Dirty Tricks?

The British Electoral Commission seems to be guilty of bizarre behaviour. Having failed miserably to deal with blatant abuse of the system by Established Parties, the Electoral Commission turned the full weight of its guns on one of the smallest, newest and most rapidly expanding political parties in Britain.


The growth of the UK Independence Party and the development of other new parties dramatically demonstrates the level of dissatisfaction that the electorate has for the older established parties and the Blair regime in particular.

The Electoral Commission should be doing everything in its power to help these parties in finding their way and voicing their policies, not just to provide the electorate with freedom of choice, but to use their existence as a lever to ensure that the larger parties observe the spirit and letter of the electoral regulations.

In particular, the Electoral Commission should be assisting small parties by encouragement and advice because every new party starts with trivial funding and has yet to build the administrative support to ensure that they work fully within all of the rules that the Established Parties have proven to be immune to.

The UK Independence Party commented:

The UK Independence Party today accused the Electoral Commission of “kicking the smallest boy in the playground.”


Nigel Farage

Leader Nigel Farage said that the decision to throw the book at the party over a “clerical error” was “utterly disproportionate.”

He pointed out that the Electoral Commission had failed miserably to take action over the ‘cash-for honours’ scandal and the £2.4 million donation to the Liberal Democrats by a man now in prison.

“In the case of UKIP we are talking about a genuine honest oversight involving a donation by a hard working, respectable British businessman who has paid millions of pounds in tax.

“We are being made the scapegoats for the inadequacies of the Commission. They are kicking the smallest boy in the playground.

“Never in British political history have such Draconian measures been taken against a party.

“We are not taking this lying down, and intend to fight this through the courts; not least because the relevant law exists to ‘prohibit foreign and anonymous donations’, which does not apply to Mr Bown.”

Within hours of the news breaking, party headquarters was inundated with calls of support and donations, including many from non members who were outraged at what they felt was an unfair decision.

Mr Farage added, “The party is standing united in the face of these unprecedented actions and we will fight this all the way.”

He could have added much more criticism of the Electoral Commission which has proved to be unequal to the task of defending the British electorate against the behaviour of the Blair regime. During its 10 years of misrule, the Blair regime has made a number of changes to the electoral system in its own interests. One judge observed that they were guilty of behaviour that would have made a banana republic blush. He also observed that it was inconceivable that the number of electoral fraud cases involving postal ballot voting had not been perpetrated without the active knowledge and direction of the Blair regime. It is also very difficult to understand why the Electoral Commission kept so quiet about these cases, or why they were not effective in questioning voting changes that created the opportunity for widespread fraud and abuse.

Against this direct attack on the electorate, the sale of honours for donations and loans seems almost a minor matter. Since “life peers” were created, every British Government has appointed new peers who have benefited the government of the day, but never on the scale of the Blair regime and never were the honours so closely timed to a political donation or loan made by the new peer.

For those looking at the British political scene from outside, it may not be easy to understand the full impact of the peerage question. The House of Lords cannot completely block legislation passed in the House of Commons but it does provide a vital service in revising defective legislation and forcing the Commons to reconsider contentious legislation. It has been a thorn in the side of a Prime Minister who considers himself above accountability. Even when packed with Blair’s cronies and bankers, the House of Lords has continued to show a level of independence and has delayed or stopped some of the most seriously defective legislation during the last decade.

When a Government appears to take money for honours, it questions the whole integrity of the British system of government and makes it possible for a Prime Minister to go to war on a false prospective. It also provides the money to pay for a massive propaganda programme and to lavishly fund an election campaign, giving an unfair advantage to that political party.

There are many other very serious breaches of democracy that should be addressed and where the Electoral Commission is strangely mute.

Against this background of major serious abuses, the Electoral Commission treatment of the UK Independence Party seems to be more a case of “at last we have found a political party we can beat up for the sake of it”.

Perhaps more information will emerge but, at present, it does look like a deliberate attack directed by some as yet unidentified organization and suggests a deliberate dirty tricks campaign is underway.

BSD News Desk

Fishing License for British Police


The Blair regime promised Parliament that information collected as part of the Internal Passport programme would only be used to check identities. It now admits that British police forces will be encouraged to go on a fishing expedition in an attempt to clear up over one million unsolved crimes.

The idea is that police will be able to check fingerprints, collected for the Internal Passports and External Passports, against a huge list of unsolved crimes where fingerprint information was collected.

At first pass it sounds like a great idea on the basis of “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Unfortunately it is more likely to create years of work for lawyers, appealing unsafe convictions and human rights issues. It may also divert a huge amount of police resource for little benefit.


The police rarely recover a fingerprint as clean and defined as this

Most people assume that fingerprinting is a science. That is very far from the truth. Retina scans and DNA printing appear to offer a higher match probability but all biometric records are only probability indicators. No one yet knows for certain how unique any of these records really are – and that is just records that are perfect!

At most crime scenes, there are fingerprints to be found. Usually there are a very large number, none of which may have been made by a criminal. Of those prints, most are incomplete or smudged.

fingerprintleft loop

The normal damage and aging of skin causes changes in fingerprints

As a person ages, his or her fingerprints alter. Sometimes the alteration is significant, as a result of scar tissue from an injury. That means that a print taken in 2007 may look very different from a print made by the same person a decade previously.

Then there is the possibility that a criminal has planted false prints. Some modern materials used in medicine and theatre are able to take a very high definition copy of a fingerprint and then be attached to someon else. This is even good enough to be invisible to normal human observation when the false print is being worn. The risk of this situation increases in the more recent crimes, both because of the improvements in materials used to fake the print, and because the technique has been used in films, plays and television programmes.

Under any criminal system that assumes innocence until guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, no individual at trial should ever be convicted on fingerprint evidence alone, because there is always doubt in any measurement of probability. Fingerprinting works very well when taken together with other evidence, although many juries will have convicted people when the evidence should have been suspect.

In current crimes, fingerprinting is a good way of identifying a potential suspect from criminal records. This includes an improved probability because other information from past crimes will be available, previously convicted criminals are a relatively small percentage of the total population, and a current investigation can expect to confirm, or eliminate, a suspect on the basis of many other pieces of evidence, which become harder to find as time goes by.

A partial fingerprint may show a number of points of reference that are the same as similar partial prints from a number of other people. Therefore, the smaller the section of print, the lower the safety of reliance on that information as a method of identification. One brain-challenged politician claimed yesterday that this not to be a problem because the Internal Passport fingerprints will be perfect. There are two elements to the stupidity of that view. The first is an assumption that fingerprints will be taken correctly in all cases for the Internal Passports. Even skilled police fingerprinters, taking prints from people in custody, sometimes fail to make sure the prints are accurately taken and of good definition. Secondly, a perfect Internal Passport print could exactly match the perfect partial prints of a number of different people in those areas that are shown by the partial prints, although only one person might match the perfect print where there was a perfect full print available from a crime scene.

If police now use fingerprints from the Internal and External Passport systems to find perpetrators of long forgotten unsolved crime, they will certainly obtain matches with people who were at the scene at some time before, during, or after the crime was committed. Rarely will these prints have been left by the perpetrators.

The problem police will then face is how they eliminate people from their new enquiries. This becomes a bigger problem as the search goes further back in time. In most cases it will be possible to find people who would be available shortly after a fresh crime is committed. That places a larger burden on the fingerprint evidence and increases the possibility of unsafe convictions. It also increases the risk that police will be sued under human rights legislation.

Risk further increases as the Blair regime continues to pour out new defective legislation that moves the burden of proof in more and more crimes from the police to the suspect.

Judges can be relied on to weed out some of the unsafe cases before conviction. That is good for those charged with crime they may not have been involved in, but it increases the financial burden on the judicial system. It also does nothing to address the stress suffered in the lengthy period from a decision to prosecute through to the trail date and the trial by media that will be conducted during the period before acquittal.

Another case of a government incapable of reason and fairness.


Waveney Community Cohesion Partnership and Suffolk Inter-Faith Resource

Aerial 2002

Waveney Community Cohesion Partnership and Suffolk Inter-Faith Resource
invite you to a celebration
on Wednesday 7th March 2007
in the Horizon Centre at Lowestoft College


The day
Everyone is welcome to attend this event which is being promoted by Suffolk Inter-Faith Resource (SIFRE) on behalf of the Waveney Community Cohesion Partnership to enable people living and working in the area to get to know each other better and to explore and to celebrate their common values.


The cost
There will be a registration fee of £5. Lunch will be provided and everyone attending will be offered a copy of SIFRE’s Handbook of Faiths (outlining the beliefs and practices of people of different faiths and cultures).


The timetable
9:30 am Marketplace opens: This includes information stalls representing faith, cultural and community groups. There will also be representatives of voluntary and statutory agencies who support the community. The “Faces of Suffolk” Exhibition will also be on display.
9:30 am Registration and coffee
10:00 am Welcome Jennifer Langeskov, Head of Student Support at Lowestoft College.Julia Stephens-Row, Head of Social Inclusion, Suffolk County Council.”Building our Community on Shared Values” an introduction by a representative of SIFRE.
10:15 am “Sharing our Values”: People from various religious and cultural backgrounds, and with experiences reflecting many aspects of diversity, introduce themselves and share aspects of their life, values and aspirations.
11:00 am Refreshments
11:30 am “Sharing our Values”: Workshops in which to reflect on the conference theme; to consider our values, including areas of conflicting values, and to raise issues for the afternoon which relate to people’s personal lives and public lives and to their places of work. (Please hand in questions/comments before lunch)
12:45 pm LUNCH and time to explore the market-place
1:30 pm “Moving on Together”: A panel addresses issues arising from the morning session and initiates a discussion with the audience.
2:30 pm Summing up Cathy Craig, and representatives of Waveney District Council and SIFRE
3:00 pm Refreshments and time to explore the marketplace
4:00 pm Depart


King of the Dodgy Dossier


Yet another fine mess

Blair continues to cling to office, as Brown, Scottish Prime Minister in Waiting, continues to wait with growing impatience.

The result is that Fuhrer Blair moves imaginary panzer divisions around his ten year plan battle board, the British econonmic situtation deteriorates further, and Brown dreams of new stealth taxes to fill the expanding black hole in the British economy caused by his management of fiscal matters.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the Blair reaction to a petition against the planned stealth taxes on drivers is denial.

1.7 million + voters managed to register your votes against the new road charging scheme. The Downing Street website that hosted the petition crashed several times under the weight of traffic as voters attempted to express their objections to this new tax with its additional implications for a further errosion of civil liberty. It is not known how many additional votes were lost by the failures at the website.

As the public reaction to the petition became obvious, Blair regime spin doctors were busy crafting under Blair’s name the usual self-serving dodgy document in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The petition closed at 24:00 hrs Tuesday, February 20 and the email under Blair’s name was transmitted at 01:53 hrs Wednesday, February 21, demonstrating that all decisions were made well before the petition closed and the Eddington Study was published.

The email said:

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain’s transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing “stealth taxes” or introducing “Big Brother” surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That’s why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It’s bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people’s quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains – helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we’re committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We’re also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows – for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real – congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you’ll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone’s interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme – as part of a wider package of measures – could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected – as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn’t hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a “Big Brother” society.

I know many people’s biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a “stealth tax” on motorists. It won’t. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don’t have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

Of course, the email is at odds with other statements from the Blair regime and implies that the petition was closed before petitioners understood the wisdom of the infallable Tony Blair.

It has added nothing of substance to any debate, not that the conclusions of any debate will be heeded.

BSD News Desk

Farage on Talksport Radio


Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, will now be appearing on the James Whale Show on Talksport Radio (1053/1089 MW) at 10 p.m. on Monday 26th February and not Thursday 22nd February as first published.

The format will be a phone-in by listeners discussing general topics with Nigel and should be extremely interesting.

If you would like to listen again to the previous time Nigel appeared on the James Whale Show then please follow this link.



Strasbourg Newsletter:February 2007

20th February 2007


United States of Europe – Keeping the Red Flag Flying Here

The February session of the European Parliament was quieter than usual – well, that is what they say, as only 33 different pieces of legislation and other assorted documents were voted on.


Legislation for the tashcan of history

One piece of good news from the Ind/Dem Group is that we hope to be joined by a Eurosceptic MEP from Romania after they have their elections. The Romanian Party wants to join us because, whilst we voted against their country joining, they are against corruption and the EU Constitution and they felt that our group best represented their interests.
Legislative Work


Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage headlined this week with a direct attack on the German attempt to resurrect the corpse of the EU Constitution,


“The German Minister for European Affairs, Mr Gloser, may talk about sustainability and energy policy. However, what he does not talk about, of course, is the fact that this summit will discuss the European Constitution. Chancellor Merkel has made it clear that she is determined to press on and, in fact, this very week in Berlin discussions about the Constitution are going on in secret.


Once again, a great deception is being attempted. You are trying to cobble together a mini-treaty, getting rid of the ‘C’ word and thereby denying the peoples of Europe the opportunity to vote on their own future. It is as if you all have some higher calling and know what is good for the ordinary plebs of Europe.


You might think I am making it all up, but just last week President Barroso said: “As a prime minister I was in favour of a referendum [on the Constitution]”. Since then he has come to Brussels and they have clearly spiked his drinks, because now he is saying: “If there had been a referendum on the founding of the European Community or the implementation of the euro, do you think these would have existed?

barroso hp

President Barroso

In daring even to say that, what Mr Barroso does is to expose the European project. He shows absolute contempt for the people of France and Holland who voted ‘no’. But, more seriously, he shows absolute contempt for the very process of democracy itself. If you push on relentlessly with this Constitution, if you go on denying the peoples of Europe a say in their future, you are storing up very serious problems for our children.


Gerard Batten

This was ably supported by Gerard Batten who was his uncompromising self on the subject of radical Islam.


“The greatest threat to the free democratic world comes from an ideology. The ideology in question is that of the fundamentalist and extremist Islam, which by means of terror seeks first to impose its psychological, and then ultimately its physical dominion on the world. They believe that time and demography are on their side and they have declared war on us.


Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu remarked that the first place to win a war is in the mind of the enemy. Islamic fundamentalists might conclude that they are well on the road to winning that war when its victims do not confront the fundamental cause of the problem. The solution is not for the European Union to concentrate more power in its hands, as is predictably recommended in this report.


The solution is to recognise that fundamentalist, extremist and literal Islam is incompatible with Western liberal democracy and indeed any kind of civilisation. From that starting point we can begin to adopt concrete measures to combat its manifestations through the actions of nation states and international cooperation”.


Gerard also spoke about the CIA flights issue in a similar vein,


“The kidnap, mistreatment and imprisonment without trial of suspects is wrong and, incidentally, that is why I and the UK Independence Party are opposed to the European arrest warrant and the UK’s current extradition arrangements with the USA…. The free democratic world is not engaged in a war on terrorism. This is a misconception repeated in this report. We are engaged in a war on ideology – a war we did not start. The ideology is that of fundamentalist and extreme Islam, an ideology without any humanitarian or civilised constraint. Thankfully, the United States of America is leading the resistance against it”.


Derek Clark

Derek Clark spoke about the European Investment Bank, pointing out that though we are happy to see investment into the UK, we would have more to invest and would invest it better if we left the EU.


Tom Wise

Tom Wise pointed out how the Tories wrote a report demanding that Europe must “absolutely resist” the Member States’ opposition to the harmonisation of waste policy. The Tories obviously want identical wheelie bins in all countries.


Mike Nattrass

Meanwhile Mike Nattrass tried to teach the Parliament someelementary economics,


“I should like to draw your attention to the fact that… the countries which have not yet adopted the Euro are performing better than those who have. Indeed, I must congratulate Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. They have not only shaken off the shackles of Communism but also embraced the free market, low taxation and minimal regulation. Is it any wonder they have the highest growth rates in Europe?


However, I must warn them that this has ended. It will all be downhill from here. Latvia will adopt the Euro in 2008, Lithuania and Slovakia in 2009 and Estonia in 2010 and they will be hamstrung by EU regulation, EU targets and by the EU continually meddling in their economic affairs… One size does not fit all and individual countries know best how to find their markets, manage their economies and trade with the world. Please give them economic independence”.



UKIP is a Dolphin-friendly political party

Finally, a quick word for those who have been told that UKIP is keen to wipe out the Dolphin population. UKIP is most definitely Dolphin friendly – indeed we are friendly to all marine life. However, just as we do not believe that the French, Spanish or Italians should tell us what to do in our coastal waters, we should extend them the same courtesy.


Dave “The Tosser Within” Cameron, Leader Blue Labour

The irony is that this particular smear has been coming from the Tories who support the most environmentally disastrous marine policy of all: the CFP. When we have regained control over our own fishing grounds, we shall be able to ensure that our marine stocks recover. Until that time, any action taken by the EU, purportedly to protect dolphins or any other species, is window dressing.

Based on a newsletter, from UKIP, by BSD News Desk

Tagging for all


Proximity ID cards have been in use for many years for staff at work. Technology developments are extending the range at which they can work reliably from the nearest sensor. The addition of sensors to CCTV surveillance cameras and in-vehicle tracking systems potentially allows an entire population to be closely monitored at all times.

Stories are circulating of a new attack on British citizens by the Blair regime.

A security device supplier has apparently offered to supply personal tagging systems for every citizen, as an expansion of the Internal Passport. It has been widely assumed that the new electronic Internal Passports would have to be examined and scanned into reader devices carried by police and a huge army of inspectors, and that the carrying of Internal Passports would be voluntary. Statements from the Blair regime already suggest that the carrying of the Internal Passport will be compulsory.

The new proposal offers proximity scanning. This type of device has been available for a number of years and is used by some companies as an access control system for their staff when at work. Advances in technology now offer the potential to scan cards at a distance of several hundred metres from the scanning device which could be added to the huge number of CCTV cameras that have festooned British streets.

A typical Briton is currently estimated to have been recorded on an average of 34 surveillance cameras every day. Adding the sensor system to cameras means that not only can any individual be tracked continuously, but their intended destination can be predicted.

When this capability is added to a GPS-based surveillance system for every vehicle, and the accumulation of a huge volume of private personal data held in the Great Index, it will make possible the detailed surveillance of the entire population, whether on foot, in a building, or in a vehicle. Extending coverage to include the continuous scanning of passengers traveling in public transport vehicles means that the entire population can be tracked anywhere in Britain at any time, unless they are terrorists or criminals who can be expected to find ways of subverting the system.

The cost of this latest intrusion into the lives of all citizens is unknown but is expected to be modest against the already committed funding on Internal and External electronic Passports, road charging, NHS medical record systems, house and business revaluation and education surveillance. The cost added to each Internal or External Passport is expected to be less than 5% above current projected costs. The expansion of the databases on which the Great Index depends could add 40% to the cost of those systems. The largest additional cost is likely to be for the addition of scanners to all CCTV camera installations. Many existing cameras will not be upgraded and must be replaced, representing an increase of more than 50% on current surveillance camera costs.

BSD News Desk

Chicken Factor


Blair and Brown – Another Fine Mess!!

Blair regime back-peddles desperately as critical local government elections approach.

Two key elements of the Blair Great Index are the revaluation of all properties and the introduction of road tolls and congestion charges.

The revaluation of all properties is based on giving powers to a vast army of inspectors to enter any property and photograph all of the rooms. This provides two potential benefits for the Blair regime. The first benefit is that it will be used to justify an increase of several 100% in current local tax charges, hitting the poor and pensioners particularly hard. The second benefit is that it will add an enormous amount of detailed private information on every citizen to the Great Index.

Road tolls and congestion charges also offer two similar potential benefits. The tolls and charges are expected to add a significant increase in tax take, going someway to plugging a fiscal hole estimated at more than GB£10 billion. The second benefit is that these new taxes will depend on all vehicles being fitted with GPS-based surveillance systems that will report continuously the position and route of every vehicle, adding detailed real-time monitoring of the movement of citizens in vehicles to the rapidly expanding Great Index.

Blair regime spin meisters are desperately attempting to downplay these new taxes, and the major reduction in civil liberty, with plans for introduction being delayed until after the elections.

BSD News Desk

The Tosser Within


Dave “The Tosser Within” Cameron on his eco-friendly bicycle with his gass-guzzling chaufer-driven car carrying his clothes in the background

Dave “The Tosser Within” Cameron, Leader of Blue Labour, has just been outed by a new biography as a canabis smoker. The book claims that he was caught smoking canabis at school aged 15. The suggestion is that he continued to smoke canabis at University and possibly more recently. Dave has refused to comment other than to repeat the claim that he has not smoked canabis in the six years since he became a Member of Parliament.

If he broke the law as a schoolboy, or even as a university student, should that really matter now?

It all says so much more about the life of privilege at Eton and the growing drug problem.

What is more important is whether he is now a responsible and law abiding citizen.

Of equal importance is whether his position as a global warmer and Phony Blair clone will continue the damage done to Britain, Europe and international affairs by the Blair regime.

BSD News Desk.