Longrider

Neil Harding popped by to make a comment on my civil liberties entry last night. I was a bit surprised as this was several days ago and I’ve slept since then. However, what he said, I feel, warrants more of an airing than it will get on an archived entry. Indeed, if Blog-City allowed such a system, I’d turn off comments after a set period anyway. Still, back to the comments:

“”My civil liberties are to do exactly as I wish providing I hurt no one else.”

Unfortunately doing exactly as you wish rarely hurts no-one. The point I was making is that there is nearly always a balance to be had with any action.

This appeal to common law is meaningless guff. Explain why this ‘untouchable principle’ is worthwhile? Just because something was written down hundreds of years ago, doesn’t mean it is worth upholding. This is the same argument religion uses and look at the nonsense that is in the bible.

“A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.”

The increase in firearm incidents is linked to increased use of replica, paintgun, airgun and other less lethal firearms that are still legal (sorry, Neil, this link doesn’t work), which is a convenient omission for a organisation like the Countryside Alliance (frequently backed by the Daily Mail) that represents the shooting community.”

I’ll admit I was somewhat brusque with my retort - I used the word “rubbish” and I make no apology for doing so. And I don’t use the Daily Mail as a source… Ye gods, the man knows how to wound.

Neil is not alone in rejecting the idea of traditions and concepts that are old. To an extent, I share the logic. When someone tells me that they do something because it is traditional, all too often they are telling me that they haven’t stopped to think it through for themselves. Often the rationale for tradition will be lost in the mists of time and have no relevance - apart from a warm inner glow - in the modern world. If people want to indulge in tradition though, then that’s fine by me - just don’t expect me to follow blindly. I will question and delve, seeking rational answers as to why we are doing things. Doing so does tend to get me a reputation for being an awkward bugger, but I’ve got broad shoulders, I’ll live with it.

When Neil draws a parallel between the Bible and common law, he is drawing a comparison between a constantly evolving method for dispute settlement that has been with us since the time of Henry II, and a book that started as an oral system of story telling several thousand years ago before being consigned to the written word and was finally put into its current format in the fourth century - and hasn’t changed over much since. You can’t really draw a comparison; unless we lived in a Theocracy and our legal system was based upon the law of God. We don’t; it isn’t; so the comparison doesn’t hold up.

There are two systems of law in the UK - Statute Law; passed by act of parliament and common law; the law between men. Common law was a system used in mediaeval England to enable the King or his representatives to settle disputes. Okay, so it is the best part of a thousand years old and is steeped in history and tradition. Does this mean that it is past its sell-by date and should be ditched? Of course not. If it works, and it ain’t broke, why try to fix it or replace it? Just because something is old it doesn’t mean that it is no longer relevant.

The underlying principle of common law is this: We all (every one of us) owe a duty of care not to cause injury to our neighbour. Failure to do so is an actionable tort. There is a parallel in the Hippocratic oath; Do no harm. Is that out of date and should that be ditched too? As a principle it is timeless.

Common law may be old and the precedents set may also be old - but a test case will create a new precedent, so the law is updated. Common law is as fresh today as it was when first conceived by the Angevins. To suggest that it is no longer valid in our current society is wholly wrong headed. I can understand why ZANU Labour might want to ditch its principles - it is far too inconvenient in the control freakish new world that they seek to impose upon us. After all, the awkward squad; those damned free thinkers of the libertarian persuasion rely on it to define their right to do pretty much as they please. And we can’t be having any nonsense like that; it’s far too untidy in the new world order. ZANU Labour requires drones who do as they are told, not people who think for themselves and - godammit, do what they want.

Er, actually, yes we can do pretty much as we please in a common law system providing it hurts no one else and some of us will complain loudly about our liberties being eroded. And so we should. Providing we do not injure our neighbour, that right to do as we please must remain sacrosanct and we must vigorously defend it or we commit future generations to blind subservience to the state - and that really would be appalling.

No one has yet come up with a rational explanation as to why my liberty should be removed. I am waiting, but not holding my breath.

As someone who currently lives with 11 cats and 4 tortoises, I know a thing or two about the husbandry of each species. I make it my business to be sure to understand their needs and ideal environment - this includes such things as food, shelter, warmth, sleep cycles and stimulation. All pretty straightforward stuff, really. And, frankly, it’s all the easier to find out with the advent of the Internet. As far as animal protection goes, we have the Protection of Animals Act 1911 as amended most recently in 2000. This act makes it an offence to wilfully injure or neglect domestic animals. Now, there might be a case for updating this act - I would certainly support more vigorous penalties for cruelty cases. But, and words fail me (or perhaps not), the government is again engaging in its nanny knows best mentality with its latest pronouncement:

“CATS, dogs and other family pets are to have five statutory “freedoms” enshrined in law — and owners who flout the regulations could face jail or a fine of up to £5,000 after a visit from the “pet police”.”

It gets better:

“Every domesticated animal will have a code of conduct tailored to their species, each of which is expected to run into dozens of pages. This will form part of the Animal Welfare Bill, expected to clear Parliament in the next few months.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will inform the owners of Britain’s ten million cats, eight million dogs and one million rabbits of their new obligations in a series of pamphlets distributed to vets, pet shops, kennels and over the internet.

The first code of conduct, produced for cat owners, has been obtained by The Times. The 18-page A4 document, drafted for MPs scrutinising the Bill, warns cat owners of the dangers of dogs. It reads: “Dogs should be introduced to cats very carefully. The dog should be on a lead at first so that it cannot chase the cat.” “

Really. Is that so? I would never have figured that one out by myself. Some of the “advice” though, is downright bad:

“Neuter cats at four months old. Females can produce up to 18 kittens a year, the code says, and “motherhood takes a lot out of a cat”. Cats advertise their availability by screeching, fighting and wandering off, it adds”

A kitten is not fully developed at four months. Indeed, neutering at six months is still young. We neuter at nine months to minimise the likelihood of complications. It is possible, but generally unlikely that the kitten will have come on heat by that time - certainly none of ours has. You can generally get away with castrating a tom at six months, but, again, to be absolutely sure, I prefer waiting until about nine months. I would never recommend neutering as young as four months.

“Keep cats indoors at night to protect them and the local wildlife “

While I accept that the issue of wildlife is contentious; this displays remarkable ignorance. Cats are crepuscular animals - going out at night is in their blood; an inalienable right, I would have said…

So having read the article, I ask myself; have I stepped into a parallel universe where absolutely nothing makes sense anymore or is the world really becoming more stupid as each day passes? Perhaps I should ask our cats to form a committee with a spokescat to inform Mrs Longrider and I of any concerns they may have - a food allowance increase, perhaps? Maybe the tortoises would like to hold a meeting to discuss the size of their outside enclosure (after all, they do keep trying to get out of it). If they nominate a spokescheloni, I’ll consider discussing their collective grievances.

No, it isn’t me, it can’t be. The world really is going mad.

“The Bill increases the time in which a prosecutor can bring a case from six months to three years. Pet shops may bring in a register of animals sold, with customers signing to signify they are above the age of 16 and have been given care advice.

The Bill applies to all vertebrates, but a code of conduct for invertebrates, such as lobsters, may follow.”

Bugger - did I treat those stick insects I had as a kid properly? And what about the toads that visit the pond during the spring and summer? Have I granted sufficient rights to their tadpoles? And, did you notice the little clause slipped in there like a stiletto between the ribs? The bit about a register? Ah, yes, here we go again. Find a “problem” and then fix it with mass surveillance.

Leopards really do not change their spots.

Of course, the leopard liberation front sub-committee for the rights to climb trees might be having a get together to discuss their collective “right” to change their spots if they want to…

This week’s Britblog Roundup from Tim Worstall. I generally black my nose each week - although in most cases these days, I’ve already picked up on the entries mentioned. It’s an opportunity to pick up on sites you might otherwise miss, though. Worth a read.
—–

A couple of stories broke this week about the ID Cards bill that are worth commenting upon. Firstly, Andy Burnahm, pontificated in the Daily Mirror about the usefulness of ID cards in preventing tragedies such as the double murder in Soham.

“ID cards will be used by the Government to stop monsters such as Ian Huntley giving false names to get jobs in schools.

Headteachers would ensure an applicant was using the right name by checking the card’s DNA, eye scan and fingerprint information against the National Identity Register’s database.”

I know that Burnham and his colleagues are beneath contempt; I have no illusions about their egalitarianism; but Christ! How low do you have to be to stoop to this level? To play on the hyperbole and hysteria currently being whipped up in the media about paedophiles? This has the rotting stench of desperation about it - and, once more, the home office and its minions fail to engage in reasoned debate; preferring instead to appeal to the base emotion of the lowest common denominator.

Lets be clear here; the failures in Soham occurred because the police failed to effectively apply the existing record checking procedures properly. The ID Cards bill contains nothing that would have prevented this happening, so the statement from Burnham is just pure spin. So, what’s new there, then?

The second story to break was that of RFID Chips. NO2ID has long believed that the ID cards would have this technology and the story - again in the Mirror and subsequently in the Telegraph, rather confirms their fears.

“PLANS to fit radio transmitters in identity cards were greeted with fury last night as opponents claimed they could be a spy device.

Angry MPs and pressure groups insist the cards might lead to a “surveillance state” by tracking innocent people’s movements.

Lib Dem MP Danny Alexander said: “Electronic tags belong on the ankles of criminals, not in the pockets of innocent citizens.” “

Little piece by little piece, the government’s agenda is disclosed. This is all about mass surveillance and nothing else. This is the only logical and reasonable explanation - nothing else makes sense.

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Sherlock Holmes

I rather like this little quote from the Telegraph piece:

Mr Burnham said …
“This kind of scaremongering is designed to whip up fears about the ID cards scheme. I hope people will see it for what it is.”

Yes, Mr Burnham, we can. And we can see you for the duplicitous little shit that you are.
—–

Something I noticed in the news the other day and was reminded of by Paul was this little gem.

Road chiefs are recruiting “pace” drivers to make sure motorists stick to speed limits.

The trial scheme will see volunteers employed to keep a steady speed of 70mph or less in the third lane of the motorway.

I’ve been critical of the road safety lobby in the past because of their obsession with speed, so it will come as no surprise that I am appalled by this idea. Although I note that the Doncaster Council site makes no specific mention of motorways.

The “speed kills” mantra is misleading to the point of being dangerous. Speed does not kill. If it did, the early trains would have been an abject failure as all the passengers would have died as predicted at the time by the doom merchants. Aircraft fly at 500mph or more and, my oh my, people don’t die as a result - they die when the plane stops flying suddenly; just as people in high speed trains die when they stop as a consequence of collision or derailment. Speed did not cause these deaths; stopping as a result of fault or failure did. On the roads, it is driving too close to other vehicles, failing to observe properly before moving into a traffic flow, lack of awareness and hazard recognition - and, on occasion, failure to regulate speed appropriate to the conditions. Speed is a component part of the whole and should be treated as such. “Speed kills” is taking one component out and operating to the dumbed down lowest common denominator.

In the event of a collision a lower speed will result in less impact damage. So, instead of concentrating on hazard awareness and defensive driving, we are all expected to travel more slowly because people are too stupid to be educated in basic risk awareness and management. Effective risk management is about avoiding the collision rather than mitigating its outcome. Pretty simple really. It is perfectly possible to travel on our roads at three figure speeds safely; given the right traffic and weather conditions. Legality and safety are not the same thing.

Having digressed into a rant, I’ll return to what has to be the most outrageous, stupid, asinine idea I’ve come across in recent times: Using volunteer (read sanctimonious busybodies) pace drivers in the third lane of the motorway to block drivers from travelling above the speed limit. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with safety and everything to do with mean spirited, petty, anti-motorist vindictiveness. The third lane of the motorway (incidentally, the safest roads we have) is for the purposes of overtaking - it is not for people to sit in at 70mph or less, holding up other drivers who may, or may not, be about to break the speed limit. If the police wish to prosecute offenders, so be it. Misusing the motorway with self-appointed busybodies is most certainly not the appropriate response.

While I cannot condone it, the outcome will be road rage incidents and undertaking of pace cars. A 70mph bunch of traffic is inherently more dangerous than a faster, evenly spaced flow of traffic. And, let’s be clear here, the 70mph limit is not there for safety, it is a hangover from the nineteen seventies’ fuel crisis. More lately, environmental pressures and patronising, emotive pseudo “don’t kill the children” dumbing down propaganda has driven speed limits lower on some roads. They are, for the most part, political. A safe speed is one in which the driver can stop in the road space that can be seen to be clear - this may well be the posted limit; in urban areas, it is probably pretty close. A safe speed can be well above or below the posted limit. Frankly, the obsession with speed and the idea that we all have to operate to the lowest common denominator simply tells me that either the British driver is pretty dreadful, or that the government thinks so.

So, I suppose the idea that white van man is to be offered driving lessons is something I should applaud. In a way, I do. At least the idea of education rather than restriction and regulation is a move in the right direction. I just find the idea of singling out a stereotype somewhat patronising and, once more, appealing to the lowest common dumbed down denominator. If we are going to be offering post-test driving lessons, why not for every driver?

Charles Clarke is planning to press ahead with ID cards despite the bashing in the Lords. No surprise there, then. But, still, he claims that the home office plans to link passport renewals with registration on the Stasi database; sorry, national identity register, is, somehow, “voluntary”.

“Mr Clarke said: “We will return to the Bill as it left the Commons. We will obviously look in detail at the particular changes the Lords have made and give them proper consideration. But we predicted and expected these defeats to happen.”

Peers voted to prevent ID cards from becoming compulsory, but Mr Clarke insisted the process would begin on a voluntary basis.

Mr Clarke told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme “ultimately” it should be compulsory to be part of the national identity register. But the process would begin voluntarily, with the system linked to passports.”

No, you pompous sophist, it is not “voluntary”. Where in your warped, duplicitous brain did the English language become so twisted that it is no longer recognisable? What part of “of ones own choosing” do you not understand? Linking passport renewals with your Stasi database; sorry, national identity register; is not even remotely “voluntary” because people will not be granted the right to make a choice - it’s passport and registration or no passport. That is not, I repeat not voluntary and for those who need a passport, it is not a choice.

Oh, yes, and how much is this pernicious little scheme of yours; sorry, barking Blunkett’s; going to cost? It’s a simple enough question, I would have thought an answer to within a billion or two wouldn’t be out of the way. Oh, sorry, of course, you can’t answer that because doing so would increase the costs…

In my quieter moments I have this vision of a row spikes before the tower of London with heads planted firmly on them for all to see. I thought Blair, Blunkett, Falconer and Clarke would be a fine start. Then, perhaps we could add McNulty and Burnham and in the interests of balance, perhaps Widdecombe and the erstwile chancellor, Clarke. Actually, given that I’d want to add Blunkett and pretty much most of the front bench, I’d be in danger of running out of spikes. It’s a pleasing image even if it is complete fantasy.
—–

There’s been much talk this past couple of days about the Department of Work and Pensions green paper on incapacity benefit. First we are told that doctors will be paid to “encourage” people back to work, then today on Jeremy Vine’s radio show we are told not, then we are told they will be “incentivised” whatever that may be. Still, I find the idea of representatives of the state in my GP’s surgery disquieting - although as I am not claiming incapacity benefit, I suppose I shouldn’t worry too much about it.

It’s the strapline being used that I find somewhat disturbing…

“work is good for you”

If you look at it hard enough, there is a similarity with another strapline that I can recall….

“Arbeit Macht Frei”

Of course, it could just be my vivid imagination working overtime.

Just received the following comment on PSP Universe from someone called Ed:

“Just a note, the phone number that people have been calling to get in touch with these people is no longer working. I know that because I just got that phone number when I got Vonage. So far I have recieved around 2 dozen calls from angry people and even a Brittish police officer. Please stop calling me, 8 in the morning is like 3 or 4 a.m. here.”

I’m not entirely sure where “here” is, but I suspect that all of the Nepco numbers will have now been redistributed to new subscribers. So, please give Ed a break.
—–