A Place to Stand

  From Time Enough for Love:

Despite what I told the Senior, my ancestor Grandfather Lazarus, I work hard in governing Secundus. But only in thinking about policy and in judging the work of others. I don't do donkey work; I leave that to professional administrators. Even so, the problems of a planet with more than a billion people can keep a man busy, especially if his intention is to govern as little as possible-as that means he must keep a sharp eye out and his ear tuned for signs that subordinates are doing unnecessary governing. Half my time is used in the negative work of plucking such officious officials and ordering that they never again serve in any public capacity.



Then I usually abolish their jobs, and all jobs subordinate to them.

I have never noticed any harm from such pruning save that parasites whose jobs are eliminated must find some other way to avoid starvation. (They are welcome to starve-better if they do. But they don't.)

The important thing is to spot these malignant growths and remove them while they are small. The more skill a Chairman Pro Tem acquires in this, the more emerging ones he finds, which keeps him busier than ever. Anyone can see a forest fire; skill lies in sniffing the first smoke.

This leaves me too little time for my prime work: thinking about policy. The purpose of my government is never to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil. This sounds simple but is not.
---------------------------

I have personally some doubts about the "all jobs subordinate to them" though experience shows Heinlein knows what he talks about. However even if half that advice was taken we would be far better off.

Labels: constitutional amendments, Government parasitism

To be fair the Scotsman hace published another couple of letters answering Scottish Renewables. However the disgraceful fact, as highlighted here, is the blatant refusal of the entire media to ever report how fakecharities are being used to control "free" discussion:

The letter from Scottish Renewables claiming 1/5th of electricity comes from "renewables" is exaggerating, though not by as much as a previous letter from them in another Scottish paper which claimed 1/4. The true figure is 18% of which 10% is hydro power - a source virtually unchanged for 50 years.


A billion pounds a year put into subsidising windmillery for a decade has produced only 8% of our power (easily the most expensive 8%). It is arguable that Holryood's unanimous decision to cut 58% of our electricity capacity over the next decade on the promise that windmills will provide a full replacement are the ravings of people who have lost their grip on reality. Particularly when it is done in the name of preventing the catastrophic warming which, according to a government spokesman by today guarantees "Children just aren't going to know what snow is."

May I also suggest that since Scottish Renewables is not a citizens movement but a propaganda organisation part funded by those subsidised & part by various government organisations "reader's" letters is not an appropriate venue for them - at least not without the caveat that they (& indeed very many other organisations seeking to tell us what to do or get us to pay more through government) are pipers being paid by the state. I regard this as a serious threat to our liberty & very much regret the failure of the media to distinguish between independent & government funded bodies.


Neil Craig

Ref - true electricity figures - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/Corporate

Government spokesman's claim http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html%20he%20is%20,%20of%20course,%20stil;l%20working%20for%20government%20promiting%20warming%20alarmism

Labels: Government parasitism, Media, Scottish politics

  Dick Marty's report to the Council; of Europe about how NATO police dissected living human beings has had a small amount of coverage in our media. It is clear that not only has he come under considerable pressure, during the 2 years he took to come out with this report, but that the entire political establishment of western Europe & North America have been fully aware of and complicit in this. He said

"It was known by police services. It was known by numerous people who, in private, would say 'Yes we know, but for political reasons we made the choice or we have the duty to remain silent.'"

I do not agree that any of these obscene monsters ever had a "duty" to support genocide and worse.

This first became public knowledge (though our media with typical Stalinist unanimity kept it from the public) when Carla del; Ponte, the prosecutor of the NATO funded "War Crimes trials" slipped in a very brief mention late in her biography. Clearly this was not so much a brave attempt to report genocide as a putting down a marker so that she could say she was not totally complicit in hiding it. Had this not been spotted and reported online it would, as she presumably wished, have been buried.

However even she is now calling for prosecutions, though not yet of the masters of Thaci & his gangsters.
One gets the strong whiff of rats climbing aboard a rising bandwagon. I previously mentioned how Neil Clark's article, published by the fascist rats running the Guardian, had drawn almost 100% supportive comments, even though the Guardian heavily censors commentors.

The Nazi "Lib Dems" have, so far, unanimously refused to make any statement. I sent this to their MPs, MSPs, some councillors & others & a number of the bloggers who have a record of censoring in the Nazi cause. 

As you know the "LIberal Democrats" were & still are the single UK party most enthusiastically in favour of war crimes, genocide, child rape & cannibalistic organlegging. Indeed so enthusiastic was the leader, Perjurer Ashdown that he gave up his position as party leader for several months so that he could use his experience in the SBS & SIS to teach our Nazi hirelings how to commit genocide more effectively. Fortunately for him he could rely on his obscene deputy Menzies Campbell & the rest of the racist Nazi filth serving as MPs to maintain the Nazi policy.


Legally since the war against Yugoslavia was blatant aggression it was a war crime & all those legislators who supported it are war criminals. Since it was done for the purpose of promoting racial genocide they are also guilty of crimes against humanity. That obviously includes all "LIBDEM" MPs & since almost all LD bloggers have deliberately censored to promote genocide they are also criminals.
It is in the British national interest that British leaders & diplomats (or indeed the entire British media) not be considered wholly corrupt lying Nazi scum whose word on no subject can ever be given the remotest respect.
There should also be a public posthumous apology to Slobodan Milosevic & a full investigation of his poisoning. His murder was clearly because in 4 1/2 years of show trial the Nazis had been unable to produce any actual evidence at all against him. The evidence clearly points to British intelligence operatives attached to the ICTY & such a high profile assassination. I am also clearly due an apology from all those party members who have ever suggested I was being anything less than truthful unless any single member of the illiberal, obscene racist & murdering "LibDems" can point to anything I have said that is factually untrue or even illiberal. I would certainly be willing to retract it any such statement if that were done. Experience shows that none of you obscene genocidal organlegging Nazis can & almost all of you know that you can't.
That includes every "LibDem" MP, every one of the party's bloggers & indeed ordinary members who decided you racists had a "duty" to lie & censor to promote atrocities morally worse than Hitler's.

I don't expect an apology from many "LibDems" only from every last one of those who would like to think that there is the remotest possibility that they could aspire to some trace of honesty & humanity.

Neil Craig

Hardly surprising that none of these child raping, organlegging Nazis did not apologise. Perhaps more surprising is not a single one of these subhumans has felt it was even possible to dispute in any way that they personally were engaged in war crimes, genocide, organlegging etc. That says it all.

Labels: British politics, International politics, Yugoslavia

  Following on from the complaint about 1 particular programme where the BBC do not dispute lying, though their assertion that having broadcast 10s of thousands of hours pushing catastrophic warming alarmism & zero hours devoted to scepticism they had maintained the "due balance" required in their guidelines we come to their "Charter & Agreement."

      These are the legal basis of their claim to the right to our money. The Agreement pdf sits alongside the Charter providing detail of what the Charter means. In it we find that the previously discussed Editorial Guidelines ate not merely guidelines but written into their legal duties.

44. Accuracy and impartiality


(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due


accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.


(2) In applying paragraph (1), a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.

(3) The UK Public Services must not contain any output which expresses the opinion of the

BBC or of its Trust or Executive Board on current affairs or matters of public policy other

than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

This is essentially the wording used in the "guidelines" and if they are in breach of it they have no legal validity.

Beyond the simple issue of breach of contract lets look at the European Declaration of Human Rights

ARTICLE 10


Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

       So if the BBC have failed to show due  balance, across their broadcasting they have also interfered with the human rights of all those whose views have been suppressed. If, for example, they have had UKIP spokesmen on significantly less than 4 times as often and BNP ones significantly less than twice as often as Green ones they clearly not only defrauded supporters of the former but interfered with their human rights.

      If the evidence that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming is less than 10s of thousands of times greater than the evidence of severe snow then their claim to have maintained "due balance" is false & they have defrauded all their licence payers for over a decade & not only have no right to demand money from them, until they have proven themselves honest, but I suspect, have a legal duty to refund that money.

      If they have and are totally censoring reporting of racial genocide, something which Damian Whyte of "BBC Information" promised to deny & when presented with the facts specifically then found himself unable to do, then they have clearly breached the duty of "due balance" (they have also made themselves complicit in crimes against humanity but that is meat for another time). and are not entitled to demand payment from the public, indeed they owe money.

       That they have censored to promote warming alarmism, one particular [political party & racial genocide appears to me to be indubitable. I believe that there are many other subjects on which such accusations could be made with a degree of credibility greatly exceeding the "balance of probability" standard used in civil courts. It seems easily provable that, even by the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" they have censored & lied in these instances.

        If somebody not only defends a licence fee prosecution of the BBC but counter sues for previous year's payments they would also be able to call a number of top executives & Trust members & make them testify, under oath, how the decisions to censor everything from the weather to NATO police's Crimes Against Humanity were taken. That opens whole new cans of worms. I suspect it would go viral online, though unmentioned by the MSM. 

Labels: British politics, Government parasitism, Media

  On 15th Dec the Scottish Parliament voted to spend £$2.3 billion (promised as the total cost - no really). Here are the highlights of the debate:

Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab): The first cut of the design for the crossing perhaps contained an element of overdesign, which can be an occupational hazard for engineers, and Stewart Stevenson played a particularly beneficial role in stripping away some of the less essential aspects of the project...the opportunity cost per day of lane closures on the existing bridge is in the region of £700 million

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): If—I acknowledge that this is an if—Charlie Gordon comes in a year or a year and a half to see dehumidification reports that suggest that either repair or closure of the existing bridge would not have been necessary for another five or 10 years, what would be his regret about the opportunity cost of committing to the extra bridge?


Charlie Gordon: In that hypothetical situation I would say that hindsight is 20:20 vision

Jackson Carlaw (West of Scotland) (Con): I, too, welcome Keith Brown to his new ministerial post. Although I am leading for the Conservatives ....On completion of the bridge, Scotland will have a new Forth crossing and will have three adjacent bridges from three centuries. That will be an extraordinary and physically visible testament to our nation's engineering and construction heritage...How we pay for it is now for the Government to determine

Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) (LD): I am pleased to open on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this debate. We will support the bill at decision time....I suspect that I now know more about the technicalities of bridge building and the geological structures and wildlife around the Forth estuary than any person would ever need to know, but it has been interesting and a steep learning curve...the cost of the bridge is tagged at £543 million. We know that some of the criticism has been about a £2 billion bridge. It is important to be clear that the difference between the two sums is because of the cost of the project and the cost of the bridge, but what has stuck in people's minds is the £2 billion figure. In some ways, it is a moot point because, at current estimates, £2 billion is probably what we will have to spend, but there needs to be at least an attempt at some education to make people understand what we are getting for that level of expenditure ...Replacing the cables would mean closing the bridge to allow the work to be done, which is simply not an option

David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): The original contract was priced when VAT was at 17.5 per cent. When he winds up, perhaps the minister could confirm whether the new VAT rate will mean a higher range of costs ...
The issue of cost overruns was raised during committee evidence sessions. As we all know from the history of many—but not all—large public sector projects, not least the one that involved the construction of the Parliament building, it is extremely difficult to keep costs within budget, particularly in transport. Nonetheless he supported it

Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):  a reinspection of the cables of the current bridge will not take place until the summer of 2012. Obviously, that could be brought forward and we could find out that, as in the scenario that was outlined by Patrick Harvie, the corrosion has been arrested. However, I absolutely believe that any delay would be folly

Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD): When every single objection that is brought forward by an objector, including my own, is dismissed by the assessor, I believe that I am right to question the process as much as the policy....the clamour will grow for the existing bridge, which will be the most expensive bus lane in the world, to be open to all road traffic.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): Before I begin my well-rehearsed discordant note... It is advisable to find out the state of the existing bridge, whether it might have to be closed to HGVs—not to commuter traffic; I have seen no reliable projection of that—and, if so, when... I cannot countenance the idea of a £2 billion press release for the current Administration. We are not talking about just a £2 billion press release. If history gives us any lessons, we know that such projects often go well over budget.

Gavin Brown (Lothians) (Con): The debate has, quite rightly, been consensual. It is right that it is consensual because of the size, scale and cost of the project

Charlie Gordon: This has been a good debate ... There is general consensus on the bill albeit, sadly, with one or two notable exceptions. I thank Parliament greatly for its interest .../This is the day when Scotland commits to a world-class structure across the Forth
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)


Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)



         Actually this is only $2 billion. £ s would be bigger.

I have omitted most of the self congratulation so what you have just read is the very best bits of a "good debate" among Holyrood politicians.

No attempt to explain why the last Forth Bridge cost £320 mil;lion in today's money just a general downplaying of this fraud to costing £2 billion rather than £2.3 bn & a general covering of arses over the obvious expectation that this cost too may prove a lie. No mention of why a tunnel cannot be built for £40 million as elsewhere in the world. No mention that this will be more expensive than much larger bridges elsewhere in the world except the implication that if this bridge is more expensive than them it must, despite appearances, be more "world class". No attempt to explain why the current bridge cannot be given a 5th, tidal, lane increasing capacity by 50% - indeed the case put depends on the deliberate lie that the current bridge will have to be closed if recabling probes necessary.

Just agreement that stealing £2,290 million & counting (£20 million per MSP) should be done by "consensus" among the thieves.

I note Robert Brown, who said here that he was against it voted for this theft.

Not one of these thieves can claim not to know of these questions (I am not alone in having made sure of that). Not one of them has any answer for them either when I emailed them or here. Not one of them, has any scruples about participating in this theft anyway.

Labels: Forth crossing, Government parasitism, Scottish politics

  This is an interesting item about the KLA/NATO Police dissections sent me by Andre andrejpavlo@gmail.com who produces a round up of news about these atrocities. Clearly the western news media still studiously avoid reporting it (10 mentions worldwide today, only 2 in the UK, 100% censored in the US)

Money from sold body organs ended in accounts in Switzerland

Accounts at banks in Switzerland, Albania, Germany and some other European countries suspected to have been opened for depositing money from sale of human body organs may be evidence leading to Hashim Thaci marked by Dick Marty, the EU rapporteur, as a boss of a criminal net which was dealing with trafficking with human body organs, people and arms, ‘Blic’ learns.

These bank accounts were traced by Serbian war crimes prosecution but by American FBI as well. The FBI launched an investigation over financing of extreme Islamist groups after September 11, 2001. According to the FBI those accounts were sometimes opened on personal names, but frequently on the names of faked humanitarian organizations behind criminal activities were hiding. Some of such organizations are ‘Help for Kosovo’, ‘Medicare’, ‘Caravan’, ‘Al Haramain, ‘Taibah International’…

Dick Marty’s draft report on body organs trafficking was yesterday adopted by the Council of Europe Committee for legal issues and human rights. Marty said to have offered enough evidence for launching of a serious and independent investigation on the matter.

     I have previously pointed out that, since the body parts were flown out from Tirana airport the flight routes must still be available, unless they have been deliberately destroyed which would prove criminality across the board. If so there must be records of them being passed through customs (recently deceased human kidneys & hearts not being something that safely goes through the "nothing to declare" line. Thus which western hospitals are complicit in this genocide could be determined.

    I did ask the International Red Cross what action they had taken to trace the organs but they refused to reply. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that that organisation decided to ignore its nominal duty because the Red Cross is also an obscene racist pro-Nazi "N"GO. (I will forward to them & see if they in any way demur).

      However if the Serb intelligence services have found the numbered accounts, or many of them, not only the account holders but also the institutions that paid them can be identified. I do not say they will be but I do say they will be unless all western "law enforcement" organisations are simply corrupt gangs of Nazi thugs complicit in genocide (OK I'll send a copy to Scotland & the UK's top law officers too though previous experience does already show them both to be wholly corrupt genocidal Nazi thugs.

PS The the entire Anglo-American media seems to have decided to censor the letter I sent too. Nothing new there then.

PPS Neil Clark, the only human being to write for the Guardian (not on staff) has this article on the subject too.


  
                                             The line of command authority

Labels: International politics, Media, Yugoslavia

  Over BBC programme "Scotland's Changing Climate" the BBC said there claims that unprecedented global warming is more widely accepted scientifically than the law of gravity and claiming an "experiment" they did showed a probable 2.5C  atmospheric temperature increase when it actually implied a 0,00025 C represented the standard of honesty to which the BBC aspired & that there wopuld be no retraction. They did not say that they weren't lies and indeed they obviously are.

  However the programme producer did say that these lies were in accord with the companies Editorial Guidelines as is the fact that with 10s of thousands of hours of airtime having been given to catastrophic warming propaganda the BBC's public commitment to "due balance" did not require them to devote as much as 1 hour to balancing it with the sceptical position.

So I decided it would be worth seeing what it says: 

Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.


The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.

The term 'due' means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation...

The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services.

So there we have it - being impartial officially means ensuring only one side is ever broadcast. The word "inclusive" means total exclusion rigorously applied. "Due impartiality" in BBCspeak mean total partiality & maintaining any lie. Being "forbidden from expressing opinion" means that official BBC lies must be expressed & indeed maintained even when they have been openly acknowledged as lies.

Presumably when the BBC say "pay the licence fee" what they actually mean in their Alice in Wonderland world is "nobody should ever under any circumstances pay us fascist liars anything". In any case if any of their actions breach the aforesaid Agreement they have no right to. It would be interesting to have some Beeboid having to testify on oath whether the BBC is totally dishonest & in breach of their rules or alternately (the only alternative) that catastrophic warming really is more widely accepted in the scientific community than the Law of Gravity, as they have decided to maintain.

Labels: British politics, eco-fascism, Media