Voting TaKtiX

Missed this one when he first put it up, but it’s not out of date, Tim Neale has an excellent post on fear, monsters, Blair and playground bullies:

As my life experience grew I began to put together a theory of people. I decided that those who try to rule by fear, the playground bullies, and pub thugs are often themselves ruled by fear. And if you cease to be afraid of them, like my childhood monsters they cease to be a problem… Tony Blair’s launch speech of his Respect Action Plan. “My view is very clear: their freedom to be safe from fear has to come first“

Yup, I’ve been busy, Paul’s posting more than me currently, I’ll hopefully be back on steam tomorrow. Hopefully. But, as it’s been at least a few days, and it’s on topic to the post, why do we let this tired bully stay in office?

So it looks likely that Special Branch forged some documents on the day of the shooting of John Charles de Menezes, in order to make it look as if they had not identified him as one of the suspected 21st of July attempted bombers.

Now this evidence is scooped in the News of the World, so I’m not willing to accept it at face value just yet, but if it is true, then it’s yet another nail in the coffin of Ian Blair and his half-arsed attempt at running a police force. The family of Menezes have long maintained that there has been a cover-up over the shooting of their son - missing CCTV, overwritten logs, false testimony and so on, and quite frankly it’s beginning to look like they might be right.

So how long it is going to be before we get the true story of what happened on the 22nd of July last year, and when we do, what measures are going to be put into place to make sure it never happens again. I find the parallels between the stories of illegal shootings in de Menezes’ home country of Brazil, and the shooting in London last year to be deeply worrying, to wit we might expect such behaviour to go on in the wild streets of Rio de Janeiro, but not in supposedly sedate areas of London.

Can somebody please prove my fears wrong, and tell us the truth about what happened last year?

Here’s a political dilemma for you - how do you react when a terrorist group actively engages in democratic politics, and actually gains power? This is, of course, the challenge facing Bush, Blair, the EU and the UN after Hamas’ election victory in Palestine last week. Regardless of what happens over the next few weeks and months, some strange politics is likely to take place.

Of course, what everyone really wants is for Hamas to take it’s new political role to heart, renounce violence and undertake a political end to the violence in Palestine. This is not going to happen. But whilst Hamas remain an armed group, actively using violence to free their country, can they really be compatible with western democracy in an age which considers dealing with terrorists to be political anathema?

The fact is though, Hamas has been democratically elected to 80 of Palestine’s 132 parliamentary seats on a UK-shaming turnout of 77%, in an election praised by the UN for its fairness - indeed they have also stated that where the election was restricted, it was because of Israeli intervention, rather than anything to do with the Palestinians.

It strikes me, therefore, slightly unfair to call sour grapes on the election results after what appears to be a perfectly legitimate election in Palestine. You open yourself up to a democratic way of thinking, you accept the fact that it may not bring to power exactly who you were looking for. Yes, Hamas now need to work inside of politics, and I’m sure that continued use of violence wont help that; but at the same time they represent the will of their own people, who want to believe that Hamas really can make a difference, and the west must respect that point of view. For the US, the UK and the EU to say they wont deal with Hamas is basically saying to the Palestinian people “we don’t care what you think, you got it wrong” and that’s only likely to plunge the peace process even deeper into turmoil than it is right now.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how this situation will ever work itself out; Israel will almost certainly refuse to have relations with Hamas, even if the rest of the world does give them a chance. And Hamas, although they may scale down their physical attacks on Israel, will continue to call for the end of the Israeli state - not too useful when you then need to negotiate with a state who’s legitimacy you do not accept.

And at the blunt end of all this will be (as ever) the Palestinian people, their voice now heard in the political arena, but then subsequently ignored. Democracy it may be, but fair it definitely isn’t.

Oh look, Simon’s outed himself. Anyone care? OK, maybe the misleading interview he gave saying he “wasn’t gay” (true) was a little badly thought through, but as pointed out in the comments on Jonny’s Blog, he didn’t actually lie. He’s bisexual. So what?
(more…)

So…:

Google’s launch of a new, self-censored search engine in China is a “black day” for freedom of expression, a leading international media watchdog says.

Bollox. Headline news on BBC news, a feature on PM, and a few little caveats. Google faces a choice

1. Abandon the largest, and fastest growing, market in the world to its rivals
2. operate within that market

Google is a commercial entreprise. “Do no evil” is a nice little slogan, but you can’t do any good if you’re not there. Not really a choice, really, if they abandon China, they abandon one third of the worlds population, and the remarkable growth in the Chinese economy is something no commercial operation can ignore.

So, having made that commercial decision, they then have to make another choice

1. Operate illegally within the market, but according to ‘principles’, and be pretty sure you’ll get shut down
2. Operate within the legal framework as set out by the recognised (and therefore legitimate) government

Again, not much of a choice, if they don’t follow Chinese regulations, they get shut down. So, having made these business decisions, they then have an ethical choice. Do they do as other operations, set up and pretend all is well? Or do they subvert those regulations?

“Google has no choice but to give up to the Party,” said one posting on the popular information technology Web site PCONLINE, signed simply “AS.”

Google’s move was prompted by frequent disruptions of the Chinese-language version of its search engine registered under the company’s dot-com address in the United States.

Government filtering has blocked access or created lengthy delays in response time.

Google’s senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin defended the new site as better serving Chinese customers.

“In deciding how best to approach the Chinese — or any — market, we must balance our commitments to satisfy the interests of users, expand access to information, and respond to local conditions,” McLaughlin said in an e-mailed statement, .

McLaughlin said search results would be removed based on local laws, regulations or policies.

“While removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission,” he said.

There was no indication that Google would disable access to its .com site within China.

McLaughlin said the company wouldn’t host its e-mail or blogging services in China that can be mined for information about users, and would inform users if information had been deleted from searches. Such messages appeared in searches for Falun Gong and other sensitive topics.

They’re being honest, and they’ll tell the users that they’re being censored. On every search that they are censored for. They’ll also link to their main .com in the US, which users may or may not be able to access through the firewall.

Google has many, many faults. It’s privacy policies and data hoarding tendencies are subject to significant criticisms. But this one? They made the only decision they could, and are keeping their Chinese users fully informed. Outside pressure isn’t going to give the residents of China their freedom. It may help, but that’s all. Internal pressure will do that; the UK democratised as its economy developed. Taiwan democratised as its economy developed. Every time Google.cn tells its users that they’re being censored by the govt, the odds of change from within increase.

Criticise Google for the things it gets wrong. Not the things it gets right.

Paxman:

“We’ve no idea what the head of Radio 4’s playing at - we’re thinking of using it every night,”

Don’t watch TV, but hope they do. Heard it for the first time just before Xmas, insomnia kicked in. Immediately set around trying to get a copy , it’s great. Mitchell:

“I find it a very uplifting and interesting theme - it makes you feel good about life and the country.”

Damn right it does. savetheradio4theme.co.uk

Cancelling Home Truths I could handle, it’s just not the same without Peel. But dumping the theme? Piss of.

So, Mark Oaten resigns in a rent boy scandal after being confronted by the News of the World. First website to break the story? BBC? ITV? Sky? Nope, Iain Dale’s blog.
(more…)

Awhileback, I blogged about a Welsh AM signing up to the ID card pledge. Well, she’s now got her own blog, Welsh Politics (via), and has also registered http://www.welshpolitics.com/ as a domain name (well done for getting that one in, I’d have thought something so obvious would’ve gone ages ago). Podcasting too. I have no doubt I’ll disagree with her on issues (she’s a Plaid member after all), but agree with her round up of the last week in many ways.

Another addition to the overcrowded blogroll; going to have to sort that out soon.

Arrest this man or the law’s an arse. Oh, wait.

The law’s an arse.

OK, as Paul’s pretty much already covered what I was going to here and here, I thought I’d simply put all the links I was going to use up for the sake of it. Like I said, child protection is part of my job. The thing about this that really gets to me is all the fuss about the known, reported and watched teachers with records. It’s the unknown, unconvicted that are the danger.

So, Consider Phlebas:

“To deny the possibility of reform is to deny the possibility of agency, of control over the direction of a life, and, close as much of the coverage of such cases does come to doing that, surely if paedophiles did totally lack agency, we would treat them quite differently, as one would treat dangerous animals or the criminally insane.”

The Mirror pretends it’s the Sun and, from what I can see, libels the teacher in the initial ’scare’ story, Stumbling and Mumbling has a sense of perspective:

Intelligent people are guided by facts. The fact – as far as we know – is that no child has been sexually attacked by a teacher who had a previous conviction or caution for a sexual offence. An intelligent person might, therefore, infer that there’s no problem.

Mary Riddell in the Observer points out that Kelly is crap:

She might have said that it is not fair or practical to turn into pariahs all the 29,000 people on the sex offenders’ register. She might have pointed out the oddness of a list that lumps together rapists and 16-year-old boys who have sex with their slightly younger girlfriends. If none of these defences appealed, she could just have said sorry.

Uncle Steve agrees with her:

Ruth Kelly is the UK Education secretary, famous for being part of the “secretive ultra-strict and a bit bonkers” Catholic cult Opus Dei, which has systems for members to commit serious self-harm because they’re not strict enough or pure enough and must chastise the flesh. She is therefore perfect to be in a position to influence the nation’s children.

D’Ancona in the Telegraph takes a pop:

Ms Kelly’s personal failure is quite clear: she had simply not grasped how deficient the system for vetting teachers was. Her authority is in tatters as a consequence

Nick Robinson puts some facts down pointing out that they were, actually, doing something about it already (although in this bloggers opinion they should have done something when Bichard published):

The Queen’s Speech after the election promised that there would be legislation soon to implement the Bichard Inquiry’s proposals to create a single vetting scheme. Consultation on the detail took place last year.

Brian Barder, in a typically long but well observed post, points out the failures and hysteria on all sides:

Various Parent-teacher Associations and their spokespersons are at fault for rushing in front of the television cameras with wild talk about British parents not being able to sleep at night for fear that their kids are being daily molested by fiends masquerading as teachers, with the knowing acquiescence of Ruth Kelly personally. Perfect examples of the irrationally risk-averse obsessions of our safety-first society.

Tony Hatfield on cautions and how they can, in his experience as a lawyer, be abused:

In order for cautions to be fairly administered, the accused person must clearly understand the consequences of accepting one. My experience suggests in many cases this may not be so.

And finally the Pub Philosopher wonders how many people looking for legitimate porn have possibly DL’d child porn instead:

the school uniform fetish as “one of the most widespread clothing-oriented fetishes worldwide”.

So if thousands of people are into this stuff and start searching the net for it, could some of them come across a real child porn web-site by accident?

This is a serious issue, the registers and lists that exist are a nightmare to negotiate and difficult to understand. Three years in my job and I still learn more when I talk to a new office, social services person or similar. We need it to be rationalised in a sensible, thought out manner that allows children to be protected from known, genuine, threats. Not people cautioned for one indiscretion that are believed to be no threat and under observation. And most certainly not completely rehabilitated individuals who are no longer a threat in any way.

This Govt is media led and focus group driven. The idea that they could actually lead opinion, persuade their case and genuinely solve problems is, it appears, beyond most of them. Maybe it’s because they’re tired?

Google Bomb:

<a href=”http://matgb.livejournal.com/77989.html” title=”Google bomb”>Google Bomb</a>

Edit: For Tim, Scandium Oxide

As I discussed the other day, I’m very much not happy with the idea that anyone simply cautioned over sexual offences can then never work with children.

Today though, this has been confirmed by education minister Ruth Kelly, despite the fact that the 10 people cautioned but still allowed to work in schools were assessed to pose no threat to children.

I honestly cannot believe that this has happened. Surely, whenever an individual is accused of a crime, the case takes on a certain degree of uniqueness; in order for the case to be resolved fairly and correctly, it is imperative that the specific actions of the case are taken into account - mitigating circumstances, premeditation, provocation etc. etc. There is no black and white to this, there really isn’t; each case must be looked at on an individual basis and appropriate steps taken according to its findings. If a person is deemed to be no threat to children, let them work with children, if they’re not, make sure they don’t get anywhere near them for as long as they are considered a threat.

What’s happened now though is that if you’re on the list, you’re never getting off, and you’re never teaching children again. You will not be treated individually over this, you are a Sex Offender and will be so for life. Does this happen to any other type of criminal, to the extent that the can never work in that field again? Is not the purpose of a sentence that once the time is served that person is considered absolved of their crimes?

And that’s the criminals - those cautioned either face moving heaven and earth to clear their names, or having their lives ruined even though they technically remain innocent. (Of course, they may be quite, quite guilty, but without a trial, how is anyone supposed to know?)

Mat interjects via email with a good point that being cautioned means you’re actually accepting guilt

I’m assuming that in many cases, especially sex offences, a person will quite happily accept a caution on the grounds it doesn’t lead on to a court case and everything that goes with that. Being scared witless of being labelled a paedophile and having an easy get out clause is not exactly a good marker for justice.

And, of course, getting cautioned for something which you did do, doesn’t necessarily mean you are then unfit to work with children. It all depends on the specifics, which this act is doing its level best to stifle.

I doubt this decision will be reversed; I suppose that any attempt, even in the calm light of hindsight, will be met by howls of ‘think of the children’, but I hope with all my heart that someone in power recognises this for the awful decision that it is. I won’t hold my breath.

In a discussion on the Harding thread, edjog and RM have come up with two good questions:

Mr Blair, isn’t it the case that, were it not for subsection 14 of section 5 of [the Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Act 1998], you yourself would be guilty of a Criminal Conspiracy to Torture?

and

With reference to Edjog’s question above, can anyone enlighten me as to what The Dear Leader’s position was over the Gibraltar nastiness a few years ago? The one where some SAS troopers were put on trial for slotting three IRA members they beleived were about to detonate a bomb in a crowded street.

In the light of his current views on Agents of the Crown killing people it might be interesting to read of his questions in the house and public speeches on the Gibraltar affair.

Nasty cynic that I am I am guessing he was dead against letting the soldiers off back then. Same as he used to campaign for CND and against continued membership of the EEC.

RM

I know little about the Act (Edjog has more here, and even less about Blair’s stated positions at the time of the Death on the Rock affair.

On the grounds it’s off the main page, I thought I’d post the comments here as the topic has drifted way off anyway; anyone know more, on either count?

Just some quick pointers, I’ve linked to him before, but Uncle Steve has an alternate take on Brown’s little idea:

Steve’s Politics update in 2 minutes!
Summarising the political issues of the day, so you don’t have to do actual research.
Boring sounding politics issue of the day:
Not content with having people take a “Britishness test” to become a citizen, Gordon Brown wants us to celebrate a “British Day” as a national holiday similar to 4th July in the US. There are several problems with this:

The facts:

• Yes, it’s bollocks.
• No, there’s no hidden detail, it’s just as bollocks as it sounds.
• We don’t need a day, and we’d be no good at celebrating it anyway.
• It’s actually impossible to celebrate, because Britain’s national identity is not stuck in the 60’s. What would you include as “British”? As the Guardian said, “‘Girls Aloud’ and ‘Ant and Dec’?”

The Guardian: “After a traditional British breakfast of Danish bacon, French croissants, Florida orange juice, Australian-owned newspapers and Indian tea…”

He also has a follow up post where people are discussing what such a day would actually celebrate. The list currently includes the Domesday Book, Eddie Izzard, Sean Connery, Tea, Oscar Wilde and Douglas Adams. That’s just me picking stuff at random. Worth a look if you’ve got some time to kill, 157 comments on the latter one and counting.

Paul’s post on the subject is here, but, well, if you’re reading British blogs generally you’ve likely already seen it heaped with bile in various places. Personally, I’m cynical, but think it’s a good idea, just, well, Gordon Brown; maybe I’m too cynical, NuLab, Cool Britannia, another little ploy? One commenter has suggested July 7th, if it’s going to happen then, well, why let Brown pick the date?

I would just like to congratulate you, Governor Schwarzenegger, on the execution of blind wheelchair user Clarence Ray. Well done Sir, you have truly removed from this planet a danger to society, so much of a danger, that Ray had to be lifted onto the gurney in order that guards could administer his lethal injection.

I understand that it is Californian Law that those convicted of sufficiently heinous crimes are put to death, and that a man responsible for orchestrating two deaths (one whilst inside prison) does qualify on those grounds. But I also understand that it is the duty of any rational human being to oppose any law they see to be wrong, and the death penalty is wrong. Always. Especially, like in previous cases, when the defendant has shown large amounts of remorse, and indeed campaigned to educate others not to make the mistake they did.

I would like to take this opportunity to implore you to use your position to influence those in real positions of power to take a lasting step to do away with this outdated and barbaric law. 13 US states have already done it, Turkey has already done it, fuck it Senegal has already done it - lean on those in the US who still support the death penalty to do away with it.

I understand the position you are in; you need to appear strong to keep up your tough guy image, and need to be seen to be active in Californian politics to fuel that Presidential bid you might make one day. I know you can’t be seen to go back on any of your decisions either, hell, even if you did want to, you can’t - the Austrians don’t want you any more anyway. But really, it’s not that difficult to come around to a reasonable way of thinking - the power of the decision that you hold in your hands would more than overcome the fact that you had changed your mind over it.

As an additional bonus, if you do sort this mess out, I might go and buy some of your DVDs. Sounds like a good deal, right?

OK, open challenge. I like being non-partizan and outside but, let’s face it, on 80% of the issues that matter to me, I’m pretty close to the Lib Dems. Don’t always agree with the exact policy, but the general principle is fine. And I suspect that if I were to look, I could find a member with almost identical opinions to me on most issues; not all at once, obviously, odds of there being two people with all over the place views like mine quite small*.
(more…)

Or: how Chirac stole his election

So, Finland’s going into run-off mode for their Presidential elections? (via Nosemonkey)

OK, that makes two countries that should know better saddled with a system of election that’s almost as bad, and much more expensive than, Simple Majority (ie the UK/US system, First Past The Post/FPTP). Why do they do it? (more…)

Well, of a sorts. Many thanks to DK for awarding us one of his coveted Bloody Devil Awards. It is of course for my post on Mr Harding, which has proven to be rather popular. While I don’t always agree with DK (well, rarely agree let’s face it), his attitude to blogging (namely let’s not take ourselves too seriously and enjoy a good debate) is similar to mine, which is why I enjoy reading his stuff. Just goes to show that nice, sedate analysis of the issues doesn’t go down half as well with you lot as random attacks on fellow bloggers. Hmmm…

Nah, I’ll still stick mostly to my more sedate style. Mostly. His other awarded post, on Disreputable Lazy Aliens about the Craig Murray/Torture thing is also rather good (but readers should be warned of the language content, DK says my post ddin’t involve enough swearing, something that cannot be said of edjog’s). I’m working on a proper, sedate post on voting systems, Finland and everyone’s favourite M. Chirac, the way I keep getting distracted by random flu symptoms it may take all night. Thanks DK; I promise to try and write something for you at some point tonight, if I don’t collapse again (nothin’ serious, honest, but, well, concentration is gone).

OK, I’m following the LibDem race closely (I always follow leadership elections closely, but this one has added comedy value). So, I’m looking at the respective websites.
(more…)

He’s not just tired, but Chicken Yoghurt has it on very good authority that he’s also a liar.