“The Freedom Association is a non-partisan, centre-right, libertarian pressure group. We seek to challenge all erosion of civil liberties and campaign in support of individual liberty and freedom of expression.”
The main purpose of The Freedom Association (TFA) is to campaign for greater legal freedoms for financial gangsters. It wants even fewer legal restrictions on banks and financial institutions so they can more freely exploit and steal.
Criticism of the Serious Fraud Office (SFA) by TFA claims that the SFA has an “anti-finance crusade;“ the truth is that the SFA has failed to prosecute most of the illegal activity that occurs in the City of London and subsequent “punishments” for wrongdoing have been ineffective.
Alongside full support for financial gangsters, TFA casts doubt on the existence of man-made climate change – in order to support the fossil fuel industries, is a keen supporter of the welfare system for the arms industry and wants the UK to leave the EU. There is a stench of UKIP wafting throughout.
These TFA faces may appear in the media
The list of other disreputable characters on TFA’s Council includes professional conman Alex Deane, creepy UKIP weirdo Roger Helmer and far-right imperialist troll Dan Hannan.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks
“I do think we have accomplished the revival of the philosophy and principles of a free society, and the acceptance of it.”
Founded by Margaret Thatcher and Keith Joseph, the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) promotes the giveaway of vital public services to the private sector. Funded and peopled by some of the most iniquitous vagabonds in the corporate world, CPS relentlessly demands more and more control of basic necessary services to be handed to incompetent exploitative capitalist gangsters. CPS wants any public service, anything that is needed,to be given away; the public are then fleeced by the recipients of this gift. The word “free” in the declaration means the freedom of the few to exploit the many.
The CPS Boardhas several dodgy characters on it including one of the notorious Rothermere family and the editor of the far-right magazine The Spectator.
Below are a few examples of what CPS promotes.
CPS Example: NHS Maurice Saatchi wrote a paper in February 2017 to support his suggestion for a “royal commission” to examine the future of the NHS. In Saatchi’s Royal Commission he pretended to present synopses of varied analyses of the future of the NHS; he concluded, conveniently, that a variety of seemingly incompatible viewpoints requires a thorough “independent” study. But, Saatchi’s introductory summary (page 5) omitted any mention whatsoever of the Tories’ wilful underfunding and understaffing of the NHS. Throughout the essay he erased completelythe government’s strategy of deliberate neglect, a strategy created specifically to allow opponents of the NHS to claim that it is failing. This rendered the entire essay an exercise of intentional misdirection. Saatchi blandly described as “pessimists” the confidence tricksters who observe the destruction of the NHS and subsequently claim it is failing as a concept, and he said the “optimists” objected to “meddling politicians,” a ridiculously underplayed phrase for the annihilating Tories.
The obvious intent of Saatchi’s proposal for a royal commission was to obscure the reality of a relentless assault on the entire structure and functionality of the national health service by the Tories and to promote the knowingly false view that the NHS’s problems are independent of this assault. Saatchi is as committed to the end of the NHS as are any of Jeremy Hunt’s paymasters in the USA. A page on the CPS site that points to Saatchi’s essay emphasises the con: “As the country emerges from another winter NHS crisis – and with no agreement over the depth, the causes, or the possible solutions to that crisis” – CPS pointer to Saatchi essay.
CPS Example: Railways In an essay that read like an extended soliloquy from Fast Show character Chris Jackson, Rail Competitionby Tony Lodge, Daniel Mahoney and Tim Knox drowned in a torrent of hilarious anti-facts and statements of the exact opposite of what is true.
The de-nationalisation of the railways was, as always is with the Tories, just a con to divert tax-payers’ money into the hands of invented offshore scam businesses with a consequential rapid decline in quality, quantity and safety of rail services. However, in CPS opposite-world, “UK rail passengers are suffering from militant Trade Union action” and “a deeper underlying problem is the near absence of “open access” on track competition, where two operators run services in competition over similar routes.” As the authors are aware, most of the recent strikes by rail unions were directly related to accurate concern about the safety of passengers and staff in the face of recklessness by train “operators.” Different “operators” on similar routes does not reduce ticket prices and nor does it improve quality; what is required for any PUBLIC service is the opposite of two gangs trying to outdo each other in corner-cutting and exploitation. “Government should publicly support competition on UK rail and show its commitment by easing the path for those seeking to deliver competition against franchise holders” declared the authors but, of course, they didn’t mean “competition” with, for example, the useless Southern Rail, they meant “competition” against the remaining publicly owned franchises. The authors object to public transport as a service for the public; they see only opportunities for invented companies to rake in some tax payers’ money while safety, quality and workers’ rights are all set aside.
CPS Example: Tax-dodging Peak CPS was attained by Rachel Kelly in Don’t Stop The Tax-Dodging. Earlier this year (April 2017) the Tory government pretended to start to tackle multi billion pound tax-dodging by implementing proposals of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These proposals were mainly applicable to the property development industry and its associated borrowing. Of course, neither the OECD nor the Tory government has any interest in eradicating a feature (tax avoidance) of large corporations’ strategies in Britain and elsewhere. But, even the merest whiff of a scent that two centuries of extreme wealth terrorism could be restrained a little was sufficiently alarming to send the culprits and their PR teams, like CPS, into action.
The tax-dodging industry succeeds by networks and layers of fake companies (shell companies), the acquisition of fake debt to fraudulently offset against profits and the misregistering of businesses in (mainly British) tax havens. The difficulty for the aforesaid PR con artists like Kelly is how to defend the indefensible. How can continuous theft from the majority by a small minority be justified using only logic, reasoned argument and deductive analysis? The answer is to use gobbledygook and sleight of hand verbosity.
In her article, written prior to the introduction of the OECD proposals, Kelly stated that
“these restrictions [OECD proposals] will inadvertently impose significant burdens on those industry sectors which have high borrowing ratio, particularly real estate and infrastructure investment.”
“High borrowing ratio?” It’s odd how businesses with huge profits also have huge debts; the taxable income is conveniently reduced to near zero by balancing profits against such “debts.”
“These changes [OECD proposals] would represent a huge shift in traditional tax principles in the UK. Until now, it was widely accepted that the genuine expenses of a businesses should be deductible for tax purposes. This allows a business to forecast approximately how much tax it will pay on its activities,” explained Kelly.
“Traditional tax principles” and “genuine expenses” are a pair of meaningless distraction-phrases, and businesses can forecast how much tax they will pay because the rate of corporation tax on profits is a known (too low) figure.
“Implementing these restrictions would risk serious damage to UK competitiveness and investment at a delicate time for the economy. It would also have a disproportionate effect on riskier development.”
“Restrictions?” Restrictions on exploitation and theft? “UK competitiveness?” What exactly is meant by “UK” here? – the businesses that Kelly is paid to cheer for have no interest in the British people’s livelihoods and welfare. For the exploiters, the excuse of a “delicate” economy is always used. Any necessary development (particularly property development) should never need to be described as “risky.”
“The new rules will add considerable uncertainty for businesses.”
A facet of private business is uncertainty. (To avoid this uncertainty, choose communism.) Kelly’s plaintive cry echoed the wail of the reckless chancers and gamblers who, if they win, pocket the tax-free profits and, if they lose, send the bill to the taxpayer.
Despicable Donors As the table on page 7 of a Transparify report into think-tank donor transparency shows, CPS keeps its financial backers secret. Alongside three other cheerleaders for public services destruction, Adam Smith Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs and Policy Exchange, CPS doesn’t want the public, who are the target of its ideology, to know which tax-dodging organised international thieves and fraudsters are employing PR machines like the CPS.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks
“As an educational charity our mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy.”
A cumbersome leviathan, Policy Exchange is in a symbiotic duonistic partnership with almost all of the government departments including ministers and senior civil servants. Politicians and civil servants contribute to its publications and its output is used by them as back-up to their views and proposals. It exists simultaneously as an enormous vessel of all the known right-of-centre viewpoints on everything while being used, as is always the case with these right-wing con-tanks, as a pretend independent voice.
“Educational charity” is a bizarre and offensively dishonest description.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks
“We are an independent, non political body which is concerned about the present scale of immigration into the UK.”
Civil servant Andrew Green created Migration Watch as a tool to be used by governments to help the latter justify anti-immigrant policy. Thus, the words “independent” and “non political” in the think-tank’s declaration are vital to ensure the government can claim, falsely, to be advised by a separate unbiased entity. Green’s assistance to successive governments’ anti-immigration policies was rewarded with a peerage in 2014.
Migration Watch focuses on blaming immigration for all of Britain’s economic woes and consequential issues with the NHS, housing, employment etc. It is standard misdirection, accompanied by comical abuse of statistics.
Links to brief descriptions of other right-wing think-tanks
(Edit: November 9th 2016 – Trump elected president of USA)
Donald Trump, an incompetent old American businessman whose entire business career (punctuated by regular bankruptcies) has been funded by his inheritance, is espousing bigotry and extreme prejudice, including overt racism, daily as part of his campaign to be nominated as the Republican Party candidate for the US presidential election in 2016. It is unclear if he is keen to win the nomination; he may just be using the exposure of the campaign as an opportunity to promote a political stance.
Trump might be nominated as his party’s candidate but he is very unlikely to be elected president. (Edit: Trump elected president of USA.) However, he is a useful tool for the other Republican candidates and for the Democratic Party candidates. Both parties’ candidates can offset themselves against Trump’s extremism: They can readily claim that nothing they do or say is as bad as what Trump does or says while using any mass bigotry that Trump has encouraged to their advantage.
For any politician of any country, the motivation to encourage prejudice and racism is that it distracts people from the real cause of all economic problems. Gangster business people like Trump are the real enemy. He knows this, as do fellow gangsters like the Bush family and gangster enablers like Hilary Clinton and so Trump supports his own kind by engaging in a year-long campaign of distraction. Whoever wins the election should thank him for being the recipient of most of the election-based criticism and thank him for helping to develop distracting prejudicial views of which they can then take advantage.
Included among Trump’s most extreme proposals are a wall separating the USA from Mexico, visible identification to be worn by Muslims and a complete ban on all Muslims entering or re-entering the USA, including US citizens. His squealing pig deliverance of these proposals is accompanied by a hive of lies, incitement to violence and twisted logic. Obviously, his proposals are daft, unethical, in breach of the US constitution and unworkable but they are also an extension of or a variance of what already exists, in law or in practice. A wall on the US Mexico border is little different from a fence, gates on roads and armed racist Texan vigilantes patrolling the desert, Muslims are already profiled via appearance by police, private security and the public and access into the US is much more problematic for Muslims, people from predominantly Islamic countries and people who look as if they might be Muslim.
Trump takes active prejudice further than most visible protagonists but he is also being a bit more honest about it. He makes the demand for profiling openly whereas most police forces, local authorities, private businesses, public transport and colleges, who exercise anti-Muslim profiling, (almost always illegally), are keen to claim they are not profiling and they offer a variety of flimsy excuses for their behaviour. Trump’s assertive support for prejudicial profiling, and its consequences, acts as motivation for delayed support for these activities that already exist while, simultaneously, allowing those who introduced them and those who enable them to avoid severe scrutiny and criticism. He is the useful tool, knowingly or otherwise.
Trumpism is not exclusively an American disease
Stephen Harper, (defeated ex-prime minister of Canada), Tony Abbot, (ousted leader of Australian government), Nigel Farage, (hapless leader of UKIP), and Marine Le Pen, (leader of far-right Front National in France), share Trump’s politics and his presentation style. The first two were elected as prime ministers of their respective countries, Harper losing the next general election and Abbott being deselected by his own party while in government, and Le Pen’s party has had some recent success in French regional elections and was subsequently rejected in second round of elections due to clever tactics from the other parties, and Farage’s mob have to make do with collecting EU parliament expenses. All four relentlessly promote prejudice and division as a distraction tool and as a method of shifting the blame – for economic difficulties – away from the culprits, who readily fund these politicians’ respective parties, and onto an invented otherness.
Equally, all four of the above Trumpists are useful to the politicians whose division and distraction techniques are less obvious. Harper’s successor as Canadian prime minister, Trudeau, has a free hand to selectively reverse some of Harper’s more vicious laws while keeping others that he would have found difficult to introduce himself, Abbott’s party is still in power in Australia with the same political objectives – with a slightly less weird leader – and Le Pen can absorb the liberal criticism of her racism allowing French president Hollande to launch draconian attacks on free assembly, free speech and free religious belief. UKIP is useful to both Tory and Labour parties in the UK. The Tories are happy for Farage and colleagues to promote viewpoints that the Tories are reluctant to admit to for PR reasons but are happy to act upon, and the Labour centrists are happy to use UKIP’s electoral success at the last general election – nearly four million votes – as an excuse to hamper any shift leftward in Labour’s strategy.
If Trump were British he would have invented Prevent
The British government’s stated reasons for updating the Prevent Strategy and how they claimed it should work are here: Prevent Strategy. The underlying purpose is to side-step Human Rights law on free speech in order to dissuade the discussion of and promotion of certain political outlooks. Human Rights group CAGE has highlighted some of the problems with the intentions of Prevent and with its use, Cage prevent letter.
Increasingly, Prevent is being used against young people for no other reason than they are Muslim. At Mirfield Grammar School some Muslim students requested a prayer room. The headteacher Lorraine Baker declined the the request citing Prevent as a reason to do so, Mirfield Prevent. Thus, she equated praying with “radicalisation.” There is no difference between her stance and that of Trump.
(Update: Labour won by-election by a large margin)
Today’s by-election in Oldham West constituency should be a comfortable victory for Labour’s un-opinionated candidate (and local council leader) Jim McMahon. McMahon is a functionary who enjoys having his photo taken next to objects of no significance, like taxis covered in grass.
The liberal media of the Guardian, Independent and New Statesman are using the by-election as an opportunity to act upon the horror they have for what a Corbyn-led Labour might achieve. Nothing scares their precious souls more than the possibility that socialism might appear in the politics of Britain. Such is their fear that they are keen to promote UKIP in this election. That party’s candidate is the hapless bankrupt John Bickley, who has no campaign strategy other than to accuse Jeremy Corbyn of being unpatriotic and who has a history of bizarre outbursts on climate change, Bickley’s Climate. UKIP is a filthy mob, owned by a handful of offshore millionaires and positioned politically to the right of the Tories that presents itself entirely dishonestly to the electorate. For the liberal media luvvies to side-step the appalling pro-prejudice, bigotry, racism and lies of UKIP in order to attack Corbyn is very revealing of how terrified they are of what may ensue as a result of Corbyn’s increasing popularity.
Of course, these liberal types cannot brazenly express their support for UKIP so they do so via an invention. A common facet they all share is an acute snobbery towards the perceived intelligence of working-class people, particularly northerners. Thus, they look down their noses at the people of Oldham and depict them as easily led by the UKIP con.
Do not challenge UKIP candidate on policy or political stance
Claim that Corbyn is too middle-class and London-centric for northern working-class voters, conveniently ignoring the fact that no party is more middle-class than UKIP, and that UKIP’s “people’s party” rhetoric is a downright lie
Emphasise the supposed appeal of UKIP as being anti-political establishment, despite the fact that this con is exposed regularly
Find a disgruntled troublesome Labour MP to back up the your argument
Claim, without evidence, analysis or reason, that white working-class people have a tendency to be anti-immigrant, pro-war and generally prone to UKIPping
Ask enough locals so that eventually you can put a name to the view you wish to promote
The acute snobbery is a useful tool to allow the liberal media to easily imagine that northern towns are full of people desperate to support a gang of drunken bankrupt bigots, but the real motivation for these writers is to do anything and say anything to try to disrupt growing support for Corbyn. He isn’t a socialist revolutionary, but he is tending toward a challenge to capitalist exploitation and the liberal (small ‘l’) media fear socialism much more than they fear racism, bigotry and stupidity.
As expected, a majority of MPs in the House of Commons voted for RAF air strikes at ISIS targets in Syria. The government was not legally obliged to have a commons vote in order for military action to be taken, but such votes seem to be the current practice.
Given the lack of necessity of the vote combined with its known result, the long, long “debate” between MPs was just an absurd, embarrassing and disgusting pantomime. A few MPs tried to present solid military reasons for air strikes and others presented good arguments why the strikes would be ineffective and/or counter productive. However, most of the discourse and interchanges were petulant, spectacularly uniformed, dishonest, spiteful and ludicrous. Baying, laughing grotesques on the Tory benches were matched by supercilious pomposity-overloads from some Labour elite, especially the relics of the Blair government. Insults were traded in the schoolyard, the tone having been set by the prime minister’s jibe that opponents to air strikes are “terrorist sympathisers”. British democracy at its worst.
The people of Syria now have yet another country with massive bombs and missiles that it is about to drop on them. I hope those Syrian people did not have to see the awful behaviour in the House of Commons, that was topped off by sickening cheering when the result of the vote was announced.