Guilty until proven innocent


Excellent point by Tom Paine about the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.  He was referring to the Hampshire matter where a dead man has a stigma attached which has not been proven in fact.  As Tom says:

Whatever the truth of the charges against their husband and father, they are suffering innocents. That the “police spokesman” took his moment in the limelight rather than spare their feelings is proof enough that, socially and morally, Britain is broken.

I commented that this is precisely what Agatha Christie referred to in a number of stories when she said that innuendo and whispering can destroy a person because charges are not formally laid and proven and it is those left behind who suffer.

She referred to a woman who kept house and the lady of the house lost a jewel.  Nothing was ever openly charged but the housekeeper was never trusted again by anyone and as she’d been loyal and efficient to that point for decades, it broke her.  Later the jewel turned up.

That is completely different to someone who has a history of nefarious activity and a less than scrupulous modus operandi which can be pointed to and is generally acknowledged, a continuum which shows through and is a fair assumption to make.  What Tom is referring to is a one off or maybe even a two-off incident.

Having said all that, since when has litigation and trial ever proved anything?  The former depends only on the depth of your pockets and the skill of the attorney [Carter F et al] and the latter reminds me of the West Midlands Police.

It also comes down to how much one cares.  The most appalling things have been said about yours truly in the past year [without any reply from me], on the basis of no smoke without fire – an interesting legal principle – and quite frankly, I don’t give a toss.  Readers can work me out from my blog writing and literature – it’s all there and from meeting me, as some have been unfortunate enough to do.

Coming back to the wife and family of this man in Hampshire – well, they do care, they’re desperately affected and Tom’s rejoinder at the end of his post seems appropriate.  How can those innocents ever lift their heads up again in society without hearing whispering all around them?

Bollocks from Blanchflower


For a start, David Blanchflower is a Labour troll and this is borne out in the article on his call to ditch Brown.  On top of that, he’s a BofE troll as well and therefore anything he says needs to be treated with suspicion.

Now what he’s doing, at the end of the former link, is to take a position diametrically opposite to that of the Tories on how to come out of the recession [natch] but put another way, it is pitting one line of economic thinking against another.

Which holds water?  What do economists say on this?  Do they know?  Do they know anything but theory?  I’m not an economist but I am a historian and a critical one at that.  So what did 1929-37 teach?

Blanchflower says “you don’t cut public spending in a recession”.  How do you economists feel about that?  How does one first get production going again, providing jobs and then tackling debt?  Articles like this, defending recession spending do not help – they draw red herrings across the trail.

The central factor, the bottom line, is that no western economy came out of the recession/depression by itself.  Wiki is wildly inaccurate in saying that the Australian economy just “slowly recovered”.  No it didn’t.

There was a world war, in case anyone’s forgotten and it was only after the devastation of that and the war machine kept people above the breadline for that time, in a socialized way, that the PTB finally allowed a period of recovery.

Don’t turn your nose up at this statement.  FDR induced much of the trouble himself and then engineered the solution to it.  The X factor – his charisma, did the rest with a bewildered people who were looking for a messiah figure at that time, Hoover being cast as the stool pigeon, poor sod.

Recession, crash, depression, war, recovery – that’s the formula.

Is it any accident that there is so much military activity keeping the pot boiling around the world?  I ask a simple question – if you took all military interference from any government, all destabilizing foreign agencies, such as the CIA, out of the equation, if you dismantled the CBs, what situation would you have?

You’d have a series of micro- economies which would find their own level and trade unfettered; the Arabs, al Quaeda etc. would then have to actually come to our shores to cause their trouble and in a prosperous economy, free of cycles of boom and bust [there’d be no one to engineer these now], foreign viruses would not get much of a look in and would be more easily handled.

However, we’re not in an ideal world and the agents of destabilization have us in their grip. Look no further than the Fed, BofE and the ECB, with the BIS, IMF and WB behind them.  That’s where the problem begins and their risible incompetence – I charge that they are not incompetent in the least but most aware of where the sub-prime and hedge business would lead, is going nicely along the laid out path.

The people are softened up, the riots in the streets will be next year or the year after and the 2012 I wrote about in 2006 on this blog, over and over, which occasioned ScotsToryB to ask me to explain myself, will finally come about.  It has unfolded the way it was always going to and still … still … no one in the economic community is prepared to concede that they are following a flawed science, one which has a large measure of undue influence attached to it in the form of the CBs and the robber barons who are within and also backing them.

I’m no guru or soothsayer – the writing was on the wall in October 2006 in the FOMC report – it was as clear as day what was going down.

So no, we’re not coming out of this one without a reason.  For what reason would production begin again?  The change of government is a good start, to reverse the policies inimical to growth but the crippling debt, worse than anything before in the UK, is going to sap the early beginnings of the power of recovery.

Last depression, at micro-level, there were unemployed but this time there is personal debt in the thousands of pounds and dollars, an abandoned social charter which was based on the family and decency [more or less] in our dealings with others [witness the parliamentary expenses scandal] and we are a bereft society in just about every tick box.

Step in War to bring us all together again, let the plucky grit of the nation show through, let the flags be waved, let us wipe out the flower of our manhood once more [all those ASBOs who’ve been created and whom everyone think s need a “bit of discipline”] and at the end of that time, FDR’s “happy days are here again” can ring out in the streets.  People can then remember the conflict fondly, with nostalgia, at all the annual memorial gatherings for the dead and destroyed, in perpetuity.

The only fly in the ointment is that it needn’t have happened in the first place – neither the recession, the war or the recovery – it was all entirely unnecessary.

Who will the war be between?  Well, the EU bloc will be one side.  That’s what they’re hellbent on getting going first.  Nations will fall away, a hardcore perverted empire will remain and away they’ll go.  Who’ll be the enemy?  The Muslim nations?  The U.S./U.K./Israel axis?  Who knows – it’s irrelevant.

The main thing for the globalists is the Great Work of Ages.

Return of the quiz


1.  Myopic and hypermetropic are two sight defects.  Which is which?

2.  What are the two main components of bronze?

3.  If the vowels are a, e, i, o and u, then what are the three other letters sometimes used to approximate the role of the vowel in a word?  North Americans might have problems with this question.

4.  What do the national letters CH represent on a European car and to which country do they refer [other than CH]?

5.  Who composed Onegin?


myopic is shortsighted and hypermetropic longsighted, copper and tin, y-ae-oe, Confederation Helvetica [Switzerland], Tchaikovsky

Carla – is she leading him by …

Carla 1

Two excellent posts at The First Post today – one on the economy tomorrow morning – can’t face economics in the evening and the other on the influence of Messalin Carla Bruni.

We’ve all seen those nude shots and she’s not bad, we’ve all heard her voice and she’s not bad, we’ve all heard her give it to Berlusconi and she’s not bad.  However, her influence at the Elysee Palace is.  It was she who got her husband to employ Rent Boy Min in this “employ as many socialists as possible” government and the French people do not appear amused, especially those on the right plus Rashida Dati.

He’s obviously besotted with Carla and the question is how much pillow influence she really does exert.  Contrast these statements:

Sarkozy himself admitted to the French media that his wife’s importance was ‘immense’. He said recently: ‘I attach great weight to what she says to me. Her views widen my outlook and my thoughts.’

But he added: ‘Carla and I speak a lot, but I think I have reached an age that allows me not to be influenced by anyone.’  Bruni has frequently denied she has any sway over her husband’s policies.

She said in a separate interview with Au Feminin magazine this month: ‘I have no influence on my husband’s political decisions. They are his and he makes them in his own name.’


[He] told Le Point magazine that the views of his glamorous third wife mean a lot to him. “I accord a lot of importance to what she tells me. Her views broaden my perspective, my thoughts,” the Telegraph quoted Sarkozy, as telling the magazine.

Carla 2

Well, I’m sure you’ve all seen that before.  Now, from Le Figaro:

Après Ségolène Royal et Dominique de Villepin, c’est au tour de Carla Bruni-Sarkozy de se lancer sur la toile. La première Dame de France devrait en effet lancer son propre site lundi sous le nom, révèle l’

«Le président n’utilisera pas lui-même Twitter, mais on détaillera sa démarche tout au long du sommet et l’évolution des négociations», précise le responsable de la communication de l’Elysée, Franck Louvrier, au Journal du Dimanche.

So, if you feel like twittering Carla, go ahead.  Why is French politics so interesting compared to the rest?

Late evening listening – Blondie

This post is dedicated to top blogger Tom Paine.  If you listen to no other track, at least try the last one, Shayla – it shows she can actually sing.








Everyone has his Blondie moment and mine was when we went to a pub to watch Graham Parker and the Rumour [I’ve probably mentioned this a thousand times] and the buzz went round that Blondie had arrived, just to take in the performance.

This is the truth – I was standing with my mates, with beers in hand and this chick started pushing her way past with a drink in each hand.  I looked down as she squeezed past me and £*&$% me if it wasn’t Deborah Harry.

I still haven’t got over that encounter.  And to think I was going to say something terse to whoever it was.  And yes – it did make all the difference, so there.