One Party State?

I was puzzled to hear among the news items this evening that the apprehension of Ratko Mladic was a key enabler in Serbia joining the EU. Without him locked up in the Hague, Serbia would be locked out of membership.

Just what is it about this man that the EU find so offensive? Okay, he's a mass murderer, but the EU has done and continues to do business with people like this, so why him and why now?

Old Holborn has an inkling into timing of his capture, but why is it so imperative he be incarcerated?

Is it because he could mount an effective opposition to EU domination? Was the EU insisting on his capture and inprisonmemt in order to neutralise the serious political threat  he or his supporters pose?

EU Referendum has a note on the innefectiveness of UKIP over here in the UK, and I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the reason for UKIP's existence is to distract anti-EU feeling into a useless cul-de-sac. Certainly if its members can easily swap parties and move to the pro-EU Conservatives, some questions need to be asked about the sincerity of its senior members to the anti-EU cause.

All across Europe, all the parties that continue in power are all pro-EU. There doesn't seem to be an effective anti-EU voice providing credible, effective opposition to the EU and able to hold its policies and organisations to account.

When countries vote against it as Ireland did to the Lisbon treaty, their democratic choice is ignored and they are forced to vote again, but the "right" way.

Instead, despite all the evidence to the contrary provided by the dog and pony show we have for a government, we have been subsumed by a one-party state. No-one is allowed to oppose it, no-one must criticise it, no-one is allowed to vote against it. Instead it steamrollers all in its path, enveloping more and more countries in its homogenising, enslaving one-ness.

It is evil.

Ash Strategy in Ashes.

Last year's Icelandic ash cloud caused huge amounts of chaos and we were assured "lessons will be learned". Yes, the old phrase that's all to often trotted out which we all know means "we hope it won't happen again because we don't see the sense in spending money on it".

Well, after spending a little money on ground based monitoring stations and a bit on computer modelling, (but noticeably no money on assets to sample the ash in the air) we find ourselves in the self same situation.

Obviously no lessons have been learned, because as EU Referendum reports, the one asset that could actually quantify the ash concentrations in real time is actually tasked elsewhere.

So instead we rely on those useless ground stations and even more useless computer models.

I still can't get my head around the reliance in so many scientific areas on computer models: they are not real life. Reality has a habit of throwing a curveball and not behaving in the orderly fashion of the modelled world, by still scientists that should know better treat them as providing gospel information.

Lets get this straight once and for all: computer models are only useful as guidelines to provide possible outcomes: they do not and cannot provide accurate actual outcomes. There will always be some variance between the computer model and reality and actual, real time data gathering needs to be done in order to provide the real picture.

This is where the argument between RyanAir and the CAA starts: the CAA can only give the results of data models and RyanAir can show no damage to their engines from what they say is non-existent ash. Without the sampling of air at altitude to see if the ash is in dangerous concentrations, both will claim they are right.

I wonder just who has sold all of this computer modelling to those in government? They must have been bloody good salesmen, because the mandarins in government have taken the bait hook line and sinker and believe that the data provided by the computers is unequivocal, to the detriment of real-world sampling assets.

Obviously the company supplying the monitoring aircraft need to bag themselves one of the computer salesmen, they maybe we'll have enough of them to provide continuous coverage.

Privacy Plan Begins to Unfold.

So, the super-injunction war has hotted up with an MP naming Ryan Giggs as the subject of a super-injunction, in direct conflict with the courts.

Now we have David Cameron wading in, saying there may have to be legislation.

At last, the end game unfolds.

Ever since the FOI system came in, MPs have been eager to avoid the prying eyes of the public. Even more so after the humiliation of the expenses row and ever more important since their colleagues started doing jail sentences.

The elite, those that don't want us prying in their affairs, those of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality, drool at the idea of being able to act in a state-sanctioned cloud of anonymity.

Those that want state-sanctioned control of the internet, will also jump on the bandwagon. At the very least, they will argue for a parity between legislation covering print media and the internet.

So in the next few weeks look for hurried lawmaking (the very worst kind) that however well-intentioned, will eventually widen in remit to protect those in government, those of the elite that have the ear of government and worst of all will start to curtail freedoms on the internet.

Don't say I didn't warn you.