Here's a bit of welcome news from the Republic of Ireland. The government there has published the “Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling) Bill 2010”, which – if passed – will recognise the right of a home owner, tenant or visitor to stand their ground if attacked in a home and specifically states that there is no obligation to retreat. The bill will allow people to use reasonable force to defend themselves and also specifically states that reasonable force can – depending on the circumstances – result in the death of an intruder.
Statists will scream that this is licensing vigilantism, which it obviously isn't – it's just common sense that you have the right to defend yourself and your home from attack. Here's a statement of support from Dan Hanley, vice-president of the AGSI (an organisation which represents police superintendents and inspectors, our equivalent would probably be ACPO): “The bill aims to shift the balance of rights back to the homeowner where it should always have been. It is intolerable a homeowner should be compelled to retreat in front of an intruder who has entered the home and who may have malign intentions towards the homeowner, the family or the home owner’s property."
Hanley added: "It is ridiculous to suggest the bill, which attempts to redress a serious legal imbalance, would provide a license to kill or a ‘have-a-go’ charter for homeowners, the vast majority of whom will continue to act with good sense and in a peaceful way."
This is exactly the sort of common sense we need more of in Britain.
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Friday, 23 July 2010
The Leaflet War – Labour 2, LibDem 1
The next local election in Manchester isn't till next May, but as far as the big parties are concerned, the election campaign is already on. I've had three publications through the door in the last few weeks that can be considered election leaflets.
The first one was from Labour, and I've mentioned this in a previous blog entry – it's an expensive looking glossy full colour leaflet with a picture of the local Labour mob on the front and a big “Thank You” headline. No need to thank me, I certainly didn't vote Labour – much more fun to run against them, even though the Labour candidate did manage to squeeze back in with a measly 2,247 more votes than me.
The next leaflet I got was one of those LibDem Focus things – simpler colour scheme but broadly similar layout. Another “Thank You” headline. A few more pictures of the local LibDems and also a bit more text. Also one of those standard bar chart diagrams that they like to stick on the front of their Focus leaflets, showing LibDems and Labour as “neck and neck” and discounting the other four parties with the words “The other parties Vote has Collapsed” - this is untrue by the way, as you can easily check by having a look at the 2008 election results. The Tory and Green paper candidates got about the same result as last time. The BNP loser got more votes than last time, despite doing no campaigning – I put this down to a combination of having the benefit of also having a General Election candidate, plus the incredible amount of free publicity those clowns get from the other party. And of course, me being the first Libertarian Party candidate to stand in Manchester, we don't know yet what a typical Libertarian election result is going to be.
I've got nothing against the opposition sending me this stuff. It's their right and the money to pay for it has been raised voluntarily. But the third publication that I've received is different.
This publication is not technically a party political leaflet, but it might as well be. It's the latest edition of the “Manchester People” – a newspaper-style publication printed and distributed by Manchester City Council and funded by the taxpayer. Sixteen pages of propaganda saying what a great job the council is doing. The front page is dominated by a story praising the Manchester Day Parade - £200,000 down the drain, but not one word of criticism. Another story is about the council's plans to blow £1,000,000,000 redeveloping St Peter's Square. There's nothing much wrong with it at the moment, that I can see – maybe the councillors are just bored with the view. Again, it's a completely one-sided story, not admitting any criticism, typical of this publication. Although it doesn't actually tell you to vote Labour at the next election, since it consistently praises everything the council does, and as the council is dominated by Labour, the message is clear. Local councils shouldn't be allowed to get away with this kind of thing, and hopefully when the Libertarian Party gets some councillors elected we'll be able to put a stop to it. But for the time being the working people of this city are being forced to pay for this publication to the tune of over £140,000 per year.
The first one was from Labour, and I've mentioned this in a previous blog entry – it's an expensive looking glossy full colour leaflet with a picture of the local Labour mob on the front and a big “Thank You” headline. No need to thank me, I certainly didn't vote Labour – much more fun to run against them, even though the Labour candidate did manage to squeeze back in with a measly 2,247 more votes than me.
The next leaflet I got was one of those LibDem Focus things – simpler colour scheme but broadly similar layout. Another “Thank You” headline. A few more pictures of the local LibDems and also a bit more text. Also one of those standard bar chart diagrams that they like to stick on the front of their Focus leaflets, showing LibDems and Labour as “neck and neck” and discounting the other four parties with the words “The other parties Vote has Collapsed” - this is untrue by the way, as you can easily check by having a look at the 2008 election results. The Tory and Green paper candidates got about the same result as last time. The BNP loser got more votes than last time, despite doing no campaigning – I put this down to a combination of having the benefit of also having a General Election candidate, plus the incredible amount of free publicity those clowns get from the other party. And of course, me being the first Libertarian Party candidate to stand in Manchester, we don't know yet what a typical Libertarian election result is going to be.
I've got nothing against the opposition sending me this stuff. It's their right and the money to pay for it has been raised voluntarily. But the third publication that I've received is different.
This publication is not technically a party political leaflet, but it might as well be. It's the latest edition of the “Manchester People” – a newspaper-style publication printed and distributed by Manchester City Council and funded by the taxpayer. Sixteen pages of propaganda saying what a great job the council is doing. The front page is dominated by a story praising the Manchester Day Parade - £200,000 down the drain, but not one word of criticism. Another story is about the council's plans to blow £1,000,000,000 redeveloping St Peter's Square. There's nothing much wrong with it at the moment, that I can see – maybe the councillors are just bored with the view. Again, it's a completely one-sided story, not admitting any criticism, typical of this publication. Although it doesn't actually tell you to vote Labour at the next election, since it consistently praises everything the council does, and as the council is dominated by Labour, the message is clear. Local councils shouldn't be allowed to get away with this kind of thing, and hopefully when the Libertarian Party gets some councillors elected we'll be able to put a stop to it. But for the time being the working people of this city are being forced to pay for this publication to the tune of over £140,000 per year.
Friday, 9 July 2010
All Out Superpower Confrontation
Do you remember "Not the Nine O'Clock News"? I've always liked this song:
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Next year's election campaign has already begun.
At least as far as the Labour Party is concerned it has. I got this leaflet through the letter box a few days ago:
Note the self-satisfied grins on the faces of this unholy trio of Laburite career politicians. On the face of it, it might look a bit triumphalist, as the Labour got comfortable majorities in both the national and local elections round here. But they don't normally send out this kind of literature right after an election – that's more of a Lib Dem tactic, in fact I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems don't retaliate with one of their Focus leaflets shortly.
My guess is that the Labourites have realised that their two council seats in Miles Platting and Newton Heath aren't quite as rock-solid secure as they have been in previous years. They've already lost one of the three seats in this ward a couple of years ago. I was certainly surprised when Flanagan was re-elected, and it's very possible that he wouldn't have been if it hadn't been for the unusually high turnout brought about by having both elections on the same day – Labour always benefit from high voter turnouts. When June Hitchen comes up for re-election next year, they won't have that advantage, so who can say what will happen?
Note the self-satisfied grins on the faces of this unholy trio of Laburite career politicians. On the face of it, it might look a bit triumphalist, as the Labour got comfortable majorities in both the national and local elections round here. But they don't normally send out this kind of literature right after an election – that's more of a Lib Dem tactic, in fact I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems don't retaliate with one of their Focus leaflets shortly.
My guess is that the Labourites have realised that their two council seats in Miles Platting and Newton Heath aren't quite as rock-solid secure as they have been in previous years. They've already lost one of the three seats in this ward a couple of years ago. I was certainly surprised when Flanagan was re-elected, and it's very possible that he wouldn't have been if it hadn't been for the unusually high turnout brought about by having both elections on the same day – Labour always benefit from high voter turnouts. When June Hitchen comes up for re-election next year, they won't have that advantage, so who can say what will happen?
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Would the Cumbria massacre have happened without the Firearms Acts?
Following on from the horrific events in Cumbria, it was completely predictable that statist politicians such as John Pugh and Chris Williamson would come out of the woodwork to advocate yet more bans on lawful firearms ownership. Naturally they fail to provide any evidence that any further gun bans will reduce the likelihood of the next massacre, because there is no such evidence. People who want to commit murder will do so, whatever the law says. Certainly Derrick Bird's actions appear at this point to have been premeditated. If he hadn't used legally owned guns to do what he did, he'd have used firearms bought on the black market – and black market guns are easier to acquire than legal ones these days, especially if you want something that's currently prohibited.
The 1988 and 1997 Firearms Acts were sold as being intended to prevent future atrocities such as happened in Hungerford and Dunblane. They have clearly not had that effect, so what makes anyone think that further bans will improve the situation? The only obvious effect current legislation had on the outcome of the Cumbria massacre was to ensure that Bird's victims were all unarmed and therefore easy targets. If only one of the random people who crossed Bird's path on that day had been armed, they would have been in with a chance of stopping him, or at least slowing him down. A few decades ago this would have been more likely, as the gun laws were more laid back then.
But there's one more thing about this event that I've been wondering about – did Bird just suddenly snap or did he feel himself deteriorating over time, as his problems gradually started to get on top of him? There is a story that he tried to get himself admitted to a mental hospital just a day or two before the massacre, but was turned away – I don't know if that's true or not. But if it was a gradual process, did he seek help earlier? If not, why not? Could he have been deterred from seeking professional help by the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act? To see what I mean by this, pop along to the Merseyside Police website and download either a Form 101 (application for a Firearm Certificate) or a Form 103 (application for a Shotgun Certificate) and read Section 16. It reads “I hereby give permission for the police to approach my GP to obtain factual details of my medical history.” It's something that was added to the form as a result of the 1997 Act. That on it's own is enough to deter any licensed gun owner from seeing his doctor if he starts suffering from any emotional or psychological problems – he'd be scared that the fact that he's being treated for depression or whatever would get back to the police and that they'd use it as an excuse to revoke his FAC or SGC. Did this fact deter Bird from seeking help before it was too late? I don't know, we'll probably never know. Would a councelling or therapy have helped to prevent him going off the rails? Again, I don't know and we'll probably never know. It's not like psychology is an exact science.
But what does seem obvious to me is that clause in our draconian gun laws actually increases the risk of licensed gun owners developing problems in the future – probably not by very much but the possibility's there. Something to think about.
The 1988 and 1997 Firearms Acts were sold as being intended to prevent future atrocities such as happened in Hungerford and Dunblane. They have clearly not had that effect, so what makes anyone think that further bans will improve the situation? The only obvious effect current legislation had on the outcome of the Cumbria massacre was to ensure that Bird's victims were all unarmed and therefore easy targets. If only one of the random people who crossed Bird's path on that day had been armed, they would have been in with a chance of stopping him, or at least slowing him down. A few decades ago this would have been more likely, as the gun laws were more laid back then.
But there's one more thing about this event that I've been wondering about – did Bird just suddenly snap or did he feel himself deteriorating over time, as his problems gradually started to get on top of him? There is a story that he tried to get himself admitted to a mental hospital just a day or two before the massacre, but was turned away – I don't know if that's true or not. But if it was a gradual process, did he seek help earlier? If not, why not? Could he have been deterred from seeking professional help by the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act? To see what I mean by this, pop along to the Merseyside Police website and download either a Form 101 (application for a Firearm Certificate) or a Form 103 (application for a Shotgun Certificate) and read Section 16. It reads “I hereby give permission for the police to approach my GP to obtain factual details of my medical history.” It's something that was added to the form as a result of the 1997 Act. That on it's own is enough to deter any licensed gun owner from seeing his doctor if he starts suffering from any emotional or psychological problems – he'd be scared that the fact that he's being treated for depression or whatever would get back to the police and that they'd use it as an excuse to revoke his FAC or SGC. Did this fact deter Bird from seeking help before it was too late? I don't know, we'll probably never know. Would a councelling or therapy have helped to prevent him going off the rails? Again, I don't know and we'll probably never know. It's not like psychology is an exact science.
But what does seem obvious to me is that clause in our draconian gun laws actually increases the risk of licensed gun owners developing problems in the future – probably not by very much but the possibility's there. Something to think about.
Monday, 31 May 2010
Thought for today
I got the following text message from my henchman Daz:
"If prostitution was legal, would those three women in Bradford be alive?"
We'll never know for sure, of course, but one argument for legalised brothels is that they provide a safer working environment. Food for thought.
"If prostitution was legal, would those three women in Bradford be alive?"
We'll never know for sure, of course, but one argument for legalised brothels is that they provide a safer working environment. Food for thought.
Friday, 7 May 2010
The End of the Beginning
The count for the local elections in Manchester took place at the Town Hall this afternoon. I was allowed to take two people along with me, so I took the Libertarian Party Chairman Gregg Beaman and a sympathiser who isn't yet a party member but who had contributed to the campaign. I found it to be an enjoyable experience. Fortunately the count didn't last as long as last night's General Election counts, but I had time for a cup of coffee and a chat with the Lib Dem candidate Gerry Diamond, who comes across as being a pleasant guy even though I don't agree with his politics. The local Lib Dem godfather Damien O'Connor was also there – it happens that he and Gregg knew each other a few years ago when they were both members of UKIP, so they had a chance to catch up on old times. The Labour candidate John Flanagan was there, but he seemed a bit aloof and didn't say anything to me. No sign of the Tory that I could see. The Greens were there too, and also the BNP candidate and one of his comrades. They didn't look very comfortable – a pair of twenty-somethings in ill-fitting suits who spent most of the time propping up a wall while the rest of the room avoided them. They looked like they were getting ready for a court appearance instead of an election (I was dressed much more stylishly in my combat jacket, jeans and Prisoner tee shirt – I think it's my sense of casual elegance that makes me so attractive to women). At one point, Flanagan tried to get support for a walkout in protest at the BNP even being there, which would have been a pretty childish thing to do – whatever else is wrong with them, the BNP are a legal political party with a perfect right to attend the count.
The count was over pretty quickly, and the result was as follows:
Lib Dem 1596
Labour 2402
Libertarian 55
Green 80
bnp 400
Conservative 265
Total votes: 4798
Flanagan gave a short speech in which he thanked the people of Newton Heath for voting for him and promised to do his best to serve the people of Newton Heath - not a word about the people of Miles Platting and Collyhurst South, which are also in this ward, don't ask me why. Possibly it's because Flanagan's not too familiar with the area, being from Gorton. You'd have to ask him.
I have to admit that the result was a surprise to me. I thought Gerry Diamond would win, his team certainly put plenty of work in, but unfortunately we've got another four years of Flanagan. The number of votes that I got as the Libertarian Party candidate was a pleasant surprise. I thought I'd get maybe 30-40. If that doesn't sound a lot, consider the fact that this is the very first election campaign that the Libertarian Party has mounted in this part of the country, that I'm an inexperienced candidate, that the ward was swamped with Lib Dem and Labour propaganda and that there would have been a lot of tactical voting going on. So I'm actually quite pleased that 55 people decided that it was worthwhile voting for me and the Libertarian Party. It comes to about 1.15% of the total vote. If you're one of those voters, thank you very much. I will do my best to ensure that you have plenty of opportunities to vote Libertarian in future elections. I don't know yet if I'll be a candidate next time, but I'm sure I'll be turning up in some capacity in future campaigns, maybe acting as an agent for another candidate or even just delivering leaflets. I've got the experience now, so I'm sure I can make myself useful. And I'm convinced that Manchester deserves a credible alternative to the current false choice between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Libertarian Party aims to be that alternative.
I'd also like to thank all those who supported me, whether in person by helping deliver leaflets or by sponsoring my campaign. It's been a real pleasure to work with such a dedicated team and I fully expect to be supporting some of them when they stand as candidates themselves.
The count was over pretty quickly, and the result was as follows:
Lib Dem 1596
Labour 2402
Libertarian 55
Green 80
bnp 400
Conservative 265
Total votes: 4798
Flanagan gave a short speech in which he thanked the people of Newton Heath for voting for him and promised to do his best to serve the people of Newton Heath - not a word about the people of Miles Platting and Collyhurst South, which are also in this ward, don't ask me why. Possibly it's because Flanagan's not too familiar with the area, being from Gorton. You'd have to ask him.
I have to admit that the result was a surprise to me. I thought Gerry Diamond would win, his team certainly put plenty of work in, but unfortunately we've got another four years of Flanagan. The number of votes that I got as the Libertarian Party candidate was a pleasant surprise. I thought I'd get maybe 30-40. If that doesn't sound a lot, consider the fact that this is the very first election campaign that the Libertarian Party has mounted in this part of the country, that I'm an inexperienced candidate, that the ward was swamped with Lib Dem and Labour propaganda and that there would have been a lot of tactical voting going on. So I'm actually quite pleased that 55 people decided that it was worthwhile voting for me and the Libertarian Party. It comes to about 1.15% of the total vote. If you're one of those voters, thank you very much. I will do my best to ensure that you have plenty of opportunities to vote Libertarian in future elections. I don't know yet if I'll be a candidate next time, but I'm sure I'll be turning up in some capacity in future campaigns, maybe acting as an agent for another candidate or even just delivering leaflets. I've got the experience now, so I'm sure I can make myself useful. And I'm convinced that Manchester deserves a credible alternative to the current false choice between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Libertarian Party aims to be that alternative.
I'd also like to thank all those who supported me, whether in person by helping deliver leaflets or by sponsoring my campaign. It's been a real pleasure to work with such a dedicated team and I fully expect to be supporting some of them when they stand as candidates themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
