One of the blogs on the blogroll is a contradiction in terms. A Tory atheist with a sense of humour. She’s done some nifty wallpapers that amused, I especially liked the Cameron one, and the Brown one will probably be good for many years to come. Go download, before the puppy gets it.
When I started writing at NLE, I wasn’t a member of any particular party; I was fairly disillusioned with the whole process of party politics generally and partizan sniping as a specific. Far too often, politics and politicians seemed to be about what you were opposed to, not what you were in favour of. The more I wrote, and read the thoughts and opinions of others, the more my views and opinions were refined.
Simon (in a comment at Richard’s):
The fight here is not really between the West and Islam, or even between religion and atheism, but between people who want a “clash of civilisations” and those who don’t. Unfortunately it looks like the Pope is on the wrong side.
The problem here isn’t what the pope said. It isn’t that he was taken out of context and misunderstood. It wasn’t that it was an ill-advised remark from the titular head of a major religion who acts and thinks more like a batty old professor.
The problem with the pope is that such a role still exists. People still buy into this junk. It’s not a war between Christians and Muslims, it’s not the West vs the East. It’s the religious versus the sane, the moderates vs the extremists. There’s a simple way to stop the conflict between religions. Abandon God.
Atheism. You know it makes sense.
Don’t bother picking up a poiltical book if you’re going flying now, they’ll confiscate it. Can we hear it for exceeding authority? I think we can. I suspect the days when I could read Michael Moore on a transatlantic flight are gone (as are the days I could afford a translatlantic flight but that’s another issue), we’re only allowed populist pulp on board to read now, anything else makes us a security risk?
Or is this a case of idiotic airport staff in need of a good kicking disciplinary hearing?
This is getting ridiculous. He works as an airline pilot, he checks in to his company’s parnter airline, gets on the plane, falls asleep in business class. Then he gets woken up and told to leave the plane. Now, of course, he may be being paranoid, but when he gets off the plane, the police are there to question him.
One aspect of the alleged bomb plot which has provided a tremedous boost to the atavists, is the so-called “Baby bottle bomb” … there is nothing uniquely Islamic about infanticide. Indeed, in the last two days the news bulletins have covered prominently the stories of a British man who allegedly jumped from a balcony clutching his two children in Crete, and the inquest on a woman who threw herself under her train with her nine year old child.Horrible? Yes. Have Muslims wreaked more horror on the World, either historically or in the last five years, than those professing other religions? No.
The leaks and spin coming from various “sources” bother me as well. If there is actually a plot, if there is evidence, have these guys got a chance of a fair trial? No. You know what that means? No conviction, we can’t get the bastards. If they’re actually guilty (and every day that if gets bigger), then we need to get them jailed. Trial by media is a bad idea, right?
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
(via)
Massive disruption to our travel industry, terror alert to “critical”, airports at a standstill. Why? Because the US intelligence community wanted to arrest people early when there is no immediate threat.
The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader ***** in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would “render” him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.British security was concerned that ***** be taken into custody “in circumstances where there was due process,” according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, ***** was arrested over the objections of the British.
So, that could even cover arrested without due process and with the possibilty that a trial may not now be possible. I’ve deleted his name from the US based report as UK law is very strict about possibilities of prejudicing a trial.
I’m at work (see disruption to travel industry, above), so no analysis. Not sure I can be coherent about this one at the moment anyway.
Not in the mood to write about todays news. Not in the mood to analyse what’s happened. I share Nosemonkey’s cynicism about the timing of todays arrests and yesterdays speech by Reid. He knew it was happening. Bush got in on the act, making a blatent anti-Islamic speech, to which James L. Grant responded:
Almost 3000 people died September 11th.They tell us to be afraid. I’m sure some of you recall that I often poke jibes at the bullshit society of fear here in the USA. It’s been going on a long time, but it’s been substantially worse since the towers fell.
They tell us to be afraid of Extremists for Allah. They tell us to be afraid of planes. They tell us to be afraid of buses. They tell us to be afraid of bombs. They tell us to be afraid of suitcase nukes. They tell us to fear death from above, fear the breown people, fear Islam, fear those who HATES TEH FREEDOM, fear the NAIL CLIPPERS and BOX CUTTERS, fear the MIDDLE EAST, FEAR MOTHERFUCKERS, BATHE IN IT, BREATHE IT, DREAM IT, BE BORN IN FEAR AND FUCKING DIE IN FEAR.
3000 people die of smoking-related disease every 3 days.
3000 people die in car accidents roughly every 29 days.
3000 people burn to death approximately every year or so, give or take some, in accidents involving smoke and fire. Every year, over and over.
And then one day you wake up and realize that you’re less likely to die from a terrorist attack than you are from an infected wisdom tooth.
And you don’t have to be afraid.
Right about then is when you take a look at the media and you get really, really pissed off.
Welcome to the fold, Rubix.
The Politics of Fear is getting to me. I grew up with the real and present danger of the IRA, and those nasty communists with their ICBM nukes. Now, in the absense of a new state based enemy, we’re to fear “global islamic terror”, and fear it so much that we’re to give up a lot of the basic fundamental freedoms that make this country, and indeed much of the west.
The terrorist threats of AQ and other groups is real. But it’s less of a threat to me, directly, than the threat of a car hitting me as I cross the road. I can directly control or stop neither.
That this plot has been caught, and stopped, within the existing framework of laws should show people that we don’t need new laws and restrictions to catch the bastards, we need better resourced and trained officers within the existing framework. John Reid wants us to make more sacrifices in the name of security?
Fuck off John Reid. I won’t give in to terrorism and abandon the basic principles of this country. That you are planning to shows that you have no principles whatsoever.
Following on from my aside mention earlier in the week, also worth linking to the more detailed analysis on of the Threat Levels bollocks on Europhobia. But Jack Thomas’s version is much better.
“We agree that the facts of this case fall clearly on the wrong side of the dividing line. The orders amounted to a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5.“We consider that the reasons given by Mr Justice Sullivan for quashing the orders are compelling.”
Putting someone under house arrest and only allowing them out between 10am and 4pm? Yup, that’s deprivation of liberty. Restricting who can visit them and who they can associate with? Yup, that’s deprivation of liberty as well.
Reid? Charge ‘em or release them. You’d get cross party support to change the law to allow intercept evidence into court. Many other countries allow such evidence, yet in the UK, you simply want to lock away the nasty men without a fair trial. No thanks.
In related news, we welcome back The Politics of Fear (part mcmxvii). Love that domain name; Intelligence.gov.uk. An oxymoron for this lot, surely?
*I apologise to those of my readers that get that reference. Actually, I don’t, but, y’know…
From the comments, mission succesful; although whether we had any influence I don’t know. Regardless, excellent news.
At Justin’s suggestion, I have just sent the following email to John Reid, Home Secretary:
Dr Reid,I know that you’ve met the author of the Rachel in North London website, a victim of the July bombings and organiser of Kings Cross United. You may or not be aware that her passport was either lost or stolen at the memorial commemoration, and she is due to be leaving the country at the end of this week.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/07/lost-my-passport-losing-it-generally.htmlIf you are able to use any influence whatsoever in your position, given her status, a large number of people around the country would very much appreciate it; I’m sure that I will personally still disagree with you politically, but it would certainly up my respect for you personally.
Best regards, Mat
(full name, full address, full contact details as per formal letter)
Please write something similar to:
homesecretary.submissions@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
A few minutes of your time. A much needed break saved. Special treatment? Who cares, she’s gone through enough.
Swamped, again, so a little behind. Yesterday at lunch I read my Independent as usual. In it, a rather, well, mis-informed and ill conceived rant by a certain Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I’m never quite sure where to place her as a commentator; sometimes I find myself agreeing, other times she simply wants to make me scream in frustration. Yesterday was such a day.
I thought at the time that by the time I got home it would have been given more than a few fiskings, but I was only able to start looking for them tonight. The best? This shouldn’t surprise anyone; Dave at the Ministry.
first we really ought to see what Yasmin’s whining about…… which, sorry, doesn’t really amount to much.
His analysis is spot on, go read. I’m not sure I buy into Tim’s opinion that it’s a conspiracy, I suspect it’s more a case that, as Deek Deekster observes, the proverbial chattering classes have noticed that the internet is allowing us poor normal citizens to share our opinions with each other, debate, deconstruct and critique opinion columns, etc.
I think not (obviously). We may not get the biggest readerships compared to columnists, but what is Yasmin’s opinion peace from yesterday? The cause of a bit of discussion, and now, mostly, the proverbial chip wrapping. I can read, get to know, debate and discuss ideas with people across the country, most of whom I’ve never met. We can come to a consensus, agree to differ, work together on issues of common import and, at times, continually, vehemently, disagree.
It’s a bit like the days of the pamphleteers of yore, but I can do it all from the, ahem, comfort of my pokey little flat. I can even share my opinions on Ms Brown’s column draped in a towel and dripping wet from the shower.
I think so, anyway. As does Deekster, a blog new to me:
In the past these true journal-ists would have been writing in isolation, but we contemporary writers are blessed with the modern miracle of interactivity - and frankly this is something that scares the Gucci pants off most hacks, whose idea of interactivity is submitting to an axe-wielding editor.
The beauty of “blogging”? (and what is a blog if not simply a style of managing a website, a different type of publishing tool?) Interactivity, commenting, discourse, analysis.
I can read an article elsewhere, challenge the views put forward, add cogent facts to the debate, link in extra points, question the author on points. And others can do the same here. By being questioned, we analyse. That analysis both improves our ideas and our ability to explain them. I’ve certainly learnt a lot in the 10 months we’ve been running this place.
“Waste of time”? Perhaps. But then, some people waste their time watching Eastenders, reading the DaVinci code or even, *shudder*, writing opinion columns on national newspapers. In 3 months time, my opinion on Yasmin’s article will be there, on this site, cached in Google, found in search engines. Her article on blogging? Locked behind a subscription firewall on a piss-poor website and, being recycled.
Bloggers may have little legs Yasmin, but we have a much longer tail. Besides which, a number of your colleagues on the paper are also bloggers. Some of them are quite good. Maybe, y’know, you could find out more about what it’s really about from them?
Justin on the same subject, rather good in an overall blogging analysis kind of way.
I promise to try and write a substantive article soon. Maybe Thursday. Not sure which Thursday. In the meantime, linkage good, right?
Andrew? Better be careful with that url, some, um, interesting types have register blogPSot.com
Enterprising, innovative. Can’t design a website for shit, but, y’know, can’t have everything. Ye gods, if you’re going to go to the effort of trying to hijack bloggers like that, at least design a site that doesn’t make me want to scream at you, that’s worse than my first efforts, and I suck at web design…
Creating more affordable homesDelivering sustainable communities
Urban regeneration
Tackling poverty and social exclusion
Apparently, anyway. They provide no evidence there, but the results of the full poll are worth a look.
Yes, it’s nasty. I’ve seen comments elsewhere that the constant Prescott attacks are “classist” or “snobbery”. Bollocks, the man’s a pathetic failure without a decent policy success to his name. That’s not snobbery, it’s fact.
a leading scholar on democratization, warned of the “perils of presidentialism.” Presidents, he argued, made for a “winner take all” politics and tended to see themselves in dangerously “plebiscitarian” terms as the living embodiment of the nation’s will and deepest interests. Linz’s special concern was Latin America, which (like the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and much of Africa and Central Asia) has followed the model set by the United States. To his mind, Europe’s more accountable prime ministers — and their parliamentary counterparts in countries like Canada, Japan and Australia — represented a safer institutional alternative.
Reading it requires registration, but that’s free, so worth the effort. Interesting real world analysis to back up my academic interest in the subject; essentially, America set the standard for Presidential systems, but got lucky, because the early Presidents were all great statesmen with experience in government already. For most countries, especially emerging democracies, too much power in the hands of one person, especially one who can claim a rather spurios “mandate” is dangerous, as numerous coups and pwer grabs the world over have shown. Parliamentary systems may be flawed, and open to abuse, but in the long term, they’re both more stable, more democratic, and contain their own checks and balances.
Time, of course, to rebalance the British system.
Liberty Central is on hiatus currently, most of us involved are far too busy*, but when it relaunches, that full article should be one of my early efforts I think.
*Today, I finished work at 6.30pm. Yesterday, I finished at 11.30pm. Yup, 11.30pm on a Sunday, in a nominally office job. It starts to calm down from now on, I’ll be human in August, if the heat goes away.
Via DK I encounter this, worrying, story of an increasing trend in British public life; absolute paranoia when it comes to children and “innapropriate behaviour”. As Chris puts it:
This is unspeakable, seriously. As we withdraw physically from one another and see dangers and threats around every corner, so we become yet more obsessed with “sharing” guilt and grief in an increasingly embarrassing manner, whilst others value the lives of others as nothing more than a punchbag for the culmination of a drunken night on the piss.We are becoming a nation paralysed by paranoia, seeing “paedo’s” behind every door and, in the meantime, our social services turn a blind eye to little girls being beaten, tied up in baths, sexually assaulted and murdered by their own relatives.
What I found most worrying was the report of the diocesan spokesman for his Bishop (Lichfield):
The conclusion that Mr Barrett had acted inappropriately is not a finding of guilt or negligence, but recognition that in today’s climate, previously acceptable innocent behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion.“As the complaint and subsequent police investigation demonstrates, the simple act of a kiss on the cheek - a common greeting throughout the world - has potentially damaging consequences.
Right, a common greeting across the world now has “potentially damaging consequences”. Let’s get this straight, if a young kid, known to me, comes up to me very happy with something (s)he’s done, and I, as my parents and grandparents were wont to do, kiss that child on the cheeks, it’s “potentially damaging”? Because an overly suspicious parent, fed on a diet of tabloid scare stories and misinformation, is convinced that anyone who actually likes children is a potential abuser?
As Paul and I discussed a few months back, the biggest threat in all of this is fear itself. Most abuse happens away from the public eye, behind close doors, and is perpetrated by someone known, not only to the child, but to the parents as well. The idea that a vicar and school governor should be investigated by the police and his diocese for simply congratulating a young girl with a public display of innocent affection is simply wrong.
If, as the spokesman says, this sort of behaviour is now subject to misunderstanding and suspicion, then we need to do something about this. When thugs start using the Cross of St George or the Union flag as part of their racist reportoir, the correct response is not to proclaim such items as racist, but to reclaim them, and assert that they are not racist, that they are worthy symbols. When people use the word “ghay” (pronounced gay) as a synonym for rubbish, the correct response is to reject such homophobic stupidity and assert that being gay is not rubbish.
If people misunderstand public displays of affection, presumably because they are so rare, the correct response is not to promise not to do it again; it’s to do it more often, and ensure that innocent affection is allowed towards children, for without it, their innocence will truly be lost, wrapped up in a safety blanket that hinders their progress.
there are many who still try and hold to the idea of ‘No Platform’, a tactic that I long ago concluded was ultimately counterproductive as efforts to ’silence’ the National Front, BNP and others and prevent then getting their message out only serve to contribute to the false mystique they try to create around their appaling ideas and values in order to convey the impression that they are somehow dealing in ‘forbidden knowledge’ rather than errant, pig-ignorant, bullshit.‘No platform’ also leaves us wide open to the charge that we are censorious and acting as the enemy of free speech, sometimes with some considerable justification, and all too easily leads us into hypocrisy.
He then goes on to cover a specifi case in generality over how racists can abuse the ASBO system. The basic principle of a method of dealing with genuine anti-social behaviour is a good one. But the blunt and open to abuse intstrument we’ve been granted is not a good way to go about it. Especially when it’s this open to abuse.
Today’s colour-coded “Labour idiocy threat level” stands at Puce (middling to high idiocy), a slight decline from last week’s Prescott-inspired Vermillion and the weekend’s ID-card and Super Happy Fun Public Terror Threat Indicator prompted Burundy alerts.
However, for a more serious analysis of the latest addition to the politics of fear, I give you Robert Sharp. Go read.
Right, Craig Murray’s Book is out. To support the assertions he makes in it, he published all the documents on his website. Most of these documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately, they’re also covered by Crown Copyright. That means that you can only republish extracts. He’s been threatened with legal action, which will need the price of a London house to defend in court. So he’s taken them down. They’re mirrored elsewhere already (links below), but those mirrors will also be forced down, as copyright is covered by the Berne conventions. So, there are ways of getting around it. One is a lot of people publishing separate extracts (we’ll work on that), the other? Chris Lightfoot:
If one person can get hold of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, then so can anybody else, simply by making a request to the relevant public authority. Rather than trying to face down the FCO and its lawyers, a better response would be to draft a fill-in-the-blanks Freedom of Information Request, which anybody could email in to the FCO to get their own copy of the key documents perfectly legally. That’s certainly less convenient than simply downloading them off the web — in particular, most government departments make sure they send responses no earlier than the maximum twenty working days permitted under the Act — but there’s a limit to what the government can do to wriggle out of its obligations. If Craig can provide information identifying each document to be used in such a request, I’ll happily build him a website which will allow anybody to send in such a request at the click of a button.
As Chris is one of the MySociety people, and I’ve yet to see a site of his that didn’t impress, this is a damn fine offer.
Assuming it does happen, links to it will of course follow. As will links to the extracts. Now, go buy the book already (seriously, I’m skint, and I’ve no time to go into the library for at least another two weeks).
Mirror sites known as of 22.24BST 20060712:
If you haven’t seen the documents, they’re available here, here, here, here, here, here, and as a bittorrent here.
(via)
Following on from my earlier post, Peter at Liberal Review has more on the Thames Gateway project, and has also prompted a thought. In a very Monty Python Romans vein…
He, personally, has been in a very senior Govt office since 1997. I’m trying to be charitable, I listed a number of his major failures, but he must have managed to implement one policy well, right? He must have got a success somewhere, something he’s got right?
Right?
Linklog