Tag Archives: Harringey

English Coastal Corridor: is this for “ramblers” or for patrolling GUARDS?

David Davis

The government is proposing to nationalise the coastline. The Devil has the usual better details here.

This is ostensibly for the benefit of “ramblers” and other lefties. The idea of property rights and the private enjoyment of them does not seem to figure.

Personally, when it comes to running stuff like firms (or, dare I say it, States?) I do not really trust people who have nothing better to do all day than to stride aimlessly about in the open. Often, they are wearing coloured plastic clothes too, and are performing “walking-stick-theatre”.

They are very clearly under-employed: they should be at their desks working, or in their shops, stacking stock or ordering it, such as cigarettes (not shopping, that’s for other workers in their time off in the night) or in their cars on the road, selling to others.

At a pinch, they could be down in their mines, mining for things people want, like coal or Tungsten or Uranium. That’s not for the faint-hearted among them, I agree.

Now, I do appreciate that there is some point to the close-up enjoyment of beautiful outdoor spaces such as coastlines, mountain landscapes and so forth. I have done it myself, from time to time. But I do not feel the need to go forth and grab, statutorily, all of it at once, on a contingency-use basis, knowing that I personally will probably never take advantage of my land-grab.

No. These people are socialists: this is the sort who want voluntarily to regulate the lives of others to the supposed pace and tenor of their own, and then we often find that theirs bears no resemblence to their recommendation: just regard Polly Toynbee for instance.

I am not a fan of consproacy theories as you all know. But a 10-metre-wide “corridor” (with other prosthetic spaces attached periodically) smacks strongly of a guading-facility. You could get the following into it:-

(1) A razor-wire fence,

(2) Watch towers,

(3) Searchlights,

(4) Trip-wire-machine guns,

(5) Dog runs.

(6) at the expense of the dog runs and trip wires, you might even get a small anti-vehicle trench.

I leave you lot to think about it and draw conclusions.


Baby P: What’s this got to do with libertarianism? (Big-States, guns and children. Let’s smell some rats.)

I’ll tell you.

David Davis

When you beget (as you do, for one does) a child, and bring it into the world, then, whose property is it? Apart from the fundamental Human Rights aspect, which is that that (human) child belongs to itself, it is to all intents and purposes “yours”. While it is of an age when it can’t legally or informedly take certain kinds of decisions (all for obvious reasons) then you own it. It is yours. It is your child. I don’t think even the most absolutists Popes or Emperors, with the possible exception of sadly many failed civilisations and Papistic juntas authorities would have disagreed with this position.

This sad business of “Baby P” (the poor sad bugger MUST have had a _name_, for Christ’s sake, for he was Human!!!) is sadly illuminating. The “agencies” which were “involved”, and the “practitioners” who “lost opportunities” , are clearly not interested in the individual fates of individual children, at all. Firstly, we are never to know (officially) who this poor person was. Secondly, and worse, even, the organisational structure, which we have paid for (who else did?) will close ranks about itself and anodynely reassure us all that “lessons have been learned” (but I thought they said that earlier?)

This is part of what Theodore Dalrymple has just said:-

The first is that the work of child protection is very difficult, emotionally wearing and even dangerous. Staff turnover in the organisations that carry it out is often rapid. Most British paediatricians in training have experienced threats from parents or guardians, and 5 per cent have been assaulted sufficiently badly to need medical treatment. If this is true of doctors, who generally still retain a modicum of public respect, the situation of social workers is likely to be even worse. There is nothing like a constant fear of violence for undermining both the will to do anything and the judgment.

The second is that the fundamental purpose of the British public service is to provide a meal-and-mortgage-ticket for those who work in it, especially at management level. The ostensible purpose of an organisation is rarely its real purpose. I know this from my experience in the Health Service.

The State can’t assume ultimate control over the lives of all, until it can dictate not only the fate of children but also the begetting and ownership of them. People who will be designated as good “guardians” of children will be things such as “Lawyers”, “Administrators”, and the like. People who will not be so designated will be things like “Agricultural Workers”, “Retail Assistants”, ” PlasterĀ  Ers “, “Brick Layers”, “Wait Trons”, and the like.

I am beginning to think that there is an agenda going on down here, regarding who will and who will not be “authorised” to have children.

Mechanisms that make it look like ordinary people (sometimes carefully-chosen like in this case) can’t or oughtn’t to be allowed to have little children near them, are good for the advancement of this kind of State control. Here’s what we said yesterday, in the beginnings of our rat-smelling-operation.