Blair's Nanny State

Some news from Britain to dismay the libertarians here:-

Ban on Hunting

So far this year, George's Best Friend (Tony Blair) and his government (not long now before they drop the 'Her Majesty's' before 'government')have done or are planning to do the following:-

1. Ban hunting with dogs
2. Ban smoking in public places (except working men's clubs because they're traditional Labour supporters and we don't want to upset the Comrades, do we?)
3. Ban advertising of junk food before 9pm
4. Employ 'health and nutrition experts' on the National Health Service at taxpayers' expense to attempt to curb the rising obesity epidemic in the UK.
5. Ban smacking of children (if it marks the skin)

Given the above, and in an attempt to lighten the mood and thus prevent PA Jim and KenH keeling over from coronaries at the above, I predict the following legislative programme courtesy of Blair and Co to be unveiled in the Queens' Speech at the forthcoming State Opening of Parliament:-

1. A bill to ban smoking with dogs
2. A bill to ban the hunting of cigarette-ends in bogs*
3. A bill to ban the eating of frogs (high fat content)
4. A bill to ban the eating of chocolate logs
5. A bill to ban the advertising of methods for smacking children before 9pm in fog.
5. A bill to ban the eating of junk food in smog.

So, spare some thoughts and prayers for us regulated and nannied Limeys and count your blessings next time you're having a rant about 'big government'!

Yours in Christ

Matt

* UK slang = bathroom

 

7. A bill to ban the riding of horses by obese people wearing clogs.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

OK, Roger, I give up, I can't top that one. (What IS accepted swimwear for stout chocolate-loving pigs, then?)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

On a more serious note, two things:

1. Someone has asked me to clarify what the ban on hunting is about. Briefly, it means that people will be prohibited from hunting deer and fox with dogs, possibly from as early as this February. It will still be legal to shoot, poison and trap foxes and also legal to shoot deer as part of a licensed cull. Indeed if you shoot and wound a fox and it subsequently goes to ground, you are under a duty to root it out and finish it off - and you can use a dog for that.

2. Is this about animal rights activists getting their way in Britain? Well, partly, yes. But it's also about what sort of government we have here - one that increasingly interferes in our lives and liberties and criminalises people who were not criminals hitherto. There's also a large element of class warfare in this legislation, particularly with regard to land ownership and use. A large proportion of Blair's Parliamentary majority is composed of MPs who are Old Labour (unreconstructed socialists) as opposed to the Blairite New Labour-ites (kind of similar to your Democrats or socialist-lite) and these Comrades don't like the idea of rich toffs owning vast tracts of land, dressing up in posh togs and riding to hounds all over it. So alongside the hunting ban, we also have legislation giving us all the 'Right to Roam', which means the Common Man (TM), complete with obligatory cloth cap and whippet no doubt, can roam at will over said rich landowner's land and thus further annoy him.

Cue for mass civil disobedience by the landowning gentry, hunt followers and civil libertarians on a scale not seen since the Poll Tax Riots under Mrs Thatch...not so much the Peasants' Revolt as the Toffs' Revolt

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

David, there is no Libertarian Party over here; that's part of the weakness in our political system. The right-wing of both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party are libertarian in ethos (the Lib Dems because they retain the rump of 'classical liberalism' ie: laissez-faire, ie: what is now libertarianism), but that's about it and they tend to be viewed as pretty far-out.

Galatian, yes and no to your answer. The Enclosures Acts (which were to do with the agricultural rather than the industrial revolution) largely affected common land in and around villages, which were then passed into ownership of the local squire who booted the villagers off the land or turned them into tenants. But

1. Public rights of way still existed over privately-owned land;

2. The Enclosure Acts had very little to do with the pre-existing landed estates owned by the aristocracy which are now affected by the right to roam act and

3. A lot of common land that was enclosed has already returned to public ownership

Yours in Christ

Matt