the face of the planet could possibly be that secure in their ability to cover up crimes that they couldn't fathom telling others they covered up crimes would actually get them in trouble? Here's the video.




I swear to god that was exactly what I was going to say, that while the people who perpetrated these crimes did so for their own enjoyment that the rest of the Tory establishment turned round, saw this, and realised that unfathomable evil wasn't something to be stopped, It was a political opportunity.



Geoffrey Dickens saw evil and fought it because he was a conservative, he still believed in his parties stated ideals and he knew that meant to protect the nation he would have to fight those in charge of it even if it meant his life.

These things matter.

Just not to a Tory.

The scary thing, though, is that being a Tory doesn't mean being in the Conservative and Unionist Party, It doesn't even mean being part of P.I.E.

Tory-ism has come to mean, a person in power who views Corruption, Crime, Discrimination, blackmail, Deceit, Abuse of Authority and just straight up evil as their basic methods of operating if not their desired goals.


A belief in their own right to use the country as well as it's people for their own pleasure and profit or something to be undermined if they are held to account.

None of this is anywhere near the belief that people should be made self-sufficient, that people's rights must be protected or a government must be just working towards what's right.


It's a shame that there's so few Conservatives in the conservative party, that the Tories have taken it over but don't think that this is a problem that is restricted to one party because like P.I.E. Toryism is a crime that works across the political spectrum.

That only makes it's more important to stand up and oppose it, it's just a funny quirk that the party whose true ideals would demand such action are the party that has been taken over by that evil.

Sincerely
Ethan Blair.