Welcome to Britain

.....bemused tourists and passers-by wondered what the blank protest banner signified and laughed at the huge police turn-out when told.

Welcome to the party

From the Telegraph:

But then, of course, we forget that the same Charles Clarke who now acts like an old East European interior minister from the era of Honecker and Ceaucescu was once a fanatical student radical who enjoyed his visits to the Soviet Union and, clearly, learnt a lot from them. Equally clearly, he pines after a polity where the executive does what it likes and the media does what it is told.

Is this a new front opening up, a new area of friction where the media actually get serious about the issue of civil liberties in the face of a government that has been running pretty much unchecked for years?

The government has been able to quote its popularity and mandate from the masses as a good enough reason for it to what it wants. ID cards. Detention without trial. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Protests by appointment only outside parliament. Surges in the use of CCTV cameras. New police powers. On the spot fines or summary judgement light if you like. Databases. More databases. DNA sampling of free subjects. Anti-terror legislation that we were assured would be used appropriately but is now used to eject protesters, hassle hobby and professional photographers and scare old women cyclists.

All the while they quote that this is what's good for the people, this is what the people want. Everyone else is out of touch or stuck in the past. Well now that the media seem to have finally arrived at the party let's see how soon that 'popularity mandate' turns into a 'because we know better', one.

They've been getting away with it because they have not been on the radar of the ordinary public. It's about time that the MSM put it there and kept it there. Government jibes, bullying and insults can only be a good thing. If the media has the stomach for the fight.

Dom has the photos

Dom has pictures of the freedom of speech demo that took place in London over the weekend. There's one placard on show that had me giggling. See if you can guess which one it was.

Also get a load of that copper with his COOL lens. He should really have that strap round his neck, that kit we all bought him looks really expensive.

On ID cards, the importance of the Lords and the calibre of our representatives

The Lords has defeated the government for the third time on ID cards. Expect the government to whip out their get out of jail free card (or the parliament act) as soon as they feel it appropriate. It's a real shame what's happened to the Lords because of the free and easy way the government deals this card. It no longer gives us the same level of protection that it used to, even though the act has been around for a long time. There are no longer any gasps of surprise and shock when someone speaks its name.

Charles Clarke, a very important minister and one who we might expect to be intelligent and thoughtful, told the House of Commons on Tuesday passports were "voluntary documents" that no-one was forced to renew. Honestly, if the calibre of our representatives gets any smaller we'd be hard pushed to find an effective use for them.

Driving licenses are also voluntary documents in as much as you only need them if you want to drive a car. Does he really think that the people he represents (and the rest of us) are that stupid?

Utterly corrupt in thought, respect and principle. He deserves himself and that's about it.

Fox this, I'm off!

You remember that fox hunting ban? You remember all the moaning us pro-hunt bloggers did about it not being about the protection of foxes but about punishing the landed gentry and the posh for centuries of poshness and horses? You remember all that stuff we said about the fox not really benefiting? Well, my dear guardianistas and observeroids, looks like us Toff Huggers are no longer alone:

The current issue of Horse & Hound contains an interview with one Graham Sirl, who says he despises the League Against Cruel Sports and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for running a lavish campaign that has now produced 'absolutely zero'.

No surprise that Horse & Hound should condemn the ban as an absurd waste of parliament's time, you might think. And it wouldn't be surprising if Graham Sirl wasn't a former chief officer of the League Against Cruel Sports. He's not alone in giving up on the cause he once championed.

In the past decade, the league has lost two chief executives, two chairmen, one treasurer and one regional head. All of them concluded that an effective ban would lead to the slaughter of foxes by farmers with guns who no longer wanted to keep them alive for the hunts to chase. I cannot think of another protest group that has seen so many of its officers go over to the other side. It is as if senior staff of Greenpeace regularly joined the board of Texaco.

The adverts are on....

...which is why I have this opportunity to make this posting. I urge any incidental readers who catch this posting within the next few minutes to flick over to Channel 4 to catch what remains of the Dispatches documentary presented by Peter Hitchens on the state of liberty in Britain today. There's nothing new there for those of us that are all too aware of what has happened in recent years to Britain and the roll that the state and its agents have played in it but Hitchens brings much of it together in this compelling bit of television.

The state is not your friend.

And STILL they continue to HUNT

Some disgraceful FOX HUNTING news just in. If you are easily OFFENDED by MINDLESS CRUELTY and needless VIOLENCE read no further:

On Tuesday, thirty-one animal rights activists launched a vicious attack on the East Sussex and Romney Marsh Hunt. The attack left one hunt follower in a serious condition in hospital, and several others injured.

This had nothing to do with protest or sabotage. It was a vicious and unprovoked assault by a group of mindless thugs. No more, no less. Sussex constabulary have arrested seven people from London and Hertfordshire in connection with the incident.

Tally ho here we go

And so it begins:

Ministers complain that the upper chamber is exceeding its powers by daring to oppose what was a specific election manifesto commitment and which the government, as a result, is mandated to introduce.

Like I said, any growing reaction against such social control must come from the commons. The Lords, if one is to judge the use of the parliament act by precedent, must be as ineffective from the point of view of the lover of liberty as the ban of fox hunting must surely be from the point of view of the fox.

The Lords now claim a strengthened legitimacy since the house was reformed by New Labour and opposition parties are even suggesting that manifesto pledges are also fair game for the reformed Lords.

None of this matters in the end game. The Lords and it's legitimacy has not changed for the better since the parliament act was used to force through the ban on hunting with hounds. There can be no hushed tones, looks of surprise and expressions of indignant outrage when the government again uses the act for what can only be reasonably judged as more important issues.

It just ain't what it used to be

Over at Samizdata Guy Herbert quotes Lord Rees-Mogg in the Times:

In Parliament, particularly in the House of Lords, there is a growing reaction against such social control [as identity cards]. Most of us think policemen should not be turned into busybodies, warning people not even to discuss adoption by homosexual couples; arresting them for any trivial offence; threatening smokers and publicans; and galloping after fox-hunters. We resent this on behalf of the public, but we also resent it on behalf of the police.

In the history of Britain there have been many periods when liberty was threatened. The immediate threat is a government with a lust for control, with little respect for liberty or for the House of Commons, but enjoying the opportunity of using new technologies for social control. The British are certainly less free than we were in 1997 or 2001. The fightback will be laborious and difficult, but there is a new mood.

One would like to hope but no one can take any great solace from the Lord, or indeed any Lord. The proposition that social control is on the rise and that freedom in many respects is in decline (and by freedom I do not mean the spin doctors definition of freedom from the fear of crime or some such) is, to my mind, true. However, and it is a big however, relying on the House of Lords to do anything about it is like trying to build a bridge from the charcoal of a bridge that was burnt down in haste for less important matters.

The glee on the faces of ministers, MPs, and their supporters in the general public must have been something to behold when the Labour government pushed through the bill to ban fox hunting using the parliament act. I wonder how many of them now are hoping that the House of Lords will gallop to their rescue?

And let us not forget those in opposition to that law were not insignificant in number. If half a million marched through London one can only gawp at the true number that must have been against the ban it in principle, dwarfed only by the number that couldn’t care either way or who thought the whole thing was a waste of time and their tax payer’s money.

The argument that it is right and proper that in a democracy the will of the commons must be obeyed for something like fox hunting must also be true for all other items passed from the commons to the Lords that are of at least the same importance to the nation as removing one method of pest control from a list of methods used to control that pest. A Labour mandate for a resolution of the issue either way is not an argument that can bolster either side.

What proposed legislature does Lord Rees-Mog think falls below the radar of that particular precedent?

Any growing reaction against such social control must come from the commons. The Lords, if one is to judge the use of the parliament act by precedent, must be as ineffective from the point of view of the lover of liberty as the ban of fox hunting must surely be from the point of view of the fox.

If only they could see us now

Had the nazis won the second world war and had they finally invaded and conquered the British Isles there would have been little doubt that lampooning their great leader would have been an offence. Luckily, and with a great deal of effort and sacrifice we, along with out allies, won the conflict. With that in mind it does seem amazing to me that lampooning the leader of the opposition does seem to have become a punishable act.

Well, colour me ridiculously overdone

A young woman recites 97 names of the UK's Iraq war dead by the Cenotaph memorial, gets arrested and charged and is later found guilty of breaking a new law stopping unauthorised protests within half a mile of Parliament. No great surprise there because, after all, the did break the law albeit one that I think is particularly bad.

Then along came a Lord who, for some inexplicable reason, decided to misrepresent our concerns:

"The idea that we take a measure, which is a public order measure, designed to protect our Parliament building, as depriving us of freedom of speech is ridiculously overdone.

Yes, that's right my Lord, everyone who thinks this law is bad thinks that it takes away all of our rights to free speech. The legislation, and everyone is clear on this, prevents people expressing themselves in a manner acceptable in most places across the country within a certain area around of the Houses of Parliament and they (we) complain and protest about it. There is no doubt that it is a free speech issue but it is not one depriving us of freedom of speech in its totality and no one is suggesting that it is. They protest the issue within a context my Lord, which you have chosen to ignore.

After such a brazen misrepresentation of those opposed to the legislation he continues his decline:

"There isn't a country in the world that doesn't take particular measures to protect its Parliament."

As if people were suggesting something different. It would be extremely interesting to draw up a list of parliaments which are protected by a similar piece of legislation however as that is the context, though that in itself would not necessarily change the objection fundamentally.

I can't help but feel that the BBC report misrepresents the Lord in some way. Certainly from their report he comes across as someone lacking in the kind of skills we might expect to be richly represented within a lord chancellor.

He certainly seems to be playing someone elses tune, but can that really be true?

Beer, beer, everywhere and not a drop to drink

The fact that anyone can even consider this to be workable is a very sad reflection indeed of the progress that nanyism seems to have made in Britain:

A LEADING surgeon has called on the Scottish executive to tackle alcohol abuse by limiting pub customers to three drinks.

By appointment only

Do you know what I think says all you need to know about this government and the fools who backed them? Having to make an appointment before you can exercise any right you might think you have to free speech.

Next time an MP or a government slack of any description tries to talk to you or canvas your opinion or tries to express a point or policy directly to you why not ask them to make an appointment first? Tell them why.

Ban this, ban that, look at me everybody

Can Britain's top cops get any more insulting:

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police has called for a ban on parents buying toy guns for their children as Christmas presents.

Michael Todd said seasonal gifts such as replica and ball-bearing guns .... encouraged anti-social behaviour.

Is this really the extent of the sophistication we can expect from our 'top' law enforcement people? I mean, really, if we have got to the stage when they believe that inanimate objects, by some strange and mystical power, can encourage a certain behaviour in our children then we really are in a sorry state of affairs.

It's not just toy guns he wants to ban parents from buying but also knives which further shows the ridiculousness of his position. I mean, is the clamour to all and sundry to "do wrong" of his own set of kitchen knives so strong that he has thrown them out? Of course not.

The reality of the situation is that such objects do not impose or encourage any particular moral aberration on anyone. Bad parenting and poor education on the other hand can do.

I wonder if this particular policeman is aware that the government is already in the process of completely banning the sale of these objects anyway? Almost certainly, so can we assume that he wants to fast track some law to ban parents buying these items this Christmas season because it is unlikely that the current bill will pass before then? No? Then what does he mean? Who does he want to actually ban who from buying what and when? And more to the point why, given the current legislative progress many of us are suffering? In actual fact, what is his point?

I strongly suspect he spotted a camera or a microphone and just opened his mouth. It got him onto the beeb news site at the very least.

This is filthy

At the most recent Parliament Protest:

One policeman was heard saying 'I wish I could join you. I wish I could do what you're doing. This is filthy. This is very hard for all of us'.

Look into my eyes...

...not around the eyes, in the eyes...you're under. From this moment on you will trust us. You will not oppose our ID card scheme. You will love it. You will not worry about your information and any database of that information that we might create. There will be no mission creep. You will believe that there is nothing of greater concern to us than the privacy of your details.

Neil promises us more. If there is real scandal here will it be enough to finish off ID cards?

Beating the Bounds

The custom of 'Beating the Bounds' has taken place in a variety of forms in Britain for over 2000 years. Its origins have roots in many different cultures from across Europe and beyond. In essence it involves local inhabitants perambulating their farm, manorial, church or civic boundaries, pausing as they pass certain trees, walls and hedges that denote the extent of the boundary to exclaim, pray and ritually 'beat' particular landmarks (or even young boys) with sticks. The ceremony might also involve the blessing of crops or animals and the inspection of fences.

Interesting because.

Welcome to the club

Welcome to the club of politically incorrect minority groups. It's not a happy club, but at least it's ours. Smoking within its walls will be permitted for a short time only.

This is the way of things these days. You either have to be well inside the majority (and sometimes this doesn't help) or a member of one of the approved minority groups to get on.

I know full well how Eric feels here. Being a shooter since childhood I have been on the cutting edge of this kind of treatment from the government for decades. It has made me the man I am today.

Just think about this next time you jump on the ban this or ban that wagon. If people cannot stand up for the liberty of others the moans and groans that they will ultimately utter when they fall under the spot light will echo off empty walls.

What's that I hear you say? Airguns and replicas should be banned? Sure, why not? I'll see you in the member's bar soon enough.

It's money in the bank

NO2ID notes within the Guardian that:

“A national ID card for the UK is overly ambitious, extremely expensive and will not be a panacea against terrorism or fraud, although it will make a company like mine very happy,” said Roberto Tavano, a biometrics specialist for Unisys, a US technology company that has worked on national identity schemes in South Africa and Malaysia.

In other news my two friends who are working on this project for the state have been very busy. The speculated ten grand a month that one of them is getting has recently secured him a new Jag. Nice.

The foot soldiers of tyranny

People who frequent pubs and who are demanding that smoking be banned have already made a value judgement about the health risk to themselves. They have decided that the risk to themselves is so low that they have continued to frequent smoky pubs probably for many years if not for decades. These people are supporting anti-smoking legislation not through any overriding health issue but because they find themselves inconvenienced. They are suggesting that it would be appropriate to seriously inconvenience other individuals because of a personal misunderstanding of their own position and a failure in their moral judgement.

History has shown us that people like this have always existed. They are easily manipulated. They will buy any line if they can see that they will get something out of it and they are often happy to damn others for their gain. They are the weak, the foolish, the useful idiots. They rely on any codec that the state can provide them with for their own moral framework.

Oh, that's interesting

So there I was, at the Carlton club in London, to celebrate the Trafalgar victory. Surrounded by the inner enclave of a Tory stronghold I decided that this was probably an opportune time to bring up the Tory party support in principle for ID cards. They looked up from the rather marvellous and well presented lamb briefly and a couple even decided that it might be worth giving this oik a little charitable attention.

I began and a found myself subjected to a half hearted attempt at heading me off at the pass with some particularly inept use of emotive keywords. “Don’t you think that your wife and child should be able to prove their identity and not have it stolen by someone else?”. ”No, not really. I already know who they are and so do they. We’ve know for quite some considerable time and have got by rather well so far?”. Well, what’s sauce for the goose and all that.

My time was short, that I could see even through the haze of a not insignificant amount of celebratory beer. Oh, and the wine.

”The thing is, what history tells us is that the machinery of the state is only ever rarely rolled back. That’s one of the reasons why when it comes to things such as ID cards we have to be very careful. To support ID cards is to not only state that you trust this present government but that you effectively sign up to trusting every subsequent government that might come to power. I simply cannot make that commitment and I am surprised at the Tory support. If the Tory party should be about anything it is about support for the smaller state.”

”Well”, was the response from a rather amiable councillor sitting on my right, ”it’s always nice to hear an alternative point of view.”

Indeed, it was as if this was the first time any of them had heard that particular proposition and that, dear readers, is the most shocking thing of all.

By the way, here's something interesting. This is a photograph of the fire surround in the member's bar. A photograph that I was not permitted to take but one I took anyway. My, I could feel the eyeballs on my back.

It shows the damage caused by an IRA bombing of the member's bar some time ago and was caused by flying debris from the initial explosion at the opposite end of the room. It's a rather strong piece of marble surround with quite a large piece missing.

Terrorism. Nothing new to the Tory party.

Snap happy now sadder

Even the snap happy are noticing the emerging authoritarian Britain:

Having been a photographer for around 30 years, I am getting concerned that police and the £5 per hour security 'jobsworths' are exceeding or misusing their authority under the catch all of terrorism.

Just what on earth is happening?

The wrong arm of the law

Those zany coppers and their New Police Powers:

She was arrested under the Terrorism Act for walking along a cycle path in the harbour area of Dundee.

Ban, Ban, Ban!

Sweet Mother! Reading down a list of RSS fed news sources these days is an alarming activity. Smoking Ban this, Airgun Ban that, Hunting Ban the other. It's like reading the back cover of a book about a "dark and dismal future, where nothing and no one is safe from the ever tightening grip of a state bent on controlling everyone and everything" - "A gripping read" Stephen King, "I almost shat my pants" - Harold Pinter, "Educational" - T. Blair.

I like the cut of this man

Peter Dale, Controller of More 4, said the film exposed a Government that had “curtailed our liberties more than any administration since Cromwell tried to ban Christmas”.

Take that minister down Mr. Dale. Take him down.

Police on 'Standard Form'

"This was a genuine mistake and I am writing to you to apologise for the distress this may have caused you."

This, I suspect, is an approved standard reply from the police to be used whenever they incorrectly use the Terrorism Act to arrest and detain people.

Obviously the guidelines for the issuing of this particular template requires that the 'cameras present at time of arrest' checklist item is ticked.

Fear the truth!

Blair's fashion police at work:

Police arrested a 20-year-old gamekeeper for wearing a “Bollocks to Blair” T-shirt at a game fair last weekend.

A very English protest

A bit more on Sir Ian Blair, his troops and their extra special employers over at The First Post (via Parliament Protest):

Meanwhile, it seems the Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, is keen to have a memento of a lovely Sunday, which was no doubt why his emissary, a police photographer, took pictures of all the picnickers.

Dredd without the Judge

Sir Ian Blair is a dangerous man and should be sacked:

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said "modernisation" of the force should be carried forward by introducing "an escalator of powers" for the dispensing of instant justice.

If someone with a firearms or shotgun certificate spouted such nonsense they would probably have their certificate withdrawn and their firearms taken away. "I believe that certain people in society have the right to dispense instant justice without any of this inconvenient involvement of law courts, judges and magistrates and the like.". Why? Because they would be displaying a serious lack of judgement and a propensity to be a danger to the public. Make no mistake, instant justice handed out by a state police force is a danger to the public.

Consider the whole debate on what a householder can and cannot do when confronted by a home intruder. The police expect the householder to only respond to direct bodily threat and then only up to the point where the householder acts to protect themselves from injury.

If the householder were to, say, hit the burglar he or she would have a great deal of explaining to do and if it turned out that the punch was thrown to deter the burglar from carrying the TV out through the window the householder would find themselves on the wrong side of a courtroom debate.

The same would happen if the householder happened to lock up the burglar in a secure room in the house. The police would prefer that you would use the room to lock yourself up and would be more than happy to charge you at the behest of the intruder with whatever they can find.

It's not for the householder to dispense justice in his or her own home.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the 'important' people in the police force think that their men and women are significantly different from the rest of us and should be seen as different in law. Super citizens.

Where is the off switch?

What would be the next step, I wonder, in a country that is already seeking to allow the police to arrest and detain individuals for significant lengths of time without affording them the luxury of a proper trial?

What would be the next step in a country where the police are seen as being increasingly political in their actions and motivations? I mean, they already seem to have excessive representation when it comes to deciding what new legislation is required, a situation that is already beginning to motivate some politicians into making statements. The ”police don't run the country” they say. We know that but do they?

What would be the next step, do you think, in a country where the police seem to get away with restraining protesters via the use of approved punches to the face when the subjects they are supposed to be protecting have no recourse to such approved methods?

What would be the next step in a country that seeks to impose compulsory ID cards on all of its population at huge cost when there are countless better ways of spending the billions of our money that such a scheme will require?

What would be the next step in a country whose government has no effective political opposition?

Troops on the streets? Yeah, why not?

We are living under special circumstances at the moment but they will not last forever. After victory, which will come as sure as eggs is eggs in the coming years, will we see all of these special requirements repealed and withdrawn?

I very much doubt it.

You see, even though we know these are ‘interesting times’ there has been no official government declaration of the fact. No specific Act of Parliament around which all these infringements of our civil liberties are structured, such as a declaration of war or some such. No bargain with the people. There is no single event and no single legal article upon which we can say “right, that’s done with then, now we can get rid of this framework that was created to deal with these special times”.

This is the single most troubling issue for me in this war on terror. The government adds to its machinery of power stating that it is necessary for our own good during this distressful period. They do so without offering us any kind of off switch.

And that is crucial, for without one these the new powers for the powerful will never be reversed.

Parliament protest

I have a great deal of respect for people who do this week in, week out. Or even once.

Actions and words, are our liberties actually being 'protected'?

This, I suspect, is a disgrace:

"Before they could even protest about our civil liberties being eroded they were arrested.

"It is shocking that we could not have a peaceful protest in a peaceful country but this is what these ministers want."

The government at least pretends to want our support for their actions on ID cards etc. They assure us that our liberties are actually being protected by their initiatives. Then their agents behave like this.

Sean Gabb on the smoking ban

Holy smokes.

ID card mandarins

So the curtains that have been shrouding the ID debate are opened a little further.

The identity cards saga has, according to critics, now assumed all the characteristics of a classic Whitehall farce.

Labour opponents of the bill claim it was originally cooked up by over-zealous Home Office mandarins who have long wanted to extend the power of the state.

Former Home Office minister Kate Hoey said: ” I know having been through the Home Office in 1998-99 that it was always something that the officials were pushing.”

She added: “It was always floating around even then. Home Office officials have been very keen to bring it up. They are not happy unless they are interfering in our lives.”

When David Blunkett arrived in the job, he enthusiastically seized upon the idea as an antidote to post 9/11 paranoia. However, even supporters of the plans now admit that the government has failed to make a clear case for the cards.

An antidote to paranoia? Whose paranoia? Since when did spending a hundred quatrillion pounds become a reasonable and responsible way of looking like you are doing something?

You know, I never thought I'd say this but I really miss the old fashioned style of politician. The kind that would get up, spout some eloquent and quotable utter nonsense and then go home for a couple of drinks instead of doing anything very much at all. They were so cheap.

Official: ID cards crapper than we said

Here’s a statement on ID cards from the New Labour Party: The government has admitted "overselling" the advantages of national identity cards. The question is who has been a victim of this “overselling”? I speculate that it has been the Tory Party which has failed to take advantage of the normal 14 day cooling off period.

Roll up, roll up, come see the marvel that is Clarke and Blunkett's universal cure all and flatulence remedy - "Snakeoil merchant"

Invitation only

Quick, go here to find out where the special people hang out.

Spread the word

There is going to be a Mass Act of Defiance For The Right To Protest on Sunday 7th August, starting at 12 noon, in Parliament Square. The people at Parliament Protest say more details are to come. Spread the word.

Nope, sorry sunshine, not today...perhaps next week?

Whenever you hear phrases such as Police call off G8 protest march your senses should start to tingle. There's something not quite right with that sentence you might think. I can't quite put my finger on what it is you might fret. Then it will hit you in the face like a state sponsored night stick.

The police have called off a protest march. A phrase that passes virtually without comment with respect to what it fundamentally means.

And there it is. The real story behind the G8 summit. Marvel as no media agency even tries to get close enough to the ball to fumble it.

How dare they? How could they? Because they can.

When and where you protest for your rights and your beliefs is no longer your concern.

We're all ears minister

From the Guardian on the Home Secretaries' outburst against the LSE report on ID cards:

"It's a bit rich for a government minister to accuse a university department of spin and disinformation"

and:

Within days it became clear that only one person's reputation had taken a hit. The second reading of the ID card bill gave the home secretary the opportunity to itemise all the flaws in the LSE research. Clarke - and the combined ranks of the Home Office - failed to highlight a single factual error.

Ruination! Ruination!

You know, there is always a ying for every yang. Many people allude to this truth when they say things like ”well, that backfired on us didn’t it?” and ”I didn’t see that coming”. And so it is with the government’s ban on unauthorised demonstrations outside Toad Hall.

You see the thing about spontaneous protests is that even the protesters don’t really know exactly when they will happen. They are spontaneous. A few friends get together socially, talk about this and that and inexorably the conversation turns to politics. Sporadically this can lead to a spontaneous decision to march on the capital of despotism in the UK to make ones feelings known.

The ruination of the government scheme lies in the common man recognising that this act of spontaneity is their right and, therefore, to deliberately and regularly apply for permission under the toadish scheme to practice these rights.

How many applications do you think it will take before the scheme is laughed out of the offices of ACPO as ”a drain on resources that we could otherwise be using to maintain the level of equality between the rights of criminals and their victims in modern Britain”?

Come on then bloggers, join the we regularly want to demonstrate outside Parliament for one thing or another application campaign. Get those forms off as soon as they leave the press and who’s to say, sometimes we may even turn up at the designated time and place.

Up and at ‘em.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

One man's goose is another man's made up excuse

You know, burglary is a serious problem. It costs people a great deal in money terms and also in other ways too. I'm sure all of you who have been burgled remember the feeling of having been violated. I'm sure the cost of burglary is very high indeed to the country in terms of higher insurance premiums, payouts, police time, court time, prison spaces, lost working hours. The list goes on I am sure.

Yet, somehow, regardless of these disadvantages to society of burglary the government has yet to enforce upon us the need to install burglar alarms and other such anti home invasion devices.

Yet the cost to UK society of identity theft seems to now be the predominant line of the government when trying to justify their ID card scheme.

Any port in a storm.

Scottish ID system

Sweet:

GOVERNMENT ministers were heading last night for a split with their Labour counterparts in Scotland over the introduction of ID cards.

The Scottish Parliament rejected the idea of the cards after an SNP-inspired debate this year. Labour ministers at Holyrood have said, however, that while they will be introduced north of the border to access services reserved to Westminster, such as pensions and welfare benefits, they will not be needed for devolved policy areas such as health, education and transport.

That raises the prospect of a two-tier scheme operating in Britain with, for example, NHS patients in England having to use their cards while patients in Scotland will not be required to present them.

Looks like Hollyrood was worth every penny from where I'm sitting.

Dear blogosphere

Two of my close friends are actively working under contract within a government department helping them to implement their ID card scheme. What should I do? Best answers may well get implemented next time I am in their company and within a particular range (usually coloured red) on my drunkometer.

Comments open (please provide full identification details).

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.