We Are Not Amused

That sums up all our feelings on bliar and his merry band of fools.

A far cry from the days when Prince Charles had to be dissuaded from joining the Labour Club at Cambridge.

And it gets better - below is from the uk.msn news page

She has been "deeply concerned" by many of New Labour's policies....

Not as bloody concerned as she would be if I had my way...

Perhaps one will be lucky enough to see ones Queen on the Royal Blog before too long.

with reference to the comments by Captain Swing.

There is concern grown that the government is going to stage an event that will force Reids hand.

see http://tinyurl.com/2d3fje

These proposed powers are on a level with Nazi Germany and must be resisted.

Hi Captain Swing, you need look no further than Hitler' Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 which has been accepted by the European Courts as a lawful piece of legislation, which is definitely not in keeping with a modern Democratic society. In reality, this law is used to make sure that any citizen with a prefectly legitimate case against the government, is blocked from taking it forward, by the actions of solicitors who have to betray their client due to this legislation

 This law will soon be in use Europe wide, when Civil law moves to be more standardised. It guarantees that no government will be challenged by an ordinary citizen. There will obviously be no fan fare to announce its use because this law is not commonly known about in Germany today, even though the German Ministry of Justice maintains it is still on statute because it protects the legal rights of the client, the EU Court system accepted this bluff. Who ever heard of Hitler allowing legislation that could later be used  agianst him?

Re: Extended police powers to question.

I had a wee wee today, and I shook it more than twice, thrice to be precise. I am now a bit worried if I am stopped and questioned about what I have done the whole day, if I should tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I know it is a little embarrassing but I am not sure if one of those 4 million surveillance cameras were watching me in the act and my slight 'economy with the truth' should be uncovered if I said I shook it twice.

I'd be laughing if i wasn't crying.

As Georges Clemenceau pointed out nearly a century ago, "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head".

Evidently Prince Charles has a heart. Whereas the present government seems to lack head, heart, principles, and, indeed, socialism.

It is a pity she was not concerned enough to send the Beefeaters around to No. 10 and evict the poodle., as this prolonged hand-over is getting farcical.
I just wonder what scheme the poodle has up his sleeves to stitch Gordimmo up at the coming EU summit ?

Did anyone else kick in the tv this morning when that lying sack of shit Peter Hain expressed grave concern Gitmo, Iraq, UK  anti-terror laws and Labour policies were in fact unlawful or illiberal. Even by NuLab rats and sinking ship standards it was offensive on every level.
Once I'd have hoped the Labour Party membership would have run such hypocrisy out of any hustings; sadly it will probably work with many, considering the fascist pigmies he's up against.  How long can one man point to his honourable fight against the Apartheid government's civil liberties/human rights record decades ago whilst remaining in a cabinet that is copying such policies?
Scum, scum, scum

She has been "deeply concerned" by many of New Labour's policies, in particular what she sees as the Prime Minister's lack of understanding of countryside issues,

So presumably she's more upset that her and her ilk can't rip apart small animals for fun any more than any encroachment on civil liberties?

A 'Royal' family is the complete antithesis of a Democracy so who gives a flying f*** what they think?

We are on the verge of the greatest disaster since World War 2, and all of it completely avoidable if people would just demand a democratic government in the US and UK, instead of these capitalist corporate puppets.

US to Iran after first talk in 30 years - "stop arming Iraqis to attack US forces". Reported as a matter of fact by the British Brainwashing Corporation, when no such evidence exists.
BBC News.

And the very same day we hear that the US is to fund and arm Sunni terrorists (Al  CIAda if you like) to  attack targets in Iran. Plenty of evidence for that.
Daily Telegraph.

Is it not obvious that the 'diplomacy' being followed by the Whitehouse is a sham and that we are all in for a major war this summer?

Yes who cares what that witch and her retarded family are whinging about.

I leave the rest to Jarvis Cocker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_M22STINYw

Now Gordon Brown has refused to rule out an attack on Iran. I think any sane person can see, as with Iraq in 2002, that the die is cast on this one.

Now all the media has to do is keep drilling into your brain that Iran is a nuclear threat, you too will no doubt succumb. As the article states, 51% of Britons would support military action against Iran (for what exactly?) - it really is mass brainwashing.

It was "totally wrong" for countries to defy the international community and to start stockpiling nuclear weapons, he added.

Problem here is that Iran (unlike Israel) is not 'stockpiling' nuclear weapons, this is a complete and utter lie.

Peterborough Today

Yes, I noticed the `stockpiling nuclear weapons` meme yesterday, complete and utter cointelpro, right down the Bush line. I think there can no longer be any doubt as to Gordo`s true allegiances.

And just to season this noxious broth of iniquity, here`s a choice nugget from the Indie online;

"The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is facing accusations that he told the Army its soldiers were not bound by the Human Rights Act when arresting, detaining and interrogating Iraqi prisoners.

Previously confidential emails, seen by The Independent, between London and British military head-quarters in Iraq soon after the start of the war suggest Lord Goldsmith's advice was to adopt a "pragmatic" approach when handling prisoners and it was not necessary to follow the " higher standards" of the protection of the Human Rights Act."

The go-between who passed on Goldie`s unspeakable advice was one Ms Rachel Quick, legal advisor at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood. Her own words came out in emails that the Indie got hold ot, to whit -

`(The Attorney General's) view, she said, "was that the HRA was only intended to protect rights conferred by the Convention and must look to international law to determine the scope of those rights".

Ms Quick went on say that the advice of the Attorney General, supported by Professor Christopher Greenwood [the barrister who advised Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the war], was that, in the circumstances, the HRA did not apply. "For your purposes," she wrote, "I would suggest this means no requirement for you to provide guidance on the application of the HRA. I hope this is clear."

The Army`s legal advisor, Colonel Mercer, was worried about treatment meted out to Iraqi detainees at a UK pow camp in March, and raised this with his superiors in London:

"Worried this could leave the soldiers vulnerable to prosecutions, he told the MoD that in his view soldiers should behave in accordance with the "higher standard" of the Human Rights Act.

But the response from the military's Permanent Joint Headquarters in Qatar was that Lord Goldsmith had told the MoD the human rights law did not apply and soldiers should simply observe the Geneva Conventions."

Lovely, eh? Such is the character of our descent as a nation into barbarity, not to mention the corrupting effects of an occupation which has led to roughly a million unnecessary deaths. But hey, what does that matter next to the expression of our values, and to the ironclad necessity of maintaining the Transatlantic Kowtow?

"A 'Royal' family is the complete antithesis of a Democracy so who gives a flying f*** what they think?"

You may think so, Catatonic, but there are still many of us who disagree. For a start, it's by no means clear what a "real" democracy is. Can anyone point to any such democracy that has ever existed anywhere? In ancient Athens they tried democracy for a very short period, and found it pretty disastrous. And even that was limited to men who were natives of the city. Today our politicians make a lot of fuss about how wonderful democracy is - apparently it's so wonderful that, even if you have to be killed to give you it, you are still ahead. But exactly what is so wonderful? In both the UK and USA most of the people want the Iraq war to be stopped, but neither major party intends to do so. So what happens to the people's "power"?

Essentially, you get one vote every five years or so. With that, if you live in a marginal constituency, you might contribute to getting one party's candidate elected rather than another. Once in office, however, these parties will do pretty much whatever they please anyway. They certainly don't care about manifesto promises, and they are positively proud of having rid themselves of the old-fashioned principles that tied their hands in the past.

Where does the Queen come into this? She has no executive power - none at all. So anyone who demands she remove the PM, or stop the war, is simply ignorant. Why does the Queen have no executive power? Because we live in a democracy (such as it is)! If the Queen could make decisions about anything that affects our lives, that wouldn't be democratic, would it? So there is a convention (which has the force of law) that the Queen must adopt the advice of her ministers.

Where we come out ahead, compared to nations like France and the USA, is that we have a head of state who has never been a politician, and who can (and should) be respected by everyone - precisely because she does not get involved in politics. Look at Bush - he is the USA's head of state, for Pete's sake! That is half the reason so many Americans can't bring themselves to believe he is wrong. Almost uniquely, we have the right and the ability to condemn Blair and his gang WITHOUT having to criticise our head of state.

You may dislike royalty emotionally, but don't let that blind you to its very great practical benefits.

All this about the mooted new stop and question powers is really just a lot of hot air  -  from both those who are proposing them and those who appear shocked.

It's like the silly questions one sometimes gets asked at the Channel Tunnel when leaving the country :  "where were you in the UK, where are you going". You can say virtually anything : who's going to check? More to the point : how can it be checked? It's all just nonsense. When the copper asks you where you came from, you replyy "home". And the answer to the question where are you going is "I'm taking a walk".

Tom Welsh, you are wrong in your belief about the Queen. Although you may perhaps be right that the Monarch doesn’t have that much executive power, the way our Constitution is set up transfers that enormous personal power to the Prime Minister, whom can declare war, appoint Judges and sign treaties without ever having to refer to Parliament.

Anyway, how can you say she doesn’t? You certainly don’t really know, neither do I. How can any of us know without a proper written Constitution? The last three monarchs have used the power to choose Prime Ministers, and the Queen meets with Tony Blair every week to discuss matters of government. Matters that we are not allowed to know, the Queen is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

What I find astonishing is that you do not see the link between the outrages Tony Blair has committed and the relationship of those acts within our secretive, uncertain and unknown Constitution and Head of State

For a start, it's by no means clear what a "real" democracy is.

I go along with the 'government representing the people' kind of democracy, and not just pursuing the interests of big businesses and globalisation.

Can anyone point to any such democracy that has ever existed anywhere?

Well, there would certainly be a few more representative democracies on the planet if it was not for the US/UK policy of wrecking any nation that shows a willingness to govern itself and not be subservient to another nation (e.g the US/UK). As is the current case with Venezuela, where there has already been a failed coup attempt orchestrated by the US. I could recount many many other governments, democratically elected, that have been violently overthrown by US and UK because they did not reflect our 'national interests' or even our 'values'. I would recommend a book by Noam Chomsky called Failed States, he is far better researched and more eloquent than most.

Today our politicians make a lot of fuss about how wonderful democracy is - apparently it's so wonderful that, even if you have to be killed to give you it, you are still ahead.
Politicians are the servants of big business, every single one represents some business interest or other. Just check out the register of interests, and those are just the ones we know about. How many have done a few deals on the quiet?
In both the UK and USA most of the people want the Iraq war to be stopped, but neither major party intends to do so. So what happens to the people's "power"?
Isn't that why we need a representative government in the US and UK?

Essentially, you get one vote every five years or so. With that, if you live in a marginal constituency, you might contribute to getting one party's candidate elected rather than another. Once in office, however, these parties will do pretty much whatever they please anyway. They certainly don't care about manifesto promises, and they are positively proud of having rid themselves of the old-fashioned principles that tied their hands in the past.

Yes, they system is rigged so you only get to choose from one of two (very similar) parties. This is the illusion of democracy. Thanks to the boundary commission it is always easy to rig the outcome (voter fraud) to get whichever government has been chosen for us. And when that dosen't work, as in the 2000 US election you just get a rigged legal system to declare you the winner.

In the US the Democrats control both chambers and they can't (won't is more accurate) stop GW Bush even though that is plainly what the US public voted for.

Where does the Queen come into this?... Why does the Queen have no executive power?... If the Queen could make decisions about anything that affects our lives, that wouldn't be democratic, would it?

Let's follow Caligula's example then and have a donkey as head of state.

You may dislike royalty emotionally, but don't let that blind you to its very great practical benefits.

I said I couldn't give a damn what they think, and why should I? What on earth have their lives got in common with the rest of us? As to the 'great practical benefits', well now you've got me stumped - are you being sarcastic?

Are we talking about this royal family by any chance? God bless 'em guvnor! Cor blimey I know my place, ain't no mistaking that. Knees up mother brown, knees up mother brown...Ooh what a luverly war.

"For a start, it's by no means clear what a "real" democracy is."

Unbelievable. For a start a free press is of primary importance and that does not exist in this country, or indeed the US where all the media is owned by a handful of people who have their own money making agenda and are more interested in keeping people in the dark about the real world so they can pursue some nefarious agenda.

Another example is that elections are free and fair. The US in 2000 and 2004? The Scottish parliamentary elections? Bristol in the last general election?

Also, new laws, and decisions of national importance are made by an elected body like the house of commons, usually after a period of debate and public discourse. When was the last time either of those two things happened in the UK political system?

If you are still in doubt, here's a dictionary definition :-

The royal prerogative was soon abused to thwart the return of British subjects of Diego Garcia illegally forced from their homes by our government in 1967 by royal prerogative endorsed by the Queen on the day we invaded Iraq!

Perhaps if the Queen is so concerned for her citizens and justice, she will allow the return of her subjects to their physical, ancestral and spiritual homes before they all die...

Democracy is only an illusion of freedom cultivated by those in power for the explicit reason of remaining in power... So too with flag waving patriotism.