Strict Privacy Restrictions on Press Reporting

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

Why is this idea important?

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

Atlas Shrugged (or Why We Need to Crack Down on Government Control Freakery)

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Why is this idea important?

Crime is a serious problem, right?

The fact is that the problem governments now face is that there is too LITTLE crime. THIS is what is threatening them. Not too much crime, as they tell you through their mouthpiece, the press.

Just imagine a paradisic country where everyone is living a happy moral life. There is no crime.

What need would there be for government? Perhaps to run the schools, transport, hospitals, clean the streets and a few other bits and bobs.

There would be no need, however, for a home secretary. You would not need police or prisons. And you would not need big government departments to oversee the police and the prisons.

Government would be significantly smaller. (And your taxes proportionately less.)

In short, if crime went down, large sections of government would have to go. Right?

Well, not quite. Both property and violent crime have been dropping steadily since they peaked in the early-to-mid 90s. These are now at the same level they were in 1980.

But we also have TWICE the number of people incarcerated than in 1980, despite property and violent crime having dropped back down to this level. (America has FOUR times its 1980 level.)

We also have 4000 new laws since Labour came into power.

And we have more prisons, far more police and massive government departments than we ever had in this area.

Government is thriving. (And your tax is high.)

Here is a rather chilling quote from the classic 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand:

 

<i>"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game…"</i>

Sound familiar?

Allow Pets to Travel Internationally

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Why is this idea important?

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Avoid Publicly Demonizing Sections of the Public

I am disappointed that only weeks after this site was launched to see David Cameron now making another tiresome "cracking down" announcement that's all too reminiscent of the bad old days. I thought we were moving away from this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922261

But let's first of all be clear on what I mean. My point is NOT that penalties for benefit fraud should not be imposed. They SHOULD.

My point is something rather different. It is stop demonizing sections of the public. Attack the crime but not the wrongdoer.

The problem of benefit fraud could be dealt with just as effectively without encouraging hatred.

This is not the Big Society. It's hate-filled Blairite petty-mindedness all over again.

Why is this idea important?

I am disappointed that only weeks after this site was launched to see David Cameron now making another tiresome "cracking down" announcement that's all too reminiscent of the bad old days. I thought we were moving away from this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922261

But let's first of all be clear on what I mean. My point is NOT that penalties for benefit fraud should not be imposed. They SHOULD.

My point is something rather different. It is stop demonizing sections of the public. Attack the crime but not the wrongdoer.

The problem of benefit fraud could be dealt with just as effectively without encouraging hatred.

This is not the Big Society. It's hate-filled Blairite petty-mindedness all over again.

Take State Out of Domestic Affairs

The state should have no involvement in domesticity.  The family has historically handled its own affairs. This is because it is nobody's business but the family's.

Real freedom is the freedom to sort out your own problems and issues.

Only in the rare case of a murder being committed should the state come in.

For serious problems, advice bureaux could be set up with a view to helping dysfunctional families. And the aim should be on helping ALL concerned rather than criminalizing anybody (and perhaps making them juicy fodder for the press).

Only in serious cases such as murder should heavy machinery like the police be brought in.

Why is this idea important?

The state should have no involvement in domesticity.  The family has historically handled its own affairs. This is because it is nobody's business but the family's.

Real freedom is the freedom to sort out your own problems and issues.

Only in the rare case of a murder being committed should the state come in.

For serious problems, advice bureaux could be set up with a view to helping dysfunctional families. And the aim should be on helping ALL concerned rather than criminalizing anybody (and perhaps making them juicy fodder for the press).

Only in serious cases such as murder should heavy machinery like the police be brought in.

Outlaw Bad Job References

It's true. Companies CAN give a bad reference. There's a clause that only prohibits this is if the reference is false.

Fair isn't it?

Well, not quite.

1. If a former employer gave a bad reference that was false, how does the jobseeker prove it? Where there's a will there's a way, one might say. A good lawyer can always find ways to extract the truth. But this shifts the burden of proof from the employer to the jobseeker. The jobseeker's resources will be far more limited. He may find the process so stressful he will give up. He might prefer to use his time more positively, like working and earning.

2. It may be well be a true reference. But what if the jobseeker has greatly improved since the period the bad reference is referring to? It will then be unfairly prejudicial towards him. It would condemn him to perpetual unemployment or perpetual and unnecessary worry.

There was a time when a bad reference was illegal. And this wasn't without good reason. It ensured the burden of proof was on the stronger party: the employer. Now, this burden has shifted from the stronger to the weaker party.

Time bad references were outlawed completely. 

Why is this idea important?

It's true. Companies CAN give a bad reference. There's a clause that only prohibits this is if the reference is false.

Fair isn't it?

Well, not quite.

1. If a former employer gave a bad reference that was false, how does the jobseeker prove it? Where there's a will there's a way, one might say. A good lawyer can always find ways to extract the truth. But this shifts the burden of proof from the employer to the jobseeker. The jobseeker's resources will be far more limited. He may find the process so stressful he will give up. He might prefer to use his time more positively, like working and earning.

2. It may be well be a true reference. But what if the jobseeker has greatly improved since the period the bad reference is referring to? It will then be unfairly prejudicial towards him. It would condemn him to perpetual unemployment or perpetual and unnecessary worry.

There was a time when a bad reference was illegal. And this wasn't without good reason. It ensured the burden of proof was on the stronger party: the employer. Now, this burden has shifted from the stronger to the weaker party.

Time bad references were outlawed completely. 

Employment and Privacy on Convictions

Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.

Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.

The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.

This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.

And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.

But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.

In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).

Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=search&lang=en&catId=2590&parentId=0

Why is this idea important?

Respect the privacy of citizens formerly convicted of an offence.

Most criminals are unemployed. And people in work seldom commit an offence. Indeed, there is nothing worse for reforming an offfender than them not being able to find work after their offence.

The EU recognises this and has put into place laws preventing employers discriminating against people convicted of something.

This is to help reform them. It is illegal for an employer, for example, to inquire in a job interview about convictions. It is illegal to request that information on applications.

And it works. Reoffence is scarce after steady employment is found.

But there's one crazy little country "opting out" of this ruling by forcing people to mention convictions on job applications.

In the UK, a former offender remains under State obligation to declare convictions on job applications (except in some cases).

Here's a Eures search on the word "conviction". Only the UK imposes self-destruction on its citizens by forcing many of those convicted of something to remain in unemployment.

http://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?acro=search&lang=en&catId=2590&parentId=0

Travel Anonymously By Rail

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

Why is this idea important?

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

Adopt Dutch Model for Crime Reporting

Part of the problem of crime in the UK is the perception of it. People believe it is at a worse level than in reality.

This is because the press thrive on crime. They sell papers from it.

The result is that people, particularly women, get unduly scared when going out.

This is not good for the social cohesion in our country.

So I propose we adopt the Dutch model for crime reporting to help quell these false perceptions of crime.

In Holland, when a crime is committed, names of suspects cannot be mentioned. And after conviction, only their initials can be reported.

Why is this idea important?

Part of the problem of crime in the UK is the perception of it. People believe it is at a worse level than in reality.

This is because the press thrive on crime. They sell papers from it.

The result is that people, particularly women, get unduly scared when going out.

This is not good for the social cohesion in our country.

So I propose we adopt the Dutch model for crime reporting to help quell these false perceptions of crime.

In Holland, when a crime is committed, names of suspects cannot be mentioned. And after conviction, only their initials can be reported.

Free Speech Against Feminism

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Why is this idea important?

Why do I ask for this?

Because challenging the flawed dogma of feminism is BARRED on national television.

Feminism is one of the most IDIOTIC doctrines to date. And the only reason it has survived until now is because challenging it on our national television channels like the BBC is censored.

Let's see a BBC or Channel 4 programme debating the issue of feminism. Let's see sociologist/authors Warren Farrell, Rich Zubaty, Stephen Baskerville, to name just a few, in a studio discussion with celebrity feminists and see who talks sense and who talks the usual excruciating drivel.

But moreover, feminism is biggest single cause of Britain's insufferable authoritarianism:

1. Feminists want the presumption of innocence ditched for men accused of rape.

2. The scrapping of the double jeopardy rule for murder was later extended to cover areas of interest to feminists (such as sex crime).

3. The police are now involved in domestic scenarios. Why? Because feminist propaganda has created the false belief that men are the sole perpetrators in domestic violence cases. However, studies are now showing that women are as violent, with some of these even suggesting they are MORE violent than men in the home. Yet the police and government social services departments take no interest violent wives/mothers. Feminism.

4. There are significant numbers of female paedophiles molesting boys, yet we only ever hear (in the media) about men. This is feminism dominating the media.

5. Men and women have enormous differences in their intelligence patterns. This accounts for why all the great innovators and inventors thoughout history, all the scientists, artists, philosophers, and poets, have been MEN. (The achievements of women in these endeavours shrink to nothing next to men's.) Yet the media is concerned with getting more GIRLS into universities instead of boys. This is feminism — this time stifling the advancement of boys in favour of their own favoured group of people: women. Authoritarianism. Boys are suffering.

This debate is a BIG one. I have only scratched the surface. There is now a massive anti-feminist movement — the Men's Movement — that is worldwide. But you would never know it watching the British news or reading a British newspaper.

Isn't that shameful?

Remove Kerbside Railings in Cities

Kerbside railings are an impediment to the free movement of pedestrians in Cities.

You want to cross to the shop or bus stop directly on the other side. But you are blocked by railings. So you must walk a hundred metres to the traffic lights where the state allows you to cross. By this time, you are in a thick crowd also wanting to cross, that you might have avoided if not for the railings. There is another thick crowd on the other side. The island in the middle of the road is a long narrow cage with narrow doorways and either end. One crowd meets the other on the island, people squeezing though each other, to get to through to opposite end of the island from where they stepped onto it, to exit back into the road.

Once on the other side of the road you begin your walk of a hundred metres back in the opposite direction to the one in which you set out, to get to the shop or bus stop that was directly opposite you when you started.

This is madness. In continental/European cities these things are scarce. They are seldom used, but where they are, they are short.

British cities, such as London, should be practically devoid of them.

Why is this idea important?

Kerbside railings are an impediment to the free movement of pedestrians in Cities.

You want to cross to the shop or bus stop directly on the other side. But you are blocked by railings. So you must walk a hundred metres to the traffic lights where the state allows you to cross. By this time, you are in a thick crowd also wanting to cross, that you might have avoided if not for the railings. There is another thick crowd on the other side. The island in the middle of the road is a long narrow cage with narrow doorways and either end. One crowd meets the other on the island, people squeezing though each other, to get to through to opposite end of the island from where they stepped onto it, to exit back into the road.

Once on the other side of the road you begin your walk of a hundred metres back in the opposite direction to the one in which you set out, to get to the shop or bus stop that was directly opposite you when you started.

This is madness. In continental/European cities these things are scarce. They are seldom used, but where they are, they are short.

British cities, such as London, should be practically devoid of them.

Freedom to choose male doctor

Currently, where there are group practices, a woman patient can choose to see a woman doctor where the problem is female-only (and sometimes even when it isn't).

But there are also problems that are male-only. Sometimes a male patient would feel more comfortable discussing his issue with a man because a woman — purely because of her female sex and for no other reason — would be out of touch.

This choice should be available to men.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, where there are group practices, a woman patient can choose to see a woman doctor where the problem is female-only (and sometimes even when it isn't).

But there are also problems that are male-only. Sometimes a male patient would feel more comfortable discussing his issue with a man because a woman — purely because of her female sex and for no other reason — would be out of touch.

This choice should be available to men.

De-criminalize the carrying of ALL knives whose purpose is peaceful

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Why is this idea important?

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Travel Anonymously Through London

Travel passes, such as for the London Underground, should not have people's names and details recorded against them.

The excuse for this given by London local politicians is that if someone has lost their card or had it stolen, then it can be recovered.

But a record of personal details is not necessary for this. All that is required is a unique identifier for the traveller (such as a serial number) and a photocard with the necessary details, such as name, which could be kept at home. If a card is lost or stolen, the traveller would only need present this photocard at a ticket office. His details need not be recorded and held on computer.

Why is this idea important?

Travel passes, such as for the London Underground, should not have people's names and details recorded against them.

The excuse for this given by London local politicians is that if someone has lost their card or had it stolen, then it can be recovered.

But a record of personal details is not necessary for this. All that is required is a unique identifier for the traveller (such as a serial number) and a photocard with the necessary details, such as name, which could be kept at home. If a card is lost or stolen, the traveller would only need present this photocard at a ticket office. His details need not be recorded and held on computer.

Men Seeking Prostitutes are Not Criminals; Protect Them

The suggestion that men who seek prostitutes are criminals is evil spin. It serves no one but those seeking to expand their power base. Customers are ordinary men who want sex outside of their current relationship(s) or who simply lack the seduction skills to start a relationship.

Proposals to criminalise men seeking prostitiutes are based on the feminist lie that prostitutes are exploited women. While this is no doubt true in a small minority of cases it is far from true generally. Women who enter prostitution do so because it is very lucrative. They can earn a 4-figure sum daily. A sum that's untaxed. (Is this really exploitation?)

But I would go further. Common practice amongst prostitutes and pimps is take the customer's money and not deliver the sex he has paid for. Pimps — often gangsters — threaten him with violence.

This is clear extortion. It is robbery. It should be regarded as a crime. A customer should not fear that legal authorities would turn away from him if this situation arose — let alone arrest him after being robbed in this topsy-turvy world of feminism.

Why is this idea important?

The suggestion that men who seek prostitutes are criminals is evil spin. It serves no one but those seeking to expand their power base. Customers are ordinary men who want sex outside of their current relationship(s) or who simply lack the seduction skills to start a relationship.

Proposals to criminalise men seeking prostitiutes are based on the feminist lie that prostitutes are exploited women. While this is no doubt true in a small minority of cases it is far from true generally. Women who enter prostitution do so because it is very lucrative. They can earn a 4-figure sum daily. A sum that's untaxed. (Is this really exploitation?)

But I would go further. Common practice amongst prostitutes and pimps is take the customer's money and not deliver the sex he has paid for. Pimps — often gangsters — threaten him with violence.

This is clear extortion. It is robbery. It should be regarded as a crime. A customer should not fear that legal authorities would turn away from him if this situation arose — let alone arrest him after being robbed in this topsy-turvy world of feminism.

The penal system should be focussed on rehabilitation and reintegration into society — NOT vengence

For the last three decades politicians have been making political capital out of building ever more prisons and imposing ever tougher sentences on offenders.

But prisons are a failure to society. (And politicians, who are not stupid, know this.) Prisons turn minor offenders into criminals and criminals into cleverer criminals. And they cost a fortune both in government funds and to society.

In Norway, by contrast, the criminal justice system is run on an entirely different model. On Balstoy island a rehabilitation centre houses a diversity of miscreants, from minor to serious. Inmates live in chalets and are free to go around the island. They can go horse-riding and skiing.

But they must work during the day. They are taught responsibility.  The island is guarded.

Result? A 20% recidivist rate. For prisons this figure is 60%.

So why on earth are our politicians bent on the expensive failing system of prison?

Votes. They are pandering to the vengence instincts of the baying mob to win popularity.

This is all cleverly packaged as “the rights of the victim”. But what right has any one victim to impose a system that will make more victims out of the rest of us? (Not to mention insufferable policing while we go about our business.)

We should adopt Norway’s model now.

Why is this idea important?

For the last three decades politicians have been making political capital out of building ever more prisons and imposing ever tougher sentences on offenders.

But prisons are a failure to society. (And politicians, who are not stupid, know this.) Prisons turn minor offenders into criminals and criminals into cleverer criminals. And they cost a fortune both in government funds and to society.

In Norway, by contrast, the criminal justice system is run on an entirely different model. On Balstoy island a rehabilitation centre houses a diversity of miscreants, from minor to serious. Inmates live in chalets and are free to go around the island. They can go horse-riding and skiing.

But they must work during the day. They are taught responsibility.  The island is guarded.

Result? A 20% recidivist rate. For prisons this figure is 60%.

So why on earth are our politicians bent on the expensive failing system of prison?

Votes. They are pandering to the vengence instincts of the baying mob to win popularity.

This is all cleverly packaged as “the rights of the victim”. But what right has any one victim to impose a system that will make more victims out of the rest of us? (Not to mention insufferable policing while we go about our business.)

We should adopt Norway’s model now.

Kill Eurostar’s Monopoly on Surface Travel between UK and Continent

When Eurostar was first put into operation I was surprised that ferry services for foot passengers connecting ferries with trains were discontinued.

This is not to say that ferries are always preferable. Sometimes direct trains are more convenient. But Eurostar’s monopoly on surface travel has meant:

  1. High fares in comparison to other continental services
  2. Strict unchangeable times (unless you are willing to pay through the nose for just the choice to pay the high fees for changing).  This adds considerable stress to travel.

The solution is to:

  1. Restore ferry services AND make easy physical connections between ferries and trains (i.e. with no cumbersome intervening bus services)
  2. Allow other rail operators (like Deutsche Bahn and SNCF) to run trains through the tunnel.

Why is this idea important?

When Eurostar was first put into operation I was surprised that ferry services for foot passengers connecting ferries with trains were discontinued.

This is not to say that ferries are always preferable. Sometimes direct trains are more convenient. But Eurostar’s monopoly on surface travel has meant:

  1. High fares in comparison to other continental services
  2. Strict unchangeable times (unless you are willing to pay through the nose for just the choice to pay the high fees for changing).  This adds considerable stress to travel.

The solution is to:

  1. Restore ferry services AND make easy physical connections between ferries and trains (i.e. with no cumbersome intervening bus services)
  2. Allow other rail operators (like Deutsche Bahn and SNCF) to run trains through the tunnel.

Private organizations should not be acting as agents of the state

  1. The government should not be asking private companies to police customers.
  2. And any companies acting in this a way on their own decision should be prosecuted.

Two companies come to mind

  • Eurostar, snatching customers’ property

Kitchen knives – such as what might be bought as gifts – are snatched away from customers and confiscated

  • British Airways, moving men away from children

British Airways have been acting on the tabloid instigated myth that men are potential paedophile rapists, and even gay ones at that. This is a publicity stunt, and one with the most appalling disrespect towards the male passenger forced to move.

Why is this idea important?

  1. The government should not be asking private companies to police customers.
  2. And any companies acting in this a way on their own decision should be prosecuted.

Two companies come to mind

  • Eurostar, snatching customers’ property

Kitchen knives – such as what might be bought as gifts – are snatched away from customers and confiscated

  • British Airways, moving men away from children

British Airways have been acting on the tabloid instigated myth that men are potential paedophile rapists, and even gay ones at that. This is a publicity stunt, and one with the most appalling disrespect towards the male passenger forced to move.

Myths willfully peddled by politicians should be prosecuted

Two blatant government myths – both feminist in origin – commonly peddled around are:

  1. The Pay Gap
  2. Prostitutes are exploited women trafficked by unscrupulous men.

Let me take these one at a time.

1. The Pay Gap is a lie. Men certainly earn more than women ON AVERAGE, but this is because they choose harder jobs that pay more. But for the same work they earn the same. After all, why on planet earth would companies employ men if women were cheaper for doing the same work?

2. Women enter into prostitution for the MONEY. They enter it voluntarily. They can earn a 4-figure sum daily — that’s untaxed. At the last world cup held in Germany, it was “predicted” that 50,000 women would be “trafficked”. But after strenuous searches the actual number was – wait for it – THREE. Indeed, most trafficked people are actually MEN – who are economic migrants.

So to come back to my point, if government ministers and other politicians are deliberately feeding the public lies, they should be prosecuted. (If they make a false statement in good faith that it was true, then this would make them innocent.)

Why is this idea important?

Two blatant government myths – both feminist in origin – commonly peddled around are:

  1. The Pay Gap
  2. Prostitutes are exploited women trafficked by unscrupulous men.

Let me take these one at a time.

1. The Pay Gap is a lie. Men certainly earn more than women ON AVERAGE, but this is because they choose harder jobs that pay more. But for the same work they earn the same. After all, why on planet earth would companies employ men if women were cheaper for doing the same work?

2. Women enter into prostitution for the MONEY. They enter it voluntarily. They can earn a 4-figure sum daily — that’s untaxed. At the last world cup held in Germany, it was “predicted” that 50,000 women would be “trafficked”. But after strenuous searches the actual number was – wait for it – THREE. Indeed, most trafficked people are actually MEN – who are economic migrants.

So to come back to my point, if government ministers and other politicians are deliberately feeding the public lies, they should be prosecuted. (If they make a false statement in good faith that it was true, then this would make them innocent.)