Not by a hair of my chiny chin chin....

[InsaneApache]

will I let you in......

So goes the saying in the nursery rhyme The Three Little Pigs. Fat chance they'd have these days if they happened to live in the wretched country called the UK. They'd be in a bacon butty faster than you could say Lord Mandy of Corfu.

When the New Labour party was elected in 1997 I believe that there was two orgainsations that were allowed to enter your house without a warrant.
One was Her Majesties Excise men, an ancient custom and the other was the fire brigade, for obvious reasons.

At the last count there are now 244 different organisations that can enter your home, whether you like it or not. So much for a decade of enlightened, progressive government.

Alarming enough you might think but wait! Our overlords aint finished with us quite yet....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When the Government hired the services of an 11-year-old poet to sing the praises of the new Human Rights Act in 2000, few would have imagined that a few years later we would be left envying the freedoms enjoyed by 17th-century Englishmen. Weren't human rights supposed to protect us from arbitrary justice? Not if you are an 89-year-old woman cowering in her home while a bailiff batters down the door to seek payment of your absent son's unpaid parking fine, they don't.

That case is just one of the injustices that have come to light since the introduction of a clause buried inside the Victims of Crime and Domestic Violence Act 2004, giving bailiffs the right to break open the doors of debtors' homes. Not satisfied with that piece of legislation, the Government now wants to give bailiffs the right to push debtors from their doorways, drag them off their televisions and ease their grip on their children's dolls houses. The proposals are just a thugs' charter. Anyone can be a bailiff. There is such a thing as a “bailiff's certificate”, to obtain which budding bailiffs have to undertake minimal training and convince the courts that they are fit and proper people to go sniffing around debtors' houses.

But the certificate is only required for bailiffs who are collecting unpaid rent, motoring fines and council tax. As far as any other kind of debt is concerned, you can be finishing a jail sentence for manslaughter one day and be out battering down doors on behalf of a debt-collection agency the next. Neither is there anything to stop a bailiff adding his own extortionate fees on the debts that a county court has empowered them to collect.

It is extraordinary how less free citizens are in this respect than they were 400 years ago. Medieval laws against overbearing bailiffs were confirmed in a case in 1604 between one Peter Semayne and the heirs of his deceased business partner George Beriford, with whom he owned a house in Blackfriars. The court ruled that the only agent empowered to break the lock on a citizen's door was a sheriff acting on behalf of the King. Last year a petition was presented to Number 10 pointing out that the Government had succeeded in reversing an ancient law protecting us against bands of privateers. In its attempt to defend this loss of liberty, No 10 replied by arguing that the 1604 Act discriminated against the poor, who “couldn't afford locks”.

That's all right then. We now live in a country where bailiffs can batter down our doors before making off with our possessions, but at least there is no discrimination against the poor. Forget to pay a parking fine or overlook a credit card bill and we are all equally at risk of waking up to hear our front doors being splintered by a bull-necked debt-collector.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5379480.ece

I think I'll look into buying some property in China, I could do with living in a more relaxed, easy going, lassaiz faire culture.

[Fragony]

Ah, news from England?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Reform Treaty - Protocol (No 7) [that is, the Lisbon Treaty and its follow-ups.]

The Treaty will provide countries with the option to opt out of certain EU policies in the area of police and criminal law:

The "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" by the European Court of Justice is not to apply fully to the United Kingdom and Poland, although it would still bind the EU institutions and apply to the field of EU law:

“ Article 1

1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2

To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom. ”

This is what, against bitter protest from other European nations, Poland and the UK negotiated for themselves a few years ago.

Rest assured though, ye opressed peoples of Europe, that whatever your governments may concoct, my revolutionary mind shall not rest until freedom, justice and human rights are spread form the Atlantic to the Ural.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Isn't it good to know that the recently paroled have a career field open to them that utilizes their unique talents? Nobody expects a Repo-man's Inquisition

[rory_20_uk]

Supposedly left leaning governments are far more able to strip away any rights they feel like as it is not what they are associated with. imagine the Tories doing this...

IF entry is required, the police should be the only persons doing so - as a law from 1604 stated. The police should then be paid for their time to undertake this.

In essence the job of repo men should be undertaken by the police as a magistrate sanctioned event, not by the types that go into the industry.

[CountArach]

Supposedly left leaning governments are far more able to strip away any rights they feel like as it is not what they are associated with. imagine the Tories doing this...

Les... sigh...

Labour is not left...

[rory_20_uk]

Les... sigh...

Labour is not left...

Of the three parties it is the one perceived to be left wing, even if its actions are right wing. Its core voters will vote for it regardless of what it does, as the other option is the Tories (boo, hiss)

[Fragony]

Les... sigh...

Labour is not left...

Yes they are, they just can't afford it anymore, it's like a snake that eats it's own tail, getting pretty top-heavy over there with our british complete idiots friends.

[naut]

I'm glad I'm out of there. Revolution is needed I say.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes they are, they just can't afford it anymore, it's like a snake that eats it's own tail, getting pretty top-heavy over there with our british complete idiots friends.

Fragony, I can understand that your comforting world view (Everything bad = the left) demands the above belief, but no-one else has considered New Labour to be remotely socialist for years. What party of the left considers, in all seriousness, charging the very poorest over 27% interest on social emergency loans? Even Mrs Thatcher, who reformed the easy money society, didn't plan to gouge people like that. (If one believed New Labour had any chance of joined up thinking, one could easily accept that this plan was to neatly increase business for their new friends, the bailiffs).

Much more interesting than generalised left bashing is discovering the answer to a question I find raised each time InsaneApache rightly posts about his iniquitous government: to wit, what are you doing about this? Specifically, as a member (I think) of the Tory party, are you lobbying to make sure an incoming conservative government over-turns all this awful legislation? Because I don't see them making the same song and dance of outrage.

Since no parliament can bind its successor, a program of over-turning all the years of pernicious legislation should be rather straightforward and easy to plan in Opposition. Where are those plans? Each time this stuff is proposed, one should hear a promise that 'twill last no more than GB's career.

Don't you think?

[Fragony]

Keep that in mind when I send you a bill

[Husar]

Since no parliament can bind its successor, a program of over-turning all the years of pernicious legislation should be rather straightforward and easy to plan in Opposition. Where are those plans? Each time this stuff is proposed, one should hear a promise that 'twill last no more than GB's career.

Don't you think?

This is one of the things that made me lose faith in politics so I now think you just choose the lesser evil.

[Gregoshi]

Talk about an open door policy gone horribly wrong.

[Mangudai]

Fragony, I can understand that your comforting world view (Everything bad = the left) demands the above belief, but no-one else has considered New Labour to be remotely socialist for years. What party of the left considers, in all seriousness, charging the very poorest over 27% interest on social emergency loans? Even Mrs Thatcher, who reformed the easy money society, didn't plan to gouge people like that. (If one believed New Labour had any chance of joined up thinking, one could easily accept that this plan was to neatly increase business for their new friends, the bailiffs).

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

Want proof? Count the threads on this forum. I have yet to find one encouraging org members to give to charity. I found a few dozen in no time where org members supported repressive government policies.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Fragony, I can understand that your comforting world view (Everything bad = the left) demands the above belief, but no-one else has considered New Labour to be remotely socialist for years. What party of the left considers, in all seriousness, charging the very poorest over 27% interest on social emergency loans? Even Mrs Thatcher, who reformed the easy money society, didn't plan to gouge people like that. (If one believed New Labour had any chance of joined up thinking, one could easily accept that this plan was to neatly increase business for their new friends, the bailiffs).

Socialist, maybe not. But are they on the left? Yes. At least the centre-left.

[CountArach]

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

Want proof? Count the threads on this forum. I have yet to find one encouraging org members to give to charity. I found a few dozen in no time where org members supported repressive government policies.

Look at the number of threads where people talk about social welfare, not to mention healthcare - the majority of people favour increased social spending, only the vocal minority here don't support it. The number of threads asking people to donate to charity is not a valid representation of the leanings of the forum and I don't know how you could possibly think it is a good judge.

Socialist, maybe not. But are they on the left? Yes. At least the centre-left.

[Watchman]

And seeing as how social security etc. state-subvented services to the down-and-out are more or less institutionalised charity...

Socialism is not really about helping the poor. It's about increasing the power of the state.

If you're talking about the moderate-reformist type (which is the succesful branch most "first world" states have practised succesfully for quite a while; the radical-revolutionary version... didn't really work out), it's actually more or less about rescuing capitalism from itself by sanding down the nasty sharp bits that shred people.
The hardcore revolutionary types rather loathed the reformers for that, because they were quite effectively defusing the uprising of the oppressed proletariat long before it even started...
"Splitters!"

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What, you think Labour is on the right?

[naut]

What, you think Labour is on the right?

Britain's Labour party is definitely more right than left.

[CountArach]

What, you think Labour is on the right?

Let's just say that I struggle to believe that the UK has room for both the Conservatives and Labour.

[InsaneApache]

Britain's Labour party is definitely more right than left.

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.

New Labour isn't remotely right wing, they are crypto-Stalinists who know what's best for you. To this end they will seek to control every aspect of your life, for your own good of course. Anyone who resists are at the best ungrateful buggers for wanting to spend their money the way they see fit. At the worst they are right wing, knee jerk, daily mail readers who obviously need a pre-frontal labotomy so that they may learn to think in the right way. Try reading the comments section in the Gruniad if you want a good laugh. I used to think the left were just deluded and misguided, now I think they're downright dangerous.

[CountArach]

State intrusion into personal life=left.

Errr... you mean like legalised marijuana? Gay civil unions? Greater abortion rights?

These are all left-wing causes that remove the government from the private life of its citizens.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Time to play an appropriate song...

[rory_20_uk]

Errr... you mean like legalised marijuana? Gay civil unions? Greater abortion rights?

These are all left-wing causes that remove the government from the private life of its citizens.

Evidence that the oft-used left - right wing description is not adequate.

You are referring to policies that don't really have a left - right leaning, but a place on the authoritarian - freedom access, which is unrelated to left - right.

[Slyspy]

Oh dear...

Big government=left. Tax and spend=left. High taxes=left. Lunatic fiscal policies=left. State intrusion into personal life=left. Papers pleese!=left. Politicisation of the police=left.

...and of course the nationalisation of the banks=left.

I struggle to believe that these characteristics are found only in governments of the left. I'm fairly sure right wing governments have had all of those. Hell, even the Tories managed a fair few and it seems that even right wing governments decided to bail out their banks.

[CountArach]

Evidence that the oft-used left - right wing description is not adequate.

You are referring to policies that don't really have a left - right leaning, but a place on the authoritarian - freedom access, which is unrelated to left - right.

So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

[InsaneApache]

I struggle to believe that these characteristics are found only in governments of the left. I'm fairly sure right wing governments have had all of those. Hell, even the Tories managed a fair few and it seems that even right wing governments decided to bail out their banks.

Struggle away then.

I consider myself a libertarian.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty

Not a left wing mindset is it?

[rory_20_uk]

So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

You're preaching to the choir! I think that Nu-Labour and especially Brown is right leaning authoritarian.

[Fragony]

So you are restricting the argument solely to economic theories? Alright then, here are some things that New Labour have done from Blair and Gordon's administrations that are clearly right-wing:
1) Reserve Bank independence.
2) Increased fees to enter university
3) Welfare-to-work
4) Various privatisation programs (Including most recently talk of the postal service...)

A huge intrusive government costs a lot of money, has to come from somewhere.

[CountArach]

You're preaching to the choir! I think that Nu-Labour and especially Brown is right leaning authoritarian.

*Tears up his 20-odd minutes of research and throws it away*

I just got a different feeling from the tone of your post.