The ICR and the refusal of donations from a member of the shooting sports

I have finally received a direct response from the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) on this issue of their refusal to accept a rather hefty donation from a member of the shooting sports. Philip Black (Philip DOT Black AT icr DOT ac DOT uk), the Director of Fundraising, took the time to respond with the following:

We would really like to thank you for taking the time to write to us: your comments have been carefully noted. This was an extremely difficult decision for us to make but we did what we thought was best in the circumstances. Thank you again for your interest.

In reply I sent the following as I do not believe the situation has been satisfactorily resolved. It is in everyones interest that it is:

Philip,

Yes, but what were the circumstances? Did you refuse this donation
simply because the donation came from an aspect of the shooting sports?
If so, does your refusal to accept donations go for the whole of the shooting community or just parts of it? If so, which parts?

Would you also refuse donations from industries that exploit animals
for profit, such as various parts of the food industry? If not, why not?

I have a number of readers who are waiting expectantly and with some
distress for some clarification on this issue.

Currently the fact that the situation is cloudy is resulting in further donations tragically being held back and this situation will only get worse as time goes by without clarification.

Many thanks.

That's an odd nationality

Here's an interesting letter from the office of John Prescott, the deputy Prime Minister. It's from 2002:

"...there is no such nationality as English as laid down by various acts of Parliament and accession. Persons born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom and are therefore British/English."

Of course if I thought for one moment that anyone in England was about to take the word of our political masters on this subject seriously I would begin to get worried. What Prescott's office is asking us to believe is that the Nation of England and the Nationality of the English stopped existing because a few thousand words banged out on a few crappy typewriters by a small number of monkeys.

If for one moment the same people believed that their power-base relied upon the modification of these documents to suddenly re-create England and the English they would do so like a shot.

That's the measure of what they believe nationality to be. In and out of existence at their behest.

Like children they believe in magic.

And some see it as a good thing

So, apparently, the British are not as uncultured and as brutish as our European cousins might think. You see some survey commissioned in Italy found that the Brits are rather super when it comes to the finer things in life.

There I was, just about to embark upon a bit of basking when I realised what those finer things might be:

‘There is a perception that we are uncultured. But it is a myth,’ he insists. ‘There is increasing participation in the arts in this country. Gallery and theatre attendences are rising. They are on the up all the time.

Sounds dreadful.

You remember back in the old days when a fellow would, when making disparaging remarks about the French, allude to those cigarette smoking, dark glasses wearing, street cafe chattering, art 'loving', politically sophisticated, well dressed good for nothings? Well, that's what we have become.

Tragic.

Nice economy, shame about the wealth

We've got such a great economy in Britain haven't we? An astonishing achievement for this New Labour government I'm sure you'll agree. I think you'll also agree that it's even more astonishing, in light of our great economic powerhouse, that the 'average household' got poorer in 2003-2004. As the Times says, this revelation (we knew it was true anyhow - we could feel it) is shocking precisely because it comes out of a clear blue sky.

New Labour, new rules and this one's a humdinger.

The name deserves more

This just goes to show how badly the Tory Party have damaged themselves with all their quisling conservatism. Just as I feel the Tories no longer represent true conservatism they start insisting that people refer to them as The Conservative Party. They say it's to prevent confusion at the ballot box but trust me, that's not where the confusion begins. It begins with their lies about their plans to 'wrestle back' powers from an ever expanding EU and ends with their stated support in principle for ID cards.

With age...

...comes wisdom:

Artist Damien Hirst has said that he thinks that some of his creations have been "silly" and "embarrassing".

Blegging

Tim Worstall asks:

Folks, I really, really need your help. I mean reeeeally. No, I don’t want any of your money, that isn’t what this is about. I want 90 seconds of your time. Is that possible?

Why not pop over to his place and lend him a hand?

In the high street outside this cinema

Apparently, and I have this on good authority, there is some kind of star-chamberish conspiratorial group of people who have managed to end up rulling England somehow. Their code name? The Scottish Raj.

Hmmmm, Scottish Raj.....Sounds good; I'll have a chicken vindaloo and a deep fried mars bar please.

Where do you go when your money is not good enough?

This can't be good news:

The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) has turned down £30,000 raised by Barry Atkinson, a shooting enthusiast who carried out a record 148 days “beating”. The ICR speaks of its concern for “minimising pain and suffering in animals” but apparently told Mr Atkinson that it was worried about animal rights “activists”.

I would say to the ICR that it should be strong in the face of any kind of intimidation, imagined or not. There is a great deal at stake after all.

This is a terrible state of affairs and one has to ask what kind of message the ICR is sending the shooting community in Britain. Do they wish to turn down our donations because of their concern for species of pest and of game or do they wish to turn down our donations because they are worried about animal rights intimidation?

I already feel bad that I can no longer give to the RSPCA like I used to because of their stance on airguns. I almost canceled my monthly donations to Oxfam at one point but, thankfully, the message I was being given was confusing enough for me to gladly let that one slip by. What now with the ICR?

I have contacted the ICR to ask them to clarify this situation. I simply can't believe that the situation has been correctly reported by the Times.

The BBC also carry the story as does Tim over at An Englishman's Castle.

Funding terror - did you ever?

Exactly:

Irish America’s leaders, in other words, are showing exactly the same level of courage as they demonstrated when they looked away for 20 years or more as their supporters dropped $100 bills into the collection buckets so that the IRA could buy the guns and the Semtex that would kill and maim thousands of innocents at a nice safe distance of thousands of miles away.

Who are the other two?

Apparently eight out of 10 voters do not trust politicians to tell the truth. I suspect the other 2 are on the take.

Data protection business scam

We (our new company) have just received a letter from the following company:

D.C.S (ENFORCEMENT SECTION)
CITY BUILDINGS
21-23 OLD HALL STREET
MERSEYSIDE
L3 9BS

The letter begins:

DATA COLLECTION SERVICES
(ENFORCEMENT SECTION)
NOTICE: NEW BUSINESS
NOTIFICATION UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

Our records show you have not yet submitted Notification to the Information Commissioner in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. This act replaces the Data Protection Act 1984.

Failure to register is a criminal offence: on conviction an offender is liable to a maximum fine ot exceeding level five on the criminal justice scale. At present this level is no greater than £5,000.

The Data Protection Act 1998 requires every business processing personal data to register. The Commissioner maintains a register and general description of businesses storing data. If you are processing personal data, (data which relates to a living individual who can be identified) for the following purposes you must register immediately.

The letter goes on to detail these purposes and then says:

Complete and return the form overleaf with your of £95 payable to D.C.S to commence registration immediately.

This company, D.C.S (or DATA COLLECTION SERVICES) are, in my opinion, SCAM ARTISTS. They have nothing to do with any official agency and are just trying to scare businesses into handing over cash for no reason.

Apparently, and we know this because we phoned the official government agency responsible for data protection registration, they have already been subjected to two successful prosecutions but no one has managed to close them down yet.

Scum is a suitable word for these people. If you are a blogger and run a small business (or even a large one) I would appreciate the spreading of the word before any other (and you can bet there have been some) unfortunate individuals fall for their disgraceful tactics.

We all know what they mean

I fully expect the mainstream media to brand people as gun nuts for having their picture taken with perfectly legitimate and legal items. They often classify members of the public, political or not, in this manner to their own discredit. That's one of the reasons why the general advice to sporting shooters is to always turn down any MSM offered opportunity to have them take a picture of you holding your guns. They'll charm you and then crucify you.

It surprises me more when members of the blogosphere propagate this myth.

Double decker

Members of the Campaign for an English Parliament, unlike most politicians, are determined to take the bus to work. The only problem is that the cost of taking this form of transport is now far higher than the two and a half pence that I used to pay when I last caught a bus so they would appreciate a little help. Let's see if we can get three of them to come along at once or, failing that, one to come along on time.

It must be so disappointing for them

Watching this government tangling with the house of Lords is like watching England playing Germany at football. It's heart in the mouth stuff.

There are government victories, but I would never venture to put any serious money on the outcome.

Those disgraceful assemblies

I've recently been in contact with my local council about the subscriptions they pay to the East of England Regional Assembly which is one of the many un-elected European Regions of England that, as the recent vote in the North East has shown, have no mandate to exist. Hertfordshire County Council paid £34,000 of our money to this toadish body.

I was forthright in my communications and they had the courtesy to respond.

You paid £34k. To an agency that we don't want and that has absolutely no mandate? It's criminal.

There is little wonder that people are turning off politics. These artificial European Regions of England are not wanted, as shown by the massive defeat in the North East, and yet they continue to exist.

It's almost as if they hoped we wouldn't notice.

Please, stop paying them before we stop paying you.

Tina Parker replied:

A recent enquiry to the Leader of Hertfordshire County Council elicited the response below:

We pay a subscription of £34,000 to belong to EERA. I have looked at the case for staying in, or coming out of EERA. We could (and if appropriate) will come out of EERA and in that case would seek to persuade other Councils to do the same. However, at present, it is my view that we need to remain in membership, so long as there is a chance of influencing EERA to maintain its current position of withdrawing its endoresement of its own plan.

Regards
Tina Parker
PA to Robert Ellis
Leader of Hertfordshire County Council

Of course, the plan this email refers to is not made clear and we should not draw the conclusion that the plan in any way relates to the destruction of the assembly. It's my guess that it relates to housing instead.

I responded:

Staying in adds legitimacy to a body that has none. Certainly the government would have us believe that it does but legitimacy is derived from the voter who has, yet again, been hoodwinked. Being voted into government does not mean that they have a remit to do as they will and we can see this to be the case as this government and its supporters (active or conspiratorial) go from one constitutional crisis to the next.

To continue to pay money to this body in the hope that it will give something back in return is not a satisfactory position to take. They have been given the proverbial inch.

Many thanks for your response.

The Jaws of the Trap Are Closing

A most enjoyable and enlightening Free Life Commentary from Sean Gabb:

While the metrication law was upheld, this judgment was the first legal victory for the forces of conservatism. The protection of the European Communities Act was of no consequence, since the first euro-sceptic government we have in this country will leave the European Union by explicit repeal. The significance of the judgment is that it prevents the politicians from shredding the Constitution by stealth. Under this judgment, they can still shred it, but only by openly acknowledging what they are about.

The perfect police state

In this world, every conversation you have is automatically recorded. Everything you say or hear is stored in a large database. The name of every person you have ever talked to is noted down as well as how frequently you talk to them. The state has the ability to control how far your voice carries and whether you are able to shout at all. In fact, you are only allowed to communicate with other people using the tools provided by the state. Anything you say can be erased before it reaches another person’s ear. More importantly, anything you say can be instantly altered before it reaches another person’s ear. In fact, you can be coerced to say anything you never said.

The state knows exactly where you are at any given moment. It has the ability to teleport you and imprison you instantaneously and without warning. The state can change your name if it doesn’t like it and provides no way for others to connect your old and new name. More importantly, the state can alter your height, your gender, your age and any other aspect of your physical appearance with a few keystrokes. It can make everyone equal in every aspect of physical appearance and ability.

From The Daedalus Project, the psychology of mmorpgs (massively multiplayer online roll playing games).

Britblog roundup number 4

Tim's BritBlog roundup is up here.

The Passing of a Great Man

Dave Allen, comedian, has passed away in his sleep. I used to love watching him deliver his routines and have missed his particular brand of comedy since his retirement.

May your God go with you.

Mirror, mirror on the wall

Dan Sabbagh (Hey Dan, how's the Googling going?) writes in the Times:

TYPING your name into Google is hardly an exercise for the modest. Until recently, journalists who yielded to the temptation would have found copies of and links to their articles. But the rise of blogging has changed the relationship — a recent search on Google found that somebody had written that one of my articles about podcasting was “quite possibly the most boring one that I have read”.

Criticism that was once simply spoken, or on a bad day expressed by scrunching up the newspaper, is now being published for the world to see — or to put it another way, the power relationship between print and online is tilting towards the internet.

Dan's right. In the old days when the press used to badmouth me and a bunch of other people who had a particular pass time in common (namely shooting) we used to speak to each other about it and, as Dan correctly suggests, we used to scrunch up the papers that peddled the tripe, lies and outright insults.

Now, criticism that was once written and spread throughout the country to be read by millions of people who looked to the trusted established media for opinion, facts and fairness will now be answered using the tools that we have at hand.

Tough luck to some of your media peers Dan old chum (who is likely a nice guy); they've had a run at frothing the masses against one minority group or other in the past and they've gotten away with it because, frankly, having an old moan over a pint and a torn up newspaper very rarely influences one persons opinion on an issue let alone the opinion of hundreds of thousands of people.

Some in the MSM will be looking at the blogosphere right now and they will be moaning. Moaning and completely failing to recognise their own reflection.

Very magnanimous of them

From the Times:

THE Conservatives are to seduce Scottish voters by offering them their share of £4 billion in tax cuts while reassuring them that they would not scrap the controversial Barnett formula.

The pledge means that if the party wins power, it would be willing to risk fuelling English resentment by keeping the Treasury mechanism that results in Scots receiving £1,000 per head more in public spending than voters in England.

Well, I've got to say that I await my Tory bribe with baited breath.

It's a bit thick for a To-Do list

England Expects supplies us with a number of email addresses which, I hope, belong to people that can help me with something I have been wondering about for a while (indeed I am not the only one). These helpful people belong to the "CIDC":

"The CIDC is a special taskforce whose mission is to detect lies, errors and other types of misleading reporting on the EU constitution in the European media".

Here is what I hope they can help me with:

Sirs,

The UK government consistently describes the EU constitution as a tidying up exercise and this phrase is often repeated in the media. This has left me feeling a little concerned.

You see, over here we normally organise tidying up exercises in documents loosely referred to as “plans” or, sometimes, we even relegate them to an appendix of a greater work. On the odd occasion one might even find such a document at the bottom of a filing cabinet stamped with such words as “COMPLETE” or, thankfully less frequently, “INCOMPLETE”.

Some people over here also refer to documents relating to tidying up exercises as “TO DO LISTS”.

These are fitting and well used places for exercises predominantly concerned with tidying up and the tying up loose ends.

For the life of me (and this is where I hope you can help) I cannot grasp why, over there, such documents are referred to as “constitutions”. We would normally reserve a grand document title such as that for more important and far-reaching works. Indeed, in the whole of our history we have been unable to find a cause worthy of such a document, though we have produced a couple of preliminary reports called Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights.

I strongly suspect that the confusion is at my end and that it is my government that has incorrectly described the contents of your governments document.

I hope you can help.

Faithfully,

Apparently some kind of release from the EU?

The target of this little apparent EU ejaculate were the Metric Martyrs:

youre a bunch of fucking luddites. Metric has to win cos thats what welearnt at school. Long live England. long live metric, with 5 metric unitsnames after Uk scientists and 2 Uk directors of the metre bureau. Theimperialists are dead in the water.ps: what in hell are you actually defending? look at great countries likeaustralia and new zealand if you cant stand europe. you luddites inengland make me sick.

The scrote asks what they are defending. I couldn't answer for the Metric Martyrs but for me its simply the freedom to sell produce using traditional and non-metric measures. I would go further and suggest that it should be possible to sell produce by whatever measure you think your customers would be happiest with. It should be possible to do this without the threat of fines and imprisonment and it should be possible to do this without the threat posed by girly council hammer boys.

West Lothian what?

Via Laban Tall we have this posting over at Third Avenue on the West Lothian question and how it is still possible for English MPs to legislate on Scottish issues:

There is a convention [my emphasis] that the UK Parliament does not legislate on Scottish affairs, but there is no rule, no legal bar to prevent Westminster from doing whatever it likes in Scotland.

The UK parliament has the ability to legislate UK wide. In practice it leaves much up to the various parliaments and assemblies that represent their own countries and which legislate for the benefit of the people of those countries. There would be no point in devolution if it did not. Yet issues that have been devolved down to parliaments that represent their own countries are left open to all when relating only to England. Foundation hospitals and tuition fees for instance.

Third Avenue is particularly unhappy about the Tory plans to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on English issues:

What Howard proposes, by contrast, makes the establishment of the Scottish Parliament appear completely trivial. He wishes specifically to deprive UK MPs of the right to vote on bills that the UK parliament is discussing.

I'm not happy about the Tory plans either. Anything less than equality with Scotland will get no quarter here and that means a parliament for the English.

In the meantime we can wonder why no convention exists in the UK parliament that favours English MPs when the vote is on English only matters. Would this framing be more palatable if it were the Tory plan?

After all is said and done

Rockroll update

I've put Mugged by Reality on the blogroll. I don't normally announce such things and I've not read any of Dom's stuff (though I will be sure to now). I have no idea of his politics, his style, his rant-rating (and I can't stress how importand rant-rating is). No, something far better qualifies him for the linkage.

We're rock-brothers (read comments).

Dribbling and giggling right up to the end

David Trimble’s former political advisor, Dr King has much to say on the subject of proper political representation for the nation of England:

It is time MPs from this part of the world who are not nationalists started to campaign for an English Parliament before the Union they cherish crumbles before their eyes.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I agree. I cherish the Union and that is why things simply cannot be allowed to continue as they are because Britain cannot remain Great when its largest country does not have the same level of political representation as the others. Proper representation by politicians for England and proper accountability of politicians to England should, after all this time, not even be a question on the mind of a single individual. The fact that it is now on the minds of a growing number of people is the totally foreseeable result of what devolution has brought us.

Here's a thing. The way the Union used to be was somehow flawed. That is the undeniable belief and admission of this New Labour government. It would not have brought in unfractured devolution for Scotland and Wales if it did not believe this to be the case. Certainly before this fix the Union was asymmetrical but the fact that hardly a peep could be heard about it in your average English castle was a testament to the tuning of the balance. Now, looking back at the fix, what honest politician [sic] can sit back and say "there, that's better"? None can. Even Prescott's loony tunes attempt to break England up into regions was a part way admission that, in all likelihood, the English would notice which end of the stick they were on.

Well, it was noticed. It was also noticed that the English Regions were just smaller versions of the same stick with the English end still as unpalatable as before.

New Labour decided there was a problem with the Union. They took the largest hammer they could find and bashed away at it like a dribbling, giggling baby might bash at a shape puzzle and, eventually, they managed to get their cylinder to fit in the square hole. The toddler's happy but there's something decidedly amok with both the cylinder and the square and the circular hole is left wondering what on earth is wrong with it.

As Gareth said:

'English devolution' was, for a long time, Labour Party parlance for the balkanisation of England - 'England sacrificed at the altar of Unionism' as Michael Knowles so strikingly put it - but here Dr King talks of English devolution as true devolution from Westminster, as was offered to the other nations of the UK. It's quite shameful that these things are articulated better by an Ulster politician, rather than an English one, and that they should be brought to our attention by an Irish blogger, but there we are.....such is life.

And it's a disgrace that English politicians can go to work in the morning without adorning themselves with bling and without covering their faces by wearing a hood or a baseball cap like the vandals that they are.

The repatriation of powers

UKIPwatch points us to this answer by Mr Barroso on the subject of the repatriation of powers to 'member' countries of the EU. The answer is worth including in full and should be kept in mind whenever a politician says that they will wrestle powers back from the EU without leaving the project all together (I'm looking at the Quislings here).

There are only two possibilities to ‘repatriate powers’ to one Member State. The first option is for such a State to withdraw from the European Union. Insofar as the Treaties have been concluded for an unlimited period and provide no specific procedure for withdrawal, an ad hoc procedure would have to be defined.

The second option would be to revise the Treaties. The Treaties set a number of objectives to the European Union and the European Community and give them powers to pursue these objectives. These powers could be revised. The procedure would be to convene a conference of representatives of the governments of all Member States. This conference would have to decide by common accord how the Treaties should be amended. All the Member States would then have to ratify these amendments, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The Conference could decide that some powers would no longer be attributed to the European Union. Upon ratification, each and every Member State would have the possibility to adopt national measures and policies in domains where the Union would have no competence any more. It would also be for them to manage the transnational consequences of their measures. The Conference could also decide that some Member States would not have to participate in some policies of the Union. Such derogations and exemptions could take the form of so-called opt-out or opt-in.

As to the consequences for a Member State of ignoring unilaterally any part of the acquis communautaire and so failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaties, Articles 226 and 227 of the EC Treaty enable the Commission or any other Member State to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. Should the latter find that a Member State has indeed failed to fulfil an obligation under Community law, according to Article 228 of the EC Treaty this Member State must take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the Court. If such measures are not fully and timely taken, a second judgement could impose a lump sum or a penalty payment on it.

It does seem like an either or doesn't it? You're either in or you're out. I mean it does seem rather unlikely that all member countries (note how they use member state) would consistently vote to amend treaties at the request of a UK government particularly when such amendments were of the "less EU" kind.

Obvously, I say this in jest

In this BBC article we find that:

Mr Vaz said it would be "catastrophic" if Britain voted no to the treaty [on the Eu constitution] and all the other states voted yes.

Catastrophic? Who for?

Also in the same article it is argued that the government should be more honest about the EU project and admit that it is mainly a political project and not as economic as we have been led to believe. A kind of hey, ok, we'll start telling the truth now move.

This is just a cynical ploy to cash in on the disenchantment felt by the electorate with politics and politicians. They are hoping that less people will be bothered to get out and vote on purely political matters (the what for's, why bother's and they'll do whatever they want anyhow's may possibly choose to stay in bed instead).

That way a NO vote can be discredited because only a tiny minority of voters bothered to get involved.

Dum, dum, dum. Ayeea.

There it is. A shimmer. Right there. You catch it out of the corner of your eye as you hurry along doing whatever it is that busy and useful people do. The Conspiracy of the Toads briefly reveals itself again:

I rang his [Alan Milburn's] office to find exactly what being a Chancellor of a County actually entails. The creep on the other end of the line rather condescendingly told me that Chancellors of Lancaster don’t actually do any ‘chancelling’ in Lancashire – or anywhere else for that matter. Apparently, it’s just a way of getting no-talent, brown nosed toady mates back into positions of power.

Countdown!

This, textually speaking, is not safe for work but is a hoot, particularly for UK readers who are familiar with the Countdown game show.

My thanks go to my informer.

POWER report in how interested we are in politicians?

The CEP point to this form through which you can provide 'evidence' to the POWER report into Britain's Democracy.

I've filled it in and thought the whole thing read like a "the politicians are not feeling loved any more" bleat. My answers mostly confirmed that tone.

That question on the media had me sniggering. They asked:

3. Some people claim the media breeds cynicism about politics and politicians which discourages political interest and involvement. Is this true? If so, how can the media play a positive role in encouraging political involvement?

I answered:

The media have been behaving like a political party in recent years. They should step away and concentrate on factual information and pure entertainment. Currently they are turning people off by being clearly politically biased either towards the right, or as is more common with the BBC, towards the left.

I also told them where to stick devolution of England into the European Regions of England and informed them that the lack of proper representation for the English will either be fixed soon, or it will be fixed in the distant future, with the dilapidation of the Union measured by the length of the delay.

Why not have a go? Oh. I see. You're not interested. Figures.

First they came for the girls, then they came for the linkage, now they are coming for you

Needless to say most bloggers start blogging for the girls (we are all men after all, or men pretending to be girls) but as blogging matures and new directions are taken blogging begins to serve more altruistic purposes:

For every columnist (to start with) on the serious UK newspapers, I'm going to put together a register of interests. I'm interested in memberships of quangos or other government type jobs, directorships of companies (public or otherwise), consultancy gigs, freebies, invitations to parties, close relationships with MPs or MPs staff or family, or anything else non-day-job related and dodgy.

It's a bit, you know, invasive. I mean digging around for info. on people, hoping to spot issues that, perhaps, can be used to embarrass them and all that. Too much like proper investigative journalism, though I don't suppose that would stop a subject of this most excellent venture kicking up a fuss about how a bunch of manic right-wing so called 'internet' 'diarists' 'or' 'bloggers' were deliberately trying to undermine them. Wake up and smell the fair trade coffee peeps, and don't complain when little people start doing what some of you have been doing since mankind first realised that words had the ability to change what people think about something.

I mean it would be rather revealing if a moral columnist was shown to be a sheep shagger, or worse, on the payroll of some EU organisation or some such.

New Labour pest control

As reported by the Telegraph it seems that pest control should not turn out badly for the pest:

The shooting of woodpigeons and crows may only take place in future only if scaring them has been shown not to work, the Government said yesterday.

...

Countryside organisations were informed by Defra that the wording of the latest general licences, which apply to all shooters, was being changed to read: “This licence can only be relied upon in circumstances where the authorised person can demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable.”

It looks like the caring, sharing, illiberal bias has saturated this particular government department utterly.

I suggest renaming it to pest herding or pest shepherding instead.

The BASC adds that is simply a clarification to show that the general pest license complies with EU law:

The EU Birds Directive protects all birds with two exceptions: “game” shooting, subject to certain conditions such as closed seasons, and pest control under licence where there is no other satisfactory solution. This latter condition has always been implicit in all such licences. The new wording merely makes it explicit in order to show beyond doubt that the general licence complies with European law.

Anyone who has ever been in Italian or Greek shooting party will know how unlikely it is that they, or their government, will take one blind bit of notice of this EU law.

The BASC advises:

“Those who shoot or use traps to control pests do not themselves have to have tried other methods first. In the unlikely event of an authorised person being challenged by the police he would simply have to state that what he was doing was a contribution to crop protection and cite the extensive literature that demonstrates non-lethal methods to be ineffective and impracticable. He might also add that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states in the opening paragraph of the licence “that there is no other satisfactory solution”.

I am sure most shooters can cite the extensive literature. Indeed I myself, only yesterday, spent a good few hours refreshing myself on the subject matter.

Simon Hart adds:

Even by DEFRA's standards Tuesday's announcement of new far-reaching conditions to the Open General Licences, which allow the killing of a number of avian pests including pigeons and corvids, was spectacularly stupid. Less than eight hours before they were due to come into force at midnight on 1st March DEFRA published the new licences to a limited circulation. It became clear that without consultation, and despite the warnings that had been eminating from the Alliance and others for some months, they had chosen to insert a new condition stating that the licences: "can only be relied upon in circumstances where the authorised person can demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable".

All wild birds are protected under the EU Wild Birds Directive. Previously it had been accepted that Open General Licences were issued specifically because the Government was satisfied that there was no other practical solution to a national pest problem other than culling. But at a stroke DEFRA has jettisoned responsibility for justifying the management of such species and placed the onus for demonstrating that ‘non-lethal methods of control are either ineffective or impractical' on individual shooters.

Yesterday DEFRA was desperately backtracking saying: "These exemptions and conditions have not changed in substance as a result of the new general licences". This is clearly nonsense. There was no condition in previous licences about 'non-lethal' alternatives and our legal advice is clear that the new condition is a significant restriction on shooting and makes many forms of pest control completely impractical. The situation does not need spin, either from the Alliance or DEFRA. The new condition means exactly what it means. Every time you kill a crow, magpie, feral pigeon or woodpigeon, among other species, you will have to be able to "demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable".

In practical terms this is of course unworkable and, as with other DEFRA diktats, will be largely ignored. But it is the law and however ridiculous it might seem you could now be arrested and charged for shooting pigeons if you cannot fulfil the condition. Our advice is to be aware of the licence conditions under which you may shoot pest species and be prepared to argue that general culling is the only practical method of control. This is not guaranteed to protect you, but should ward off any but the most malicious prosecutions.

DEFRA got itself into this mess by failing to consult properly on its proposals and has completely ignored the Government's own Code of Practice on consultations. The Alliance has already lodged an official complaint about this, and is also working with the NGO, CLA and other organisations to bring a level of sanity back to the open licence system.

Nothing to look back to

U.K.Future on Mark Steele, a recent guest on BBC TV's Question Time:

But it was Mark Steele who really riled me. Not only is the guy not funny, the normal duty of a supposed comedian, but he helped enshrine my conservatism that little bit further (I bet that was not his aim.) He suffers from what I personally dub "chip on the shoulder syndrome." He was bittter about more or less everything - Labour, Conservatives, the miner’s strike – the guy was like a relic, a stuck record from the days when Arthur Scargill had a supporter, rather than none.

New Little Englanders

It's good to see Iain Murray over at The Edge of England's Sword posting again. He's only been back at it five minutes and has already redefined the term Little Englander:

I therefore propose a redefinition of the term "Little Englander" -- now to mean someone who believes England/ the UK is a small, insignificant power, despite all the abundant evidence to the contrary.

How naming things differently nullifies the Bill of Rights

Neil Herron, as readers will probably know by now, is refusing to pay a traffic penalty charge imposed upon him by Sunderland Council. He quotes the following paragraph from the Bill of Rights 1689 as the reason why the charge is not legal:

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

He’s also using case law to show that the section in the Bill of Rights has not been repealed (which is the real driving force behind this story).

Well, back in August he received a letter from a solicitor for the Council who argued that the quoted section in the Bill of Rights is not applicable. The ticket is not a criminal fine but a civil charge instead.

I’m sure that if we had a time machine we could go back to when the document was drafted and signed and indeed confirm that the solicitor is completely correct and that the creators of the document were not at all interested in preventing government levying punishment charges on people in matters of civil law.

“Well that’s it”, said the scribe. “If you would like to sign here, here, once more here and put the date here we’ll have that crown on your head in no time at all.”

“Great. And so simple. Pass me the quill. No, hang on a minute, there are a few things I’m a little concerned about.”

“Oh. What?”

“Well, the title of the document seems a bit, you know, long. I mean just look at it.”

“Yes, I do understand where your coming from on this one but we worked on it for a number of days and An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown was the best we could come up with. You should have seen some of the other titles.”

“Bad were they?”

“Well, there were a whole bunch of working class types, turnip pickers, mud scroungers and girth cradlers outside last week demanding that we called it The Workers and Workers Families Declaration of Practices, Workers Rights and Implied Cooperation With Working Brothers (and sisters) and Sisters in Workers Associations in this Kingdom. Baldrick wanted to name it after his mother.”

“Oh, well, thank heavens for small mercies.”

“You said there were a few things of concern?”

“Yes, two more. Where it says That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void what exactly does it mean?”

“It means that people can’t be fined unless they are convicted of an offence first. You know, you can’t just get off your horse and start charging people money for dropping cabbages or failing to clean up horse dung without finding them guilty according to proper process.”

“Yes, yes, but instead of fining them can’t I just, you know, charge them a small fee instead without having to find them guilty of anything first?”

“Oh. We hadn’t thought of that. Well, mine is not to reason why. I guess you could. Can you sign now?”

“One more thing. Where it says conviction is it referring to criminal law?”

“Yes. Yes I believe it is”

“But not civil law?”

“What’s that?”

“Well, if you don’t know what it is the document can hardly be referring to it can it?”

“No, I suppose not.”

“So it doesn’t apply to civil law?”

“No, I suppose it doesn’t.”

“Good. Right. I’ll sign it. What’s the date?”

Danger! Danger! (FX: Flappy armed robot voice)

Microsoft says:

"Time is running out!"

"Please note that the mechanism to temporarily disable delivery of Windows XP SP2 is only available for a period of 240 days (eight months) from August 16, 2004. At the end of this period (after April 12, 2005), Windows XP SP2 will be delivered to all Windows XP and Windows XP Service Pack 1 systems."

In their dreams.

I do wonder, however, how long it is before we can't turn off such autoupdate features permanently.

I use third party tools to do most of my stuff on my main PC at home and have no need for continuing Microsoft code injections. Just let them try and get their code past my third party firewall - they wouldn't know where to begin.

The reasons why this is such an issue for me are wide and varied but primarily they are from experience and from experience. Firstly, if something is working to my satisfaction I need compelling arguments to make me change my ways. Secondly, the last time I received an update from microsoft the online game that I was involved in stopped working. A fine balance of graphics card, graphics drivers, usb filter drivers and Direct X code was destroyed, as one might destroy a particularly impressive house of cards.

Lord alone knows what extra compelling features Mircosoft delivered to me with that payload but I can tell you this; no virus has ever caused me so much trouble.

From one crisis to the next

The government’s anti-terror plans have passed through the House of Commons with a reduced majority of 14 and will now proceed to the House of Lords. If, as is expected, the Lords throws the legislation back into the Commons for consideration and the process continues in this manner with the legislation remaining in its current form then the government is left with no choice but to force it through the Lords using the parliament act.

What? Excuse me?

Well why not? If the Commons continues to pass through the legislation then it is clearly the will of our great democracy. No second chamber has the right to treat this great and fair process that so encapsulates the will of the majority of the public of our great group of nations.

Of course, I think that what I have written above is completely untrue in as much as I believe that the House of Lords provides an invaluable service to all of us and should be held in high regard.

I also believe that when arguments have been made and principles have been established, over and over again, on the floor, in the papers, on the radio, on the news, then these principles should be followed or thrown out for the ragged bag of spin and lies that they so obviously were.

The ban on fox hunting was simply a bill, as is the government’s anti-terror plans. It was forced through using the parliament act, with a large commons majority, to the detriment of the processes that have evolved to prevent poor legislation from becoming legislative acts that bind once free people to the will of a larger group of people. The fact that the Lords exists at all recognises and attempts to reduce the effects of one of the weaker aspects of democracy.

The current issue can be described as less divisive due to the lower margins of doubt in the Commons but that is not strictly relevant with respect to the accepted processes and the functioning of this democracy. If the houses are not treated as black boxes with either yay or nay results then the process is impossible to explicitly describe and enshrine in law.

It may not come to this. The government may change the bill so that it becomes acceptable. They may give up on it. What they cannot do is leave it as it is and continue to hand it to the House of Lords without then forcing it through using the parliament act.

Anything else would compound the prejudice shown by this government to a minority group and would be utterly damnable.

I forgot about this. There has to be a delay of 1-2 years before the parliament act can be used:

The Parliament Act 1949 further reduced the delaying power of the Lords, so the position now is that the Lords can only delay a Bill for about two years. In some circumstances, the Commons can present a Bill for Royal Assent after one year, even if the Lords object.

Given that the government urgency on this bill is where it is it is unlikely that they will reach the point where the parliament act can be used. Some other solution will, no doubt, be found.

Please don't suggest the introduction of a new act, the Parliament Act 2005, to reduce the delay time of the Lords to a day or so. Or a few minutes. This, though perhaps attractive to New Labour on the surface, would be subjected to the same 1-2 year delay in the Lords so it wouldn't help their immediate problem.

Oh, how utterly perfect. Anoneumouse, from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle emails with this gem:

No, they don't need to go through the rigmarole of attaining a new Parliament Act. All they have to do, is declare that this is an "emergency" and then force the Bill through by invoking the provisions within the Civil Contingency Act 2004.

Ta da!