Randomly Selected Article or Link
at 15:06
Not quite content with their complicity in throwing smokers out into the cold, it appears some of our number in the Euro-parl are preparing to freeze us off those as well with the idea of a ban on patio heaters. Yes, they may be gas guzzlers, but there are market ways of dealing with that through the taxation of externalities and fuel and so on to make people use them sparingly.
Why shoulddn't it be my choice, say, to save 100% of my vehicle emissions by not driving any longer but have the occasional night on the patio and be able to stay there for an extra hour maybe when there begins to be a nip in the air by cranking up the heater for a while.
Honestly. What is it with some of our people and banning things. It makes me want to declare that I am not in the same party as these people.
Trackback URL for this post:
at 04:06
This is a blog about Oxford Brookes written by an Oxford Brookes student.I'm a third year at Brookes, halfway through my course. I'm also a first generation blogger and I've seen the need for the sort of guide and commentary I'll be filling this journal with, aiming at twice weekly. "If you're a member of staff or a student and you would like me to write about a particular subject, please get in touch. Similarly, if you blog about Brookes, email me, Jaffa, at brookeswatch@googlemail.com This blog isn't affiliated in the commercial sense with Oxford Brookes, written unwaged, its an independent students guide to another independent student. I hope.
Trackback URL for this post:
at 12:10
...the copper at the top of his profession or the MP/topless model/sometime priest whose speciality is rent seeking and boondoggling? And I repeat my call - Chris Huhne, please do something to support Brunstrom before he is hounded out of his career by small minded authoritarian meddlers.
Trackback URL for this post:
at 17:19
...remember when policemen were people you felt you could go up to and ask for directions?
No longer it seems. In fact, if you have anything like a map with you, you could find yourself staying at Belmarsh (warning, watching the whole of this may cause you to damage your computer in anger!):
I am so glad Terence was filming this. Everyone should get the chance to see this kind of thing and have a real good think about the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" attitude that is allowing our country to become a fascist state. The ability to stop at random (I was going to say "take to one side", but clearly they're happy to do this in full view of the entire concourse), with no probable cause whatever, and humiliate them in order to show other passengers "look, we're doing something about your security" is utterly obnoxious. I must say, though, I am amazed that he was allowed to continue filming, considering all that has been going on about photography in public places.
Britain, like never before, needs Fourth Amendment rights enshrined in law: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Trackback URL for this post:
at 01:23
They've been talking about poverty in Glasgow for a long time. They've been into land reform as well. Not just the work of Mary Barbour and the Glasgow Women's Housing Association and rent strikes during the first war, but at the turn of the twentieth century Glasgow was also the de facto HQ in Britain of the Single Tax movement, those followers of Henry George's idea of taxing land values. The poverty in the city was legendary, and it was it seems often used as an example by either side in the land tax debates almost exactly a century ago.
Here's a response from Winston Churchill in the House of Commons to the leader of the opposition, Arthur Balfour's attempts to rubbish the idea:
| The Glasgow Example - I do not think the Leader of the Opposition could have chosen a more unfortunate example than Glasgow. He said that the demand of that great community for land was for not more than forty acres a year. Is that the only demand of the people of Glasgow for land? Does that really represent the complete economic and natural demand for the amount of land a population of that size requires to live on? I will admit that at present prices it may be all that they can afford to purchase in the course of a year. But there are one hundred and twenty thousand persons in Glasgow who are living in one-room tenements; and we are told that the utmost land those people can absorb economically and naturally is forty acres a year. What is the explanation? Because the population is congested in the The "Poor Widow" Bogey - But when we seek to rectify this system, to Sometimes it is the widow. But that personality has been used to What is the position disclosed by the argument? On the one hand, we |
One hundred years ago, the Liberal Party could have begun to eradicate Glasgow's poverty once and for all. How sad that a hundred years later Glasgow East continues to shine mostly as an example of those same problems we could have solved all those years ago. What benefit has the political game been to them in all those years? What good the franchise? What good socialism? Or the vested interests of the Tories' friends? BBC News tonight suggested that this might be the most important by-election in thirty years. Maybe for the first time in a century someone could once again explain how they are going to make life really better for the constituency's long suffering inhabitants. And then make it happen.
Trackback URL for this post:






























