Longrider

Two stories struck home to me today because they are bound together by a statement made thirty years ago.

In Iraq, the story is of the captured peace campaigners now being paraded on video. This was entirely predictable - and, frankly, avoidable. When people travel to war zones, they are taking a significant risk of being killed or injured. This particular war zone involves the added risk of kidnapping and the consequent propaganda war, before the victims are horribly murdered. Norman Kember and his colleagues knew this before setting out for Iraq, but they went anyway. It is a supreme, if naive, arrogance to presume that one’s religious fervor is sufficient justification to go to a war zone and preach peace. As someone who opposed the war, I sympathize with their objection and their desire for peace in the region, but going there in the middle of a messy war not only places themselves at risk, it is causing risk to anyone charged with their welfare, anyone charged with finding and rescuing them (should such an attempt occur) and it provides insurgents with an easy means of placing the US and UK governments under pressure. This kind of emotive blackmail helps no one. Then, there is the pain caused to relatives and friends.

Shortly after the Ken Bigley fiasco, Mark Steyn commented on the matter of hostage taking. His advice (and I quote from memory as the piece seems no longer to be on-line) was

“pack heat and be prepared to use it.”

His advice being, that under no circumstances allow yourself to be taken alive. Far better to go out in a shoot-out and take a few of the bastards with you than be taken alive, used as propaganda and be brutally beheaded. It would also avoid the need for any attempt at rescue and spare friends and relatives the horror of the alternative. I suppose asking peace campaigners to pack heat would be too much though…

Winding back thirty years, there is a story in the Times about happenings in East Timor when Indonesia invaded the place with the tacit complicity of the British government. Indeed, papers now released tell us that the British government lied (gasp):

In a startling insight into foreign complicity in Indonesia’s invasion of the former Portuguese colony, the documents show that Britain used its position as chair of the United Nations Security Council to “keep the heat out of the Timor business” in discussions in the UN.

Two British journalists working for Australian television were murdered while covering a clandestine attack carried out by Indonesian and Timorese soldiers opposed to independence. The two were killed, it is presumed, to stop this getting out. Their bodies were burned and only a few charred bones were recovered. The British government knew about this and put pressure on the Australian government not to press for answers from Indonesia that were already known. Sir John Ford, Britain’s ambassador in Jakarta said this:

“We have suggested to the Australians that, since we, in fact, know what happened to the newsmen it is pointless to go on demanding information from the Indonesians which they cannot, or are unwilling to provide,” Sir John wrote. “Since no protests will produce the journalists’ bodies I think we should ourselves avoid representations about them.”

Perhaps, though, the most telling quote is the one that still rings true today:

“They were in the war zone of their own choice,”

Before we get into too much hand wringing about Norman Kember and his party, let us remember that they, too, are in a war zone of their own choosing.

There was a snippet on the breakfast news this morning about pet therapy. Whether it is swimming with dolphins or hospital and prison visits with dogs, the consensus is that the unconditional acceptance of an animal is good for our wellbeing. People who are restricted by their environment are lifted by the presence of an animal. A dog, for example, does not question who you are, or what you’ve done - fat, slim, ugly or attractive, it’s all the same to them for a rub around the ear.

For a long time researchers have been telling us that pet ownership is good for reducing stress and consequently stress related illness. Owning a pet is likely to lead to a healthier, happier home life, lower blood pressure and it seems, it helps with schizophrenia.

I type this with a cat sitting on my lap. As my arms reach around her to the keyboard, my right arm is hampered somewhat by having her head resting in the crook of my elbow. However, I console myself with the knowledge that this temporary inconvenience is offset by the increase in my expected lifespan and general happiness with the world. Indeed, with eleven cats and four tortoises, I and Mrs Longrider must be two of the happiest people on the planet.

And, to ease your stress levels for the day, a gratuitous kitty picture:

This letter has been doing the rounds of the blogs: Devil’s Kitchen, The England Project, Freedom and Whisky and The Campaign for an English Parliament. Indeed, that’s where I traced the correspondence back to. So here’s the letter, feast your eyes on Neu Labour’s opinion of the English.

“Dear Correspondent,

Thank you for your email.

Neither the Labour Party nor the Labour Government are pursuing the policy towards England or the English that you claim.

England, as opposed to Britain, has an unfortunate history around the world and within the British Isles and please do not say that it is all past.

It is a fact that the right and extreme right in Britain cloak themselves in the English flag, the cross of St.George and claim to be the true representatives of the English.

Wherever there is hooligan behaviour, usually linked to extreme right-wing political groups e.g. at football matches here and abroad, it is the flag of St.George that is displayed and that, I would imagine, is the reason why the MP referred to this type of ‘Englishness’ as a threat to democracy.

Regards,

Terry White
Communications Unit
The Labour Party”

It is a stunning piece of bigoted jeremiad. Replace English with any other nation and there would be righteous uproar. It seems, though, that when it comes to dishing out ignorant jibes, the English are the latest butt of the joke; anything goes. As A A Gill recently demonstrated with his hateful, ignorant and bigoted invective.

While it is perfectly true that English history contains murky episodes (I am reminded of Cromwell’s excursion to Ireland, for example) this is true of every nation state - we all have skeletons in our collective cupboards. Unfortunately, Mr White and his Neu Labour masters are indulging in the most base revisionism - the empire that he obliquely condemns was the British Empire and was overseen by Scots, Welsh and Irish as well as English. The act of Union has benefited all those involved - some Scots and Welsh may seek independence, but in the event will find that their nations lack the economic clout to go it alone. The Union works because we are stronger together, than alone. For this reason, I do not support the idea of an English parliament, just as I no longer support independent quangos in Edinburgh and Cardiff.

It doesn’t matter where the union’s parliament is - move it from Westminster to Edinburgh if you like, I could care less, but if we are to have a union it must be on equal footing. Devolution deprives England of that equal footing - unless you think Scottish MPs passing acts at Westminster that affect the English and Welsh, whereas the opposite is not true at Holyrood is somehow, equal. Some, it seems, are more equal than others.

Going back briefly to the Empire, I do not subscribe to the revisionist view that it was all bad. Sure, to modern day sensibilities, raiding someone else’s country and looting the resources is abhorrent. This country was subjected to similar raids in previous centuries and we became stronger for it. Certainly I do not despise the Romans or Normans because their ancestors came here and subjugated the indigenous population - such a grudge would be wholly inappropriate as the people concerned are long dead. The British Empire for all its wrongs also left behind virtues and a system of government when countries were handed back to their rightful owners. To condemn it as all bad is taking a two dimensional view and judging historic protagonists with modern eyes and an insight to which they were not privy.

I am English. My genes contain lineage that is Scots, Irish and French (that I know about), but I was born English. I am comfortable with that. The Cross of St George is my national flag and I will not have it usurped. And, I utterly condemn people such as Terry White and his masters in the Neu Labour Hierarchy who choose to sully my nation with their inverted snobbery and political correctness and present it as something hateful.

That, it is not.

Some while back, I discussed moral relativism. This was because Pope Benedict XVI was preaching to us about it and, frankly, sanctimonious Christian morality is something I find particularly abhorrent. My conclusion was that we all indulge in moral relativism to a greater or lesser degree because we are influenced by our environment, belief systems and upbringing; and ethical decisions must be made in the context in which we find ourselves. However, as Chicken Yoghurt points out, The right dishonourable Saint Tone of Blair takes that relativism to a whole new level He quotes this, from the Independent

A day earlier, Mr Blair had told MPs: “We do not agree with the use of torture.” Pressed over whether that was an absolute rule, Mr Blair added: “I mean absolute in this sense, that you say ‘Look, it is simply the civil liberties of the suspect, or simply the liberties of freedom from terrorism’. You have to balance those two things.”

No, you bloody well do not…ever! This man is condoning the use of torture on (as CY points out) suspects. A point Blair seems to choose to ignore; suspects are people who, so far, have not been convicted of any crime - indeed, they may not be guilty of any crime. This is often the case - suspects are just that, until the investigation is complete and they are determined to be guilty following a trial, or not as the case may be. Yet this nauseating man is willing to condone thugs carrying out beatings, sleep deprivation, threats to suspects’ family and hanging people by their arms, or more precisely, is prepared to use information gained thus in his “war on terror”. I prefer to refer to it as his “war on Britain’s liberty” because that is what it is. Perhaps worse is the way he witters the words “civil liberties” in a classic example of newspeak. I will not allow this repugnant, noxious man to steal our language in this way - our liberties are sacrosanct. Torturing people is not the way we protect them and free societies do not, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, condone it.

When Chicken Yoghurt makes the point that an absolute rule is one that is

“not limited by restrictions or exceptions”

I agree entirely. I am currently about to follow his advice and give Amnesty International my support. That I should be doing so in protest at the actions of the British government is testimony to how low this vile regime has sunk. These people with their absolute lack of morality do not represent me - I just want to make that absolutely clear.

Tim Worstall is the latest blogger to display the Jude image that I have shown here a couple of times during the ID cards debate. It is a powerful and thought provoking image that makes a point; what happens when an efficient identity database is used inappropriately. One of Tim’s commenters suggested that it was a Godwin violation. For those who haven’t come across it, Godwin’s law is a Usenet convention that is used to determine when a discussion thread has reached its natural end.

Godwin’s Law (also Godwin’s Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Interesting idea, but utter horseshit. The Internet has become inundated with silly, anal conventions often referred to as “netiquette”. In some cases, generally accepted guidelines that everybody follows is sensible. However, too many rules and regulations stifle free expression and people new to the net find themselves unduly criticized for not being aware of these “rules”.

I take a slightly different approach - I say what I want to say in the manner in which I choose to express myself. Others can accept it or not as they see fit. They are free to disagree with me and equally free to challenge and debate. But - if they expect me to abide by these silly, juvenile “rules” they are in for a disappointment. The application of Godwin’s law in discussions is puerile nonsense. If I want to draw comparisons with the current ID cards debate and what happened in Germany during the nineteen thirties, I damn well will - and those who wish to invoke Godwin’s law are invited politely to put his rule where the imagination best determines.

And just to underline the point that I don’t give a flying fig for Godwin’s law, here it is again:

Over at Talk Politics, there is an excellent essay on the matter of public opinion. The question being asked is why bloggers are so out of step with it…

Look for instance at the recent debates over identity cards and the 90 days detention issues and the blogsphere is pretty unanimous in opposition. This is in contrast to that much vaulted public opinion, which is stated as being broadly in support on both issues. The piece explores the reasoning rather well, I thought:

“…this is hardly a new argument at all but merely the translation of an old debate to a new arena; one in which one could readily replace Martin’s reference to the ‘British blogosphere subculture’ with the title of any one of the newspapers from the ‘quality’ end of the market - The Times, Guardian, Independent, Telegraph or FT - and still make pretty much the same point.

In terms of simple demographics I’d strongly suspect that the contention that bloggers are ‘unrepresentative’ of the British public as a whole is as near as damn it a tautology. A ‘lifestyle survey’ of the bloggerati would almost certainly show us to be above average in terms of education, employment and all the usual things which go into making arbitrary definitions of social class. Indeed you’d be hard pressed to find much in the way of significant differences between a demographic profile of British bloggers and the target demographics of upmarket newspapers. Unrepresentative we may be but no more so that the combined readership of the Guardian, Independent, Times and Telegraph, so why is it such a big deal that we don’t appear to reflect the presumed opinions of Sun readers?”

And, I guess, the question is; do I want to be associated with the Sun and the ill-informed opinion of the majority of its readers? I’ll get back to you on that one…

I recommend you read the full article, it is an excellent read and makes a valid point about public opinion, its value and who moulds it.
—–

I’ve been getting a lot of hits on the postings concerning MyDV, which is no bad thing. People need to know what is going on. When doing a Google check, I found that my comments are second only to that of MyDV themselves. If this helps people avoid buying from this company - or, more accurately, avoids giving them money for nothing - then that is no bad thing.

Following on from one commentor’s points, I have emailed GeoTrust, the company that provides their secure payment system. After all, by providing this service, GeoTrust is unwittingly contributing to the deception engaged in by the trader. I await their reply with interest. Hopefully, there will be a critical mass of bad press that will force the site to close. Companies that trade in this manner need to be stopped. If you have paid for goods that have not arrived, I suggest that you contact them quickly. If you can’t get through on the number given on the website, then I’m told this one will work: 0207 993 4696.

If you paid by credit card, your credit card supplier is jointly liable, so if necessary claim through them. If you cancel, they will wait 30 days for MyDV to refund your money - mine took two weeks; rather longer than the 3 - 4 days MyDV promised.

A final reminder to any Googlers researching this company:

They are a USA based company purporting to be trading in the UK. The prices quoted in UK Sterling do not reflect the actual price that will be charged to your credit card. This will be in US Dollars and will be affected by the prevailing exchange rate. Also, the prices do not include UK VAT, so you may find yourself hit by import duty. That is, should any product get that far. So far, I have come across no one who has received any goods.

Avoid this company like the proverbial plague.

Meanwhile, you might find this site interesting.

Getting up early has its compensations.

This time of the year resonates to the sound of car windows being scraped, the chattering of tired starter motors and footsteps crunching on icy pavements. The air hangs heavy with frosted breath as people suck the icy atmosphere into their lungs. The reality of the work day world in winter isn’t a pleasant one, with fingers and noses nipped by the bitter cold. Yet the light is fantastic…

And half an hour later: