Two little things

3024

two-little-things

How do these things happen? You turn your back for 5 minutes and just because the odd bank has fallen over people decide to raise up again two of the more scabrous ideas from the horrors of human history. What is it about testing times that makes people suggest that we give up civilisation?

The first of these little things is the fuss over the pension arrangements for Sir Fred Goodwin. Yes, it's a huge pension, yes he was at the helm when the bank ran aground and no, I'm not all that chuffed with the idea that he'll get just shy of £700,000 a year for life either. But it is a contract. Perhaps it's a contract that shouldn't have been signed, that we wish hadn't been signed, that if there's a legal loophole in it we might exploit such, but as matters stand as I write it's a legal contract which was, amongst others along the way, signed off by a Government Minister.

To repudiate it because the populace, or the more populist of the votestealers in Parliament, desire such is simply the rule of the mob. The antithesis of one of the things that makes up civilisation, the rule of law, the sanctity of contract, call it what you will. We are not and should not be ruled by the whims of men but by the arrangements which we have signed up to beforehand and if we regress from that to doing whatever tricks the jeering crowd would call for inbetween their Hogarthian quaffs of gin and window breaking then we might as well give the whole thing up and go back and live in the trees.

The second is this extremely strange idea about compulsory national volunteering. Leaving aside the oxymoronic nature of the phrase I suppose we can at least use it as proof that there's none so illiberal as liberals imposing their pet schemes upon the hoi polloi. Other than that it's a nonsense, a truly horrendous idea that any civilised being should be ashamed of even considering, let alone publicly advocating.

Whether it's the melanin enhanced being shipped across oceans to pick cotton for Massa, the men of the country being impressed to die in the wars of their elders or the young being forced into servitude to the state by wiping said elders' bottoms there's a very simple reason why such things are repugnant. They're slavery. They are, in the end, the use of the power of the gun to force people to labour as you would wish rather than as they would wish, that they should spend some or all of their lives satisfying your desires rather than their own, something which has no place at all under even the farthest penumbra of a civilised society.

What is it with these people? At the moment it looks like the economy might return us to the living standards of 2006 and the truly pessimistic are suggesting 1990 or even 1980. So the suggestion is that we should regress in moral and legal terms to somewhere around 1800 to compensate? Seriously, what is going on?

Lost liberties

3020

lost-liberties

“Our society is based on liberty and democracy. I do not want to see excessive surveillance hardwired into British society." So said Mr Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner for the UK in an article in The Times. His remit is to safeguard privacy and freedom of information, so he spoke out this past week by heavily criticising the fact that data the government has collected can be shared between departments and the private sector and that the communications database ‘risked turning everyone into a suspect’.

In an article on First Post, the author draws a line under the illusion that we have perhaps fallen back on over these past 12 years: that the UK is a bastion of liberty. Indeed, if we look at the past and the comments of Mr Thomas then it is clear we have done little to alter the progression New Labour has made towards a surveillance state. Thankfully though, some have remained stoic in the face of this anti-liberty agenda; Henry Porter is a fine example, and he along with many others has established the Convention on Modern Liberty that meets for the first time this weekend in London. Hopefully this will raise the profile of what we have lost and how we can regain it.

The excuse of terrorism has oft been used by those in power to extinguish our privacy, we should hold this up as short-sighted, short-termist idiocy of our elected tyrants MPs. Their own political survival is what we trade our freedoms for. If we value our freedoms highly then we should rid ourselves of the legislation and of the politicians. Until such a time the state will continue to see us all as being guilty and we can only prove our innocence by succumbing to their unquestioning will.

Man is born free...

2981

man-is-born-free-but-why-everywhere-he-is-in-chains

It will be interesting to read the two independent reports on the ID cards scheme that the government have now been forced to publish. Despite its best efforts, our leaders have failed to suppress the reports, and so within 28 days both reports will be available.

On Friday the Information Tribunal ruled: "First, there is an undoubted debate as to the merits of the scheme, second, there are the practicalities involved and third, there is the history as to the decision-making which underlies the scheme and which continues even today."

Access to these reports has been a long time coming. It was as long ago as January 2005 when Mark Dziecielewski of NO2ID made an FOI request to see them. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) was ordered to publish the documents back in 2006 but following an appeal it has taken until now to get the reports in the public domain.

With Labour down in the poles and the opposition firmly against the scheme, it is time that the government puts the whole of this nonsense on hold. ID cards, the databases and the wanton sharing of our personal information with anyone with a badge needs to stop now and for good.

Judge, jury, and executioner

2984

road-rights

This government seems determined to rid of our basic rights and freedoms. They have tried large scale changes such as the introduction of ID cards, the 42 day detention of terrorist suspects and the abolition of the double jeopardy rule.

They have ripped up the rulebook which protects the British public and was once an integral part of its identity. There was a time when Britain was a beacon of justice in the world. The latest erosion of our rights comes with the announcement that the police will be given the power to issue on-the-spot fines for ‘careless’ driving without the proceedings ever being taken to court. What happened to the principles of being innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial?

Other issues can be raised from this absurd new piece of legislation. For example, there are no set guidelines for what constitutes careless driving, the judgement is entirely left to the judgement of the police officer – a police officer acting as judge, jury, and executioner – whatever happened to a separation of powers?

Leaving aside the fundamental intrusions of this new rule, its efficacy will be questionable to say the least. The most efficient way to help people drive more safely is not by forcing and tightening the rules and regulations upon them, but instead to relax the rules, allowing them to drive safely and concentration solely on the road. A scheme that has removed all the road signs, has been piloted in the German town of Bohmte with great success.

Gabb on liberty

2967

gabb-on-liberty

Dr Sean Gabb spoke to the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Future ‘Star Social’ meeting on Monday on the subject of liberty. He caused somewhat of a stir. The talk was based around the advice that he would give to a future incoming Conservative administration, and why it needed to undertake the ideas he suggests. He posited it in the future as he rightly believes that the government that Cameron would form will be more or less a carbon copy of the governments of the past 17 years.

Dr Gabb drew upon Marx and his reasoning as to why the 1871 Paris Commune failed as a way to show why the Establishment needs to be abolished. The key actions he called for a future administration to undertake involved closing the BBC and shutting down around half of the civil service and its associated quangocracy. This would successfully rid any government of the challenges that the entrenched rent seeking opponents could bring to bear by utilizing their positions of comfort. Most importantly though, liberty would be returned to the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, as they would have the heavy weight of bureaucracy lifted from them and the heavy burden of tax removed.

The Conservative party, as is, has meekly become an extension of the establishment, exemplified by the response that Dr Gabb’s speech received. Dr Gabb is correct in his suggestion that a new wave of radicalism is needed to save the freedoms’ of the British people. That this approach is unacceptable to those who seek to become part of the problem should be of no surprise. Proceeding governments of the near future will offer little that will alter the status quo.

Whilst the polls show a massive lead for the Conservatives, they do so only because the Conservatives appear to not be New Labour. The truth of the matter is that both of them accept the Establishment and will do little to undermine their own chances of lining their pockets via the political process. We the people will continue to lose out.

Doubleplusungood

2947

doubleplusungood

In the past there was the Golden Country, a place that many of us now dream of whilst trudging under the shadow of the Ministry of Truth. It seems that the slightest exposure to the ideas and thoughts of the Dutch MP Geert Wilders would turn us into a baying mob of vigilantes. We would turn on our Muslim brethren and tear them asunder. Or this at least must have been the thinking behind the Home Secretary’s decision to ban him from entering the country on Thursday. He is a controversial figure who is reviled by many, having called for the banning of the Koran and linking of Islamic extremists to that publication in his film Fitna. The controversy should be solely related to his pronouncements on the banning of the Koran ( which would be wholly illiberal).

Why was he excluded? According to the Home Office it was because his appearance, by invitation from a Lord of the Land, would cause, “a serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society," he "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K." A Home Office spokesman further explained: "The government opposes extremism in all its forms."

This government has finally allowed the terrorists to win. By caving into mob rule we have now lost our right to freely express ourselves. That right is essential to the development of mankind, and all that his exclusion achieves is a faster descent into tyranny and darkness. The interests of society are no longer ours. They have been collectivised and are now the Secretary of State is the arbiter of our words and thoughts.

The Golden country has been truewise dispatched into the memory hole. Now we must be goodthinkers, desist from crimethink and be doubleplusgood followers of Ingsoc. Or we’ll be in the joycamps or worse, unpersons!

Drugs: come down off your high horse

2916

drugs-come-down-off-your-high-horse

The government's drug tsar, Professor David Nutt, has caused a furore by commenting in a scientific journal that the club-drug Ecstasy is about as dangerous as riding a horse.

He's probably right. I've seen the lives of young girls ruined through an addiction to ponies. Their minds seem to turn to equine mush. And of course falls from horses can and do kill or paralyze people – as in the case of Superman actor Christopher Reeve.

But I'm not proposing that horse riding should be made a Class A activity. (I'm sorry I mentioned that idea: it can't be long before the government starts banning dangerous sports and withdrawing NHS care from those who ride motorbikes or go mountaineering.)

Professor Nutt might have been unwise to mention the comparison, but some rationality in the debate on drugs is devoutly to be wished. When I thought that my teenage son might be taking drugs at school, I asked a neighbour, a clinical psychologist, for advice. His view was that schools were rife with drugs, but that most of them were far less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. It put things into perspective.

It's only when we can actually discuss the real risks of drugs that we will be able to advise young people on how to handle them. But the government seems to be more concerned by the outrage of the Daily Mail than the facts. It spreads the misconception that all drugs are as bad as heroin or crack – driving the others underground and making them more difficult to control. As a policy, it's failed.

True, many modern drugs haven't been in common use very long, so it's difficult to know their full medical and psychological effects. Even with drugs that have been around for years, like cannabis, we are still learning the full physical, psychological and social consequences. So maybe we are right to be cautious about them. But let's be honest: because then, at least, we can steer people away from the most damaging drugs by giving them a genuine profile of the risks.

Digital despots

2917

digital-britain

The long awaited report, called euphemistically Digital Britain, has been launched with a rather vainglorious opening paragraph. It reads like a noble goal to better the internet for all British users.

“An action plan to secure the UK’s place at the forefront of innovation, investment and quality in the digital and communications industries will be developed by Stephen Carter, the first Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting."

In fact, Lord Carter, a firm believer in the big government New Labour mantra, is aiming for his quango to further erode the private enterprise that is internet provision. Now Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will have to spy on their users. In effect, this report aims to nationalize ISPs as part of the security services.

Being a government backed idea, you will have to pay the quango £20 a year so they can make ISPs spy on you while limiting their ability to provide you with the best service they can.

“To bring industry together to agree how to provide incentives for legal use of copyright material; work together to prevent unlawful use by consumers which infringes civil copyright law; and enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators."

A sensible government would poll broadband users, and providers to find out what problems exist in internet provision. To most it would probably show that if you use anyone other than BT there is some foot-dragging when it comes to their parts of the internet network (ie: exchanges for ADSL).

Gordon Brown has written in the Times praising this socialistic digital plan. Then again one would expect him to be pleased to see a further expansion of government meddling in the business of the private companies and citizens of the UK.

New tax, new meddling, new erosion of liberties.…in other words typical New Labour.

Back off

2910

back-off

The latest, in the ongoing pursuit of this government to compile complete information on the lives of the people, is the news that the government is compiling a database to track and store the international travel records of millions of Britons.

Names, addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and credit card details of travelers will be stored for up to ten years. The e-Borders scheme covers flights, ferries and rail journeys. Officials hope that by the end of next year, 95% of the 250m annual passenger movements will be logged in the database.

This is the type of action that the Lords cross-party constitutional affairs committee recently warned against when condemning the government for risking undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens. If you ask me, this line was well and truly crossed a long time back. The same report claimed that “many of these surveillance practices are unknown to most people and their potential consequences are not fully appreciated". Perhaps, though much of this gets a fair few column inches in the popular press and given the near-unanimous popular discontent over the ID cards, it cannot be said that people are unaware that their liberties are being usurped.

As with all fights for freedom against injustice, a few good souls will have to lead the rest. The campaigners and supporters of NO2ID, Privacy International and Liberty have clearly marked their territory as being at the vanguard in the counteroffensive against the government’s assaults upon our liberties. Their fights clearly have the support of the vast majority of individuals living in this country.

This government’s utilization of the technology of totalitarianism must not prevail; the state has no business watching us. They say that it is for our protection and security, but I am surly not alone in not wanting Jacqui Smith and the plethora of taxpayer funded good for nothing officials watching my back.

Three-line whip: the latest in the expenses disgrace

2805

three-line-whip-the-latest-in-the-expenses-disgrace

The Prime Minister is going to use the three-line whip to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act. This is the latest move in the ongoing expenses disgrace.

When writing about this previously, I suggested that there was little appetite among MPs across the political spectrum to disclose their receipts to public scrutiny. In reply, a commenter suggested that I was wrong because the Conservative Party lwere opposed to the plan. Indeed, both the opposition Parties are critical of the government on this.

However, this opposition is on the whole political posturing. An Early Day Motion by Jo Swinton has so far received only 32 signatures. Those signed up are mostly principled individuals (such as Frank Field), opposed to restrictions on us knowing what our money is being spent on. Tomorrow's vote will pass and any pretence of accountability will be lost.

LATEST: Brown has backed down. Certainly good news and a lot of credit should go to the work of mysociety.org.