These Statistics Represent a Staggering Failure!

NHS performed 24 abortions on three teenage girls

“Abortions were given to three teenage girls in England and Wales who had previously had at least seven pregnancies terminated, latest figures reveal.”
“Pro-life campaigners said young women were being ”let down in an appalling way” after it emerged three of the 38,269 teenagers who had a termination in 2010 had undergone the procedure at least seven times.”

“Of the abortions carried out on teenage girls in 2010, more than 5,300 were on teenagers who had already had at least one termination.
A spokeswoman for pressure group LIFE said: ”Abortion is a serious procedure, one which all sides of the abortion debate agree should not be undertaken lightly.”
”Yet here we have young women, still not fully mature physiologically and emotionally, undergoing abortions numerous times.”

As a person of the male gender, my experience of such matters is necessarily limited. However, I do remember a girlfriend confiding in me a long time ago that she had already had 2 abortions, and the doctors had advised her that to continue such a practice would risk problems when she did want to carry a child to full term. Consequently, this defined how our relationship was conducted.

Since then I have known other young ladies that have been through the same procedure, some with little or no problem, others with difficulties and complications that caused quite a lot of worry. In general, abortion is something to be treated as an emergency solution to a problem, and not as an alternative to other more readily available forms of contraception.

On this page, there is a poll which asks “Should there be a limit to how many abortions women can have on the NHS?”.
The current response is 33.4% = No, 66.6% = Yes.

I disagree with the question altogether, however, as I think a limit on the number of abortions is wrong in principle. At the same time, however, I see a need to be more persuasive in reducing the number of abortions per person – especially in teenage girls. I would therefore advocate applying a fee on a sliding scale after the first. The fee would increase with each successive abortion, and would progressively deter women from choosing this method. There should always be an opt-out in, that if an abortion is required as the result of rape, no matter how many abortions had been done before, the fee would be waived.

And for under-age and unmarried girls, I see it as imperative to ensure that the parents are fully informed.

In the meantime, somebody should start doing a full analysis to find out how we can reduce these figures. It is not just a matter of cost.

We must all be quite clear about the fact that any abortion is a tragedy!

”It is very important that every woman who has an abortion is offered counselling and given good advice and supplies of contraception. ‘There are many types of contraception available to suit women’s needs from the pill to long acting reversible contraceptives such as the contraceptive implant.”

It appears that counselling and good advice are not doing the job. We need more than this. We need to establish who is most at risk, and follow that person’s reproductive health closely until it becomes clear that they have understood the message.

As for the overall cost to the Health Service, well it is not exactly “chicken-feed”! See
NHS ‘spends £1m on repeat abortions’ and
Abortion costs £30m higher than previously thought

With coordinated and directed action, I am certain we can improve the lives of these unfortunate ladies and girls, and with the money saved offset some of the damage caused by cuts to other parts of the Health Service.

Steve Hilton will Not be Missed!

Exactly who, and what, is Steve Hilton?

According to Wikipedia, he is the son of Hungarian immigrants to England, and was born in 1969, some 13 years after his parents had claimed asylum. One would expect that he was brought up with a mixed culture – probably a large part of it Hungarian, as it would have taken a long period for his parents to assimilate into the British way of life. This is a curious sort of person to find as chief advisor to the British Prime Minister indeed, but in fact that is what he became, on a £200,000+ salary.

His claim to fame? His apparently successful career as a “People Persuader” with Saatchi & Saatchi, and a long friendship with David Cameron. He is apparently the orchestrator of the “Big Society”, and was instrumental in rebranding the Conservatives as greener, and kindlier. Well, we can all see what happened to the “Big Society” after the funding for it was removed, and as far as “Green” is concerned, David Cameron must be colour blind!

Steve Hilton is not exactly popular in Parliamentary circles, see –
Setback for Cameron as senior Conservatives revolt against shaven-headed ’10-year-old’ image supremo

“Steve Hilton, the reclusive, shaven-headed strategy director who has masterminded the rebranding of the Conservatives, has been warned that he is alienating key party figures by bombarding them with jargon-filled emails telling them ‘how to think’.”

He is apparently recommending the American method of doing things wherever possible, and this is where he is at his most dangerous. The idea that the American system and culture is in any way beneficial to the UK is a fallacy. The UK has its own culture, and it must be protected against any form of dilution. The American culture applied in any other country than America has one specific purpose only, and that is to benefit American business! Dare I also suggest that the American culture is not working too well in America either at present.

Steve Hilton’s parting shot was to recommend a complete overhaul of the Civil Service, with the affirmation that it would run perfectly well with a 90% staff reduction, and a further £25bn in cuts. Although there may well be some truth in the idea that there is inefficiency that could be weeded out, such a drastic pruning amounts to coppicing, which would leave the service completely ineffective. Although the Civil Service may not be functioning at full efficiency, it is performing a vital role in government – the brakes! This must surely be apparent from the number of U-turns Cameron has made since taking office. And a U-turn is far better than the implementation of a ridiculous law, which only has to be subsequently rescinded – like the Poll Tax.

Personally, I will not mourn the departure of Steve Hilton. I think he is finally going to the country of his dreams, and with any luck he will choose to stay there longer – much longer. His dreams have only turned into our nightmares!

I don’t think I am alone in my opinion by any means. If you look at
Has Steve Hilton been good for Downing Street?
you will see that 80.8% are saying “No” to this question.

If he is not good for Downing Street, he cannot be good for the UK as a whole!

I vote that his sabbatical be made indefinite. We don’t want him back!

The Leveson Enquiry? More Heads Must Roll!

The more we learn about the machinations leading up to the BSkyB fiasco, the more I am reminded of the line from Eva Mendes (Sara Melas) in the film “Hitch”-
“You can’t see the wood for the sleaze!”

Take a look at Leveson inquiry: Jeremy Hunt lobbied PM in support of Murdochs’ BSkyB bid

“Culture secretary wrote memo to David Cameron supporting family’s £8bn bid, despite being warned he should not intervene

“Jeremy Hunt’s grip on ministerial office looked increasingly precarious after the Leveson inquiry heard that he had written an outspoken memo for David Cameron, staunchly supporting the Murdoch family’s £8bn bid for BSkyB, a month before he was handed the task of adjudicating on whether to approve the media merger in an apolitical, “quasi-judicial” manner.”

Which memo was that? This one:-

“James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince [Cable]’s referral to Ofcom [of News Corp’s bid to take full control of BSkyB]. He doesn’t think he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom. I am privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious and we could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy. Essentially what James Murdoch wants to do is to repeat what his father did with the move to Wapping and create the world’s first multi-platform media operator available from paper to web to TV to iPhone to iPad. Isn’t this what all media companies have to do ultimately? … we must be very careful that any attempt to block it is done on plurality grounds …

The UK has the chance to lead the way on this as we did in the 80s with the Wapping move but if we block it our media sector will suffer for years … I think it would be totally wrong to cave into the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway… It would be totally wrong for the government to get involved in a competition issue which has to be decided at arm’s length. However I do think you, I, Vince and [Nick Clegg] should meet to discuss the policy issues that are thrown up as a result.”

Vince Cable was known to be anti-Murdoch, and had to be moved out of the way. The following information is from The Leveson inquiry memo that nailed Hunt’s colours to the Murdoch mast

“The history of events at the end of 2010, from the moment on 4 November when Cable called in the regulators, shows how relentlessly James Murdoch and his PR man Frédéric Michel lobbied and berated the politicians who were trying to stand in their way. Only three days later, Murdoch was lunching at Chequers with Cameron. The next day, Michel lunched an aide to George Osborne, the chancellor, who he hoped could be persuaded to intervene.

Cable’s own advisers refused to meet any of the Murdoch camp, saying it would be improper. So did Treasury minister Danny Alexander.

“Within weeks of Hunt launching his anti-Cable campaign in Downing Street, the business secretary would fall victim to a newspaper sting in which he confided that he had “declared war” on Murdoch, and responsibility for the bid was turned over to Hunt.”

So, David Cameron replaced Vince Cable, who was known to be against Murdoch’s intentions, with Jeremy Hunt, who he knew to be for Murdoch. When we also consider how cosy Cameron was with Rebekah Brooks, one could be forgiven for having misgivings about Cameron’s impartiality in all of this. If your mind is as suspicious as mine, you might also like to know if it was only the horse Cameron was riding!

I think we need to be on the safe side here.
Top the lot of them!

Momentum gathers to end free banking.

This is the title of the web page at

The question is why does anybody want to end free banking?

Don’t the banks make enough money already?

“Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the committee, urged regulators to clear away any obstacles stopping banks from charging and to bring the 28-year-old practice to an end.

A groundswell of support for change is understood to be gathering among the authorities. The Treasury’s advisers on the Independent Commission on Banking and the Office of Fair Trading are said to be also backing the proposals, alongside the treasury select committee and financial regulators.”

But the public reaction is completely different. The poll on this web page is currently at over 84% in favour of free banking on your current account, which is what I would have expected. Ok, so there are maybe some risks that you could be caught with “Stealth charges” somewhere, but it is always up to the customer to read the fine print – even when working with a bank. I see no requirement at all for regulation to save people from themselves!

In any case, there are alternatives. Do you really need a checking account? If not, a Savings account might do the job equally as well, and would certainly be less costly to run. Even in Germany, (admittedly some years ago now), a specified number of entries were free each month, and as the account would service your standing orders and everything else, as long as the bank was nearby, there was no need for a current account at all.

No, I think the banks have been pampered enough. We bail them out when they go broke, we nationalize them to keep them afloat, and hand them back when they are solvent again, do we really need to add insult to injury for the long-suffering customer?

I think not!

The poll is a good indication of how out-of touch the government is with public opinion, and this applies not only to banking I suspect.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for something good to come of it!

A Question of Loyalty.

Loyalty is all about who your REAL friends are. Those that will stick with you and support you through thick and thin, and will hopefully gently point out that you are on the wrong track if you try to do something stupid.

Politicians are not our real friends at all, even though they might kiss a few babies now and again. They are not loyal to us. Their loyalty lies somewhere between their own families, the political party they belong to, and the people behind the scenes that supply the money. We don’t figure in their loyalty calculation at all!

I was sent an article yesterday:- “AMERICA: Desperate Times Demand Revolutionary Measures”, by Prof. Peter Phillips.

I read this article, and found it interesting, but thought that it didn’t go far enough. Voting for a non-mainstream party is still voting for a political party, and to really revolutionize the system we must do more than that. Accordingly, I sent its author the following email:-


I fully understand the frustration with the existing system, but don’t think that you are proposing the right way of dealing with it. It is basically a question of loyalty. If we can never elect representatives that are loyal first and foremost to the people that elect them, we will never get a representative that will act in our interests instead of somebody else’s. They will always support the ones that supplied the money to get them into a position of power, and those that continue to bribe them, in one form or another.

As I see it, if we vote for anyone who is a candidate of any political party, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, for we know in advance that their loyalty is in the wrong place.

Instead of that, I am advocating in the strongest possible terms that we break the system, by spoiling the ballot in a specific way. Simply write “No Suitable Candidate” across it, and don’t vote for any of them.

The election is the point at which the electorate says either
“Yes, we will continue with this system, even though we bitch and moan about it, and know that it is completely corrupt”, or
“No, this is where it must stop. We need something better than this!”
And note that at an election, the protest can be done perfectly peacefully, with nobody getting shot, jailed, or unduly outraged.

Each constituency must be able to select its own candidates for election. This is the only way to get representatives who are loyal to those that elected them.

I have written much more on this subject. If you have the time, please got to
and there is much more if you can browse the site at greater length.

This message needs to be promulgated loud and clear around the world. Democracy already has the ultimate control mechanism built-in, but nobody has ever used it.
Now is the time to clean up!

Best regards,”

Much to my amazement, I had a reply within minutes:-


I think that we totally agree.


This must be the way to go. Vote only for someone who will be loyal to you!

Identity Theft – Does that Bother you?

For a long time now, I have followed a policy of restricting the amount of data I leave lying around on the Internet. I have no wish to be “profiled”, and sold off as part of an information package to some hopeful advertiser who thinks he can sell me something. Neither do I wish some unscrupulous person to make use of my personal data in any other way that could work to my detriment. If I am looking for information on the Internet, and am required to enter an email address to be able to get it, I junk that connection, and look for another one where I can get what I want anonymously.

Not that I could lose much if it did happen – I don’t have much, and I intend it to stay that way. For other people, however, there could be an awful lot to lose; not only money, but think of the pickle you could be in if somebody wants to represent themselves as being you, and to undertake something in your name that could really land you in big trouble.

If you think this sounds a little far-fetched, I suggest you think again.

There is an interesting article on Yahoo –
How to Prevent Identity Theft

that covers the following points:-
THE SCAM: Trolling social networking sites
THE SCAM: Smartphone “sniffer” apps
THE SCAM: Hacking via WiFi hot spots
and gives recommendations on how to avoid the pitfalls they present.

This however, seem to be only nibbling around the edges of the real problem, for other people have much greater access to your data than should normally be allowed, and they will supply it – for a price!
Trade in sensitive personal data uncovered by secret investigation

“The ease with which private investigators can access highly personal and sensitive information stored in secure government databases has been exposed by a report that will intensify calls to regulate the industry.

An investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme reveals how a London firm of private detectives sold personal data on individuals, including details of bank accounts, benefit claims and even a national insurance number.”

Now you should be sitting up and taking notice. This is serious stuff!

“Anderson said all relevant information was obtained legally and denies any allegation of wrongdoing.”

If what he says is true, it is patently obvious that the Data Protection Act is not doing the job we need it to do.

Even without deliberate spying, we are constantly being monitored to see what our surfing habits are like, from which a “profile” can be built in order to serve up targetted adverts or the like. The Guardian newspaper is running an action on this which may interest you:-
Tracking the trackers: first progress report

Perhaps you need even better protection? Then start lying about who you are!

In many cases you don’t actually need to be yourself to do what you want, although this would not apply if you a doing your income tax return over the Internet, of course. In that case, use a fictitious identity. If you really want to be paranoid about it, you can use a new fictitious Identity for everything you sign up for. It is only when you want to make payments over the Internet that this may not work so well, but perhaps that too could be arranged.

Its up to you entirely. In most cases, you can say that you are who you want to be, and nobody will ever know the difference. Obviously, choosing a name like Peter Pan 100151 would indicate that the name is an alias, but what the heck – if you can get what you need done, who is to say no?

Be aware. Data Protection is a battle.

Choose Your Weapons!

ConDem’nd! – Keep Out – ASSET-STRIPPERS AT WORK!

Now those misbegotten wretches have shown their true colours! This is the sorry saga of the risk register on the changes to the NHS. Read it for yourselves:-

NHS bill: keeping parliament in dark is a constitutional outrage

“Constitutional legitimacy has plagued the health and social care bill. The prime minister started by breaking an election pledge not to make yet another top-down reorganisation of the NHS. There is, therefore, no electoral mandate for the bill.”

“The coalition government objected within the Freedom of Information Act to the disclosure of the transitional risk register covering the health and social care bill, but the information commissioner, supported by the first-tier tribunal, judged that this risk assessment should be published.”

NHS reforms: government to defy order to publish risk register

“The government will not release its own assessment of the risks posed by its NHS shakeup, despite a second legal ruling that it must stop keeping the document secret.”

“The information rights tribunal rejected the DH’s bid to overturn the commissioner’s ruling after a two-day hearing earlier this week at which witnesses for the DH argued, unsuccessfully, for it to be kept private lest it set a precedent that would undermine government departments’ ability to assess the risks of pursuing particular policies.”

NHS risk register’s publication vetoed by cabinet

“The official assessment of the risks involved in the government’s NHS shakeup will never be published after the cabinet exercised its rare right of veto to keep it secret. The move ends a 19-month campaign by the Labour MP John Healey for publication of the Department of Health’s own analysis of the damage its radical NHS overhaul may cause.”

Never mind the fact that “The Prime Minister David Cameron says the Government’s release of official data will change the way we use our public services.” That was a load of BS, just as most of the other spin that comes out of his mouth! See

David Cameron: We are creating a new era of transparency
“This incredible demand shows the power of transparency, and why we need more of it. Information is power. It lets people hold the powerful to account, giving them the tools they need to take on politicians and bureaucrats. It gives people new choices and chances, allowing them to make informed judgments about their future.”

You wish!

It seems that transparency has its limits, and will only be allowed where it suits them. Anything that could possibly slow down the race to sell off what is left – even though “sweeteners” may be required, will remain taboo.

It is quite apparent that there is something to hide, and we need to have it out in the open! The corporate vultures are gathering.

We need a good whistleblower – any volunteers?

Oh yes, if you wanted to sign the e-petition for disclosure, you can’t! It was closed on 16/04/2012!

Whatever it is that is rotten in the state of Denmark, is beginning to smell like my favourite perfume!

These Leaks We Don’t Need!

It seems that all water companies in the UK have been privatised, and are now overseen by a government department called Ofwat.

As the result of a couple of articles on water leaks, namely –

Most water companies not required to cut leaks before 2015 despite drought
Half of water companies not required to cut leaks, figures show

I decided to look at the Ofwat website to try to ascertain what they actually do to help the customers. They claim:-

“Protecting customers is central to our role as the economic regulator of the water and sewerage sectors – it is one of our primary statutory duties. We face a number of major new challenges that could affect the services we all rely on every day. To continue protecting customers in the face of these challenges we need to ensure we have the capability to be agile in responding to emerging or changing risks, and (where necessary) take swift and decisive action.

That is why we are adopting a risk-based approach to regulation – a significant change in how we identify and deal with risk.”

So much for the top-level blather, but what does it all mean?

If you look at “Valuing Every Drop”, it seems that they may have an idea about what they are supposed to be doing after all:-

“We have identified some key issues which show that there are examples of inefficiency – and potential inefficiency – from resources, through delivery, to the water that we all use. These include:
over- or under-abstraction of water in different areas
the relatively small amount of water transferred between different regions
potential to improve on current levels of leakage
scope for household and non-household customers to use water more efficiently

Ultimately, it is customers who pay the price for these problems. They pay for any inefficient investments. They pay for wasted water – whether or not they waste it themselves. And they bear the risk of higher prices or more frequent water use restrictions if supplies become unsustainable in the future.”

Unfortunately, in the next paragraph, they scupper that assumption by saying –

“Traditionally, Government and regulators have responded to individual problems with individual solutions – such as leakage targets. This has often led to a detailed regulatory approach, which can stifle innovation, and distract regulated companies from delivering the best outcomes for customers. It makes more sense to find sustainable solutions that tackle the root causes of any problems.”

So this is why companies are not being asked to cut leaks – because innovation might be stifled? I don’t believe it!

If you couple that with the fact that prices are reviewed only every 5 years, and that the companies are now being asked to submit a risk and compliance statement and publish a suite of key indicators, all of which they do themselves, it becomes apparent that Ofwat has taken an extreme “hands-off” approach to regulation.

So extreme, in fact, that I would ask what the heck they do with all the spare time they must have!

In addition to all of the above, I see nothing on Ofwat’s site to indicate what would be done if any of the available water catchment area was to be taken out of commission, as commonly happens during a flood, and floods seem to be more and more frequent in the UK than ever.

If you cannot replenish groundwater reserves and reservoirs because of drought, your only recourse is to save EVERY drop of water possible. That means leaks in the system take on a much higher priority than before, as the customers have no direct control over them.

Don’t fool around. Set all leakage targets to ZERO – NOW!

And then go back to sleep for 5 years while we consider if your function is necessary or not!

Embarrassing Moments? – Not Necessarily!

One day, in a moment of idle reflection, my mind jumped to a past experience that, at the time, had been a cause of acute embarrassment for me. That thought linked up to another such moment, and before long I was parading a sequence of such events through my mind.

Apart from a couple of unusual ones, most seemed to be coupled with mishaps pertaining to the alimentary canal, and I suspect that many other people will have a similar experience. Why? Simply because this is where things seem to go wrong most often.

My earliest experience was of filling my pants while at Sunday school as a youngster, and I was absolutely mortified!
The teacher was an absolute angel. She soon had me calmed down, cleaned up, and sent on my way home, with freshly washed underwear clutched in a bag, and a note of explanation for my mother.

Things like that are of course most difficult to handle when you are away from your own home. A similar incident occurred much later when I was visiting a girlfriend’s home for the first time. After an evening of well-lubricated merry-making, I woke up the next morning to find a brown stain on the sheets that had certainly not been there the night before!

Being much older at the time, I considered my options relatively calmly, and came to the conclusion that I could do nothing about cleaning it up, but would explain what had happened to the parents at breakfast. This I did, and was very relieved at the reply:- “Ah, don’t worry, that often happens to people who aren’t used to our local beer!”

So, no embarrassment after all!

I decided then and there that embarrassment was all in the mind, and there was really no need for it at all, if you could control it, and rationalise the reasons for it.

A change of water has the opposite effect, I found. Nothing wants to move! When you finally get round to having to sort the problem out, its difficult, as the size of the offending object blocking the passage has increased with every passing day. This was most apparent during a camping holiday in France one year. I kept looking for somewhere to go, but for some strange reason never found anything suitable. Eventually, my body was rebelling so much that the matter had to be resolved – immediately! The nearest opportunity I found was a wood – not as dense as I would have liked, by any means, but by that time I was past caring – it had to be now!

So, I accordingly prepared for action, and squatted, and waited for Nature to do its job. Unfortunately, this job was apparently more than Nature had reckoned with, and it wasn’t going to happen without some forceful intervention from myself.

So, I strained – nothing happened.
I strained harder – I thought I detected a hint of movement.
I strained harder still – and, yes, it began to move slowly. Ah, I thought, there is hope for me yet!

The joy and relief I felt when that lump began to exit the anus defies my descriptive abilities. But it wasn’t finished yet! It got so far, and then refused to budge even a fraction of an inch more!

What could possibly be wrong now, I thought?

Then I realised, I would have to adjust my crouch position to give it more room. This was a huge one!

Some time later – even though I was at home, I experienced an even worse situation. I was simply unable to move an offending lump out of the body. It was stuck. Strain as I might, there was no persuading it!

This is one of the times when I broke out into a cold sweat. Then I began to consider the matter, to see if anything at all could be done. Medication would have only caused additional problems, as to force things might have caused physical damage internally. And that would have meant a delay, in any case, after which the situation would be correspondingly worse. An operation? A horror to be avoided at all costs!

What could I do now that would help? I only had one answer to that question, and after a moment’s consideration inserted a middle finger into my anus, and started to feel for the offending object. At first I couldn’t reach it, but found by straining gently I could move it down to a position where it was accessible. Then it was a question of reducing its size with my fingernail until it was small enough to pass out.

This is something you can do for yourself in an emergency situation. Its your own body – don’t be afraid of it.

It is not something I would recommend asking a friend to do for you. Can you imagine how the conversation would go? “Up a bit”, “Down a bit”, “To the left”, “To the right”, and they cannot sense what is happening in your body as you can. There would be a serious risk of pain, or even damage.

What else? Ah yes – the Chinese Restaurant. I was happily tucking into one of my favourite meals when I had to sneeze. I had a mouthful of rice at the time, and the astonished diners at a nearby table received a share of my meal at unexpectedly high velocity. Well, nothing much to do about that, apart from apologize. Nothing to get upset about, or embarrassed, at all!

And the other one? Sorry, that is private!

Do you have any such moments that you would like to share?

Give me a contact address in a Comment, and I will start another Page if there are some interesting responses.

Dead Men and Jailbirds Can’t Say No!

“What is this life if, full of care
We have no time to ….”

from “Leisure”, by W. H. Davies

Sorry, but “stand and stare” just doesn’t cut it anymore. “Sit and think” would be far more appropriate, but it doesn’t rhyme.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of comments arriving at the “Accuracy” page. You see 25 at the moment, but there have been many more than that. The problem with the ones you don’t see was that they were detected as spam. This happens automatically when the person making the comment puts a link back to something that is making money for them. Another problem occurs when the email address given doesn’t function. A normal, correct comment, on the other hand, triggers a message to my email, and I can respond to it very quickly.

It seems that many people are in the same situation that I was in before I found the time to think about democracy, and what was wrong with it, and more or less accepted that it was a state of affairs that existed, and would continue to exist in perpetuity, for there was nothing that could be done to change that state.

I now know that this view is completely wrong, and the situation can be radically changed for the better both simply, and peacefully.

Lets go back a bit to find a reasonable starting point.

The democratic system works on the principle of voting for people to represent you, and form a government, which acts on your behalf.
If you disagree with what the government is doing, you have to make it known that you are saying “No”. Doing nothing, legally means saying “Yes”.
If the government does not want to hear you saying “No”, it will make it difficult for you to do so.
The only time the government actually wants to hear what you are saying, is at the next election.
At the election, you can say “No”, without fear of difficulties.
How to say no is very simple – write “No Suitable Candidate”, (or the equivalent), on the ballot paper.
With nobody supporting any of the available candidates at all, the government must collapse, and the system comes to a halt.

We must know what we want to achieve when this happens.
I have given this some thought also, and offer a ‘possible solution’ for discussion at
Possible Solution

The Mandate

The government may claim to have a mandate, but this cannot be true.
See Accuracy
Under the present system, a mandate would only be possible during a free vote, and there are precious few of these.

However, a government claim to a mandate is based on conjecture, supposition, sleight of hand, and similar nasty tricks, and they do what they want to do anyway. I propose to change all that by defining exactly what the government is mandated to do by the electorate, and what it is not allowed to do. Then there can be no conjecture, and no argument. There will be no declaration or support of war without the people of the country agreeing to it. There will be no lobbying by foreign or industrial powers in secret. We will run our democracy as we need it to be run – for our own benefit!

In the meantime, go to demonstrations if you will, but remain peaceful at all times.
The idea is to say “No”, to keep out of jail, and to stay alive.

PS. You can help yourself, and all of us:- Spread The Word!