‘Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?’

Freely translated means ‘Who guards the guards themselves?’

We could imagine an Emperor who relies upon his guards to protect him. But who ensures that the guards can be trusted? There have been many examples of guards being bribed, or ‘turned’, or persuaded to absent themselves just when their services were required. The most obvious and well-known example that I can think of right now is the way in which Saddam Hussein dislodged his predecessor.


We can widen that idea. We can extend it to mean: “Who ensures that the King’s advisers are honest, and not lying to pursue some agenda?”.

In times gone by, when the King had autocratic rule, he relied upon ‘experts’ to advise him. He took the ultimate decision.

But what do we mean by ‘took the ultimate decision?’ I suspect that ‘the ultimate decision’ was simply whether to ‘go for it’ or not. For example, civil servants and ‘experts’ such as Generals decided that the defence of the Falklands was possible; that we had the military power to repulse the Argentinians; that we had intelligence on the ground to tell us where best to land an invading force and what opposition to expect. Thatcher et al only decided to risk the conflict because of the advice that they had received. That was not an event which lended itself to trickery and distortion.

But what are we to make of the ‘advice of experts’ on:

  1. Plain packaging.
  2. Smoking in private cars.
  3. Ecigs.
  4. Open, outdoor places around hospitals.

That is, who decided that the advisers on those matters were trustworthy? Or even, did the politicians chose the advisers who would give them the ‘correct’ advice? But wait – the politicians do not know who are the best advisers, so who decides whom the best advisers are?

“Quis Custodiet ipsos Custodes”.

Is that not how minorities find themselves being persecuted? For example, since only 20% of the population now smoke, why are taxes on tobacco so punishing? Why waste millions of pounds chasing tobacco imports and accounting for every gram among billions and billions when the effect of your efforts is to cost the taxpayer more and more and more? You see, if Customs managed to reduce illicit imports of tobacco (created by ridiculous taxes) to zero, then the force which did the damage would be required to exist ‘ad inf’ and would cost vast amounts of money even if it produced nothing at all.


That is the sort of “BLANK” which exists in relation to EU Directives. Only because ‘experts’ have told politicians that membership of the EU requires them to pass laws which ‘experts’ in the EU have decreed, and that the ‘experts’ employed by UK politicians to advice them are also in collusion with the EU.

What no one seems to understand is that the EU is entirely dependent upon Treaties. Treaties have never, ever had the force of law on any Sovereign State. Treaties are temporary agreements. “You do this and I shall do that”. The treaty only has force as long as each party continues to do what the treaty says. As soon as one party stops doing what the treaty says, the treaty ceases to exist. There is nothing whatsoever ‘legal’ about treaties.

One must to bed. I’m not at all sure that my bed conforms to EU “Bed Regulations”.


3 Responses to “‘Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?’”

  1. Michael J. McFadden Says:

    Junican, you mention open outdoor spaces around hospitals… but make NO mention of university campuses? Are you so far immune to Glantz’s “Smoke Free Campuses” abomination? The strategy over here seems to be a combination of “Everyone ELSE is jumping off the bridge…” by exaggerating how many campuses have been conquered, and a true mob/racketeering/protection-money/blackmail gig where schools are being threatened with the loss of tens of millions in grant funding if they don’t “cooperate.”

    Oh! And the final nail in the strategy coffin: for the most part it seems that as soon as any resistance leaders are offed and a regime set up, the activists just move on without paying any real attention to enforcement. Thus you see constant “low profile” complaints on news boards and letters to editors in campus newspapers about the bans being failures, but the Antis simply act and speak as though all the bans are raging successes and greatly loved — thereby suckering new fools into their net. Their goal is to actually grab more than half the 5,000 US campuses and then impose a ban on the rest. Quite similar to the techniques they’ve used in resistant States (where they’ll concentrate their forces in one city at a time until they’ve grabbed enough to pressure the State) with the “Final Solution” stage being where they will THEN come back and say, “Well, these bans are no longer an issue. Everyone has them and everyone is happy with them… EXCEPT for a few recalcitrants. Since we’ve all already AGREED how successful the bans are, NOW is the time to break out that iron fist from within its velvet glove and hammer the remaining smokers!”

    It’s theoretically a very successful strategy. Spread the claimed perception of success while deliberately avoiding the confrontations that could make newly enacted bans vulnerable to being overturned. Then, after the bans are set in stone, it simply becomes a matter of wiping up the reduced resistant population.

    Sooo.. to get back to my question: are the Antis invading the campuses over there yet?

    – MJM

    • Jude Says:

      They certainly have in Australia, although, and heres a bit of delicious irony, Simeon Chimpman’s university has made a big deal of divesting themselves of their investments in fossil fuels, and have taken up investing in tobacco companies instead. At the same time they bleat about “smoke free” campuses, including a ban on vaping, but financially support the tobacco industry.

      It’s fascinating to watch the infighting among the ANTZ at the moment, hopefully they will get themselves into such a state that they will disappear up their collective arses and do us all a great favour.

    • junican Says:

      I have heard nothing about university bans here. Perhaps the Charlatans have plans to make that the next nice little earner.

      Do student in the USA take any notice? Or is the whole thing a publicity stunt? For example, Glantz and his mates make a big, big noise about a campus ban. It goes viral in the MSM. Meanwhile, back at base, no one takes a blind bit of notice. In any case, is it not a fact that ‘every female student has been raped at least once’ is far more important for students?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: