Voting TaKtiX

So it looks like the Attorney General will not be making any changes to the sentence of paedophile Craig Sweeney. This has, of course, been greeted with dismay by many people, but actually it’s fair enough. Y’see, the problem is that the sentence itself was not illegal or incorrect - the Attorney General is quite right in saying that if he tried to argue the case out, he’d probably loose. What needs to happen now is a reassessment of the sentencing guidelines to see whether or not we are happy with the current sentencing laws (as I believe I’ve said before.)

Once again though, the issue looks likely to get overwhelmed by calls of an individualistic nature focussed solely on this one particular case. And yes, it’s an awful thing to hear that a man like this may be free again in only five years. But the point is that we need to get the laws changed for everybody - slapping a longer sentence on Sweeney may make a few people happy, but doesn’t affect the many others whose crimes haven’t made the front pages. So maybe, actually, we need to let our feelings for this specific case settle a little, with the longer goal of altering the guidelines for everyone found guilty of these crimes.

I guess it’s a good thing when injustices hit the headlines, in that it focuses he public’s attention and forces the issue with the politicians. However it’s also easy to get carried away with the specifics rather than looking at the bigger picture - the bigger picture which in the long run will be the one that really matters.

This whole mess is actually over something quite simple, so here we go:

Life means life.

Now let’s be clear about this, I’m not talking about changing sentences, I’m not talking about increasing sentences, and I’m not talking about how awful our legal system is or isn’t or anything like that. All I’m asking for is for criminals to get given a sentence, and then actually serve it.

Simple eh? Don’t call it life it is isn’t going to be life. And if that means that we give murderers ten years not life, that’s ok, because at least they get what they’re given. If that means that we then have to decide whether we’re ok with the idea of giving murderers only ten years in jail, that’s fine, but let’s get to that bridge later, right?

What we really don’t need is someone getting life, but being told they might be out in five years. Probably won’t, but might. It doesn’t send a clear message at all - even though they may never leave prison, everyone else thinks they’ll be out in five. That doesn’t help, it really doesn’t.

Whether or not our legal system is a complete mess or not, is absolutely not the issue here. The issue is as simple as saying one thing when we mean another. Get that sorted first, and a very large problem is solved overnight. Thing is, once this mess is out of the way, you can get to the heart of the sentencing debate and start to look at the really important issues like mandatory minimum sentences and what we should really be doing with dangerous repeat offenders.

It’s only a small step, but boy, what a necessary one.

Ok, I’ve not posted for a while, but seriously, get a load of this.

In the frankly deranged mind of Guantanamo Camp Commander Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the suicide of three Guantanamo inmates is not a tragic loss, or indeed the result of years of legally unsound imprisonment. It is, in fact, an act of Asymmetrical Warfare against the United States.

Well, there you have it. I mean, how do you win a war against a enemy who kill themselves before you get the chance? Frankly I reckon the US might as well throw in the towel right now…

Yes, ok, if we’re talking power relations in a Foucaldian sense then you could suggest that the prisoners have used their only real power over the guards (the power to kill themselves) as a final act of defiance against the decadent West. Or you could use a bit of perspective and look at the conditions these people have been kept in for however many years and the awful sense of uselessness that must invoke, and see any suicide or attempted suicide as simply an act of desperation against boredom, fear, uncertainty and oppression.

But anyway, back to the stupidity - let me suggest a new slogan for the war on terror - Kill all the terrorists, before the evil bastards kill themselves!

Here’s a good plan; when you’re in government and your back’s against the wall, why not try fighting your way out with tough new policy that rides roughshod over civil liberties? I n fact, why not do it so blatantly that it shifts the focus away from the reason why your back was against the wall in the first place?

Let’s face it, Charles Clarke is screwed. With any luck he’ll resign after the local elections, and if he doesn’t, I’ll be amazed if he doesn’t get reshuffled out of the cabinet soon after. Any attempt to rescue his position by the reactionary introduction of new law looks, well, kind of pathetic.

In fact about as pathetic as Blair’s statement in the House of Commons today that the situation was all the Tories fault. At least Cameron had the sense to reply that “People listening to that answer will frankly think it pathetic.” I mean did Blair seriously think that that kind of answer would placate anyone? Really, anyone?

This government is stumbling towards the local elections, lashing out like an angry child seemingly unaware of the gravity of the situation it finds itself. If you can vote tomorrow, do so. And if you can vote tomorrow and think this whole situation is completely unacceptable, vote for anybody else but Labour.

I doubt I’m far wrong in saying that this will go down in history as one of Labour’s worst days ever.

So let’s get this straight; two of them are incompetent, and Prescott is just stupid. I am amazed that Clarke has not already resigned, I would be quite surprised if he doesn’t go at some point over the next few days. We’ll have to wait and see, but I think that mounting pressure will probably be too much.

Hewitt’s decline seems to be a slower one, dying bit by bit at each conference she attends. Her treatment today at a conference for the Royal College of Nursing, out of the ordinary as it was, probably wont be the last time she has to listen to it. From the clips I’ve seen on TV this evening though, Hewitt came across as nothing but annoying and patronising, completely unwilling to listen to any of the criticisms levelled at her. Thick skin might be a good political trait, but there comes a point where even Patricia Hewitt must realise that with so many people seriously opposed to her views on the NHS, it might be time to admit the system is in chaos.

And then there’s Prezza. Now personally, I don’t care whether he’s had an affair or not, and I doubt it’s effected his ability to do his job or anything like that. I also don’t care whether he ferried his secretary around in his car - it’s just not that important as far as I’m concerned. However, considering that Prescott has been anti Tory sleaze for the last decade or so, admitting to an affair doesn’t look too good. Whilst some have suggested it might be a good time to bury the bad news, in my opinion it has only added to the pressure on the Labour party at the worst possible time. In eight days a sizeable portion of the country goes to the polls for the local elections, and there’s no way that today’s events are not going to have an effect on that.

And of course, it is just another day in the life of the slow steady decline of the Labour Party, eerily reminiscent of the Tories before 1997. It’s hard to believe that it wasn’t quite a year ago that Labour won an historic third term with a pretty safe majority and a reform agenda for the next five years. That looks to be in tatters now, with the party pretty much set to limp home: the local elections surely to be the first indicator of this.

We will wait and see. However, there is one question that has arisen today which will surely plague British politics for longer than any other. Why would anyone want to sleep with John Prescott?

People may be interested to see NO2ID’s latest campaign against ID cards. They are asking all those opposed to the introduction of ID cards to Renew For Freedom by renewing their passports in May. Hopefully this will create a surge in the number of passport applications big enough to highlight the number of people who are against compulsory ID cards.

Or it might fall flat on it’s face, as I’m sure the government will claim support for ID cards if the number renewing isn’t particularly high…

Hopefully though, it will provide the catalyst for people who have said “I better renew my passport before then” to actually get around to doing it. Me included.

So 25% of voters “might vote” for the BNP. So what?

The media have obviously had a field day with this story over the weekend - any story where the media can draw comparisons with the Nazi’s and foresee the demise of British politics is obviously going to be too big an opportunity to miss. Cue plenty of commentators rallying against the BNP, and pointing out that it probably shouldn’t be blown out of proportion.
(more…)

So John Reid is calling for changes to the way that the ‘rules of war’ deal with

a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents.

Well fair enough, it’s certainly an area that needs looking at. Problem is, Mr. Reid has decided to stick with the Blairite line and refer to Guantanamo as an ‘anomaly’, when of course what he actually means is ‘absolute bloody disgrace’. It’s a simple mistake, granted, but one which I feel will somehow colour the conclusions that Mr. Reid finally comes to.

Without wishing to state the bleeding obvious, the problems with Guantanamo have absolutely nothing to do with International Law or the Geneva Convention, and just about everything to do with the simple application of power. Petty word games and semantics about ‘unlawful combatants’ quite frankly wouldn’t fly if they were being banded about by anybody else. What we have here is simple Foucault - Power, in that the US can create and maintain such a facility which the international community can do little to oppose, and Control, in that it has spent the last five years trying its level best to convince everybody that terrorism is such a huge and ultimately different threat than before that we are perfectly justified in throwing the rulebook out the window and treating terrorists suspects however we damn well please.

Thing is, we all know that this happens; that in the excise of power the rules don’t always mean too much. Not a lot we can do about it sometimes, other than highlight the abuses and see if they make a difference. Which is why it has surprised me about the extent to which the US (and, especially over Iraq, the UK) have tried to apply a sheen of legality to their actions. I mean, would anybody actually be convinced if the Supreme Court actually turned around and said ‘yep, all above board’? But equally, why do they need to bother? Guantanamo obviously isn’t going anywhere soon, regardless of whether it proves to be legal in the long-run or not. The only suggestion I can make is that the legal cases are just another attempt to Control - but this time aimed at those who may prove less resistant if they believe the action to be legal after all.

Which is why, to be perfectly honest, I think the whole reappraisal of the rules of war is a complete con; misdirection at it’s very best.

I just don’t get it. First off, the government tries to say that passports wont be compulsory because people don’t ‘need’ to have passports. The opposition see it for the lie that it is, and rightly oppose it. Charles Clarke gets laughed at in the house of commons for uttering such a barefaced lie.

Fast forward a couple of weeks. Same situation, the government is now trying to convince everyone that everything about the ID card system is fine, because it will be delayed by four years. This time though, the opposition buys it, hook, line and sinker.

Why? Why, after opposing the bill for so long and forcing the government into ever increasing ridiculousness, after laughing at this country’s Home Secretary for the length to which he was willing to lie for Tony and his bill, after it has been proven time and time again that ID card wont help to stop terrorism, wont reduce crime, will be abused by the police and the government, why did they cave in just like that?

I honestly thought this was going to go all the way to the Parliament Act, and at least to some extent I can hold my head up high and say that my party of choice did try their best to ensure this happened. I completely agree with the comments on Spyblog about the lack of trust over civil liberties from the Tories; slim chance though it was, David Cameron has just lost any chance of getting my vote.

I honestly do not think that I have ever got this riled up about any act or bill or law ever introduced, and that includes the fox hunting ban which I campaigned to be introduced quite passionately. This system will not only destroy a good deal of our ‘civil liberties’ and ‘personal privacy’, but it will almost certainly be a huge failure will gaping security holes which will compromise individuals across the whole country.

I will not carry an ID card, and I will not allow my personal information to be held on any register. I would urge everyone to follow Mat’s ideas below and refuse to vote for any candidate in an upcoming election that will not vote to do away with the national identity register.

News of the day is obviously about the national strike of around 1.5 million public sector workers over the governments decision to remove their right to ‘Rule 85′ and early retirement.

Now let’s just talk for a minute about dangerous precedents shall we? We seem to hear the phrase banded about all over the place as a way of interrupting an argument before it’s even begun - voluntary ID cards, set a dangerous precedent, religious hate laws set a dangerous precedent, but then it often seems that nothing comes of them, or that they can’t be proved either way anyway.

When the government promised to keep Rule 85 for civil servants, teachers, the police etc. they absolutely set a dangerous precedent which has now come back to bite them on the arse. Sir Digby Jones may think that the current strikes are “a disgrace”, (BBC NEWS) but what seems like more a disgrace is the fact that the government is telling one part of it’s workers that they can retire early, and another section that they can’t. Quite simply, that’s not on; it was obvious that this move was going to cause friction from the off, and it was equally obvious that whilst the government might be able to calm some sectors with the promise of early retirement, that they could not do it to all of them. I can’t help but think that it smacks of short-termism - placate one sector at the cost of enraging another just a few months down the line.

The problem of course is that whilst the government is wrong to treat some of it’s workers differently to the others, it is entirely right in saying that not everyone it employs can retire at sixty - not in the current pensions environment where it all looks like we’ll be working to 70ish and millions may face a rather uncomfortable penny-pinching existence. It has to draw a line somewhere and say that early retirement is not an option, and wherever that line is is likely to be a hotly divisive and bitter place. But seriously, drawing that line between your own workers? What were they thinking? Did they really think that people were going to accept this and not complain?

I really hope they didn’t, and that there’s some sort of hidden grand-plan behind all of this, because unless the government gets it’s head around the current pension “crisis” and sees it for the massive issue that it is (and realises that a line cannot be drawn arbitrarily between those who can retire early and those who can’t), today’s pensions strike is going to go down in history as the beginning of the storm than a quick shower which was weathered and quickly forgotten.

You may get the impression that I’m bashing the Tories almost every post at the minute - I’m not really, it’s just the issues that have caught my eye recently.

Take the cash-for-peerages debate at the minute. I could easily write a post attacking Labour sleaze, but then everybody is doing that and frankly we don’t expect much more these days. Labour has been badly wounded by this scandal, but for me, the more interesting thing has been the resulting debate about party funding as a whole. Therefore, what caught my eye far more, was the fact that Tories have announced that they will not be revealing the sources of their loans.

Now that is interesting. Because it means that whilst the Tories are rightly attacking Labour for the way they’ve gone about their finances, the Tories clearly have something to hide themselves by not publishing their own list. This is of concern for obvious reasons, but also because the Conservative party gets around two thirds of it’s funding from donations, whereas Labour’s total donations account for only about one third. Labour has been caught with it’s pants down with the consequence that they’ve been forced to reveal their list, but at least they’ve done it. Just because the Tories don’t have peerages to give out doesn’t excuse from the fact that their finances must still be kept in order. Which, of course, they probably are, but with everything kept closely to their chest, we’ll never know.

Basically, we need far clearer funding of our political parties, without the possibility of loopholes which allow funding to continue via side channels. Personally, I think that the only way to keep political financing transparent is to make public all incoming monies over some reasonably small amount of money like, say, £5000.And that includes gifts and cash in kind like big parties and functions as well as loans and donations. If people want their donations kept quiet, then everybody else should probably be asking why they don’t want their political affiliations known.

Alternatively of course, the parties could just get their membership up and get more money in through membership fees. It isn’t going to happen, but if it did, it might go some way to convincing people that politics is about the people rather than about a small cadre of millionaire businessmen and the politicians they can influence with their money.

I’m posting this about ten minutes before the government vote on the Education and Inspections Bill, but actually I think the big issue about the bill is not the bill itself, but the party political circus surrounding it.

This is, of course, the bill that old Labour should hate, and the fact that it will likely only be passed because of Tory support hasn’t escaped anyone. Especially not DC, who has obviously been playing this situation for all that it’s worth. It is an intelligent game to play, and I’ll admit to having a bit of a chuckle at the idea of a Labour bill being passed thanks to the opposition. I still don’t think it’s actually a good idea though.

Basically, I think Cameron is playing the wrong game. By supporting the bill, the Tories are doing a wonderful job of riling up the Labour backbenches, further strengthening the resolve against Blair within his own party. Fair enough. However what DC isn’t doing is actually engaging in anything like the political issue that is the Education Bill. What I’m trying to say is in order to actually do anything productive as Tory leader, like win an election, Cameron is going to have to come up with some policies and put it to the electorate - for it is they who will eventually decide his fate. Arguing that Labour are just like the Tories is a pretty poor argument with which to win voters over; they all know that already, and the fact that the bill may only go through with Tory support will probably pass them by unnoticed. I mean, the important thing is that it’s another victory for Blair - the finer issue of backbench rivalry and cross-party support probably don’t mean a lot to J Random Voter.

What Cameron is doing by supporting Labour on the bill is keeping Blair in power. What we really need now is continued defeats in the commons for Blair in order to capitalise on the failures that Blair has already had and keep the pressure for him to go piled up as high as possible. Labour defeats are far more powerful than half-victories in the greater political picture; they carry more political weight and discredit Blair where it counts rather than just in his backbenches, many of who hate him anyway.

I noticed yesterday whilst at Sainsburys that we are currently half way through Fairtrade Fortnight, a fact that would almost certainly have escaped me were it not for the prevalence of buy one get one free offers and the usual marketing spiel that accompanies any such promotion. Maybe it’s just me, but that was the first I’d heard of such an event, and I’d guess for many others the situation would be much the same. Not to say that I don’t support Fairtrade, which I think is a very good idea, but so distanced am I from Fairtrade that an event promoting it only comes to my attention through garish adverts in a supermarket. In other words, a well thought out, well intentioned event which I would otherwise support has nearly passed me by, my attention only caught by something miles removed from the actual intention of Fair Trade itself - corporate promotion.

Which got me wondering about politics, and more specifically democracy. Y’see, we are undoubtedly living in something of a Golden Age for democracy, not only is it spread world wide, but it is spread through all levels of the populace and all levels of media. In Britain, not only do we have universal suffrage for all over the acceptable age of 18, but discussion of politics is free and open and can now take place in more ways that ever before. Stop me if you already know where I’m going with this.

People and politics are a million miles apart, perhaps more so because of the fact that politics is now such an integral part of everyday life. Everybody’s at it - newspapers, TV, magazines blogs, moblogs and so on ad infinitum. People are, if they chose to be, more involved in politics now than they ever have been in the past, and the ease of which they can do something is equally great. Now ok, writing a blog or talking in some online forum might not change the world, but at some level it must be increasing people’s political awareness. Some online institutions like They Work For You and Write to Them are brilliant examples of interactive politics and as such as used regularly by many people. However, how much has really changed?

We have government which was elected on a turnout of 61.36%, which in reality obtained its victory on the vote of 21.59% of the electorate. Hardly a defining moment for the democratic process. With all this activity, all this access to the inner working of politics, why do we end up with such a pathetic turnout and a government which can only claim the full support of just over a fifth of the population? Are that many people really just plain bored about politics?

But then the issue of Fairtrade rears it’s head again. I like Fairtrade, I’m a supporter, yet for all the promotion and media interest that there certainly has been in Fairtrade Fortnight, I knew nothing about it. the same can be said about politics. For all the interest, for all the ways of giving information and putting the message across, people only really care if there’s something in it for them. Rousseau said

The people of England regards itself as free; but is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament.

and he was almost right, the people are free all the time, but only seem to choose to act on this during the election of members of parliament. Politics elsewhere seems to be of little interest to many people, and, as the election results show, this interest doesn’t increase too much when there in an election on either.

I don’t know the answer to this problem - indeed the issue of voter apathy has been around for a long while and isn’t gong away any time soon; smarter people than me have tried and failed to figure that one out. The issue, I suppose, it getting people interested in and educated about politics, and not in some cheesy politix for kidz crap either. Perhaps the internet is a good way to do this, maybe blogs and so on really do give access to ‘the common man’ in a way that previous media hasn’t. I guess we have a few more years to the next election to find out. Here’s hoping.

Today, the Associate of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have announced that there is no need to change their policies over the police’s right to shoot to kill a suspected suicide bomber.

Excuse me? They think that the comedy of errors that was the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was the right way to go about defending our streets? I mean seriously, if it was acceptable to kill Menezes on the ‘intelligence’ that was possessed by the Met at the time of his killing, then just about anyone should fear for their life doing just about anything, just about anywhere in London. Take for example the fact that we got our advice on what to do with potential suicide bombers from the Israeli’s (hardly the sanest bunch when it comes to anti-terrorism) and then we actually decided to go one step further by eliminating the need for a police marksman to be able to see a suicide belt before he opens fire. This means that we possess a more extreme anti-suicide bomber policy than the Israelis do, despite the fact that they have a reputation for dealing rather harshly with terrorists and the fact that suicide bombers are much more of a real threat in Jerusalem than they are in London.

But apparently the policy is still good one, not over the top and reactionary in the slightest. Intelligence will be gathered on suspected terrorists, and shoot to kill will still only be used as a last resort. The problem with the Menezes shooting though was that it turned from an intelligence gathering exercise to a live encounter in a very short space of time. There was simply not enough time to put together enough information on the situation and as such mistakes were made. The Met seems to be using this as a defence, they didn’t know radio’s didn’t work, they relied on evidence from an eye-witness, but in fact it is a harsh criticism - no police operation should take place on hearsay or without the right preparation, and the fact that it did resulted in the death of an innocent man. This should be an absolute catastrophe for the Met, but instead ACOP has backed them up and stood by their actions.

We now have, active in this country right as we speak, the right for the police to kill any ’suspected terrorist’ and not held be responsible for their death, supposedly in order to save lives. Where here is innocent until proven guilty, where is the concept of a thousand guilty free rather than one innocent imprisoned? Supporters of Operation Kratos say that a few innocent deaths are acceptable in preventing the deaths of many more, well at the same time, protecting the civil rights and liberties of our country are worth a high price too and people should not have to feel afraid to leave their homes because of the possible threat posed by their own police force.

We will never actually stop suicide bombings, in just the same way we will never stop murder, rape or paedophilia. Introducing totalitarian new laws to try and stop suicide bombings hopefully will never need to be used, but at the same time, they will cause fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst each and every person who carries a rucksack, runs for a train, or avoids the police. We say the terrorists will not destroy our way of life, yet the repercussions of their actions will cause more chaos in the long run than their initial actions ever could. Until we convince the government and the police of this, then as far as I’m concerned we are losing the war, not matter what they say.

The government has today announced it’s plans for a points based immigration system. I don’t see this as an awful measure, to be honest. In fact it’s one of those things that I’m quite surprised hasn’t come into effect a lot sooner, what with it being used in most of the old colonies already.

The main issue, of course, is management of the system. The government’s handling of immigration and asylum so far hasn’t exactly been stellar, and introducing a fairly complicated system to further vet immigration hopefuls might be too much of a challenge for them. So ten out of ten for the idea, zero out of ten for originality, zero out of ten for stealing an idea that Tories were discussing before the last election, and a big ? out of ten for how well the government will actually manage to implement a big new scheme.

The bigger issue though is of course asylum, and this measure will do nothing to help out either asylum or illegal immigration. It may even make illegal immigration more commonplace, as people who would otherwise have been allowed entry no longer qualify and seek to enter illegally instead. And a final point on the new system - online application. So we’re definitely only interested in a certain type of immigrant then, God forbid you don’t have easy access to the internet and would like to move to the UK.

Maybe that’s a little too harsh. I do like this idea for its sensible approach to an otherwise confused and heated topic. Perhaps I’m at the point where I’m so jaded by this government and their big initiatives that even when they come up with a good one, I can’t build up any enthusiasm. Either way, let’s hope the government follows up on this announcement about immigration with a similarly sensible one on asylum, otherwise they are dealing with the easy problem while the hard one goes unsolved.

A safe choice in the election of Sir Menzies Campbell as leader of the Lib Dems today. I think it’s an interesting choice by the party members, and I wonder how much of the selection is based on a desire to have a leader unlike the other two. That being said, Campbell has proved himself plenty of times with his consistence views on Iraq and ID cards, surely things which have appealed to the electorate. He may not set the sky alight, but I’m sure it will be a good move for the party, at least in the short term in order to capitalise as soon as possible on the good election results and the need to pick up the pieces after the election.

He has already gone on record as saying that he will take risks in his party leadership though. I’m guessing he has to say this considering his age (which shouldn’t be an issue, but it is), but if it is more than just expediency, Campbell could really move the party in the right direction. He does have the experience, he does have party trust, and he will give Cameron and Blair a hard time over the big issues.

The spring conference this weekend will surely tell us more. I’ll see what Campbell has in store then, and see how well he manages to stick to this over the coming months. Again, action not words will be the true test, although considering Campbell said this himself on Spotlight (South West BBC news) tonight, I think he realises this and will hopefully distance himself from Labour and the Conservatives in doing his best to deliver it.

Nothing particularly interesting about David Cameron’s new vision for the Conservative Party, so a bit of a let-down for anyone who was thinking this may be some sort of Clause-4 moment for a party on the verge of a comeback.

To be honest, it’s pretty boring stuff. New Labour-esque soundbites such as

Security and freedom must go hand in hand.

and

There is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the state

sound rather good, but tell us squat about what the Tories actually intend to do about them. The title too is obviously chosen for its vagueness - what exactly is Built to Last supposed to instil in me other than reminding me of such other catchphrases as ‘common sense’ and ‘back to basics’.

It’s definitely a ’softer’ Conservatism though - mention of the environment and sustainability is noted, as well as a much reduced emphasis on big business and private investment. Other than that though, it’s really not revolutionary or controversial in the slightest. Die-Hard Tories might be spluttering a bit, but if the Tories want to regain power any time soon, they’ll be ignoring that wing of the party altogether. That being said, I’d have thought trying to differentiate themselves from Labour might have been a good idea right about now, and that’s really not the impression that I’m getting when I read this release.

At the end of the day, it will be actions rather than words that convince anyone as to the worthiness of Cameron’s new party. Which is a good thing, because this release does little to fill me with confidence in terms of the depth of ideas possessed by Dave and co.

At the risk of total flamebait, I must say that I think the suspension of Ken Livingstone from his position of Mayor of London is utterly stupid.

We seem to have situation similar to ‘those’ cartoons; a highly visible figure has made a comment - an unwise and regrettable comment, true - which they have then been called upon to retract. Citing free speech, they have refused, and they have been punished because of this.

Now ok, Livingstone probably shouldn’t have said what he did, but as far as I can see, he broke no laws in saying what he said. What he did do was cause offence, something which I consider an absolutely fundamental right of any society which considers itself to have free speech. What’s more, Livingstone has been democratically elected to office, yet entirely undemocratically removed - no tribunal or faceless board of bureaucrats should be able to override (even temporarily) the decision of seven million voters. I mean, how do they even have this power, and does not the mere existence of this power make the democratic nature of the post a joke in and of itself? I sure as hell wouldn’t vote in an election if I knew my decision could be undone without good reason and the consultation of the electorate.

Quoth Ken:

There will be therefore no apology or expression of regret to the Daily Mail Group… To the Daily Mail group, no-one in Britain is less qualified to complain about anti-Semitism. In truth, those papers were the leading advocate of anti-Semitism in the country for half a century.

I’ll leave to you whether or not you agree with Ken’s comments on the Mail group, and whether it is therefore ironic or not that they should be complaining of anti-semitism considering the history that Livingstone ascribes to them. But I will say that regardless of their stand on anti-semitism, from what I’ve read of the Mail, they are generally quite happy to single out any particular group of individuals and target them with the ‘abuse’ that they consider so unacceptable in this case. What’s more, they do this daily in the press, rather than in a private setting where you may think your comments should be considered private.

Which of course brings into focus the question of whether or not political figures are ever ‘off record’ or whether they in fact represent the position at all times. Enter stage left Prince Charles, recently in court over the publications of his private journals. The argument here of course revolves around whether or not Charles opinions are public interest because of the agreement that the Royal family do not pursue their own political agenda. Frankly, I think this is quite stupid. Of course Charles should be allowed to have his own political opinion, and he can shout it from the rooftops the same as anyone else. Likewise, Charles should be able to make comments (political or otherwise) in private, and not expect to see them plastered all over the newspapers the following morning.

we seem to have ourselves a vicious circle going as far as the press and political figures are concerned. Charles is just one man, whose opinion is no more or less valid than anybody else’s. The papers only report his opinion because he is a famous figure, but then his opinion is only heard because the papers are so keen to report on him because it sells papers. The same goes for Livingstone obviously - my private comments don’t go beyond whoever I voice them to, because I am not important. I consider this a basic freedom though, the freedom to have an opinion which is not scrutinised by the world unless I allow it - like posting it here. We need to get off the backs of public figures and allow them similar privacy, and not create situations from their private life that we would not expect to see a normal individual be bought up for.

It is supposedly the electorate that runs this country, not the media. We would do well to remember that when the latest ’scandal’ hits the headlines.

When you introduce legislation aimed at stopping terrorists.

That’s right, legislation originally brought in to help fast track extraditions of would-be terrorists is now being used to combat white-collar crime. Or, more specifically, legislation bought in to make it easier for terrorists to be extradited to the USA is being used to combat suspected bank fraudsters.

So let’s take a closer look at this:

First off, we have the inevitable yet quite wrong practice of using very aggressive law in an area in which it was not intended to be used. This is legislation accepted on the grounds that it is necessary to combat terrorism, a loss of freedom in some areas to supposedly safeguard freedom in others. So is it acceptable to use this law to combat something as mundane as fraud? No, it isn’t, but tough, because the law is there now and isn’t going to be repealed any time soon.

Secondly, we have the fact that it is now not necessary for the US to provide prima facie evidence in order to get suspects extradited. Let’s leave the America bashing for a second, and overlook the fact that Britain still needs to give probable cause to get a suspect shipped the other way, and instead focus on the fact that British citizens can now be extradited for trial in a foreign country, for a crime that there is no solid evidence that they committed. Obviously the doing away with Habeas Corpus is not enough for the British and US governments; let’s just treat suspects like cattle on the off-chance they are guilty and ship them off to America. Er, no. Perhaps, perhaps you could find a way to justify this in a case of suspected terrorism, but for fraud? It isn’t what the legislation was intended for, and it’s clearly using a forced-through law for political ends.

I said I’d leave the America-bashing alone. In fact I’ll actually leave it to Boris Johnson:

They [the US] can, under the 2003 Extradition Act, Hoover over to America, as if by some electromagnetic power, people against whom they are not obliged to produce any prima facie evidence - whereas we have absolutely no such corresponding right to extradite to Britain suspects that we want to.

And finally, there is also the small matter of this suspected crime being committed by British citizens against a British bank, predominantly sited in Britain. The Enron link, and the fact that some portions of the crime took place in the USA and the Cayman Isles, should not be enough to counter the simple fact that this should be a domestic UK issue. Now, I’m quite sure the US legal system will treat them fairly, and that at the end of the day it probably doesn’t matter which country they get tried in, but there is a principle here - British citizens should not be whisked off to a foreign country for trial, even if it is politically convenient to do so.

So yes, this is what you get for giving up your freedoms!

So the government has just passed a total ban on smoking in public. Surely the repercussions will be far and wide, although it looked ever more likely after similar action in Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Privately, I think this can only be a good thing - I am not a smoker and few of my friends are, I will barely notice the ban. Publicly though, I do believe that it should have been up to the private clubs themselves whether they banned smoking on their premises or not. Banning it on the street and in pubs and clubs is one thing, in a more or less private club behind closed doors, well, I’m not sure that’s the place for government legislation on health issues.

ID cards. Not compulsory, but if you want a passport, you will be receiving an ID card. I see where this is going. The best summation I’ve seen so far from Slashdot; “If you don’t like it, you can’t even leave the country.” I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the Lords say before it’s all final; let’s hope they come up with something special once again. Again, I will revel in the incredulity that is the British Public waiting on the House of Lords to protect their civil liberties…

Video of abuse in Iraq. Actually, I’m not going to say a lot here; I intent to let things run their course and we’ll see in the long run whether the people involved are found guilty. It looks pretty damning at the minute though, I must confess.

Congratulations David Cameron - funniest tagline of the day regarding his wife going into “Labour”. A lighter moment in the midst of all this doom and gloom. Bets on what it is going to be called?

Anyway, I’ll write further later in the week. It’s exasperating; you don’t have anything to write about for a while, then three stories pop up all at once!