Some readers of Westminster's Cheating Us may not be aware of my Chilcot's Cheating Us blog.
I've just added a new article there about how Sir John Chilcot might be using a pretext of "sensitive information" to shield Gordon Brown from full public scrutiny of his unlawful actions relating to the Iraq War.
The article is here: Is Chilcot protecting Gordon Brown on the basis of "sensitive information"?
Friday, 16 April 2010
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Is David Cameron "Botox boy"?
Yesterday, The Candidates’ Debate – Simon and Garfunkel got it right. We lose., I wrote about the Orwellian nature of the debate between the party leaders. Some candidates are more equal than others. It's an approach that doesn't belong in a genuine and mature democracy.
Today, I want to focus on an apparently trivial question, indeed a cosmetic question. Is David Cameron a Botox boy?
While I was watching the candidates' debate last night I was struck by the immobility of David Cameron's features.
At first I put it down to him being terrified, which he clearly was.
But, as the debate progressed, his terror seemed to ease but his face remained wooden.
He's a bit young to have Parkinson's disease, as an explanation for his facial immobility.
My hypothesis is that David Cameron uses Botox.
He is clearly vain. Did you notice the assiduous combover (held in place by hairspray?) in the brief camera shot which showed David Cameron's bald patch?
Wrinkles and bald patch convey aging. Not a concept that David Cameron currently wants to be associated with.
Does anyone know whether or not David Cameron is using Botox?
The use of Botox is a little more than skin deep. Do David Cameron's deceptions go deeper too?
What one can't argue with is that David Cameron is the Hyacinth Bucket of British politics. He works hard at keeping up appearances.
Today, I want to focus on an apparently trivial question, indeed a cosmetic question. Is David Cameron a Botox boy?
While I was watching the candidates' debate last night I was struck by the immobility of David Cameron's features.
At first I put it down to him being terrified, which he clearly was.
But, as the debate progressed, his terror seemed to ease but his face remained wooden.
He's a bit young to have Parkinson's disease, as an explanation for his facial immobility.
My hypothesis is that David Cameron uses Botox.
He is clearly vain. Did you notice the assiduous combover (held in place by hairspray?) in the brief camera shot which showed David Cameron's bald patch?
Wrinkles and bald patch convey aging. Not a concept that David Cameron currently wants to be associated with.
Does anyone know whether or not David Cameron is using Botox?
The use of Botox is a little more than skin deep. Do David Cameron's deceptions go deeper too?
What one can't argue with is that David Cameron is the Hyacinth Bucket of British politics. He works hard at keeping up appearances.
The Candidates’ Debate – Simon and Garfunkel got it right. We lose.
The television debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg is a UK first. Despite the hype surrounding the candidates’ debate, the sad fact is that many of us lose, whichever way you look at it. Just as Simon and Garfunkel told Mrs Robinson:
Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it, you lose.
Voters lose. Not least in terms of democracy.
Why?
Some candidates are more equal than others. Some voters are more equal than others.
Something is malodorous in the body politic of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it’s the smell of dead democracy.
How can it be right that in a supposed democracy the electorate hears only some of the party leaders in a candidates’ debate?
In effect the media have decided which party leaders are to be given the hugely important but intangible support in the General Election of air time and column inches. In a democracy should unelected individuals and organisations be allowed to bias the result in such a way?
A system where some candidates are more equal than others is visibly Orwellian.
If the UK is a democracy then all Prime Ministerial candidates should, by law, get the same right to media exposure.
Not only are some candidates more equal than others, it’s also the case that some voters are more equal than others.
Like most UK voters I am unable, by virtue of where I live, to vote for Brown, Cameron or Clegg (even if I were minded to vote for any of the three). Having a candidates’ debate among three individuals that more than 90% of UK voters are unable directly to vote for or elect to any office is bizarre.
Since I can’t vote for these individuals I have no direct way to hold them accountable, even by the very loose standard of accountability of my vote every four or five years.
Worse, many voters have no practical way even indirectly to express their response to this visibly biased candidates’ debate. How, for example, is a Labour voter in a predominantly Conservative constituency supposed to make his or her voice heard? It’s impossible. Such votes are essentially worthless.
The current UK constituency system deprives many voters of any practical possibility of casting a vote that influences the outcome of either the constituency election or the national election.
When the votes of a significant minority of voters count for nothing it’s the worst kind of Postcode Lottery. A Postcode Lottery that does not belong in a mature democracy.
A democracy should be about the people. When many of those people have, effectively, no vote something is seriously amiss.
Some candidates are more equal than others. Some voters are more equal than others.
Only those in an Orwellian Ministry of Truth can reasonably contend that the United Kingdom is currently a genuine democracy.
I have said it before and it remains true: Westminster’s Cheating Us.
Going to the candidates' debate,
Laugh about it,
Shout about it,
When you've got to choose,
Every way you look at it, you lose.
Voters lose. Not least in terms of democracy.
Why?
Some candidates are more equal than others. Some voters are more equal than others.
Something is malodorous in the body politic of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it’s the smell of dead democracy.
How can it be right that in a supposed democracy the electorate hears only some of the party leaders in a candidates’ debate?
In effect the media have decided which party leaders are to be given the hugely important but intangible support in the General Election of air time and column inches. In a democracy should unelected individuals and organisations be allowed to bias the result in such a way?
A system where some candidates are more equal than others is visibly Orwellian.
If the UK is a democracy then all Prime Ministerial candidates should, by law, get the same right to media exposure.
Not only are some candidates more equal than others, it’s also the case that some voters are more equal than others.
Like most UK voters I am unable, by virtue of where I live, to vote for Brown, Cameron or Clegg (even if I were minded to vote for any of the three). Having a candidates’ debate among three individuals that more than 90% of UK voters are unable directly to vote for or elect to any office is bizarre.
Since I can’t vote for these individuals I have no direct way to hold them accountable, even by the very loose standard of accountability of my vote every four or five years.
Worse, many voters have no practical way even indirectly to express their response to this visibly biased candidates’ debate. How, for example, is a Labour voter in a predominantly Conservative constituency supposed to make his or her voice heard? It’s impossible. Such votes are essentially worthless.
The current UK constituency system deprives many voters of any practical possibility of casting a vote that influences the outcome of either the constituency election or the national election.
When the votes of a significant minority of voters count for nothing it’s the worst kind of Postcode Lottery. A Postcode Lottery that does not belong in a mature democracy.
A democracy should be about the people. When many of those people have, effectively, no vote something is seriously amiss.
Some candidates are more equal than others. Some voters are more equal than others.
Only those in an Orwellian Ministry of Truth can reasonably contend that the United Kingdom is currently a genuine democracy.
I have said it before and it remains true: Westminster’s Cheating Us.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Gordon Brown's offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are the largest financial crimes in UK history
I have explained in articles elsewhere that the United Kingdom's military interventions in Afghanistan (since 2001) and Iraq (2003 and on) are "terrorism" in the meaning of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
See for example,The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000 and An account of the illegality of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001 for introductions to various aspects of this important topic.
If we assume that the UK's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are "terrorism" several things follow, one of which is that Gordon Brown has committed very serious criminal offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
For convenience, I'll reproduce the text of Section 15 here:
In his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on 5th March 2010, Gordon Brown stated that he had provided around £9 billion to support the Iraq War.
Given that the Iraq War is "terrorism" then Gordon Brown has, in his roles as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then First Lord of the Treasury (Prime Minister) used some £9 billion of public funds to fund "terrorism" in Iraq, contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Futher, since 2001 estimates indicate that Gordon Brown, in his aforementioned roles, has used about £12 billion of public money in Afghanistan, contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In total Gordon Brown has used some £20 billion of public money for purposes which are unlawful.
I believe that Gordon Brown in so doing has committed the largest financial crimes in United Kingdom history.
See for example,The Use of armed force by UK military personnel has been unlawful in UK law since 20th July 2000 and An account of the illegality of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001 for introductions to various aspects of this important topic.
If we assume that the UK's military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are "terrorism" several things follow, one of which is that Gordon Brown has committed very serious criminal offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
For convenience, I'll reproduce the text of Section 15 here:
15 Fund-raising
(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) invites another to provide money or other property, and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(2) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) receives money or other property, and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(3) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) provides money or other property, and
(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
(4) In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration.
In his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry on 5th March 2010, Gordon Brown stated that he had provided around £9 billion to support the Iraq War.
Given that the Iraq War is "terrorism" then Gordon Brown has, in his roles as Chancellor of the Exchequer and then First Lord of the Treasury (Prime Minister) used some £9 billion of public funds to fund "terrorism" in Iraq, contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Futher, since 2001 estimates indicate that Gordon Brown, in his aforementioned roles, has used about £12 billion of public money in Afghanistan, contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In total Gordon Brown has used some £20 billion of public money for purposes which are unlawful.
I believe that Gordon Brown in so doing has committed the largest financial crimes in United Kingdom history.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Britain needs a written constitution
The absence of a written constitution is one of the factors that made it possible for Tony "The Terrorist" Blair (see my article here on the Chilcot's Cheating Us blog for the background) to take the United Kingdom into an unlawful war in Iraq.
The absence of a written constitution makes it possible for governments and others in positions of power to make up the rules as they go along.
If the rules aren't clear it encourages abuse of power without any proper checks and balances to rein in such abuses.
Party politicians in positions of power will oppose real accountability. The feeble accountability of a General Election needs to be bolstered by a legally enforceable written constitution.
Serious transgressions by politicians, including Government ministers, should be open to investigation by the Police and to trial in open court.
In fact, a worthwhile written constitution should impose a duty on the Police to investigate prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by politicians or senior civil servants.
The absence of a written constitution makes it possible for governments and others in positions of power to make up the rules as they go along.
If the rules aren't clear it encourages abuse of power without any proper checks and balances to rein in such abuses.
Party politicians in positions of power will oppose real accountability. The feeble accountability of a General Election needs to be bolstered by a legally enforceable written constitution.
Serious transgressions by politicians, including Government ministers, should be open to investigation by the Police and to trial in open court.
In fact, a worthwhile written constitution should impose a duty on the Police to investigate prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by politicians or senior civil servants.
The First Past the Post system is antidemocracy, not democracy
The first past the post electoral system is one aspect of how a British General Election cheats the British people.
The effect of a first past the post system is to remove representation in government for around four or five years from around two thirds of the people who vote.
That is not democracy!
It's the opposite of democracy. It's antidemocracy in action.
Antidemocracy is the foundation of the current, odious system at Westminster.
It needs to change.
The effect of a first past the post system is to remove representation in government for around four or five years from around two thirds of the people who vote.
That is not democracy!
It's the opposite of democracy. It's antidemocracy in action.
Antidemocracy is the foundation of the current, odious system at Westminster.
It needs to change.
Westminster is Cheating Us
The Westminster's Cheating Us blog is intended to explore some of the issues which have led to my own disillusionment with British parliamentary democracy (sic).
And sick is what many British people are of the chronic dissembling, deceit, denial and dishonesty of Westminster politicians.
We, the British people, are being cheated by a tawdry system that produces tawdry government.
I believe it should change.
With a little luck ... or a lot of luck ... the Westminster's Cheating Us blog might make some contribution to change.
And sick is what many British people are of the chronic dissembling, deceit, denial and dishonesty of Westminster politicians.
We, the British people, are being cheated by a tawdry system that produces tawdry government.
I believe it should change.
With a little luck ... or a lot of luck ... the Westminster's Cheating Us blog might make some contribution to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)