Patrick McGoohan, Number 6 in The Prisoner, dies

2770

patrick-mcgoohan-number-6-in-the-prisoner-dies

Patrick McGoohan, lead actor in the 1960s cult TV series The Prisoner, has died in Los Angeles aged 80.

In the series, which was a surrealist libertarian masterpiece, McGoohan plays an agent in some secret government organization, who has a row with his bosses and wakes up next morning in a kind of fantasy village. It’s a place where everyone is known by number (his is Number 6), rather than names. Nobody knows or imagines anything outside The Village – as the place is called. The maps don’t even show anything beyond it.

It’s always a beautiful day in The Village. Everything there is benign, and faultless harmony prevails. Spontaneous parades and events take place all the time, and everyone seems keen to participate in them. But Number 6 just doesn’t fit in. He does not see why he should follow the strange rules and rituals of the others. He sees no merit in the trivial things they think important. One of them chastises him: ‘You have no values.’ He responds tersely: ‘Different values.’

The analogy with Britain today is chilling. Everyone is expected to fit in, to conform, and to rejoice in their conformity. Those who do not conform are publicly branded as immoral, and are scorned and vilified. But who is more bizarre? Those who follow the mainstream conventions imposed on them by the myopic political correctness of officialdom and the state? Or those who regard all that political correctness as shallow and destructive, and prefer to trust values based on experience and common sense?

As Britain’s values become subverted by the trite, dysfunctional, and bizarre values of the Westminster Village, I begin to feel for Number 6. Be seeing you.

Abstracted from Eamonn Butler's forthcoming book The Rotten State of Britain (Gibson Square)

Too fat to adopt

2750

too-fat-to-adopt

We’ve had Redbridge Council banning smokers from adoption, now we have a couple being denied because the husband is too fat.

Damien and Charlotte Hall are14 years a couple, 11 years married, but unable to have children. They deserve better than this and so does the child that they would have otherwise adopted.

This interview with the BBC shows you that there can be no other reason why they should not be able to adopt.

The Council workers did not even have the gumption to tell them in person. Instead they sent aweak willed letter. Here are some extracts:

I am writing to confirm that we are unable to progress an application from you at this time.

This is due to the concerns that the medical advisers have expressed regarding Mr Hall's weight.

I have discussed this with our medical adviser... who considers that it is important to alter lifestyle, diet and exercise in a sustainable way so that any weight reduction can be maintained in the long term.

I understand that you would like to begin the assessment as soon as possible and while appreciating your reasons for this, I consider it would be more appropriate to begin the assessment once Mr Hall's BMI is below 40.

Leeds Council and everyone involved in this should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It is time for the smokers, eaters and drinkers of this world to stand up to these nannying bureaucrats and this unfair discrimination.

Beware the Ides of March

2735

beware-the-ides-of-march

The introduction of rules forcing Internet companies to keep details of every e-mail for one year will come into force on the 15th March this year. The new rules will come into force as part of a European Commission Directive. It will prove to be highly illiberal, costly and ineffective.

The Ides of March will give over 600 public bodies access to your emails. Granting access to the police is one thing, but letting local councils, health authorities, and the likes of the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Commission and Ofsted trawl through you emails is quite another.

Taxpayers will be charged to the tune of somewhere between £25 and £70 million to pay Internet Service Providers (ISP) for this. This is not small change. It will prove ineffective because as Dr Richard Clayton has made clear, much of emails are spam. As he says, “There are much better things to do to spend our billions on than snooping on everybody in the country just on the off-chance that they're a criminal."

Obviously the costs on Internet Service Providers (ISP) will be great. As such the Home Office has been hinting that smaller providers will be exempt. Thus, your average criminal is unlikely to be  signing up to Virgin, AOL or BT. This is not a loophole, but a black hole.

So as individuals, our privacy will be opened up to the whims of anyone with a name badge, but in generally our security would be no less improved. If you know anyone in the country that thinks this is a good idea, please refer him or her to their nearest mental asylum.

Living in the land of fear

2736

living-in-the-land-of-fear

It seems to have taken just over 50 years for the reach of the state to become near ubiquitous. There’s little any of us do now that does not involve the parasitic actions and attitudes of it; ultimately we have a malignant monkey on our backs. We have become servile in our acceptance of state actions, but recently (partly as a response to the heavy handed reaction to terrorism and its presumption of all citizens being equally guilty) the heavy fisted approach has spread further.

The evidence can be seen in the case highlighted by Henry Porter, who writes of the arrest of a painter for taking a picture in a public space. The checks on government actions have eroded away, and these instances (also Andrew Pelling MP stopped by Police for photographing a cycle path) highlight the extent that the freedoms we once enjoyed are gone. Perhaps key to this growth, is the state’s capture of our subconscious fears and the implied interpretation that our actions are ultimately entirely criminal.

There is nothing that remains that clearly delineates and protects spaces that keep us, and our actions, from the state’s intrusion. The mindset of the state’s agents and, to a lesser extent, a minority of the general populace, has moved to regard all within their domain, believing that they must act so as to preserve a mistaken public good. The United Kingdom, it could be said, now resembles nothing more than the personal fiefdom of the political elite, an elite with no understanding of the unintended consequences of their actions and mistaken legislation.

Accountability remains at large

2668

accountability-remains-at-large

This government is a lot like a rottweiler chewing on a postman's leg: one thing is certain, it's never going to let go. Yet another example of this is the dropping of the plan for directly elected members of police authorities. The ever-increasingly irrelevant Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, caved into pressure from senior officers and Labour council chiefs, both groups only interested in protecting their much vaunted positions of power from the threat of being made accountable to the meagre serfs of this country.

What is truly eye opening, and eye wateringly painful, are the reasons that were proffered. The weakest argument comes from Ms Smith: that the police force would become 'politicised'. Ahem. I think if she looks at how her department acts with regard to the police force, she may find this has already happened. Then there is the downright crass from Keith Vaz, who fears that a far right organization could capture police authorities. Another politician who needs to open the window and have a look round: the police have already been captured by a bunch of fascists (i.e. the government). And to add further insult to the voters, he piles on the idiocy by claiming that electing authority members would reduce accountability. To this swamp of ineptitude we'll add the vested interests of the Labour Group of the LGA (Local Government Association) who feel that it would fragment the relationship between police and councils. Which can't be a bad thing, considering that the police aren't supposed to be at the beck and call of councillors, unless of course the councillor is a victim of crime.

Wresting control of the levers of power from any politician these days is nigh on impossible; if they are wearing a red rosette it's even harder. In the meantime we shall continue to dream of the day the police are allowed to protect us and do their jobs how they want to. For now they will remain nothing more than a private army for the government to direct against the population.

Oxymoronic compulsory volunteering

2669

oxymoronic-compulsory-volunteering

A few weeks ago Melanie Reed wrote a piece in The Times in which she called for voluntary work to be made compulsory. Waiting for the punch line I now realize that she was not joking. She does indeed believe that we should be forced to volunteer.

This is how Reed’s vision play out:

What we must do, I suggest, is introduce a new concept of universal compulsory volunteering. (As practised in the Army: “Right lads, we need three volunteers - you, you and you.") Everyone aged 12 to 85 would have to devote a minimum of 12 days a year to the service of others - causes of any kind, as long as they are worthwhile. It might be giving financial advice to a charity, walking dogs, mentoring young offenders, gardening for the elderly. People could choose; but they must make a commitment.

What, you might ask, would happen to you if you choose not to volunteer? Well, “months of community service, or raised taxes“. One wonders whether Reed had even thought before writing this, and more importantly why she is not writing for The Guardian. The main reason people don’t volunteer is because politicians have stripped us of so much power, money and time that we have little left to give. Forcing us to volunteer would be the pièce de résistance in the historic failure of public policy as social engineering.

Let’s hope Cameron doesn’t read The Times. He has already dabbled with the idea of forced volunteerism before. With a bit of a facelift we could see this become Conservative policy. It is entirely possible; take a look at Obama’s plans to forced volunteering.

Dignity and privacy

2580

dignity-and-privacy

Reading the words of Mary Ewert - the wife of Craig Ewert – one is struck by the intelligence and thought that clearly went into his decision to end his life. However, it is not only his decision to die that is causing a furore, but the decision for his death to be broadcast on Sky television.

I did not watch the documentary. This is simply because it was of little interest to me. As a (relatively) young and healthy person, I did not want to sit and watch the end of this man’s life. However, when father time, faulty genes or the pleasures of life catch up with me, if faced by a similar choice to Mr Ewert, this documentary will prove a rare and vital source of information.

Much has been written on this documentary breaking the taboo of death. Yet this documentary in fact breaks the much larger taboo of ignorance. Death is often degrading and unpleasant; those close to it are immersed in a blanket of silence and misinformation. This documentary allows people facing degenerative life to make their decision with the facts in mind.

It was surprising to hear on Radio 4 Phil Willis – Craig Ewert’s former MP – bemoaning the lack of privacy that this documentary shows. The point about privacy is that it is ours to do with as we wish. Willis’ convictions are his own, while the Ewert’s convictions are theirs. Politicians have a lot answer for in regards to protecting our privacy: a politician defending privacy is hypocrisy on stilts.

Those who were liable to be offended by the documentary should not have watched it. Unlike death and taxes, it could have been easily avoided.

Does not accept

2544

does-not-accept

And that's most certainly the attitude that the government will take in relation to a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR unanimously passed judgement in favour of DNA and fingerprints not being retained if persons had not been charged or indeed acquitted of committing a crime. Their decision was based on the fact that the actions of the police violated Article 8, the person's right to respect for private life. And of course the Home Secretary Ms Smith rolled out the usual utterances post-verdict, "disappointed with the verdict" and that, "the existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement".

We have long held that the police are wrong to retain the details of innocent people. Indeed the current DNA database contains the details of some 4.1million people, of which 730,000 people were never charged with any offence. And then there are the children (though some have obviously committed crimes): more than a million under 16-year olds are now on there as well. Of course to err is human, but to retain the details of the innocent merely presumes that they are guilty of some, as yet, uncommitted crime. This ECHR's ruling is welcome (although we shouldn't have to rely on them), but more needs to be done to hold back this tide of totalitarianism.

It may not be the conventional view, but I regard this government is truly socialist – which is reflected in the way it has viewed and treated the realm of privacy. It has pushed back the boundaries and assumed that all we do, know and hold dear, is really theirs. To them we are nothing more than state agents.  We should not be surprised to see that this ruling will be ignored and new legislation will be introduced that comes up with more disingenuous reasoning as to why our DNA are belongs to them!

New confines on wine

2541

new-confines-on-wine

An article in The Times today will surely disappoint many wine lovers throughout the country. The new Crime Bill, which is to be published next week, will include a ban on cut-price drink promotions in an effort to curb irresponsible drinking. The bill will bring about an end to “buy-one-get-one-free" deals and will stop the practice of allowing women to drink free of charge. It will require clubs and pubs to serve wine in smaller glasses as well. The Home Office has also resolved not to ban “happy hours" in pubs and bars throughout England and Wales. But don’t get too excited, the department may decide to give local councils the ability to outlaw them in their respective regions.

This legislation is just a small episode in the series of government restrictions on alcohol and smoking that people have suffered over the past few years. Considering the institution of the smoking ban in pubs and restaurants in July 2007, proposals to tighten pub licensing laws, and talks of allowing bars to only fill two thirds of each pint, it is safe to say that the government is becoming bolder in its attempts at regulation.

Many, including the wine industry, argue that this and other bills will affect moderate drinkers as well, causing them to unjustly suffer the same restrictions and higher prices. It has been established that excessive drinking can lead to crime and disorder, but the measures the government is taking will not be effective in stopping someone keen on drinking him or herself into oblivion. Alcoholics will drink whether or not they can get two beers for the price of one. In the meantime, those who enjoy a glass of wine or a pint every so often are left to suffer.

The police state

2527

the-police-state

The arrest of Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green MP last week – seemingly for a crime no greater than embarrassing the Home Office – shocked Westminster and has slowly grown into a much bigger story than the government would like. Voices from the every part of the political spectrum have condemned the police's heavy-handedness and the gross violation of parliament it entailed. The newspapers and their columnists, from Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun to Jackie Ashley in The Guardian, have joined in too.

I'm glad to see people finally waking up to the vandalism the current government and their servants have wrought on the relationship between the state and the individual. If the Damian Green affair changes the way we view authority, and makes voters less willing to trust the police with whatever powers our authoritarian rulers want to give them, then at least some good will have come of it.

Damian Green's arrest is not the only police scandal causing outrage though.  This story in The Mirror is every bit as appalling:

Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall – highly praised by his commanding officer for bravery against the Taliban in Afghanistan – was set upon by three uniformed officers on his home town High Street. The sickening attack – caught in forensic detail on CCTV – led a crown court judge to label it one of the worst examples of police aggression he had ever seen...

Basically, three policemen mistook Aspinall for someone who had been harassing paramedics in the area and, without provocation, rugby-tackled him and bundled him to the ground in the middle of the road. When he protested, the police started to bang his head against the ground, punch him and, in one excruciating display of brutality repeatedly scrape his face backwards and forwards against the tarmac. Yes, Aspinall was drunk, and, yes, he swore at the police when they set upon him. But that is no excuse for the police officers' hideous thuggery. Watching them on video, I was filled with disgust.

Policing is undoubtedly a difficult job and, despite the rotten public-sector system they work under, I'm sure that most police officers still discharge their duties honourably and to the best of their abilities. Cases like this really make you wonder though. Shame.