Tag Archives: insurance

A rather nifty scam…

to do these things:-

David Davis

(1) get lots of poor-people’s cars confiscated,

(2) get another nail in the coffin of non-surveillance,

(3) increase the income-stream of the insurance-arms of busticated banks owned by the taxpayer government.

The Englishman’s noticed it too. Wouldn’t be surprised in the Devil and Obotheclown say something mild also.

The “civil liberties campaigners” apologists for mild surveillance, and the “motorists’ organisations” semi-detached arms of State Transport Control always go about rearguard actions the wrong way. They say things like “the scheme is sound in principle, but…” and “it will penalise law-abiding drivers who forget…” – all of which is quite irrelevant to the principle of defending liberty under Common Law.

The tobacco manufacturers made exactly the same mistakes in the early 1980s, when smoking and tobacco advertising was under assault. They tried to justify resisting an ad-ban by saying that it was “all about persuading people to switch brands” – rather than actively and politically resisting what amounted to State-censorship of information about legal products. Nobody was going to swallow the brand-switching nonsense, and the Enemy Class certainly didn’t.

So here we are again.

Cycling and motor-cycling in a classical liberal modern nation

David Davis

The Devil articulates, in his usual inimitable style, thoughts about two-wheeled transport, and the burdens of assumed guilt placed upon “motor-ists” in accidents involving cars and motorbikes/bicycles.

I would go further.

Bikers are in general reasonably competent motorists. I have not often met madmen, although one nearly did collide head-on with me on Murder Mile (the A570) last week.

But…it ought to be mandatory for cyclists to carry insurance, with huge, astonishing fines and jail for not so doing. Plus crushing of their bike. And their bollocks.

I’d set the tariff at about £466,000 p.a. for “third-party-only”. And wannabe-cyclists would have to be internally-RFID-chipped. they won’t mind: they are all Statists anyway.

PIRACY: big discussion going on at Defencetech

David Davis

Isn’t it nice NOT to have to talk about the BNP membership list any more! Lancaster Unity is miking it for all it’s worth. I guess they have “nothing useful to say about anything”, as Duncan Money said about me, in his comment on this posting. (Of ours.) We’ll send you some traffic, Duncan, old chap, there you are, we’ll paternalistically toss you a penny as we pass.

But if you go here, hat-tipped by Samizdata, it’s quite illuminating what people think and why nothing much apprears to be being done. It’s a “Human Rights” problem, apparently. Hmmmmm…………..

Pirates are a problem, caused by Global Climate Change. If you go there, then you will see why. The “precautionary principle” of course shows why we really all ought to reduce our “carbon footprint”, and only burn chicken shit, in order to eliminate piracy.

As Auberon Waugh would say: “I am not suggesting that we should all shoot all pirates on sight, but it may help to reducde the problem”.

Interesting idea…libel insurance for bloggers?

David Davis

But if the stalinists, whom we blog about, are actually such astonishingly wicked people (they are) who deserve to be exposed and have rotting stuff thrown at their faces while they are in the Pillory, why then might we need to insure ourselves against their (unjustified) retaliation?

Why can’t socialists and other fascist abusers of other human beings just

(a) go home,

(b) shut up (you’ve lost)

(c) quietly contemplate your cow-bladder-gasbag lovinly sewn (slowly) by candle-light by your drugged hippy partneretta, filling (slowly) with chicken-shit-methane (and hydrogen sulphide while your back is turned) on your subsistence-farm in Wales,

(d) keep the hell out of discussions about how the world’s poor are going to better themselves?

Did Christianity sort of “let them in”? Is it our fault? Where did we go wrong? In the midst of all this plenitude of scientific, technological and liberal philosphical richness, how did the bastards get a foothold?

If what we say about them is true, can’t they just square up and duel with us on-line, just as any self-respecting ordinary petty-criminals, thugs and murderers would do so to our faces?

Or do they NEED the “law”, as their case is vulnerable to their own dangerous isolation from reality and their pan-global lack of support?

One of the unseen benefits of the internet is that truth cannot be quickly suppressed. this surely is an advantage – our enemies are for ever going on about “truth” – let them eat it.