On the Front Foot

Now this is interesting. The usual way that the defence of the shooting sports goes is that someone decides that instead of solving problems it would be far easier to ban the law abiding from doing something. Then the shooting organisations in the UK work behind the scenes. And then the particular branch of shooting that is under threat is made illegal or restricted in some other fashion. Then the problems that the gun-grabbers were trying to solve don't go away or, instead, get worse.

That's why I find this initiative from the Countryside Alliance refreshing. They call it On the Front Foot which offers a new way forward for shooting.

Here is the document that describes the initiative (pdf) and here is some of what it has to say:

The Countryside Alliance recognises that the time has come for a pro-active strategy to promote shooting rather than an old and failing reactive approach that relies only on defence rather than attack. Sometimes, reaction will still be necessary, but through tenacious PR, independent science and unimpeachable research, the Countryside Alliance aims to build the bricks to reinforce our house. Hard-hitting campaigns will take the good news about shooting to the public before they receive the ‘bad’ news from our opponents. Thankfully, the Countryside Alliance’s political and media teams are unrivalled in their level of experience and contacts but the post hunt ban political landscape, combined with the astonishing wealth of the animal rights movement, requires a new approach.

The Countryside Alliance’s strategy has been tailored to provide ammunition on every level for a powerful PR and advertising campaign designed to reach millions of people on a national and local level. More importantly, it will ensure that the messages we are sending are the right ones – hitting home
with maximum effect.

At last.

Into the mind of a Toad

Stephen Pollard provides us with insight into the mind of a Toad. Its got nearly everything; elitism, dislike of the USA, the evil free market, how wrong the voters are.

It's like someone extracted Louis Michel's (the EU Development Commissioner) Toad gland, squeezed the contents into a vial and used it to distil a few drops of pure essence of EU.

Getting from A to D

Via William Heath of Ideal Government we are treated to this little history lesson:

a) in 1984 the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act made it illegal for the police to retain DNA records taken from people who were not subsequently prosecuted or convicted;

b) in 1985 British police started using DNA fingerprinting and gave assurances that samples would be destroyed unless there was a conviction;

c) during the period from 1985 to 2000 the police retained all DNA fingerprint data in clear defiance of PACE; the government was aware that the police were acting illegally

d) in 2001 this government introduced the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which included a clause that authorised and retrospectively legalised 15 years of illegal police activity in retaining the DNA records of people who have not been convicted of any crime.

Today we are treated to assurances about ID cards. Now I’m not saying that the ID card business will turn out to be similar, you know, with assurances broken, liberties taken, information recording expanded and access to information widened and even compromised………No, wait, that’s what I am saying.

One man's equality is another man's complete disbelief

The following image come via the Campaign for an English Parliament blog:

It's real and says:

'To Donald - It was a struggle; it may always be hard; but it was worth it. Scotland and England together on equal terms!'

An utterly astonishing statement that reveals a level of ignorance that only a self interested politician could ever hope to achieve.

Where are the conservatives?

Here is just one example of what I hate about politicians. Tory stated policy is not to oppose ID cards as a matter of principle, indeed they have stated that they actually support them in principle. What they do oppose is the current government’s ID card scheme and they will continue to do so unless it is changed so that it can be favourably judged against five distinct tests.

That is all on the record and no statement has been forthcoming from the Tory party to withdraw from this position.

Then we see the following release from the badly named web site conservatives.com. It takes the form of a pledge by David Davis, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, that a future Tory government would abandon Labour’s controversial ID card scheme. The release is filled with what looks like anti-ID card rhetoric.

….Mr Davis warned that the scheme would "chip away at the basic liberties we would have come to hold dear, and which previous generations fought to protect".

…an incoming Conservative administration would abandon the legislation and scrap the ID card scheme, Mr Davis stressed: "We will not be the party of such a move. The Home Secretary's proposals represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state.

And the marvellous closing paragraph …"They are not just excessive, but also expensive. Not just illiberal, but also impractical. Not just unnecessary, but also unworkable. A vision rather like this was originally set out by a man called Blair who later changed his name to Orwell and wrote a book called 1984. It was supposed to be a warning. This government has used it as a text book."

All fine and dandy and all designed to fool everyone into thinking that they are speaking out against ID cards as a matter of principle. But don’t be fooled, they are not.

There has not been a single statement withdrawing the Tory line of support in principle. All the above release from David Davis has said is that they will abandon the Labour scheme. There is not a single promise (would that be worth anything) or commitment to do anything other than this but, I suspect, most people (including the media) will swallow the line that the Tory party is an anti-ID card party hook, line and sinker.

And that’s what I hate about politicians; the politics. They made a statement of support for the principle because they were concerned that opposing ID cards would turn out to be a vote looser. In order to be able to fight for a position distinct from the Labour party they put up certain conditions to their support allowing them room for manoeuvre should their judgement about public support turn out to be false. Now that it looks like there is trouble ahead for the Labour scheme they come out fully against it using rhetoric designed to look like they are anti-ID card when it is nothing of the sort.

It’s all completely unprincipled. They are giving no lessons in anything other than political manoeuvring and they are darkening the very heart of what it means to be a true conservative (or true socialist or true anything for that matter).

No member of the public has learnt anything about what benefits there might be in a smaller state. No member of the public has witnessing a principled stand by an opposition party that is a real advocate of individual liberty. There has been no real progress in the debate and there have been no converts to the ideals of individual liberty due to anything the Tory party has done.

A conservative party would have made a proper fight of it and many, many people could have had that spark of liberty inside of them turned into a brighter flame.

I hate how these quislings have behaved.

He is like the red weed....crawling, crawling

Next day, the dawn was a brilliant, fiery red and I wandered through the weird and lurid landscape of another planet, for the vegetation that gives Mars its red appearance had taken root on earth. As man had succumbed to the Martians, so our land now succumbed to the red weed.

Wherever there was a stream the red weed clung and grew with frightening voraciousness, its claw-like fronds choking the movement of the water. And then it began to creep like a slimy red animal across the land covering field and ditch and tree and hedgerow with living scarlet feelers, crawling, crawling.

Dear readers,

On this day, 29th June 2005, I do declare that The England Project is a Tim Worstall free zone. By that I mean that Tim will not, under any circumstances, write an article for The England Project and have it published on The England Project.

I feel that this action is necessary to prevent the Tim Worstall Internet authorship virus from spreading any further.

Tim Worstall writes:

You forgot the Globalization Institute!

Where will it end.........

Show me your papers

I lost an auction for a genuine WW2 British ID card yesterday on ebay so I'm a bit upset. I only wanted it out of curiosity though so no real harm done. What I was actually looking for was the WW2 German form of ID that civilians had to have, you know the ones that escaping British prisoners would fashion just before going out through the tunnel. I would then use it as an alternative to carrying my ID in my pants. Instead I would place the UK ID in the old and tattered German "papers" and hand the whole thing over whenever asked for my ID.

If anyone knows where I might get such papers please e-mail me.

Your powers are weak old man

Here is a typical example of how a Toad operates. Having to produce your ID card on the street is distasteful to many and amazingly enough the Home Secretary recognises this as an objection shared by many that dwell in liberati circles. To head these wishy-washy lovers of individual liberty off at the pass he has this to say on the matter:

Mr Clarke hit out at civil liberties' fears, stressing: "There would be no compulsion on anybody to show their ID card in the street."

However, he has been rumbled. His powers of obfuscation are weak, barely hiding what must surely be the closing qualification to his ribbiting statement...........However, if they do not produce their documentation in such a public place they will be compelled to accompany the requesting agent to the police station where the relevant documents can be produced in complete privacy.

Putting words into his mouth? Perhaps, but who will wager that I am wrong?

Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Second Reading

From Hansard (readable form of debates in Parliament) and via Cybershooters comes this little bit of fresh air regarding the government's current plan to restrict another shooting sport in the UK (Libertarians can refer to this entry after any abolition has taken place rather than actually doing something before it happens; it's a service we like to provide to help them document the demise of liberty and freedom in England):

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): Finally, a word or two on the issues surrounding airguns and imitation firearms. Yes, we welcome clause 27. It is important that we have the offence of firing an air weapon beyond premises. It could have been introduced in an earlier statute but was not. In the context of imitation firearms, the point about the overselling of legislation, which was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, can be made. Referring to the use of realistic imitation firearms to threaten others, the Government state in the notes to the Bill:

"There is a range of existing offences and controls in relation to firearms but they have not proved sufficient to halt this trend".

Of course they have not. Legislation on its own does nothing. It is a matter of proper enforcement of existing legislation.

The use of firearms and imitation firearms in pursuance of crime is increasing and it is a very disturbing trend indeed, but the Minister should remember that there are already a dozen existing statutes that allow the police to deal with those who commit offences with both real and imitation firearms. We need point only to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which has been law for over a year and is intended to deal precisely with the problems of possession of imitation firearms in a public place. Why not give it time, to see how it works out?

Let there be no confusion. Using an imitation firearm in the course of crime is treated very harshly by the courts, and rightly so. It is a subject for another day, but the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) put his finger on some interesting points about replica guns and the difficulties involved. We must discuss the matter again in the House.

The Government should address the problem of why the number of prosecutions against offenders with imitation firearms is so woefully low, compared with the number of such crimes that have been reported. I fear that those responsible people who carry out lawful activities—those who collect and deal in replica weapons as their hobby, those youngsters who play innocently with their BB gun, their cap guns and their cowboy guns, those many thousands who enjoy the sport of airsoft—may be punished under the Bill. Damaging them and their lawful activities will not alter the mindset of one single criminal. Who suffers most as a result of crime? Not us in the Chamber, not those who earn well and live in decent areas. Rather, it is the poor and the vulnerable, who are condemned to live in poor quality estates in our urban areas wracked with crime, who are the victims.

If the Government really want to cut crime, they should not simply listen to their advisers and pass more laws. They should listen to those at the sharp end of crime whose advice is simple: put more police on the streets; introduce a genuine zero-tolerance policy on all crime, including low-level crime; free the police from bureaucracy; maintain discipline at school; improve our appalling detection rates, which get worse by the year; and punish heavily those tens of thousands who regularly skip bail and who laugh at the court system and reduce it to chaos. None of that advice involves more legislation; it is all about proper law enforcement.

Let politicians listen to the decent, law-abiding people who live in lawless communities that are fractured by crime. Those people look to us to restore harmony and peace to their lives, which have got worse and worse in the past seven years. They do not look to us for more legislation, more headlines and more initiatives. They want practical action and real enforcement. In short, they need our help, and we must never fail them.

Is this true?

On the Boris Johnson blog it says:

Tomorrow is the big vote: Second Reading of the ID Cards Bill at 9.30/10.00pm.

...

Boris has always been opposed to ID cards and now the Party are fully with him on this; and what with the Lib Dems on board and Labour's majority reduced the result should be tight.

Boris has, as far as I can tell, been against not only the government scheme but also against state imposed ID cards in general. Does and now the Party are fully with him on this mean that the Tories are against state imposed ID cards in principle or just against this particular Labour scheme?

We need to know.

I've received the following reply to my above posting from Melissa at Boris Johnson's office:

Thank you for your comment [trackback] on the Boris-Johnson.com site. Here is a reply to your question from Michael Howard's Office:

The Identity Cards Bill which the Government introduced to Parliament in the last session before the General Election would have established a national ID card scheme in the United Kingdom.

We have always judged the ID cards scheme by five tests: the purpose of the scheme; the technological capability available to Britain; the capability to manage the scheme; the cards’ value for money; and, most importantly, civil liberties – including the database and the security of the system. Adequate time should have been provided to debate these very important issues, but the Government did not allow it. It has failed to answer our five tests. Consequently, the Conservative Party does not support the ID Cards Bill recently re-introduced to the House of Commons by the Government.

So I guess there's no change then.

I think they are saying that an easily managed, technologically feasble, fully secure system using value for money cards where the aim is to identify people to the satisfaction of the government would get Tory support in the current political and social climate.

Well, at least I'm still a conservative.

Arrg, my eyes!

Make sure you are prepared before visiting Wonko's offering for the I keep my ID in my pants compaign.

It's not pretty.

Hugs everyone, and here is your prize

They had a phone in today on BBC Radio 5 Live. It was about sport and what we might need to do to improve our standing on the world stage. Much of it was based around funding, the lack of funding, self belief, something about Empire (when what they actually meant was shared history) and the like. I wasn’t particularly interested in most of it.

Then one man phoned in with his perspective on where the system is failing his young lad who is a bit keen on football. Apparently, and I am as shocked at this as you are likely to be, when playing organised football at school the kids are instructed not to make any tackles. The fear is that the school will face a legal challenge for compensation if someone gets hurt.

Effectively they are not playing football. They seem to have invented an entirely new game. It comes as no great surprise that it’s not exactly conducive to creating a generation of world beaters. Particularly when no-one else in the world plays that particular game.

Expect it on an advertising bill-board near you

Hahaha. The first user submitted graphic for the 1952 Committee I keep my ID in my pants campaign is this from Ian over at An English Shooters Blog.

Thanks Ian.

And from Gareth we have this image regarding biometric ID card scanning. WoW, if you see what I mean.

Parliaments based upon what now?

This is interesting (via Doctorvee).

Talk of 'Englishness' as a cultural identity annoys me, particularly when it's used to justify strengthening 'England' as an administrative region, and even more particularly when it's used to lobby for an English parliament. I've finally managed to put my finger on why.

Many bits of the administrative region called England - London, Cornwall, Yorkshire, Newcastle-and-surroundings, Manchester-and-surroundings, Scouseland-and-surroundings and Cumbria, for starters - all have regional identities that are far stronger than any 'English' identity.

This all then follows into suggestions that regional English parliaments are set up on the basis of local cultural identity rather than a single English Parliament for the whole of England (oddly referred to in the Article as an administrative region called England rather than the country of England):

Re regional assemblies: I'm pretty sure [there was a NO vote for the North East regional assembly] because they a) were bollocks talking shops with no power and b) didn't represent the regional identities that people actually have.

One has to remember when considering how to administer a nation that such administration should not be based around cultural lines. On purely practical grounds it’s because cultures within areas change more often and faster than one might expect particularly in very localised parts of those areas (over periods of decades or, sometimes, even faster). Immigration is part of the reason for this and so is migration to different areas. Though I accept that many areas of England do hold on to localised cultures for significant periods this is by no means something that can be relied upon. Nor should it be. Most administrative structures based around cultural identity will, after time, find themselves having to change with the culture change if they are to be culturally representative and this will quite possibly lead to friction and, unless the cultural change is right across the region, impossible to do in a fully representative manner. Of course this goes for national parliaments but they do not exist on the basis of a cultural remit to administer.

Another reason why cultural based administration is not necessarily a good thing is because it would, by its very nature and by its very reason for existing, have to base its policy on cultural grounds. If it did not then there would be no point in using culture as a basis for defining administrative regions. This is a particularly unfair administrative remit, and yet it is the only remit that a culturally based administration could reasonably follow. It’s unfair on minority groups within the area, unfair on immigrants than move to the area and generally unhealthy in my opinion.

Another issue I have with this whole notion is that it attempts to define England by artificial political administration. Nations are generally (except during major upheaval) defined by their traditional borders and I think most people are happy with that. Of course borders are artificial but they are there, they are clearly defined and, more to the point, accepted. The writer of the article I linked to has this to say about what people think:

There are far more people in the administrative region called England who loathe this concept of 'Englishness' than there are people who follow it.

I very much doubt that this particular form of racism is as rife as the author suggests but whether it is or not if one were to ask people if they would be happy for the borders of England to be changed I expect the answer would be a resounding no and that is because most of these people define their nationality by their country of birth (or adoption) which is defined by its borders. If you were to ask everyone in the whole of the English nation if they considered their nationality English I suspect you would get far more answering yes. To try and define England by Englishness is to ask the wrong question. England is a country in a Union of countries and its citizens/subjects are English. Unless, of course, they don’t want to be but this is no different for any other nation on the Earth and is, once again, nothing to do with Englishness.

The question about using artificial regions over and above those that already exist to administer areas of so called cultural identity has already been tested somewhat in the North East of England (a geographical location with an extremely strong culture) and the answer given was a significant blow to those politicians who thought these artificial regions a good idea.

Many nation states have strong cultural subcultures and localised identities (Italy, for instance) and most still use the usual model of administration via single parliaments. An argument against a single parliament for England on cultural grounds must also follow for all other countries with culturally flavoured areas. It’s a plan fraught with danger. It has more to do with representation because of common culture and less to do with representation of people within nation states in-spite of their differences.

I agree with the author that calls for an English Parliament should not be based on purely cultural grounds and that use of the word Englishness as used in Garry Bushell’s article is not helpful (though it was not the bulk of his article).

It’s not about Englishness chaps any more than it is about being a gypsy, or being an easily tanned person with foreign parents such as myself. It is about a country called England and its citizens/subjects and the fact that some countries in the Union have political representation in the form of a parliament and assemblies and are benefiting from them when another member country of the Union does not.

I define my nationality by my country and that country is England. I want my nation to have equal representation in the Union as a nation (lust like all the others). It’s an issue framed by nations. Why should one nation have a parliament in the union and not the others? Cultural arguments simply do not wash because to have them one has to accept that only countries that have a single and strong cultural identity should have a national parliament.

As an aside:

Here is an interesting question that I have discussed long and hard with friends in the past. If you believe that England has less of a cultural identity than other countries in the Union then ask yourself why? How is it that, as an example (and if you believe it) Scotland has managed to maintain a strong cultural identity over a period of a number of centuries while England has not? It’s a fascinating question with a number of very interesting possible answers.

Thus far and no further - it's too late for that. Symetry in the Union and fairness requires the gaining of lost ground

This is good (Via the EDP):

By Garry Bushell – June 2005

England is in trouble. We can’t trust our politicians. Our democratic rights are being steadily eroded. Our culture and heritage are neglected and sneered at. Even the fundamental concept of England as a nation is under threat.

That’s why I am standing for the English Democrats in the Staffordshire South Delayed Parliamentary Election.

I want to highlight the problems facing the English people and offer a viable alternative.

First of all, we need an English parliament.

Why English as opposed to British? Because devolution has already changed the nature of our democracy and under the current set-up English tax-payers are being stiffed.

New Labour gave the Scots their own expensive parliament (and set up assemblies for the Welsh and Northern Ireland), but they’ve neglected the needs and interests of English voters.

Scottish MPs at Westminster can now vote on purely English affairs and force policies on English voters against our wishes, and yet English MPs have no say on purely Scottish affairs.

The UK parliament is heavily weighted in favour of the Scots because of something called the Barnett Formula.

Devised by Lord Barnett and introduced in 1978, this effectively means English tax-payers bankroll the rest of the UK. For example, the Barnett formula diverts about £8 billion of extra public expenditure to Scotland each year.

So the Scots enjoy a subsidy averaging £30 per person per week.

This has meant smaller class sizes in Scotland, higher pay for teachers, no top-up fees for students, shorter hospital waiting lists, and the availability of prescription drugs and surgical procedures which are unavailable in England on grounds of cost.

In 1999, government spending was £1,089 per head more in Scotland than England. Now, despite devolution, the gap will be £1,368.

Look at the differences in expenditure per head on essential services between England and Scotland. General public services, England: £90; Scotland: £175. Transport, England £297, Scotland £386. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry, England: £78, Scotland: £144. Housing and community amenities, England: £114, Scotland: £169. And so it goes on.

Even Lord Barnett has disowned the set-up, saying: “It is a great embarrassment to have my name attached to so unfair a system.”

New Labour’s answer came from John Prescott, a Welshman, who wanted to break England up into nine regions.

The North East referendum told Two Jags decisively where to go. The English don’t want to be split up into artificial regions. We have our own nation with a real historic identity and most of us have no wish to be robbed of it, no matter how convenient that would be for those Quisling politicians eager to feed us more quickly into the Euro-mincer.

Secondly, there is the question of Englishness.

Our political masters seem to think there is something wrong about being English. While Scottish patriotism is encouraged and rewarded, English patriotism is frowned at. Look at the last census. You could tick a box marked 'Scottish', there was also one for 'Irish' but you looked in vain for ‘English.’

Our pub landlords can’t even get extensions for St George’s Day.

As a people the English aren’t given to chest beating. Reserve and restraint are as much English qualities as inventiveness and enterprise. But most of us resent the way our heritage is sneered at by the chattering classes. Why shouldn’t we have one day a year when we can celebrate all that’s great about our culture?

English patriotism doesn’t mean hating other countries and other peoples. It’s about loving our own. OK, not many of us know more than the first two lines of There'll Always Be An England, but we do know that our country gave the world Shakespeare, Kipling, football, cricket, rugby, tennis, the Beatles, Elgar, Joe Strummer and Dickens.

As Ian Dury once sang: "There are jewels in the crown of England's glory, too numerous to mention, but a few."

For left-wing intellectuals though, the Cross of St George is tainted by memories of empire (even though the Royal Navy smashed the slave trade). It has been like this for decades. More than 50 years ago, George Orwell wrote that "England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their nationality."

These out-of-touch fools don't even know the roots of their own radicalism. For every Francis Drake in English history there was a Wat Tyler. For every Wellington there was a Captain Swing.

Military achievement understandably shaped our self image. The stout Yeomen of England have been beating off invaders for centuries. We saw off Bonaparte and smashed the Spanish Armada. But England gave the world parliamentary democracy and the trade unions too.

And it’s the rights our fore-fathers fought for, that they paid for with their blood and sweat and sacrifice that are now at threat from this ‘Labour’ government and its Brussels masters.

The English are strong-willed people, rightly proud of our traditions of free speech and tolerance. Keith Waterhouse, one of the greatest living Englishmen, defined our national characteristic as "constructive bloody-mindedness", illustrated by the phrase "thus far and no further.”

I believe it is time to say that now, to draw a line in the sand and make a stand for the country we love.

I’m not European. I was born English and I will die English. And I am standing in this election to draw attention to the urgent need to reform the way England is governed.

I believe absolutely in the rights of the English people to rule ourselves and to celebrate our culture, history, and traditions including free speech, free assembly, habeas corpus and the right to trial by jury.

There’ll always be an England? I used to think that. But only the English people can ensure it.

We have to act now to safeguard our heritage and our democratic rights and carve out an independent English future.

END

PRESS RELEASE: The 1952 Committee announces its campaign

BEGINS

The Star Chamber of the 1952 Committee is pleased to announce its first non-party aligned anti ID card initiative which is open to all opponents of the state’s ID card scheme regardless of party loyalty or party political apathy.

Introducing the “I keep my ID in my pants” campaign.

Many on the freedom loving side of the ID card debate cannot in good faith declare their intention to refuse to apply for an ID card as instructed to by the state and its agents if and when the ID card bill is passed as an act of Toad Hall in Westminster. The 1952 Committee recognise that there are a number of valid reasons for this stance by objectors to the scheme and, in its highly improbable remit as an all inclusive organisation, offers objectors this alternative.

To join this scheme all that’s required is that members declare the following intent:

When the occasion suits me, and when the opportunity arises, I will endeavour to carry my ID card in my pants. Whenever I am required to provide my ID card to an agent of the state, or to an agent of a private organisation cooperating with the state, I will without prejudice or delay reach into my pants, withdraw my card, and present it to the agent.

In recognition of the humanity of these anti freedom agents I will not deliberately make my card look skanky, deface my card with pants related artefacts or otherwise treat my card in any manner different from someone who carries their card on any other part of their body. I will simply carry it in my pants as is my right.

The state weaves an impressive lattice of legislation and it is quite possible that anti pant carrying law already exists. Whether it does or not is, as we all know, by-the-by as legislating against pant carrying requires a simple wave of the well used ban stick. Rest assured that we are determined to test any such discriminatory legislation to its fullest if and when the need arises.

ENDS

There will hopefully follow a number of campaign slogans and graphics which can be used to support this campaign.

To our readers in the USA. Over here in England pants means those undergarments worn under trousers (your pants) that act as a barrier between ones nether regions and said trousers (your pants).

Pants, in the context of this campaign, includes knickers, panties, boxers, jock straps and any other items that are considered to be in the spirit of the campaign.

It must be killing them

I'm sitting here wondering who will be the first statist lovebunny to blame the banning of demonstrations outside parliament on the fox hunters. I bet there are a few out there who are trying to reconcile their burning desire to give it to the posh with their fundamental belief that shouting and screaming from close range at the political elite is the duty of every man that has ever got his hands dirty.

They fail and fail and fail and then they challenge us?

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation have been to see the Scottish Justice Minister regarding airgun controls. During this meeting the BASC and the government representative issued a challenge to the shooting community:

The specific challenge to the shooting community was that the responsible majority should help to find a solution.

On one of the airgunning forums that this challenge was issued I took the opportunity to reply and include my reply here.

The government thinks that smoking is bad for us and for all tax payers. It has spent years telling us so and has spent countless millions on educational material and on TV advertising. Only recently has it begun to push through legislation now that the majority have been educated out of the habit.

The government thinks that drinking should only be done in moderation. To do otherwise is unhealthy and a waste of state resources. It is also inconvenient to the local community. It has spent countless millions telling us so, a great proportion of which has been spent on TV advertising. Legislation in this area is conservative and does not generally change for very long periods.

The government wishes us to collect all benefits that we have coming to us. Tax credits galore. This grab-able bounty is seen as so important to society that the government has spent much of what is left of our cash advertising the fact on TV. Take what's coming to you; it's yours!

The mayor of London wishes us to share communal transport. Get out of your car! Look, your other one is a bus! He has spent a great deal of money telling us so and the government has spent the best part of the last 2 decades educating us on the evils of unnecessary car use. Legislation in this area is usually in the form of taking more of our money but does not prevent anyone wishing to use a car from doing so (they can use their collected tax credit bounty for petrol even).

The government’s track record on shooting and gun ownership does not follow the same criteria as these other state crusades. Some people are misusing equipment that millions of others use perfectly reasonably. Do they try to educate? Do they run TV ads? Do they make sure every school child knows about the issue and how evil it is to fire their airgun out of their bedroom window at passing strangers? The kids are already experts in all kinds of government sponsored areas of greater complexity than not to shoot at strangers.

No, they do not. Since 1921 they have done nothing but legislate, legislate, legislate while destroying at every opportunity the chance for kids to learn about safe usage of airguns. Scouts and cubs are now subjected to safe BBQ training and outbound courses on badger appreciation but the opportunity to be educated about safe airgun usage is diminishing with every passing decree.

Educate, educate, educate. This is the government’s preferred method of dissuading and encouraging all kinds of behaviour in its citizens and it should extend to safe and proper usage of airguns. Sheesh, they have been banging on at how much of a problem it is for long enough.

You “challenge” the “shooting community” to “help find a solution” (holy smokes, there is a phrase built for use by a politician if I ever heard one). Well, there it is. Above this paragraph in nice, easy to use text. Print it out (unless of course you don’t read these forums and hence don’t notice that your challenge has been taken up). Take it to our masters at toad hall and see if they have the credibility and the political courage to actually help solve problems instead of throwing more and more of us to the wolves.

ICR and its refusal to accept donations

I've not received a reply yet from the ICR about any appeals process to their refusal to allow me information about this issue under the freedom of information act.

What I can say is that, at last and to their great credit, another Cancer charity has accepted the donation. Well done Cancer Research UK, who in the eyes of the ICR must be either extremely brave or negligent in the protection of their staff. We at the England Project believe they are just doing what any reasonable charity would do when offered a big wad of cash. Once again, well done Cancer Research UK (please take note all shooters and sympathisers):

16:00 - 14 June 2005
A Fund-raiser is delighted after finding a cancer charity which will accept a £30,000 donation.

Hunting enthusiast Barry Atkinson raised a total of £60,000 through a series of bird shoots and wanted to give half to the Institute of Cancer Research.

But the charity refused to accept it, saying they did not approve of how it had been raised.

Mr Atkinson, 61, is now giving it to another charity - Cancer Research UK. He wanted it to go to a cancer charity because his father Arnold died of the disease and his dog Spider had been diagnosed with a tumour. The fund-raising drive was named Spider's Appeal.

A presentation has been arranged at Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire, at 10am on Thursday, June 30. The Duchess of Rutland will hand over the money on his behalf.

Mr Atkinson, an artist and recently retired teacher who lives in Norwell, near Newark, said:

"It is just a nice feeling that we seem to be emerging from this very negative and stagnant situation with the Institute. Things look far more positive with Cancer Research UK so I am assuming we are going to stick with them."

The other £30,000 raised in the shoots was given to the National Gamekeepers' Organisation's Charitable Trust.

The toads of Toad Hall

Sir,

No unauthorised protests outside parliament? You people really are as ridiculous as my father said you were all those years ago.

Faithfully,

...mantained the batle at the verey musels of the Canon

A letter from Robert Sands, a 17-year-old "powder monkey":

Then Victory came under heavy attack: "Our After magesene [magazine] skreens took fire and burnt the Leftanant of mereans [Marines] badley. I had jest left thair wen the exploshon took place. The men Inside the skreens was burnt to deth. . . Then I had to go to the fore magesene for my powder wilst the Victory Engaged the Redoutable on the starboard side. . .

"The Example of the Admerel was universely folowed by the British Captains, they broke into the Enemys Line on Everey side, Engaged 2 or three ships at a time and mantained the batle at the verey musels [muzzles] of the Canon."

It's completely predictable behaviour

I mean, that's what happens when a toad sees a bigger pond. He jumps.

Creative literary inspiration found in the Sunday Herald

Via Gareth we notice this astonishing bit of dunghackery* by Ian MacWhirter in the Sunday Herald (a paper apparently without an editor):

...a lot of senior Tories don’t warm to Davis, who is regarded as a bit of a big mouth, and a bully whose recent moderation doesn’t entirely suit him. He also had some hard-right political tendencies in the past, such as the campaign for an English parliament.

Now, I have seen many opinions describing various things as hard-right in the past but this is one of the more ill-educated of those opinions. Quick, we need to find out from Mr MacWhirter what it is about equality and the return of symmetry to the Union that he finds hard-right. Or does he think that every nation with it's own parliament is a hard-right nation? We demand an explanation.

* Dunghackery - heh, just invented it (in the same way that MacWhirter invents things). Meaning: to write crap with the specific intent of discrediting something or someone by making up crap to write. See 'writing' and 'crap'. Also see dung.

Grasping, seeking, anything, any reason

Hey, quick, go and take a look at Councillor Bob Piper's 'destruction' of the USA as a civilising force in the world. Devastating is a word in the dictionary. It won't be needed today.

I've been tagged

Stuart has tagged me on this book questionnaire that has been doing the rounds.

How many books do I own?

It’s difficult to say. Many of my books are languishing in the loft. I would say about 154.

What’s the last book I bought?

The Runes Of The Earth: The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen Donaldson.

What’s the last book I read?

A Brief History of Crime by Peter Hitchens.

What are the five books that mean the most to me?

What kind of damn lefty touchy feely question is that to ask a grown man? Sheesh, might as well ask me about my inner feelings or inquire into which films make me cry (Starship Troopers).

1. My cheque book.

2. Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card. The best science fiction book I have ever read. All this nonsense about Neuromancer is peddled by people who either didn’t read Ender’s Game or who didn’t understand it.

3. The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever by Stephen Donaldson. No other book has left such a memory of flavour than this one. If you don’t know what I mean by that then you shouldn’t go round asking people touchy feely questions. Buy the Guardian instead, though if you really want to know how to go about self-hatred the Guardian comes a poor second to The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever.

4. I read a book called Little, Big by John Crowley once. I can’t remember much about it other than how amazing it was. It too had a flavour that lingers. I’ve just noticed that it’s back in print at long last so I’m going to buy it. My previous efforts to track down a copy a few years ago failed. Thanks for tagging me Stuart. If nothing else it has turned up this gem.

5. Another class SF novel was The Real Story by Stephen Donaldson. Swashbuckling is one word that describes it well. Utterly enjoyable, easy to read and the best leap from fantasy to Sci-Fi ever in the world of fantasy to Sci-Fi leaps. It leads on to the rest of the “Gap” series of novels which is some of the best made up political stuff I have read. More entertaining than “Yes minister”, more accurate than the Guardian.

6. (Because 1 was a little unfair) Ringworld by Larry Niven. Yes, I like science fiction. If you think that makes me a bad person then you haven’t read the books I have read. Stop reading those books about Churchill and the welfare state. They’ll teach you nothing.

It’s interesting, but is it a phenomenon

One of my very first encounters with samizdata.net occurred in the comments section of an entry that derided sporting shooters for their poor defence of pistol shooting. I can’t find the article and my memory begins to fade but I think the general theme was that sporting pistol shooters were arguing the wrong case when pistols were banned. They should have been arguing for the retention of their fundamental rights to have these guns for self defence not simply for punching holes in paper targets at impossible distances.

I argued for the sporting shot whose sole interest in retaining use of their pistols was for sporting purposes. They did not have them for self defence purposes and it would have been dishonest for them to argue on that basis. I believe David Carr conceded that there was meat to my argument.

I have cast my mind back to this incident because of the current threat to another branch of shooting in England (yes, it seems to be the topic of this blog at present) and I have been reflecting upon my journey of discovery that I began as a disaffected shooter with my original and now erased (though I have a copy) web site.

From one search engine to another, from one article to another, from one web site to another eventually leading me to the Libertarian Alliance, Dr. Sean Gabb and subsequently to samizdata.net (still some of my fondest sources of well written material of topical political interest).

This lead me to flirt with libertarianism, the entrance examination for which I would be sure to fail for any number of reasons.

The world of libertarianism is filled with justifiable lament for the state of the gun control laws in this country and many well thought out articles and missives exist deriding the continual infringement of the state on the civilian and the utter failure of the state to reign in gun crime even with some of the most restrictive firearms legislation on the Earth. It makes depressing reading.

And yet most of this material seems to be after the fact, by its very definition too late to have any affect on anything but subsequent stages of infringement. I find it odd.

Where is the libertarian blogging on the subject of the new threat? Where is the incisive commentary from the other freedom loving blogs?

Once again I see a couple of branches of the shooting sports on fire with discussion and worry about further loss and with one or two exceptions the blogosphere in England is like a dusty town in the old west complete with tumbleweed.

I am sure that after the fact, when criminal activity with replica firearms (bb guns etc) continues, the freedom loving blogosphere will be first to respond to articles in the Guardian and the Times with “but you can’t buy those in England anymore” and “it just goes to show that only the law abiding abide by the law”. That will be then (as it has always been) but what about now?

Silence. Quiet.

The ban on replicas, the sport of Airsoft and airgunning

I frequent a number of shooting forums on the Internet. Here is a copy of my most recent posting to my local Airsoft forum, the members of which are just beginning to realise what it feels like to be lead up the long stone staircase to the alter of sacrifice:

I frequent another forum which is about airguns. On that forum I've seen talk about how this bill isn't so bad. There seems to be a general lack of support for airsoft in the same way that there was a lack of cross disciplne support when handguns were banned. There is one thing I cannot stand and that is a lack of cross disciplne support. It has been and will continue to be the death of all shooting in England. Here is my reply to one poster:

Let me say why the ban on imitation firearms will affect airgunning in the mid term.

The press believe that replica handguns are being banned. This is false for two reasons. Firstly it is the sale that is being banned not ownership and secondly the press believe that all air pistols and c02 pistols are 'replicas'. They are not, they are classified as firearms.

Now, criminals will continue to use replicas, air pistols and 'real TV' guns regardless of what the law says. They can be excluded from the picture completely.

What can not be excluded is the kids and idiots that want to carry these things in public and generally fool around. They will no longer be able to get hold of items such as airsoft replicas through any legal means. Have a think about what this means and what they will then do.

That's right; co2 pistols. Just as realistic as airsoft and the real thing and that is where they are going to satisfy their desires. Never mind that it breaks the law, they were doing that by carrying their replicas around in public without good reason.

These pistols are far more lethal than the airsoft variety. Incidents of dangerous injury or even death will increase. Incidents of the police out on the streets being faced with these lesser firearms but greater replicas will increase.

The press will start sounding off about loopholes allowing lethal guns on the streets when toy ones are banned.

ACPO will get all political again, the politicians will follow suit and sporting airgun users will be sacrificed again at the alter of political expediency.

That is why we should never give an inch. That is why our shooting organisations should fight like lions for all minority shooting rights.

That is why all shooters should do likewise.

If they don't they will loose in the end game.

On the subject of the proposed ban on airsoft the way this is happening is another example of why all shooters need to stick together.

When the goverment banned pistol shooting they compensated the shooters for their equipment. This turned out to be expensive and prompted the government to use a different tact when they decided to ban air cartridge weapons. Instead of banning them outright the government licensed existing owners and banned the sale and manufacturing of the guns.

They have chosen a similar tact for airsoft (excluding licensing) now that this precedent has been set. It was virtually unchallenged in parliament at the time and now means that the government can destroy virtually any shooting sport for political expediency without having it cost them anything.

Airsofters are now in the frame. It won't be long until it is Co2 (and other) pistols.

On a more personal note; I have been in this game of shooting and politics for a long time to the detriment of my health. My journey to the dark side of disaffection with the government and the political process is now complete. I will no longer cooperate with the state or any agent of the state unless by withholding my cooperation I am seen to be breaking the law. That is the result of decades belonging to a politically incorrect minority group in this country.

Something to consider

I will not cooperate with the state or any agent of the state unless by withholding my cooperation I am seen to be breaking the law.

Sometimes it is hard to believe

My conclusion is that these two police officers were either extremely brave in deciding to approach this gun wielding individual or they knew the gun was a toy and decided to get all drama queen on the kid. Either way they were clearly to lazy to actually put their desk sergeant’s money where their mouths (or asses) were.

"One officer spoke sharply to my son and said that he could arrest him, but because he was going off duty it would be too much paper work.

"We have always told our children the police are here to help us. But I think our son finds that hard to believe at the moment."

In reply to criticism about the incident police said:

Mr Astley was welcome to lodge a formal complaint.

We used to say similar things in the playground at school, though we used to phrase it differently: Come on then, let's see you try it mate.

Scum and villainy

There are many things wrong with the following poster. I am sure that some of them will come to me in good time.

ICR and its refusal to accept donations

Further to this issue of the ICR refusing to accept a donation from a member of the shooting sports I have recently received this message from Philip Black regarding my request for information about how I might apply for further details about the refusal under the Freedom of Information Act:

Dear John,

Thank you for your further email of 25.05.05.

In importing the principle of freedom of information into our law the legislature recognised that there are occasions when access to information should be restricted. This is one such occasion as disclosure of the information being sought is potentially detrimental to the safety and welfare of our staff. In the circumstances we are not prepared to provide the information which you are seeking.

It seems that some of the information that they are holding in private that relates in some way to this refusal could be dangerous to their employees if the general public, or some members of the general public, were to be made aware of it. We can only wonder at what this dangerous information might be. What activity can the ICR have been involved in that has the potential to be dangerous to their employees if some others were to find out about it?

I am going to write to them asking about an appeals process.

Here is my mail:

Dear Philip,

Please advise me (or forward this mail to your information officer so that they can) on any appeals process that I might follow. Frankly I find it hard to believe that your refusal to accept this donation can be a danger to anyone.

What I can believe is that other cases of donations accepted by you can be seen as inconsistent with your ruling on this particular case and I am guessing that is where the danger lies.

And that, after all, is my point.

I think your organisation is being inconsistent here and has, for some reason, decided that this particular donation should not be accepted not because it involved subjective animal cruelty but because it comes from a politically incorrect minority group source.

We are still disgusted with the refusal.

The People's NO Campaign

Neil has written to say that The People's NO Campaign have a new logo. I like it much better than the old one.

Anyhow, if you have their old image up on your blog you might want to change it.

The Violent Crime Bill and politically incorrect minority groups

The government's new violent crime bill is another of those government initiatives that seriously affects the interests of politically incorrect, and hence dispensable, minority groups. If it were to become law the UK Airsoft industry would be devastated and the personal freedom of a number of legitimate collectors and young airgun users would be significantly curtailed. Again.

From a personal perspective the bill will prevent me from enjoying a pass time that I have been taking part in for a couple of years now. It will make it illegal for me to buy replacement equipment and make it illegal for me to sell my existing equipment. It would do so even though no member of the public has ever been inconvenienced by my actions. Indeed, no member of the public outside of the airsoft gaming industry has even the slightest idea that the equipment I use even exists.

It will do this on the assumption that making it impossible for me to continue my sport is necessary to improve public safety. The government argues that plastic replica guns are being used by the criminal element in society to commit crimes. If they were to ban replicas it would help solve the problem. This is nonsense.

Criminals who prefer to carry replicas instead of real firearms (or who cannot for some reason beyond me get hold of real firearms) will continue to use replicas or move up to just as realistic Co2 powered air pistols (classified as firearms and, hence, not replicas) which, if used in commission of a crime, are far more capable of causing serious or even fatal injuries.

If this bill is passed expect these things to happen:

1. More injuries due to the reason I state above (moving to more lethal equipment in the commission of crimes). Many criminals will not even be aware of the change in the law so, hopefully, these incidents will be kept to a minimum.

2. Incidents of the general public falling foul of the law and being punished because they do not change their behaviour after the bill is passed and the government does absolutely nothing to raise public awareness of the ins and outs of the new legislation.

3. More news about ridiculous police action over kids in possession of toy guns in the back seat of their car or what-not.

4. No reduction in gun crime.

5. Articles in the press about loopholes allowing people to still own airguns, air pistols etc because they are "more lethal" and how much of a disgrace it is.

6. Pressure to have these loopholes closed therefore more pressure on the government to abuse minority groups in the pursuit of their religion of doing nothing but being seen to do something.

7. More disaffection with the political process, politicians and the police.

8. More miserable failure.

The following list of discussion points regarding the governments new violent crime bill has been compiled by Steve of cybershooters. If you are going to write to your MP on the matter it is worth considering these:

• Contains provisions prohibiting the transfer of realistic imitation firearms, which are widely and commonly possessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, who will face criminal sanction if they sell their guns to someone. This would be very hard to enforce, and in the past the Government has made little attempt to warn people of changes in the firearms law. (The maximum prison term in England & Wales for this offence will be 51 weeks.)

• Does not contain compensation for businesses engaged in the trade associated with “realistic imitation firearms” or for collectors (many of whom have collections worth considerable sums). There are probably 3,000 businesses engaged in this trade to a significant extent, many of whom will be forced out of business, others will be significantly curtailed. Without compensation, they will face significant economic hardship.

• Contains provisions to raise the age limit for possession of air guns to 18 (even though the age limit was raised under this Government only two years ago to 17).

• The previous ban on air-cartridge guns contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 is generally accepted to have been poorly complied with, and indeed at least one court has criticised the Government for failing to properly inform the public of the changes when a case involving the possession of such a firearm came before them.

• Provides no exemption from prohibition for realistic non-firing imitations of antique firearms, even though genuine antique firearms in working order are exempt from firearm controls.

• Introduces an age limit of 18 on imitation firearms that are not realistic, which will probably mean toy guns, water pistols, etc. can only be sold to adults.

• Increases the age limit from 16 to 18 on when knives and other similar sharp objects can be sold, which will mean for example that people under 18 working in trades involving the use of a knife cannot acquire them.

• This Government has enacted a wide variety of firearm controls since coming to power, yet none of them have had the effect touted for them at the time. Given the huge number of imitation firearms in circulation already, it seems unlikely this Bill will have the effect the Government claims. It is notable that most “realistic imitation firearms” are made in Japan and intended for their domestic market – and Japan has a lower rate of violent crime than the UK.

You have failed and continue to be miserable failures

People affect the lives of other people in old Blighty (and I hear in many other parts of the world) on an alarmingly regular basis. They interact, advisee, cajole, help, ignore, pleasure and hurt other people all of the time. Speaking from my own personal perspective I welcome it and on balance it has been a blessing. Though I am perfectly capable of enjoying long periods of time alone and without speaking to another soul I am, as most people are, social.

I like people coming into my life and interfering in a good way. Hey look, we’ve improved this particular model of our BBQ. Would you like to buy it? Oh yes indeed. Fancy a drink mate? Oh most definitely. How was your day? Oh, you know. I love you. I love you too. It’s great.

It’s not all good though. Some people interfere in a bad way and generally do all they can to spoil the very idea of having strangers come into your life. For instance, when we were burgled some years ago. Strangers came into our lives, interfered, and left us worse off than we were before they arrived.

Often, people who interfere fall into groups that can be named. For instance “criminals”. These groups are generally easy to place on either the good shelf or the bad shelf. We categorise them not only by their stated and measurable overall affect on society in general but also on the way they interact with ones self personally and the weighting given to the different types of interaction (remote or personal) is not necessarily a subjective one. A bad personal interaction with a group or member of a group carries more weight than a more remote one.

For instance, one policeman interfering personally can seriously affect a persons view of policemen as a group. It’s not only natural but an accepted way of measuring on which particular shelf a group should go. Your behaviour has brought this particular organisation into disrepute. They would not use that statement and punish (at least in part) on the basis of that statement if they did not recognise the validity of judging a group by the actions of a few. We all do it, it’s just that in the legal world they use fancy statements instead of the layman’s more preferred terminology.They’re all wankers. I hate the lot of them. They’re all the same. Luckily for us people tend to adjust their view over time and recognise the benefits that a group brings. They recognise their overreaction given time and move a group from the bad shelf to the good even if the group was on the bad shelf due to some dreadful personal interaction.

Some groups, and some group members, prove themselves such a bad influence on a very personal level over and over again that one becomes weary and wary of ever moving them back to the good shelf. It’s not necessarily fair but that is the way it is. Local councils for instance. If one were to, say (and as a made up example), have planning permission for a small extension denied, then have permission to remove a large protected tree turned down, then be asked to trim your hedge on a regular basis, then have the street outside made a no parking zone, then be refused permission to put a new sunlight window in your roof and then see the council give permission for a block of flats to go up next door you would naturally put them on the bad shelf on an effectively permanent basis. This would be true no matter how many other great things they do. A few people in planning, following a few rules only to somehow adjust their interpretation when it suits them will result in you being very, very unlikely to cooperate with any council proposal ever again because they have clearly proven themselves to be wankers.

I now welcome two groups into my own bad interfering category. They have affected me extremely poorly on a personal level so many times over a period of a number of years that a briefest glimpse of the good shelf is something that they can now only dream about.

To the Association of Chief Police Officers and to politicians. Your two groups, and the behaviour of individual members of your two groups, over a period of a number of years have personally affected the quality of my life to such an extent that I can no longer foresee a time when, or a method by which, you will ever be considered a positive force. I have had to modify my behaviour so many times that I can no longer enjoy many of the things that contributed so significantly to the quality of my life and I have had to do so at your insistence. You have chosen, because of the actions of people that I have never met, to constrain and restrict my activities and you have done so over and over again without reward or benefit to either myself or to society in general. You have failed and continue to be miserable failures. You will find no quarter and no comfort here.

Why not just hand it over?

From the Horse and Hound I note that the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who are looking into complaints regarding police behaviour at the pro-hunt demo in parliament square, are experiencing some difficulties trying to review video and stills evidence of the demonstration:

...progress is proving slow because some of these organisations, led by the Guardian Media Group, have declined to provide CCTV and still photographic evidence, and are currently judicially reviewing the Crown Court order to hand such media over.

Openly, on our streets

Shamefully I admit that my boy has three of these friction lock batons and uses them openly in our very cul-de-sac. We're lucky around our way though as most of the street kids that pass themselves off as well adjusted young children are similarly armed which leads to a kind of uneasy peace where nobody is ever really hurt because everybody has the ability to retaliate.

Close to tea time one can often hear conversations such as:

"Time to come in, tea is on the table".

"I want to play some more. I'm not hungry."

"Boy! I am your father!"

"Nooooooooooooo!"

Gunnnnssss! GUNNNNSSS!!

This particular Obsever article on (and I'm making an educated guess here) BB Guns ranks somewhere near the top of the most confusing and trashy gun articles ever written.

Virtual capitalism

I've been playing World of Warcraft for about 3 months now and, like all MMORPG's, the forums are a gold mine of very useful information. Where to quest, how to get enough gold for that mount, lessons in world view etc. One area which solicits particularly heated debate is the auction house. There are two of these auction houses in the World and I frequent the one at Irongforge whenever I have items to sell or need to buy that particularly delightful phantom blade or some such. It's a busy building full of people bidding, shouting, and sometimes fighting.

Anyhow, some players have noticed that other players are simply buying items from the auction house which they see are under priced only to put them straight back on for sale at higher prices. It annoys some people to the extent that they feel it necessary to argue about the practice endlessly on open forums.

Luckily for us one particular Warcraft player on the American forums has put a stop to the practice, and hence the endless arguments, by posting this:

I hope you people learn some lessions.

Capitalism is corrupt. It is biased towards the people with power and thus contradicts the basics of freedom.

Capitalism is just an excuse used by the people in power to try and justify their own greedy ambitions.

I am pround to be a socialist. And I would gladly explain that socialism is NOT communism. But alot of you Incestious rednecks down in Jesusland Might be a tad bit slow on the uptake there. Thats OK you can go right back to watching FAUX news and you'll always be told what to think.

So now we know. Those crazy capitalist auction house players. You can tell who they are by the fancy horses they ride. The poster of the above message however can be identified by his constant requests to passing players for 15 silver plz.

How Eurosceptic are the Tories?

The excellent EU Referendum blog carries this piece of analysis on the chances of the UK going ahead with a referendum on the EU constitution. Richard goes out on a limb (as the title of the post suggests) to say that it will.

…we are saying unequivocally that there will be a British referendum.

Be under no misunderstanding, the decision to carry on with the ratification process is not one that can be made by any member state. Even Chirac knew that. It is "owned" by the European Council, which will meet on 16/17 June and then make its formal announcement.

As it stands, 24 of the 25 member states – the one exception being the UK – has already committed to continuing with ratification. And, as Thatcher found to her cost at Milan in 1985, a Council vote is carried by a simple majority.

On that basis, Blair will not submit himself to the humiliation of being outvoted and being instructed by the "colleagues" to continue with his referendum plans. He will therefore declare that it is his decision to carry on, in the "interests of democracy".

That, in effect, will give him the moral high ground, because he will have decided to "listen to the people". It will give him "ownership" of the referendum, backfooting the Tories who have been calling for it to be abandoned.

What I find most interesting is the undercurrent of Labour/Tory party politics in the context of Richard’s analysis.

This is conjecture but let us assume that Richard is spot on. What can be said about the Tory position? My conclusion is that they are either stupid or just reiterating their pro-EU position (let’s be kind and say that pro-EU does not qualify one by default for stupid). Now, we know to quite some significant extent that the Tory Party is pro-EU; they have said so on many occasion. Refusing to entertain the possibility of withdrawing from the European project is pro in my books and in the books of many conservatives signalling to the Tory party in easily decoded X’s. So how does it show this?

Well, if the Tory party wanted to show up the EU in a bad light how best could they take advantage of the situation described by Richard above? The answer would be to play on exactly the kind of thing that those who are pro-self governing hate most about the EU. They would leave everyone in no doubt that Blair will have no choice but to go ahead with the referendum because, frankly, it’s not up to him. He has already made the commitment to hold a referendum if we are to consider ratifying the treaty and the decision about whether we should attempt to ratify it is not in domestic hands but in the hands of the ‘colleagues’.

Blair has no choice. He will be instructed by the European political elite to go ahead with the referendum regardless of domestic opinion. That would be a real Eurosceptic Tory party position.