Seeing as this topic is relevant to this time of the year, I’ll sticky it for a while … it has also been updated!
Regina -v- Dyment (1988) 45 CCC (3d) 244
1988, CCC, La Forest J, Human Rights. The court referred to “informational privacy” – “This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit.” – http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/HumRi19851989.php
Here I document my correspondence with LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL concerning the Voter Registration Form.
My first dealings with LCC began on the 20th October 2008 when I was in the bath.
There was a knock at the door, my son answered it to a LCC Voter Registration Form canvasser…off goes the first letter.
Well, it seems the BBC are up to their usual tricks.
Its been three days now since the leaking of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) first reported here and what have we heard reported by the BBC? “Some naughty hackers have targeted the email system.” Pathetic link.
Not a word about the content of the emails. Not a word about how data is MANIPULATED BY THE “SCIENTISTS”.
This is how Aunty Beeb describes the reputation of CRU:
Researchers at CRU, one of the world’s leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered to be the most authoritative report of its kind. – BBC
Mis-quoted or … not quite so reputable?
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. – Quote from one email.
in·al·ien·a·ble [in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-]
–adjective not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
Related forms:
in·al·ien·a·bil·i·ty, in·al·ien·a·ble·ness, noun
in·al·ien·a·bly, adverb
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world. – Eleanor Roosevelt
During this awful time struggling against apartheid, we were inspired by the noble sentiments contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In many ways, the Declaration became a subversive instrument available to overturn injustice, oppression, racism and unfair discrimination. It told us what our oppressors were at great pains to deny-that we had fundamental, inalienable rights that were not in the gift of some benevolent earthly ruler who could grant or withhold them as the whim moved him. – Desmond Tutu
Article 1 – Fundamental Human Rights:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Introduction
Bearing a clear resemblance to the French revolutionary slogan of “liberté, equalité, fraternité,” Article 1 provides that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights and, as a result of common birth into the human family, should treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The first article has been referred to as the “cornerstone” of the Universal Declaration. During the drafting process, it occupied more debate and discussion time than any other article. The words “free and equal in dignity and rights” encapsulate—without theoretical or philosophical exploration—the main foundational concepts of the Declaration and are closely linked to the themes and ideas found in the first recital of the Preamble. Accordingly, the discussion that follows below should be read in conjunction with the discussion and analysis of Preamble recital 1.
Common sense tells us that present government only have “authority” because of past history, and that authority is the authority of the Conqueror. The authority to rule and govern the people of England in 1066 was TAKEN by FORCE… it was not GIVEN FREELY.
You can prove that authority should be GIVEN FREELY by reducing the human population down to just two people. If one person FORCEABLY TAKES authority WITHOUT the CONSENT of the other then that is TYRANNY. It’s that simple. Common sense.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. - Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
William the Conqueror’s authority was TAKEN by (DEADLY) FORCE, (as his title implies and the history books boast) and is the same authority that the parliament of today have inherited. This tyrannical authority is what has evolved over time to what it is today. Its not quite so brutal (in the physical sense) as it once was, but mentally, it draws on the same fears using the same methods (threats, fines, kidnap and imprisonment (… and until very recently … death)). Its the exact same authority!! If it wasn’t, there would be a build in mechanism that deals with tyranny, cronyism and corruption within parliament … which is yet to come!
Real authority should be in the form of:
I trust you and I FREELY GIVE you the authority to do my bidding on the understanding that, if that trust is broken then so is this agreement, thus external authority is rescinded and denied.
… or something very much like that!
This is what we as the people of our country should be working toward. If we need a group of people to act as government or “representative’s” then we should GIVE them the authority FREELY because it’s the right thing to do and in OUR best interests.
On 10th December 1948 after the last war was “won”, the government of Britain signed a pledge on behalf of the people of this country, in recognition of the inalienable rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also to observe, uphold, protect, and teach those rights in schools … they haven’t done that!
Now, therefore, The General Assembly proclaims
This Universal Declaration Of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.- Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Once realised, it becomes obvious how to become free.
The Parable of the Apple – or, How to control a human soul… by Stefan Molyneux
Good afternoon everybody. It is Wednesday, at about 4:27 on January the 25th. I hope you’re doing well. We are going to chat about a most exciting topic today. Not there all not exciting, but this one in particular is juicy to the point almost of being overbearing to one’s intellectual taste buds, to mix metaphors so much that I might as well put my brain on frappe.
So, the topic that I’d like to chat about today is the question of exercising power. How do you exercise power over another human being? How do you corrupt them? How do you take his natural integrity, intelligence, and all the wonder that is the human mind, and turn it against itself and get it to eat itself and get it to be sort of a snake consuming its own tail? How do you wrap people up in neuroses, and how do you make them obedient? How to get them to subjugate themselves to your will without you even having to lift a finger, barely even an eyebrow? And the reason that I want to talk about this is that I’m very interested in starting a cult. No, actually, I think you’ve got to know the weapons of your enemies if you’re going to successfully oppose them. You need to know what they are doing so that you can unravel the damage that historically we’ve all had done to us in this rather messy culture that we live in, so that we can not only begin to reverse the effects of this kind of power structure within our own minds and hearts and souls, but also so that we can help other people unravel the mess that they have become. Continue reading … (or listen to audio below).
Click the little arrow on the player to listen or click the link below to download.
Something that I realised a long time ago was that I don’t have to do anything that I don’t want to. Now, that sounds like a very selfish attitude to take … and it is … it’s very selfish. However, if we all examined ourselves very carefully we would see that we are ALL SELFISH … and it’s NORMAL.
Living around other people dictates that this attitude will have consequences that generally have to be dealt with … if you WANT to deal with them that is …
This video explains how procrastination comes about and what you can do about it … if it’s a problem for you.
We are now living in a rapidly changing world, which seems to be moving at an exponential rate. An ineffable amount of changes just within the past 150
years have created a different world now to one that was known before. Some
changes have been beneficial, some catastrophic and some things haven’t
changed at all. This is the way the world works. Yet it is seen more and more by
an ever increasing mass of people that something just isn’t quite right. Some of
these changes are so blatant that none could miss it, even if their eyes were
closed. On the other hand some changes are so subtle that they pass before our
eyes unnoticed like the air we breathe. It is about one of these subtle changes on
which this piece of work is going to focus.
What is that subtle change that affects our lives so deeply yet we are
unaware of it? The answer lies in a word.
What we are presented with before us is but one simple word. That’s
right; one word. A word so common, so ubiquitous that one would be surprised
at the mischief, confusion and debate it has caused. It is a word that has evolved,
over thousands of years, corrupted from its original form, undergoing a
transformation that would be analogous to a single seed becoming a mighty
forest. Unlike many parts of our language which wither away and are forgotten
in antiquity, or others that enter and leave our language in but a single
generation, this slippery little word continues with us like a chameleon adapting
itself to a hostile environment.
So what is this pernicious little word that has created such
pandemonium? Laughingly it is but the ridiculously commonplace word
“person.” That’s it!
Please be advised that I have voluntarily entered into Lawful Rebellion (see http://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com ) until such time as the will of the people of our nation is UNCONDITIONALLY represented by a government guided by ethics.
I cannot in all conscience continue to support such a corrupt, tyrannical, controlling, spying, invasive, hypocritical government that, puts the interests of big business, commerce and greed ahead of the will and welfare of the people of our nation, who by their own labour pay dearly to keep the corruption going.
[Edit] A lovely endorsement from Darren Pollard: – 10/10/2009
Yeah slimline, the guy who likes what I do so much he starts a blog creating the perception I’m seen as a ‘domestic extreemist’ and then saying ‘no he’s not.’
Why have a dig at me in this thread? You know why eh! Because I go out and get the job done. You just create a ‘perception’ you’re trying to do something. And yeah, I read your letters and notices in various threads. Be interesting to see you post an achievement that you have overcome standing up for yourself against the system?
Perhaps you could go out with a camera & talk to the police yourself, show us all how it’s really done!
Keep the controvesy going, you’ll just get my info more attention, cheers!
Thanks for the kind words of appreciation … mate! – slimline66
***
Here is yet another example of another ordinary member of the public who on speaking out against the tyrannical actions of those that purport to “represent us” (by controlling our actions no less!), is forcibly silenced and taken off our streets. Not only was he arrested (more than once), he and his partner are being threatened with the removal of their children from their rightful place, with their natural parents … do as we say or we’ll take away what is most precious to you, your children … nice!!!!
Again … you know when you JUST KNOW that something is good and for the right reasons … however … this time the conclusion … is … well … er … ever so slightly odd!
He was told that if he gave his name, arrest will NOT BE NESSESSARY, … OK so far, … no rules or laws broken … great.
Then he was told that if he did not give his name … he would be arrested, not for not giving his name, but for using his megaphone! … in order to confirm his particulars.
Soooooo … how can not giving your name create a crime out of using a megaphone??? … where, if he HAD given his name, there would be no arrestable offence committed??
I received this email (below) a few weeks ago and thought it a good idea to post it here. The reason being that the site in question ( http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk ) is absolutely brilliant and deserves to continue and grow. I had a quick look today and the contributions are very few and far between, they’ve only raised just over £300 which is very disappointing considering the site and all the mods and admin collectively have helped reclaim 5.6 million pounds in penalty charges from the banks for its members.
We have a total of 316.01 in the bank towards the new design after Paypal took its cut, so a big thank you! i hoping to have the a new site up on the 22 JULY 2009.
and yes with a new Penalty charges song!
it does not look like we going to get the donations needed, so I have spoken to a new designer, who is a lot less, we are now looking at around £600. but we will lose some of the bits i wanted. maybe we just have to have them at a later date.
British award winning film maker and lower working classes champion Bill Maloney asks British Bullshit Corporation lackeys “what the fuck do you do for us?” …
G20 BBC Newsnight Exclusive with Bill Maloney UN-AIRED:
To Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Hector Sants, Chief Executive Officer, Financial Services Authority Mr Mervyn King, Governor of The Bank of England
CC to: Perter Ainsworth MP John Thornhill, Editor, The Financial Times Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian Rebekah Wade, Editor, The Sun
Re: Judgement from the Court of Public Opinion 20th June 2009
Dear Messrs Darling, Sants and King, You have all been charged by the Court of Public Opinion with continuing to allow the Financial Institutions to run ‘rough shod’ over the people and businesses of this great country, of allowing these Institutions to treat their customers like 3rd class citizens and of allowing these Institutions to use the Laws of the Land to their advantage, but to deny any responsibilities of their own in relation to these same Laws. Continue Reading »
"We really must get out of our heads the idea that money is a reality in any sense of the word. IT IS PURELY A CALCULATION, and this calculation will have to be made very quickly and very often in the course of the next few weeks."Read more ...
Behind that piece of paper there used to be gold. But gold is no longer there, and to-day there is behind that piece of paper, other pieces of paper, namely Government securities, and the Bank of England holds those Government securities as a security for our currency notes. Read more ...
Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain.
Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits. Read more ...
Thus the commercial bank, to the extent that it has less notes, demonetised under this Bill, is able to create its own form of currency, which is loans, which are advantageous to itself and profitable to itself because the paper which it creates out of nothing bears interest. Read more ...
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am a member of a Government who do not actually believe that income tax ought to exist at all. It was of course a temporary tax put on I believe, by the Duke of Wellington.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it was Pitt first of all.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friend that it was Prime Minister Pitt, so it is even longer ago. This temporary arrangement has gone on for far too long. I believe that if one wants to raise taxes one can do it by other means, such as value added tax. I do not think on this particular aspect of health care taxes that would be the appropriate way to do it. The Government have decided that people should pay for services where they are able to do so.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLAND: asked how the income tax was to be levied so as to render it just and equitable as proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham. The tax was an odious one in itself, and its unequal and inquisitorial character could never be got rid of. All great financiers, from Pitt down to Peel, had argued that it was impossible to make such a tax perfectly equitable. It was a tax suitable only for a state of war and a period of great emergency, when the people would pay it without reference to its inequalities; but it was not adapted for a time of peace.
