Hypocrisy 101

The astute amongst you will already have realised what a raving hypocrite I am.

In one post I make reference to the BBC's "Have Your Say" message board and in another I state that I'm unwilling to be forced into funding them. So whilst chastising politicians for claiming expenses that were "within the rules", at the very same time I've been watching the BBC's iPlayer, using their news website and posting on their "Have Your Say" section. All for free and gratis, paid for by those who cough up for a TV licence ... because "it's within the rules guv don'tcha know".

Damn! I hate catching myself out in hypocrisy ... especially when I'm stupid enough to do it on-line. Well it stops right now. As of today I'm now boycotting ALL things to do with the BBC. The only exception I'm willing to make is that I will look at a BBC website if someone sends me a news link to look at (etc).

Maybe I'll be able to sleep better tonight now that's off my chest. I'm going to miss Patrick Moore and "The Sky at Night" though. *cries*

Sidebar Links (3)

In the second of two entries explaining why I've put certain links in the sidebar, I'll try and demonstrate that there can be no justification for the "entertainment tax" which UK residents have to pay to the BBC in the form of a TV licence fee.

There are so many ways of demonstrating that the TV licensing system here in the UK is unwarranted and immoral that, to be honest, it's difficult to know where to start. There really is quite an embarrassment of evidence. The argument for licensing generally involves a presumption of excellence in the BBC's programming and hence also presumes that the BBC are therefore providing incredible value for money. Well, okay, lets go along with that (questionable) assumption and then go right ahead and assume that the BBC does represent the pinnacle of broadcasting quality and value. Does that justify enforced licence fees? Of course not. When I go to the supermarket I'm presented with literally hundreds of bargains, each representing value for money to some degree or other. However, at no point am I forced to take advantage of any of them. I have full freedom of choice.

Which leads to another of my fundamental objections to TV licensing. Purely because I have decided that I will not be forced into funding the BBC, I am now prevented, by law, from watching any television broadcasts whatsoever. So then, not only has my freedom of choice been taken away, but now, the very choices themselves have been placed entirely out of my reach. ITV, Channel 4, Five, Sky, cable, satellite ... any and all forms of broadcast television are now by law denied to me. Just because I've decided that I won't be forced into funding one? This obviously can not be justified.

Much, much more could be said in the argument against TV licensing. The heavy handed collection methods employed by the BBC, the victimisation of licence abstainers, the fact that the BBC's "enforcement officers" get paid bonuses for every successful conviction for evasion ... the list goes on and on. But, as I said similarly in my previous post about identity cards, these other points are secondary and to a degree superfluous.

I haven't paid the TV license fee since the winter of 2001. I've therefore been denied access to all forms of broadcast TV during that 8 year period. Since 2001 I've received literally countless demands for payment from the BBC for their product, which I do not consume. These demands have all come with threats of legal action, fines and police involvement. More recently I've also had the pleasure of a BBC "enforcement officer" knocking on my door, no doubt eager to get a possible bonus in his wage packet. I am unwilling to allow this to continue. I have written to the BBC/TV Licensing and I have given them due notice that, under common law, I am legally denying them (and any of their representatives) the implied right of access to my property. That's a legally enforceable version of "get off my lawn!" It's possible that this action has bumped me up the list of households that the BBC will seek to obtain a search warrant for from the courts. Yes, a bloody search warrant! Well so be it.

Right then. I think that's the sidebar links covered. Back to saving the world in my next post.

Sidebar Links (2)

In the first of two entries explaining why I have put certain links in the sidebar, I will set out my position against the government's determined efforts to introduce national ID cards and the database state which it will inevitably create.

The vast majority of people that I have spoken to about the proposed national ID card scheme are profoundly and resolutely against it's introduction. In fact, I don't know a single person who welcomes this measure in any way, shape or form. This would appear to contradict statements made by this Labour government who, in their efforts to force through this piece of legislation, maintain that the majority of people in the UK welcome their introduction. That's odd isn't it? In fact, the only time I see anyone singing the praises of ID cards is on the internet, where the most commonly rolled out justification for such support almost invariably goes along the lines of "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear."

In a perfect world, with a perfect government operating a perfect IT solution, employing perfect people to administer, access and monitor the scheme, I might agree. However, we evidently do not enjoy such perfect conditions. Quite the opposite. Furthermore, even if we did live in such a perfect utopia, there are no guarantees that such conditions would persist. In ten years time we could all be labouring under a more openly fascist regime (and if you think that's impossible then I respectfully suggest that you are deluded).

So, here in a nutshell is my main objection to ID cards. The scheme could never be implemented in such a way that prevents it from being subject to gross mistakes and even *gasp* corruption and misuse, the effects and fallout of which would lead to disaster and turmoil in the lives of the unfortunate innocent people who fall victim to "the system". I refuse to accept that such people should be considered as "acceptable collateral damage" in this war on personal privacy.

I could leave it there really. As far as I'm concerned all other objections to the scheme are moot and redundant. Not that they are invalid, they simply become superfluous when the question of a just, fair and safe implementation of the scheme itself can not be adequately addressed.

I'll just round this entry up by saying that I've recently joined the newly founded NO2ID action group in Newport. We met for the first time on Monday (with the organiser providing a delicious bowl of lamb cawl) and the group should prove to be active and effective in bringing the concerns about the ID card scheme to the population in our area. We will be organising and utilising a travelling "stall" which will seek to raise public awareness of this issue while at the same time collecting signatures for the NO2ID petition. We plan to run our first "practise" stall in Newport's John Frost Square on Saturday 20th June and I'll let you know how that goes. The group has a great mix of members, skills, experience and enthusiasm including an experienced organiser, an IT professional, members of the public and local councillors from various parties.

Oh ... and also a certain rather outspoken anarchist.

Sidebar Links (1)

Before launching into more posts outlining the evils of capitalism in our modern society and going on to laying out my plans on how to save humanity and the world, I'd like to take a moment to explain my reasons for putting up the two links that currently reside in the sidebar over there. As I will no doubt add more over time, for the historical record the two current links are for NO2ID, an organisation dedicated to preventing the introduction of national identity cards in the UK and BBCresistance, an organisation which opposes the television licensing laws here.

The purists among you will realise that these two organisations aren't really all that radical. Oh, I know they may be perceived as such by the majority of mainstream society but come on, let's face it, these two organisations are hardly going to bring an end to capitalism and usher in a new world of peace and anarchic voluntarism, let alone save humanity and the world ... at least I don't think so. They are, however, both issues that I care about because they intimately affect me and also (more importantly) because I feel that I can take simple and direct action to do something about them. World capitalism hardly falls into that category. As yet I know of no organisation that can effectively achieve my aims listed above. I've tried to find just such an organisation, I really have. In fact I'm still looking ... but so far I've come up with nada. If I ever find one then you people will be among the first to know ... but don't hold your breath.

Also, the "spiritual" among you will notice that both links are concerned with negative issues and that (as yet) there are no "happy happy joy joy" links there to balance things out. I'm fully aware of this and I'd love to be able to put a link to a more positive organisation over there. I've tried to find just such an organisation, I really have. In fact I'm still looking ... but so far I've come up with nada. If I ever find one then you people will be among the first to know ... but don't hold your breath (did anyone else just get a really bad case of deja vu?).

So, having said all that, in my next post I'll just give a short exposition about the "raison d'etre" for each link and then I can get back to my real goal of enlightening the masses, bringing down our corporate masters and subsequently saving humanity, the world and probably the whales and tuna fish while I'm at it (strikes a superhero pose).

Now, where did I leave my cape?

The Tyranny of Economics

The whole topic of money, currency and finance. is arcane. Really arcane. In fact, it's almost as arcane as law ... or politics. With that in mind I must make the following disclaimer. I am NOT an expert in finance or economy. The views here presented should be considered as a broad overview but as far as I can establish, they are broadly true and accurate.

So then, money eh? Our current capitalist system demands that we all need it to live. In fact we are now so dependant upon money that we hardly ever question it's existence or indeed it's necessity. However, the whole debate about divergent economies, bartering and the many other forms of exchange is the stuff of a whole other (and larger) debate. For now, we're stuck with what we've got and we have to deal with it on a day to day basis ... and it's more fundamental to our everyday lives than most of us can ever truly understand or even appreciate. Most people have a broad idea that money is a major factor in our western systems of governance (through taxation if by nothing else) but how many of us truly understand just how fundamental and profound the link between the two really is? How many of us realise that the financial institutions have got our governments by the short and curlies.

How can I defend that statement? Well, first let's look at the nature of our currency. At one time, all money was backed up by a physical wealth or resource such as gold or silver. Money was printed and issued based on the amount of this wealth. The more resource you had, the more money you could produce. Remember, money is basically an IOU or more accurately, a "promissory note". If you live in the UK just take a look at any bank note and you will find these words from the Bank of England; "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X Pounds." At one time, you could take this note to the Bank of England and demand to have the amount of gold (or silver or whatever) that this promissory note represented. As Danny Shine proves in his blog entry "The Bank of England are Taking the Mickey" if you take a £5 pound note to them now, all they will give you in exchange is another £5 note (or maybe five £1 coins). This is because we are now operating under what is known as "fiat" currency.

What the hell is "fiat" currency? Well, "fiat" is Latin for "let it be so", or, if you want that in plain English, "abracadabra". You see, a fiat currency does not have any physical wealth or resource to back it up because it was created (by central banks such as the Bank of England) out of thin air. It's backed up by NOTHING. Abracadabra and *poof* ... money. Now that in and of itself is odd enough but when you realise that this money is given by the central banks to governments with the demand for interest to be repaid on the initial sum, then it starts to get very sinister indeed.

Let's make this simple to understand and take it back to the time when "fiat" money was first introduced. There is no money yet so "abracadabra" and the central bank conjures up, lets say, £10 billion out of thin air. Poof. It gives this money to the government on the understanding that the government has to repay this initial sum at, say 5% interest. So, the government now owes the central bank £10 billion plus £500 million in interest. Can you see where I'm going with this? There is no money at this point remember, so where the hell is that £500 million going to come from. The answer is that it can't come from anywhere and therefore it obviously can't be repaid. Ever. Hence, governments are constantly and perpetually in debt to central banks. Now, the more money the banks create, the greater this burden of interest and debt becomes. It can have no end and can only result in continual and ever worsening financial debt. This debt gets transferred to the governed. That's you and me folks. It gets worse.

As I stated above, money is now so fundamental to all our lives that banks and financial institutions hold enormous sway and power over society and politics. So much so that if they wanted to increase this power and get even more control over money (and hence more power over people and governments) all they would have to do is make some really, really, astoundingly bad investments (such as, oh, say giving mortgages to people who have absolutely no chance in repaying them) and then just sit back and wait for the whole financial world to go tits up. The banks know that they are safe in doing this because their primary debtors (governments) have absolutely NO choice but to bail them out because if they don't then the whole economy will inevitably spiral up it's own arsehole and implode. Check mate.

Does this sound familiar? Can you think of any recent news that bears out my statements above? Make no mistake about it, banks have governments (and hence you and me) by the bollocks. And the bastards are going to bleed us dry if this is allowed to continue.

Here's a perverse quote from Alan Greenspan, the US Federal Reserve (central bank) Chairman from 1987 to 2006.

"Deficit [debt] spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth."

QED

The Real Expenses Scandal

Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye, recently said on the TV show "Have I Got News For You" that the current frenzy of revelations about MPs expense claims is like Christmas for satirists everywhere. I'd say that it's more like Christmas, Easter, and your birthday all rolled into one.

In one sense however, the ground zero issue of the expense claims almost pales into insignificance when we observe how the majority of MPs have acted since these revelations have gone public. The very fact that they tried their damnedest to stop this information from coming out should be enough to make even the most die-hard statist cringe but the constantly regurgitated justification of "I was only following the rules guv" (an excuse which wasn't acceptable at the Nuremberg war crime trials) should have them literally baying for parliamentary blood.

But no, we have the weak chinned, like Stephen Fry, babbling on about how trivial the whole matter is. I once thought that Stephen Fry was an intelligent free thinker but if even he is unable to see the implications of such dishonest dealings in parliament then one must truly despair. These MPs are the people who we trust to oversee (to a large extent) our "free" market economy, a large part of which consists of the property market. Does Mr Fry not find this synergy of power and vested interest disturbing? Does he not perceive the vast difference between a salesman bunging a few extra miles on his travel expenses compared to nigh on 600 MPs stealing the hard earned cash from the tax payers pockets to the tune of an annual £24,000 each? And this from "poor" politicians who "only" earn £64,000 a year. Aw bless. A person on Incapacity Benefit would be lucky to get £64,000 in benefit over two decades.

Incidentally, if you wish to find out just how mundane and anally retentive Mr Fry really is, then I challenge you to follow him on Twitter for more than 3 days without losing the will to live.

And then we have what appears to be the vast majority of subscribers to "Stupid Weekly" who think that the way to resolve this injustice is to call a general election so that we can replace this batch of free-loading corrupt power-trippers with a new lot. Hello? Anybody home? Whilst the massive response to the question "Can Politicians Recover From The Expenses Row?" on the BBC Have Your Say message boards is encouragingly "NO!", less encouraging are the number of people who fail to realise that changing the jailers will NOT change the jail. Surely anybody with two brain cells and five spare minutes must surely realise now that "democracy" is a sham and that our current model of "government" is fundamentally flawed. There is no sticking a plaster on it here or fiddling with this bit there to make it work.

It's fundamentally flawed.

So the real scandal here is that although the great British public now have ample evidence that our style of government is "unfit for purpose" and now have an ideal opportunity to press for (at the very least) total reform, they choose instead to attempt to rearrange the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic that is parliament. When more people start realising this self evident fact, then, and only then, will I dare to feel a modicum of hope that true change for a better world is around the corner.


"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself ... Almost invariably, he will come to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable." H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

.

Mission Statement

So here I am. I've arrived. I've finally decided that it's time for me to start my own blog. Now, every blogger must have a reason for blogging, be it ridiculously trivial or supremely important. My blog is probably going to fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

So what's my reason.

Well, I suspect that it's not going to be that much different from any other blogger. Namely, I want to voice my opinions. Everyone loves the sound of their own convictions and I'm in no way immune to that delusion. The thing is that I continually find that my world view (be it right or wrong) conflicts sharply with the one constantly presented to me by all branches of populist mass media and the "received wisdom" which it creates among the population. I even find that those outlets which purport to be "rebellious" are not really deviating that much from the "party line". For instance, I find those who lobby for less poisons in the food which we buy, quite frankly ridiculous.

So I'm giving you, dear reader, fair warning. The blogs which I intend to create are going to be a bit ... erm ... off the wall. I hope to be rattling some cages and provoking a lot of "outside the box" thinking. For a big clue about what's coming, take a look at my avatar. If you don't recognise it, it's a piece of street art produced by the artist Banksy. I can think of no better image to sum up my attitude and conviction. A revolutionary anarchist who wants to throw bunches of flowers at you. Where could there possibly be any harm in that!