UK PM David Cameron Proclaims: It’s Not Enough To Follow The Law, You Must Love Big Brother


Courtesy of Mike Krieger @ Liberty Blitzkrieg:

It’s not just those domestic extremists and crazy “conspiracy theory” kooks who took serious issue with UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent overtly fascist language when it comes to freedom of expression in Great Britain. For example, in a post published today, the UK Independent describes the quote below as “the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said.”


This statement, and others like it, are a huge deal. This isn’t how the leader of a major civilized Western so-called “democracy” speaks to the citizenry. It is how a master talks to his slaves. How a ruler addresses his subjects. I think the following tweet by Glenn Greenwald earlier today sums up David Cameron’s attitude perfectly well: Continue reading

David Cameron in spotlight over two more peerages to Tory party donors


David Cameron has appointed 22 new political peers, including two big party donors, party treasurer Michael Farmer and Asian businessman Ranbir Singh Suri. Photograph: ELM/Rex Features

Courtesy of Patrick Wintour @ The Guardian:

David Cameron was embroiled in another cash for peerages row after he ennobled two big donors in a 22-strong list of new political peers.

The pair were the Conservative party treasurer Michael Farmer, who has given £5.9m to the party, and an Asian businessman, Ranbir Singh Suri, chairman of Oceanic Jewellers. Labour said that 13 peers created by Cameron since becoming prime minister were Tory donors, including Farmer and Suri. The 13 have collectively given the Tories more than £22m, Labour claimed.

Of the 22, there are 12 Conservative peers, six Liberal Democrats, three Labour and one Democratic Unionist. Half are women.

The Liberal Democrats now have over 100 peers for the first time since the late 1920s and face the prospect of boasting three times more seats in the Lords than MPs after the 2015 election. The political bloc has the ability to be a significant force in British politics after the election and it is likely to be supplemented by a further tranche of MPs in any dissolution honours list.

The most famous Conservative peers are Sir Stuart Rose, the former chief executive of Marks and Spencer, and Karren Brady, the vice-chairman of West Ham United, who is also small business ambassador for the Tories.

Other Tories granted peerages include Dido Harding, the chief executive of the broadband provider TalkTalk; Andrew Cooper, the Tory pollster, and Martin Callanan, former leader of the Tory MEPs and the European Conservatives and Reformists group.

A peerage has also been given to Carlyn Chisholm, the co-chairman of the Conservative candidates’ committee; Natalie Evans, director of the New Schools Network, the charity supporting groups wanting to set up free schools; and Arminka Helic, the special adviser to the ex-foreign secretary, William Hague. Nosheena Mobarik, chairwoman of the Pakistan Britain Trade and Investment Forum, has been rewarded for her work as advocate of ethic minorities in business. Another prominent Tory-supporting businesswoman, Joanna Shields, the prime minister’s digital adviser and chair of Tech City UK, is also elevated.

Continue reading

Cameron’s internet filter goes far beyond porn – and that was always the plan

It seems to me that everything the UK government touches never provides the designed outcome but something far more sinister. A reduction in rights and privacy is prevelant and this is what we should be concerned with and moving to quell. This is not the behaviour of a healthy and open soceity but one in decline. Courtesy of the The New Statesman:

There is no porn filter, and blocking Childline is not an accident

The idea of an internet porn filter has always been a political fiction, a conveniently inaccurate sound bite used to conjure images of hardcore fisting and anal rape in the feverishly overactive imaginations of middle Britain. What activists actually called for – and ISPs were forced to provide – is an ‘objectionable content’ filter, and there is a vast, damp and aching chasm between the two.


The language of the mythical ‘porn filter’ is so insidious, so pervasive, that even those of us opposed to it have been sucked into its slippery embrace. And so even when it turns out that O2 are blocking the Childline and Refuge websites, or that BT are blocking gay and lesbian content, we tend to regard them as collateral damage – accidental victims of a well-meaning (if misguided) attempt to protect out children from the evils of cock. Continue reading

5 benefit changes the government don’t want you to know about

While the 1% continue to see their wealth grow, the much less well off and those without access to meet MPs for dinner, for a fee, are feeling the pinch. This is not The Big Soceity idea lauded by Cameron and his cronies but something much more insidious and malevolent.

Courtesy of New Statesman:

It used to be that when politicians wanted to bury bad news they’d orchestrate its release to time with a distracting event. Seeing Iain Duncan Smith publicly criticized for wasting at least £140 million of public money over Universal Credit at the start of this month, it struck me how we’ve slowly reached another level. “Unmitigated disaster”? “Alarmingly weak”? These words were used to describe Universal Credit but could easily have been levelled at a number of largely unreported changes to the benefit system. Nowadays, bad news is buried by even worse news. The sheer volume of inefficient and unethical changes to social security this Government has enacted means some of it doesn’t even get noticed. Which, for a set of politicians hacking at vulnerable people’s support systems, is worryingly convenient.


So, here’s five benefit changes the government doesn’t want you to know about. Continue reading

The Masters have Spoken

In this article in the Guardian entitled Multinational CEOs tell David Cameron to rein in tax avoidance rhetoric the corporate masters have spoken…


The bosses of some of Britain’s largest multinational corporations have urged David Cameron to stop moralising and rein in his rhetoric on tax avoidance ahead of a G8 summit next month.

Chief executives of companies such as Burberry, Tesco, Vodafone, BAE Systems, Prudential and GSK were keen to take a final opportunity to lobby the prime minister in advance of the meeting of political leaders in Northern Ireland.

Cameron has pledged to use Britain’s G8 presidency to tackle aggressive tax avoidance by multinationals, but is also keen to heed the counsel of his business advisory group, which he met with on Monday.

Also present was Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, despite the internet search firm coming under fierce attack from MPs last week because of its tax arrangements. The president of the Confederation of British Industry, Sir Roger Carr, who was at the meeting, was among those who have taken issue with Cameron’s attacks on the ethics of big business tax engineering.

During a speech earlier in the day at a London event organised by Oxford University’s Said Business School, Carr said: “It is only in recent times that tax has become an issue on the public agenda – Starbucks, Google, Amazon – businesses that the general public know and believe they understand; businesses with a brand that become a perfect political football, the facts difficult to digest; public passions easy to inflame.

These parasitic vermin want to avoid the moral debate because it cannot be considered morally right that a minority of people within the world reap the majority of the profit and avoid paying any contribution to society. They do this by buying off the politicians or ‘lobbying’ and get the rules enforced that they want. Money regretfully motivates and they are parasites on society not bringers of wealth deserving our respect.

The debate that they want to have is on profits, not on morality, but talking about profit is just a way of muddying the waters and is a diversion from the point in hand. Removing all corporate tax, import and export taxes, all laws, removing governments and letting corporations own people would be good for profit and that is what they are aiming for! The question is this, is profit the ultimate measure of what is “good” and therefore right for all society? Now that is the moral question and a question they cannot answer without naming their agenda.

Where is the dividing line between profit which benefits society and profit which harms it? My opinion is hoarding profit in tax havens, destroying local and national businesses through artificially cheap prices and lying through their back teeth is already well over that line.