Longrider

Oscar Wildebeest picks up rather neatly on the blatant hypocrisy in the media. The story he comments on is this: Two Britons and an Australian, Rupert and Linda Wise, and Paul Shulton were detained by the Iranian authorities without charge for a period of thirteen days. And, naturally they are all horrified at this unseemly behaviour on the part of this nasty regime…

As Oscar points out:

“The British parliament votes to allow detention for twenty-eight days without charge, and people say it’s too lenient. Anyone else find this ironic?”

Well, yes, I do. But does our beloved leader, the Right Dishonourable Saint Tone of Blair? Does the media that is livid with its righteous indignation at this imprisonment? I very much doubt it. Irony is lost on these people.

The timing couldn’t be better, though. Habeas Corpus? What’s that, then? Oh, I see, it only matters to traitors.

87 Years ago at 11 o’clock, the guns on the Western Front fell silent. The war to end all wars ceased. A generation of young men lay dead on the fields of Flanders and Gallipoli. They gave their lives for the grandstanding, posturing, brinkmanship and arrogant ambition of the ruling houses of Europe.

Yet, in 1919, the politicians who inherited the aftermath, set in motion a train of events that led to another world conflict and another generation of spilled blood. They never learn. The cowards who send young lives into the heat of battle yet never set foot in the field themselves. If they did, the conflict would be over rather sooner.

When we share a minute’s silence at 11 o’clock today, let us not forget that the grandiose posturing and overweening arrogance of politicians is still sending young people to die for their ambition.

For The Fallen
With proud thanksgiving, a mother for her children,
England mourns for her dead across the sea.
Flesh of her flesh they were, spirit of her spirit,
Fallen in the cause of the free.

Solemn the drums thrill; Death august and royal
Sings sorrow up into immortal spheres,
There is music in the midst of desolation
And a glory that shines upon our tears.

They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted;
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England’s foam.

But where our desires are and our hopes profound,
Felt as a well-spring that is hidden from sight,
To the innermost heart of their own land they are known
As the stars are known to the Night;

As the stars that shall be bright when we are dust,
Moving in marches upon the heavenly plain;
As the stars that are starry in the time of our darkness,
To the end, to the end, they remain.

Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

Lest we forget.

Christopher Edward Buckingham is starting a jail sentence for obtaining a passport using a false identity. Actually, he isn’t Christopher Edward Buckingham at all. We don’t know who he is. Neither does his ex wife. We know little about him, yet that doesn’t stop the speculation:

“He’s obviously got something to hide. He’s lived a lie for 23 years and he’s still living it,” said Det Con Dave Sprigg.

Well, yes, technically, that is true. However, what constable Sprigg is implying, with this further statement;

“This man has gone to jail today flatly refusing to reveal his identity to us and I believe he probably has a serious reason for not telling us who he really is.”

is that Buckingham is hiding something criminal. Otherwise it is absolutely none of Sprigg’s or anyone else’s business. That “serious reason” may be perfectly legitimate.

Just because people wish to reinvent themselves and refuse to reveal their old identity does not automatically mean that we can assume criminal activity. Yet, over at the Brighton Regency Blog, Neil Harding has done just that:

“…unless we know what other identities he has had, which we don’t, then we will never know what crimes he has committed…”

As I have pointed out, we don’t know that he has committed any crimes - the police search using fingerprints et al has turned up nothing. Naturally, Mr Harding tells us that this is a case for having Identity Cards. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? This is something of a wet dream for him; cataloguing us all because a minority of naughty people misbehave, so we all have to be punished and controlled by the nanny state.

Unfortunately, the logic is flawed. The ID Cards Bill would have not prevented this activity. It might, in certain circumstances, lock someone into their new assumed identity - presuming all the technology works, but it certainly wouldn’t stop it happening. And, why should we expend too much effort doing so anyway? It is hardly the crime of the century and despite the hyperbole bombarding us from the Home Office, this is not a massive area for criminal activity. It is increasing, but is still nowhere near the epidemic that we are being told that it is. Indeed, if the ID Cards Bill was not currently being discussed, this would have been a small story with little interest. The timing is convenient, but does not make a case for identity cards. Indeed, the “solution” is disproportionate to the problem.

The Earl of Buckingham may be a fraud - but the case for ID Cards is a bigger one.
—–

It seems that I have inadvertently stirred up a hornet’s nest…

A throwaway comment spread to a blog entry by Libertine on the subject of circumcision. It would seem that neither he nor I could have anticipated the relative heat of the subsequent debate. Although, I feel that some of that heat may be overrated somewhat. Certainly my input has been as always, a dispassionate analysis of the argument. There are accusations that the discussion is getting personal. I must have missed something here - I did not detect any such thing. Strongly held opinions, yes; personal comments, no. Surely we can manage to have a heated debate without falling out? It seems that Jane over at Coffee and Varnish was suitably irritated by my comments. I certainly never intended to irritate - my comments were made in the spirit of discussion, so I believe censure is inappropriate.

On the subject itself; the circumcision of infant boys, I remain implacably opposed. Various cultures have embraced the practice throughout history - from the Ancient Egyptians, through Judaism Islam and some African cultures. However, because a holy book says we should do something, it doesn’t mean that we should. Nor should we blindly do something because our parents did or their parents did. Society evolves by challenging the beliefs and traditions of the past.

While Islam and Judaism practice infant circumcision, other cultures adopted it as a transition into manhood. At least at that age, the subject is in a position to understand what is about to happen and object; difficult though that may be.The widespread practice in the United States is a more recent manifestation, but has become deeply ingrained into the culture. So much so, that a challenge leads to heated refutation and debate. Perhaps I shouldn’t be too surprised at the reaction, but, I must confess, I was. Debra S Olliver traces the history of the American relationship with circumcision to the Victorian obsession with masturbation.

“Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, a well-known fundamentalist health reformer and medical journalist (his 1888 “Plain Facts for Old and Young” included roughly 100 pages dedicated to “Secret Vice [Solitary or Self Abuse]“) who went on to create the world’s preeminent corn flake, was more direct in his approach. “A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision,” he wrote. “The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.”"

My own objections to the procedure are primarily pragmatic. As is pointed out by James L. Synder, M.D, the hippocratic oath, the core of medical ethics, exhorts medical practitioners to “do no harm”. He goes on to point out:

“In the matter of circumcision of newborn males, it must be recognized that the child is normal as born, and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine which is “First, do no harm. “”

For me, this sums up both the pragmatic (it is unnecessary) and the ethical (it causes harm - even if, for the most part, it is minor).

At the root of the issue, though, given that the medical evidence does not justify the reasoning offered, is; why? I’ve never really understood this. I recall recently listening to a radio interview with a practicing Jew discussing his son’s circumcision. He talked of culture and history and being in touch with his ancestors. All good stuff - but none of it justified cutting off his son’s foreskin.

The other arguments that have been offered centre around risk to the child; cancer of the penis - or transferring cancer causing agents to the cervix, AIDS and hygiene generally. None of these stack up when examined rationally. This, again from Dr Snyder:

“Circumcision is the only surgery which is used to prevent disease. In contrast, consider that in absolute numbers over a ten-year period (1943-1953) the Danish Cancer Registry reported 251 cases of penile cancer and for the same period reported 10,000 cases of breast cancer in women. Yet, nobody seriously advocates removing the breasts of female infants to prevent this more common malignancy of breast cancer. Almost certainly such a proposal would be greeted by howls of outrage over such a mutilation of women to prevent breast cancer. Circumcision must be recognized as an equally serious mutilation of men with equally insubstantial justification for continuing the practice.”

As far as the risks of having the procedure are concerned, it is difficult to say. Dr Snyder suggests that complications are under reported and I’ve heard this from other medical practitioners. Certainly if it all goes wrong, the child will be sexually dysfunctional. I made a comment in this discussion about a balance of risks. All surgical procedures involve risk. The patient - or the patient’s guardians - must balance the risk of the procedure against the long term prognosis without it. The long term prognosis without circumcision is a normal healthy life. The risk, though small, of having it, is disfigurement. So why take a risk that is not necessary? I still don’t understand it.

At the core of this disagreement is this: A normal healthy, functioning part of an infant’s body is removed at the behest of someone else. I cannot rationalize this. And, so far, I’ve not come across a decent rationalization from the procedure’s proponents.

I’ll leave the final word to Debra Olliver who makes this amusing comparison:

If penises could walk and talk, the circumcised penis would be a suit and tie, a clean shave and a shoulder-high salute. The intact penis would be a rumpled shirt, a five o’clock shadow and a finger flipping you the bird.

I was browsing over at Samizdata when I came across this article on introversion by Jonathan Rauch.

“Do you know someone who needs hours alone every day? Who loves quiet conversations about feelings or ideas, and can give a dynamite presentation to a big audience, but seems awkward in groups and maladroit at small talk? Who has to be dragged to parties and then needs the rest of the day to recuperate? Who growls or scowls or grunts or winces when accosted with pleasantries by people who are just trying to be nice?

If so, do you tell this person he is “too serious,” or ask if he is okay? Regard him as aloof, arrogant, rude? Redouble your efforts to draw him out?

If you answered yes to these questions, chances are that you have an introvert on your hands”

My, oh my - a portrait of me. One of the commenters pointed to another article that looks at the situation from the perspective of the introverted child coping with school.

“It can be loud, crowded, superficial, boring, overstimulating, and focused on action, not reflection.”

My memories of school precisely. While I reserve some scepticism for psychological profiling, I regularly went through the Myers-Briggs personality tests during my working career and always came out as an INTJ personality type. Whatever your opinion on the Myers-Briggs tool, it is accurate in identifying me as an introvert. I do enjoy solitude, quiet, wide open spaces and the company of small, select groups rather than crowds. I can experience loneliness in a crowd.

This would seem to contradict my preferred profession. I am a trainer and assessor who has to meet new people on a daily basis, take charge of the situation and deliver training to potentially large groups of people. I do this without apparent concern. Inside, though, I am a bundle of nerves, going over what I am about to say before saying it. This, typically, is a characteristic of the introvert. Yet I can do it seamlessly, acting out a part without my audience being aware of the inner turmoil. So why put myself through it? Because I like it, I suppose. I enjoy training - it is only the initial pre-course nerves that are a problem; and, frankly, if they stopped, I would realise that my edge was going and it would be time to seek a new profession. Those nerves keep me honed.

It is a curious fact that most of the trainers I have encountered in my career, have, like me, been introverts who take to a stage and perform with a new persona every time they enter the training room. We’re all frustrated actors, I guess.

I particularly like Mr Rauch’s summing up:

“…when you see an introvert lost in thought, don’t say “What’s the matter?” or “Are you all right?”

Third, don’t say anything else, either. “

Indeed.

I ordered a camcorder from a company called MyDv a couple of weeks ago. They promise fast, free delivery. Indeed, their website offers this promise:

“Fast, Reliable & FREE Shipping.”

After a week, I contacted them using their on-line chat facility and was told it would take a further 5 - 7 days. Yesterday, I tried again. I was told that it should have been despatched on the 2nd November, however, I had better check back on Monday because the operator was unsure and couldn’t access the information for despatches on the 2nd. By now, I was starting to worry. This morning I did a bit of research and the outcome isn’t good. Kelkoo merchant reviews offers a litany of similar stories to mine.

Before getting back to MyDv to pursue the matter further - and cancel the order if the goods had not already been despatched, I gathered all the relevant information together. That’s when I realised that my credit card had been charged £202.26 instead of the invoiced £189.99. So was I being charged for deliver after all? No, it would appear not.

It seems that this is not, as advertised, a UK company, but one based in the USA, despite having a UK address and phone number on the website. The difference in price is caused by currency fluctuation. However, they price in UK£, therefore, any fluctuation should be their problem not mine. Indeed, invoicing one price and charging another is illegal. Also, the low prices quoted are based upon non UK taxed prices - that’s why they are so reasonable.

I suspect that my camcorder is being increasingly delayed due to it not being in stock - they just aren’t prepared to say so. This morning I was told that it would be another week, confirming my suspicion. I list the chat transcript I had with “Lisa” this morning:

info: You are now chatting with ‘Lisa’
Mark: I wish to discuss my order, ****, please
Mark: I placed this order on the 23rd October. Apparently, it should have been shipped on the 2nd November. This is bad enough - that two weeks after placing the order, I still do not have it. I discover that you have charged my credit card account £12.26 more than the invoiced amount.
Lisa: Your shipment date is moved for a few days.however youy should get it in about a weeks time
Mark: Please cancel this order and refund my money in full. This is £202.26
Lisa: THe amount that you were overcharged will be refunded
Mark: No, I want to cancel the order and be refunded the whole amount - please confirm this.
Lisa: We can get your money refunded, that shouldnt be a problem
Mark: Okay - do you need a fromal cancellation letter?
Mark: Do you need me to send you a letter?
Mark: Hello?
Lisa: No you dont require one just call on the customer service number
Mark: Okay. Thankyou.

When I called the number mentioned by Lisa this morning, they were open about being US based and I don’t have a problem with that providing they are up front on their website about it, and price in US$. That way, currency fluctuation isn’t an issue. I spoke to two people both of whom told me that my order would be with me in about a week. I repeated my determination to cancel the order and made my displeasure plain. They finally agreed to cancel the order and provide a full refund. We will see what happens. I did point out that pissing off one’s potential clientele by lying to them was not a good business model, but I doubt that will have any effect other than assuaging my own irritation - not least for getting caught out.

This is one to avoid, I think. Caveat Emptor, indeed.

I notice that the Devil’s Kitchen is becoming increasingly despairing of Neil Harding’s evermore illogical defence of the ID Cards Bill. Like DK, I have watched this debate and dipped my toe in from time to time. For the most part, though, I have avoided doing so simply because as DK has discovered, reasoning with the unreasonable is a self-defeating activity that leads to irritation, increasing levels of anger, high blood pressure and subsequent lethargy and a couldn’t-care-less despair. It just ain’t worth it. You can’t win - these people will argue that black is white no matter what. Mr Harding assures us, despite clear contemporaneous evidence to the contrary that government is to be trusted - indeed, his sycophantic blithering would be funny if he wasn’t so serious.

So, as I say, for the most part, I have ignored him. However, there was one little gem in among the dross that shone out like a diamond in a coal face. Not because it offered an explanation that he is right and we are wrong; rather that it demonstrates so conclusively why those of us who oppose the scheme are right to do so. During a discussion over at the NO2ID forum, Mr Harding made this comment:

"Our main difference is I actually can see no problem with the audit trail."

In that one small comment it is all there. Indeed, so startling is it, that it took me a moment to realise its significance. It was a mini "road to Damascus" moment for me. There, in one simple statement is an insight into the mindset of the ID cards proponents. This is a statement made by someone who appears to lack a moral compass. Most people will recoil from the idea of casually spying on others - there is something instinctively wrong about it. We might not vocalize it, but it is there. We know that it is immoral to invade the privacy of others without being told that it is inherently wrong. We just know. The people who want this scheme and who will administer it have no such qualms, they are an amoral army of drones who trust that what they are doing is for the best, for "efficiency" for the good of the all seeing, all pervading state and the state is right, benevolent, and our friend. That it seeks to remove one of our most elementary liberties is neither here nor there to these people. In the grand scheme of things, it is the state that matters, not we, the individuals. It would be easy to accuse the people who propose and support this scheme of being evil, but they aren’t evil. They sincerely believe that this is a good thing that will make the state more efficient. They simply lack the necessary moral judgement to realise that it is wrong in principle - that in a civilised society, we do not spy on our neighbours and the machinery of the state does not spy on its employer.

And why should this amoral army bother us? Data mining is already a thriving industry so what harm will a little more do? The audit trail will make matters worse. For government agencies suspicious of those who do not fit its profile of "normal" it will have at its disposal a powerful tool to profile and target malcontents who dare to question the role of the state. A similar picture will build up in the private sector as the unique key provides what is currently missing - a means of joining the disparate information into a cohesive whole. Expect more maildrops, nuisance calls and SPAM. Also, expect your insurance company to suddenly increase your premium as they have profiled you and determined that you are now an increased risk…

Welcome to Neu Labour’s brave new world.

This afternoon, government is debating the anti-terror legislation that will empower the police to detain a terrorist suspect for 90 days without charge. That is, presuming the government gets its way.

There has, naturally, been much emotive debate on the subject. What would amuse me in other circumstances is the blatant opportunism and cynicism of the government. Yes, we had a terrorist incident that was successful in July - there was also a failed attempt. Naturally, people want to feel that government is doing the right thing in order to minimise the risk of further attempts. A reasonable person would support reasonable measures. It’s just that these measures are not reasonable.

“Whenever they are challenged about any aspect of their anti-terrorist legislation, ministers rattle out a prepared answer: “It’s what the police want.” No doubt they do: like all human beings, they want as much power as possible. But if we are simply to contract out public policy to the boys in blue, what is the point of having elections? A polity driven wholly by what the police want is a police state - literally.”

Yes, there is a risk of further terrorist attacks - there always has been. Yes, the modus operandus has changed - the IRA sought to survive their own bombs, Jihadists seek to die in glory. When the police or government call for more powers to detain without charge, they crank up the fear factor, citing “dirty bombs” or “biological or chemical” agents. Like the “Ricin” bomb plot of last year. Except, there was no plot, there was no bomb and there was no ricin; just one disaffected Algerian who killed a policeman while resisting arrest. Given the blatant lies and attempts to create a case against innocent people that was subsequently dismissed by jurors leaves me with no obvious choice but to believe that our freedoms and democracy are in more immediate danger from those charged with protecting them than they are from Jihadists. There is a risk indeed from terrorism. Let’s keep it in proportion, please.

Tony Blair wheeled out victims of the July bombings as justification for his continued war on our freedoms. To use people who have suffered in this way is morally reprehensible. Changes to the law must be conducted dispassionately, while considering the bigger picture and possible wider effects. Interestingly Jeremy Vine interviewed a victim on his lunchtime talk show today - she opposed the measures as being disproportionate and objected to them being rushed through in her name. This, from her blog:

“I am not going to be a human shield for this Government. Not in my name, I say, you do not act for me. If you want to be tough on terror, then why not be tough on the causes of terror? Why not address, for example, Iraq, why you invaded, the bitter fruits of your ill-thought out invasion?

And until you do, when I hear your voices dripping sympathy and concern, saying you do this ‘for the victims’, Tony, Charles, and the rest of you… I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?”

The government’s respondent was at pains to point out that this was not “in her name”. Interesting, that. When the victims obediently oblige as the gentleman did on the BBC Breakfast programme this morning and repeat the government line that miscarriages of justice are worth it for “public safety” then it’s okay - it is in their name (why else invite them round to No 10?). However if they dare to go off message, then it is not “in their name”. What utter contemptuous, conniving charlatans these people are.

Jeremy Vine ran a phone-in survey to see what support existed among his listeners. Unsurprisingly 82% voted in favour of the government’s proposals. Presumably that 82% did not consider that it might be them being detained for 90 days. So long as it is some Arab looking chap who must be guilty because the police know he’s guilty then habeas corpus can go hang.

Remind me, what was it my grandparents’ generation fought and died to preserve? Whatever it was, the mendacious mountebanks in Whitehall have undermined it to the point where I can no longer recognise it. They do so with the blessing of the mob who have short memories along with a gullible belief in government propaganda and the tabloid press.

They all believe that as it is for public safety, it must be a good thing. Just let’s not think too deeply about the wider consequences for our society. Public safety - mention that and you can get away with murder - Robespierre did.

Update: The government was defeated. This is a first for Blair. At last, the commons is showing signs of some common sense. Although there is still a detention period of 28 days, it is good news overall. Now we await the Lords to do their bit and trash this dreadful bill.

Perhaps the commons will defeat the ID cards bill when it goes back to the commons as it is likely to following amendments from the Lords.