The Government has just announced plans to update the Postal Service. The proposal, to be implemented shortly, is designed to empower the Revenue and Customs to obtain access to the public mail from the Post Office. The plan is entirely benign, the Government assures us - it is purely designed to prevent tobacco smuggling through the post!
This is I imagine the first most people will have heard of the dire threat tobacco smuggling in letters and parcels poses to the nation’s survival, and I imagine I am not alone in wondering whether it occurs at all to any extensive degree. (Don't worry - the Revenue is fully capable of providing the 'evidence', in the unlikely event of its being required to do so).
While interference with the Royal Mail existed in Tudor and Stuart times, the practice was refined and greatly extended under the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. Although it continued to a lesser degree throughout the eighteenth century, justified in part by fear of Jacobite conspiracies, Government spying on private correspondence was widely regarded with contempt and revulsion. (A modern note was struck by Sir Robert Walpole’s suspected misuse of the system for personal commercial advantage. Current MPs will doubtless lick their lips on learning of this precedent).
With the Allied victory over Napoleon in 1815, covert inspection of mail lost much of its legitimacy, but nevertheless continued behind the scenes. The relative moderation with which it was implemented is, however, illustrated by the fact that it was not until 1844 that the public became unexpectedly alerted to the existence of the pernicious practice.
As an historian of the Post Office has written,
‘In 1844 the public learned with general surprise that letters sent through the Post Office were liable to be detained, opened and read by government officials, that the hated Secret or Inner Office ... was still active. The horror and disgust at this well-nigh forgotten spy system aroused much concern and general condemnation’.
Questions were raised in Parliament, and expressions of outrage arose from every side. Macaulay, the famous historian, objected that there was no difference ‘between the government breaking the seal of his letter in the Post Office, and the government employing a spy to poke his ear to the keyhole, and listen to the conversations he carried on’.
Another celebrated historian, Thomas Carlyle, denounced the ‘opening of men’s letters, [as] a practice near of kin to picking men’s pockets’.
So widespread was public antagonism to the infamous practice, that successive governments all but abandoned it until the 1880s, when special measures were required to combat Irish Fenian outrages. At the same time, every inspection was required to be authorized by a warrant from the Home Secretary, and there appears little evidence that the practice was at all extensively abused.
That draconian measures are required in time of violent unrest or war would be accepted by reasonable people (my great-aunt worked as a censor in the Russian sector during the last War).
However, what is frightening about the present Government’s proposal is its patent lack of justification, when weighed in the balance against the vital necessity of preserving civil liberties, together with the depressing equanimity with which it will be quietly accepted by the Lib-Lab-Con Establishment.
Almost daily we read of such grave erosions of our liberty, with only rare and token protest from the old parties. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the real intention is to extend interception of the mails to whatever area of private life the Government finds expedient. Nor is it the least likely that a Conservative Government will rescind the measure, judging by the Party's general lack of concern for liberty.
This Government, and its obedient revenue service, have after all lately been heavily engaged in employing taxpayers’ money to bribe citizens of non-EU states to engage in illegal subversive activities against their own countries.
While the lack of public protest is depressing, it is understandable in view of the extent of increasing Government oppression (much of it reflecting servile obedience to EU rulings). So much so, that the average citizen has understandably come to regard resistance as futile.
While I would not claim that UKIP is immune to human frailty, ours is the only party seriously committed to returning power to the people through local and national institutions, which will be accorded authority to deny our arrogant Establishment means of indulging the current remorseless move towards bureaucratic tyranny.
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Saturday 20 March 2010
THE CAMERON-BROWN ANSWER TO BRITAIN’S EXPLODING POPULATION
Speaking at Keele University in Staffordshire last June, shadow chancellor George Osborne joined the chorus of leading Tory voices urging the admission of Turkey to the European Union. Displaying just a tinkling of ignorance of geography and history, Osborne declared Turkey to be part of Europe. There is opposition to this policy from Germany, France, and Austria – precisely those countries which have experience of large-scale Turkish immigration. However, with the EU’s ongoing aim to expand their bureaucratic empire ever deeper into Asia, it is likely that Turkey’s admission will go ahead if Labour and Conservatives continue their cosy alternating Tweedledum and Tweedledee rule over this country.
One of the effects of the Lisbon Treaty has been to give the go-ahead to this project, although I don’t recall the Government’s drawing attention to this aspect when bulldozing the Treaty through with Cameron's subservient support, in violation of solemn pledges and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.
Objection to the planned expansion has only partially to do with the character of Turkey as a nation, and certainly not with the Turks as a people. A major objection, which at present shews no signs of abating, is the disproportionate influence of the Turkish army, which, in common with those of many Asiatic and African countries has shewn itself not over scrupulous in intervening in the country’s domestic affairs, toppling governments, and acting imperiously to frustrate the popular will.
Only a week ago the Turkish prime minister, Recep Erdogan, threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from the country. Ethnic cleansing has indeed played a prominent role throughout Turkish history. During and immediately after the Great War, the Turks slaughtered an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, one of the greatest genocidal crimes in history, for which, so far from apologizing, they effectively deny ever occurred. What would be our attitude to Germany, were Angela Merkel to deny the slaughter of Jews under the Nazis, and threaten to expel those living there today?
However, the overwhelming danger to Britain, if Cameron-Brown gets his way, is that the EU will expand its population by some 75,000,000 Turks. Sooner or later they will obtain free access to this country, whose bursting schools, hospitals, and gaols, destruction of the countryside, etc., attest to the criminal folly of unrestricted immigration. Of course only a minority of Turks would seek to settle here, but a small proportion of 75,000,000 could prove a very large number indeed.
It must be remembered, too, that it is far beyond the capacity of the Turkish government to prevent their porous frontiers from facilitating the passage into Europe of a vast influx of people from other Asiatic and Islamic countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and so forth. Already the proportion of Muslims in the UK population has risen from 2.7% in 2001 to 4% in 2008. Can we really cope with another huge surge in the number of Muslims in this country without it having a major impact upon our culture, values and laws?
George Osborne announced: "We are passionate advocates of enlargement, we should continue with that agenda. One of the great successes of the EU was to bring countries into an alliance; it was a fantastic achievement”. For the singular puerility of this declaration, I refer readers to Chesterton’s sardonic comment cited in “The Joys of Union” in this blog.
One of the effects of the Lisbon Treaty has been to give the go-ahead to this project, although I don’t recall the Government’s drawing attention to this aspect when bulldozing the Treaty through with Cameron's subservient support, in violation of solemn pledges and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.
Objection to the planned expansion has only partially to do with the character of Turkey as a nation, and certainly not with the Turks as a people. A major objection, which at present shews no signs of abating, is the disproportionate influence of the Turkish army, which, in common with those of many Asiatic and African countries has shewn itself not over scrupulous in intervening in the country’s domestic affairs, toppling governments, and acting imperiously to frustrate the popular will.
Only a week ago the Turkish prime minister, Recep Erdogan, threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from the country. Ethnic cleansing has indeed played a prominent role throughout Turkish history. During and immediately after the Great War, the Turks slaughtered an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, one of the greatest genocidal crimes in history, for which, so far from apologizing, they effectively deny ever occurred. What would be our attitude to Germany, were Angela Merkel to deny the slaughter of Jews under the Nazis, and threaten to expel those living there today?
However, the overwhelming danger to Britain, if Cameron-Brown gets his way, is that the EU will expand its population by some 75,000,000 Turks. Sooner or later they will obtain free access to this country, whose bursting schools, hospitals, and gaols, destruction of the countryside, etc., attest to the criminal folly of unrestricted immigration. Of course only a minority of Turks would seek to settle here, but a small proportion of 75,000,000 could prove a very large number indeed.
It must be remembered, too, that it is far beyond the capacity of the Turkish government to prevent their porous frontiers from facilitating the passage into Europe of a vast influx of people from other Asiatic and Islamic countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and so forth. Already the proportion of Muslims in the UK population has risen from 2.7% in 2001 to 4% in 2008. Can we really cope with another huge surge in the number of Muslims in this country without it having a major impact upon our culture, values and laws?
George Osborne announced: "We are passionate advocates of enlargement, we should continue with that agenda. One of the great successes of the EU was to bring countries into an alliance; it was a fantastic achievement”. For the singular puerility of this declaration, I refer readers to Chesterton’s sardonic comment cited in “The Joys of Union” in this blog.
Thursday 18 March 2010
DISTRESSED APPEAL
On Wednesday, March 17th, the Witney Gazette published a letter from the Liberal, Labour and Green prospective party candidates, urging the electorate to register for voting.
UKIP received no invitation to support this appeal, nor (it is to be presumed) did the Conservative Party.
Clearly the letter is designed to boost the failing fortunes of the minority parties, who were so sadly driven back towards to the starting post at the last Election.
Could we please have more encouragement on these lines?
UKIP received no invitation to support this appeal, nor (it is to be presumed) did the Conservative Party.
Clearly the letter is designed to boost the failing fortunes of the minority parties, who were so sadly driven back towards to the starting post at the last Election.
Could we please have more encouragement on these lines?
A GUARANTEED PICK-ME-UP
From time to time the EU and its servants, the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal parties, will unhappily get you down. The best restorative is to click on this hyperlink. It works for me, and should do for you!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdipXd3pdOs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdipXd3pdOs
Wednesday 17 March 2010
DANGER! EUROPEAN BUREAURATS AT WORK!
It has recently been announced that the European Union is planning to create a super-prosecutor, with have powers to bring cases against British citizens in Britain without the approval of the Crown Prosecution Service or the Government.
The British Government has made the usual cringing show of resisting this move, which it is well aware our people will regard with resentment and dismay. However, this “resistance” is of course the customary flanneling. The proposal will become effective when it has the backing of nine member states, which the EU oligarchy will doubtless encounter little difficulty in achieving. “Our” Government will then declare ruefully that it has no choice in the matter. Of course it had a choice, when it eagerly signed the Lisbon Treaty which makes the proposal possible. The Conservative and Liberal parties have proved just as anxious for Britain to sign the capitulation Treaty, though we may confidently anticipate that they will make the usual unconvincingly cautious show of objection.
The proposal, once put into effect (as it undoubtedly will be, under a Labour or Conservative Government, with the customary sycophantic support of the Liberals), will go far towards establishing that centralized European police state which lies at the heart of EU ambitions.
The grave and irremediable danger implicit in this despotic policy was pointed out more than two centuries ago by one of Britain’s greatest historians. After long years of studying the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon concluded:
'The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind. A modern tyrant, who should find a resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of his allies, and the apprehension of his enemies. The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge. But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the Senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly... “Wherever you are,” said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, “remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror”’ (Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (London, 1782-88), i, p. 10).
We cannot say we have not been warned. Small wonder that our corrupt rulers are so busily engaged in dumbing down history in schools and universities! In the words of Robert Burns, "such a parcel of rogues in a nation".
The British Government has made the usual cringing show of resisting this move, which it is well aware our people will regard with resentment and dismay. However, this “resistance” is of course the customary flanneling. The proposal will become effective when it has the backing of nine member states, which the EU oligarchy will doubtless encounter little difficulty in achieving. “Our” Government will then declare ruefully that it has no choice in the matter. Of course it had a choice, when it eagerly signed the Lisbon Treaty which makes the proposal possible. The Conservative and Liberal parties have proved just as anxious for Britain to sign the capitulation Treaty, though we may confidently anticipate that they will make the usual unconvincingly cautious show of objection.
The proposal, once put into effect (as it undoubtedly will be, under a Labour or Conservative Government, with the customary sycophantic support of the Liberals), will go far towards establishing that centralized European police state which lies at the heart of EU ambitions.
The grave and irremediable danger implicit in this despotic policy was pointed out more than two centuries ago by one of Britain’s greatest historians. After long years of studying the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon concluded:
'The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind. A modern tyrant, who should find a resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of his allies, and the apprehension of his enemies. The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge. But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the Senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly... “Wherever you are,” said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, “remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror”’ (Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (London, 1782-88), i, p. 10).
We cannot say we have not been warned. Small wonder that our corrupt rulers are so busily engaged in dumbing down history in schools and universities! In the words of Robert Burns, "such a parcel of rogues in a nation".
Tuesday 9 March 2010
A CHEERY MOMENT
If the weather's getting you down, here's a glimpse of our daughter Alexandra, shopping in Paris. I don't know what the glamorous Baroness Ashton would think.
Hmm - none too successful. Does anyone know how to copy and paste a Word attachment here?
Hmm - none too successful. Does anyone know how to copy and paste a Word attachment here?
Thursday 4 March 2010
Two important facts
Dear PPc
1. We are in the midst of a severe recession, making for job losses on an ever increasing scale, with ensuing hardship and negative economic prospects due the UK's massive debt obligations. But at the same time British taxpayers are obliged to pay the EU's staggering costs.
The Taxpayer's Alliance and other groups confirm that the total cost to Britain, once the harmful impacts of its many policies, regulations and "directives" have been taken into account, is in the region of £118 Billion per year. That is, £1.968 for every man, woman, and child in the UK - a life-changing amount of money for millions who are struggling to make ends meet.
Up front we paid the EU £16,398 million of taxpayers’ money directly in 2008: £650 for every person, or £45 million a day.
2. It is well known that about 80% of our laws emanate from the EU Commission, not from our own Parliament. The latter merely rubber-stamp them. The Commission is neither elected, nor even electable, nor accountable to us. This has disenfranchised the electorate in the UK, and is a denial of the most basic democratic principles. Why then should we vote for any political party in the coming election?
So, The cost of the EU, and the democratic deficit are massively important issues.
As the PPC for this constituency what will you do, to reverse this unacceptable situation should you be elected to office - irrespective of your party's official policy on these? At present we virtually have a one-party state on EU issues.
Your answer to these two basic points will be crucial, determining who, or which party, I and many other voters will opt for. What is your position please?
** For your guidance - Mr Dominic Grieve, Conservative MP declared in October 2009: (quote)
"There is no more fundamental right in a democracy than that people should have the ability to choose the people who represent them. We must ensure that this right is not jeopardised". **
Your reply, or non reply will be noted with interest. With thanks.
Graham Wood
Dear Graham,
I take your points, which are welcome. So far as I (and UKIP) are concerned, there can be no compromise. We must not rest until Britain is out of the EU, and recovers her freedom. Our massive interest payable on the national debt, which has arisen owing to Gordon Brown's financial illiteracy (cf his selling of our gold reserves, in a way calculated to bring down the value!), could be met by the money we'd save by no longer paying massive annual tribute to the corrupt EU bureaucracy.
I'm glad you put these figures before us, which tell a sorry tale.
Nikolai Tolstoy
1. We are in the midst of a severe recession, making for job losses on an ever increasing scale, with ensuing hardship and negative economic prospects due the UK's massive debt obligations. But at the same time British taxpayers are obliged to pay the EU's staggering costs.
The Taxpayer's Alliance and other groups confirm that the total cost to Britain, once the harmful impacts of its many policies, regulations and "directives" have been taken into account, is in the region of £118 Billion per year. That is, £1.968 for every man, woman, and child in the UK - a life-changing amount of money for millions who are struggling to make ends meet.
Up front we paid the EU £16,398 million of taxpayers’ money directly in 2008: £650 for every person, or £45 million a day.
2. It is well known that about 80% of our laws emanate from the EU Commission, not from our own Parliament. The latter merely rubber-stamp them. The Commission is neither elected, nor even electable, nor accountable to us. This has disenfranchised the electorate in the UK, and is a denial of the most basic democratic principles. Why then should we vote for any political party in the coming election?
So, The cost of the EU, and the democratic deficit are massively important issues.
As the PPC for this constituency what will you do, to reverse this unacceptable situation should you be elected to office - irrespective of your party's official policy on these? At present we virtually have a one-party state on EU issues.
Your answer to these two basic points will be crucial, determining who, or which party, I and many other voters will opt for. What is your position please?
** For your guidance - Mr Dominic Grieve, Conservative MP declared in October 2009: (quote)
"There is no more fundamental right in a democracy than that people should have the ability to choose the people who represent them. We must ensure that this right is not jeopardised". **
Your reply, or non reply will be noted with interest. With thanks.
Graham Wood
Dear Graham,
I take your points, which are welcome. So far as I (and UKIP) are concerned, there can be no compromise. We must not rest until Britain is out of the EU, and recovers her freedom. Our massive interest payable on the national debt, which has arisen owing to Gordon Brown's financial illiteracy (cf his selling of our gold reserves, in a way calculated to bring down the value!), could be met by the money we'd save by no longer paying massive annual tribute to the corrupt EU bureaucracy.
I'm glad you put these figures before us, which tell a sorry tale.
Nikolai Tolstoy
Wednesday 3 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
