Longrider

While on the subject of ID Cards and their well deserved thrashing in the lords, I thought I’d share this little gem found over at the NO2ID forum. Anne Widdecombe is a fan of ID cards. Yes, well…

Anyway, it was this comment in response to a question that made me smile:

She started by saying she had become convinced of their value, in aiding law enforcement and the detection of crime and the apprehension of illegal immigrants, because virtually every Home Secretary she had either served with, or opposed, had been against their introduction when they got the job, but, for the above reasons, amongst others, was very much in favour when they left.

Yes, m’dear, that is because the unelected civil servants are whispering in their ear like keepers. That is why the buffoons come out in favour; their inherent egotism is pandered to by these people to further their own ends. Given that identity cards (and the iniquitous national identity register) will not achieve any of the stated aims and serves no useful function for those who will be forced to pay for them, we have to look to those who will benefit and it ain’t us.

Only a power crazed control freak or a fool would think these things are a good idea. Which description pretty much sums up all of the home secretaries in living memory…

The ID Cards Bill was defeated again in the Lords today. Their Lordships voted 186 - 142 (a majority of 44) to break the link with passports.

“The government lost again when peers called for a separate Act of Parliament before cards could be made compulsory.

The votes were among a series of Lib Dem and Tory amendments aimed at making sure people have a choice. “

Quite right too. Unfortunately our mendacious government is planning to sneak them in by the back door…

This from The Register:

“The UK is to go ahead with a biometric-backed system of ID verification this year, whether or not the ID Cards Bill is passed by parliament. The ‘Plan B’, which is going ahead under the auspices of the Passport Office and which does not require parliamentary approval, was touched on by Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland during the recent House of Lords debate ID cards debate.

She described a new service, “passport validation, a commercial service that will come on stream in 2006,” which is an aspect of the Passport Service’s Personal Identification Project (PIP). The validation/verification service is referred to briefly in the organisation’s 2005-10 business plan, and is itself a sort of prototype for the ID card scheme.”

So there you go - if anyone is under the illusion that we live in a parliamentary democracy where government obeys the will of parliament; disabuse yourself of that notion immediately. The bunch of rabid control freaks in Wesminster have no intention of allowing little things like parliamentary votes to get in the way of their quest for power.

Hat tip to Devil’s Kitchen and Nosemonkey
—–

Shortly after announcing that he was running for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats, Mark Oaten was interviewed on Jeremy Vine’s lunchtime show. The question, I recall, being “What does Mark Oaten stand for?” I don’t recall Jeremy Vine getting an answer to that. What I do recall is Oaten giving some very direct responses to questions. On civil liberties, he defended his opposition to Identity Cards despite a majority of Britons being in favour. When challenged, he stated that he was asked a straight question and the response in his opinion was that the majority of Britons were wrong. I agree, but am wandering off the point rather. He was asked - straight out and denied straight out whether he had any skeletons in his particular cupboard.

Well, it seems that he lied. And once more a frisson hurtles through the British blogosphere. Indeed, Guido Fawkes is claiming his scalp. This is not something to be proud of, but Guido is managing manfully to do so.There are two distinct camps emerging. Those who feel Oaten should be left to lick his wounds and ponder his indiscretions and those who are enjoying the moment. I fall into the former. Oaten is a human being - a flawed human being. And who isn’t? And why make a sorry mess worse - particularly for those involved through no fault of their own, such as Oaten’s family?

A politician was less than truthful. Quelle surprise. The Devil’s Kitchen asks in the aftermath which is worse; Oaten’s indiscretion, lack of judgement and lies - or the slime that presents itself as journalism in the form of the News[sic] of the World. For me, by far, the worse is the righteous indignation and claims to the high moral ground of the festering turds floating in the sewers of British journalism.

Mark Oaten has nailed his own political coffin. He should have known better, but none of this justifies the execrable Murdoch press - in particular, the Sun and the News[sic] of the World. They are beneath contempt; their behaviour the most base turpitude. What appals me more is that people pay money to buy this toilet paper, thereby fuelling this despicable behaviour. So what does this say about the great British public?

No, don’t tell me, I really don’t think I want to know.

I see Neu Labour apologist Neil Harding is traffic whoring again.

“Curtailment of liberties can sometimes be a good thing. For example curtailing the liberty of drivers to drive as fast as they like, is of benefit to everyone. The liberties of pedestrians, cyclists and even other road users to enhanced safety and less environmental degradation outweighs the liberty of drivers to do as they please. Therefore some liberties are not automatically a good thing. There is always a balance to be had.”

Well, I guess I agree with the balance thing. However, the point he - and government seem to consistently miss is that this is a common law democracy. Under such a system, unless something is specifically outlawed, it is permissible. Therefore, those of us who value liberty are under no obligation to justify or quantify it. It is anything that statue does not specifically prohibit. It is beholden on those who wish to remove them to make their case and justify the prohibition.

Since 1997, we have seen liberties eroded “for our own good” in a number of areas. There’s the hysterical “speed kills” nonsense that Neil repeats on this posting. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again; speed does not kill. People who drive without due consideration for the circumstances kill. Speed may or may not be a factor. Want to improve road safety? Well, more cameras and road furniture with ever restrictive speed limits won’t do it. What about encouraging all road users to adopt some risk awareness and management for themselves? Research in the Netherlands and more recently in Wiltshire has shown that removing road furniture and its consequential distraction improves the behaviour of drivers who now have to think for themselves. Unfortunately, thinking for ourselves is an anathema to the supporters of the nanny state.

Shortly after coming to power, the newly elected fascist government decided to bow to pressure from the media and bring about a ban on handguns. Unfortunately, the reality is that had John Major won, he would have caved in likewise. And didn’t that make matters better?

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

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.”

All those sporting types have to go to Switzerland to practice while the gangstas just carry on as before. How many legally held weapons were actually responsible for murders? Dunblane and Hungerford were rare exceptions - exceptions that were manageable under the existing control measures. But, no, reason and logic were not to prevail. Far better to bow to the demands of the baying mob than apply rational analysis to the matter.

Moving on, I could get into a rant about draconian anti-terror laws and the arrests of perfectly innocent people who are exercising their right of legal protest. I could mention the removal of the right to legally protest outside parliament. I could mention the Civil Contingencies act that makes Hitler’s enabling act of 1933 look like a walk in the park. I could, but by now you get the picture.

Our civil liberties are neatly enshrined in the principles of the Universal declaration of human rights. They are curtailed only by the need to ensure that we do not affect the rights of others (article 29.2).

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

Therefore, unless specifically illegal - it is my right to do as I please and I have no reason to justify myself. So, in answer to Neil’s question - My civil liberties are to do exactly as I wish providing I hurt no one else.

I really shouldn’t go surfing so early on a Saturday morning, really I shouldn’t. Via The Current Outlook comes this story.

The Lord Chancellor has said ID cards should be made compulsory if introduced in the UK.

Lord Falconer told the BBC that the only way to get full benefit from the scheme was for people without a passport to carry one.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has said the government backs ID cards and fears over civil liberties are “misplaced”.

I see. So despite just about everyone who has stopped for a nanosecond to think through the implications and realised that civil liberties will evaporate under such a scheme, despite just about everyone who is in a position to pass reasoned comment being against, despite only the half-baked boneheads on the government benches and their moronic, sycophantic lapdogs in the higher echelons of the police force coming out in favour of this insidious Stazi-like scheme, Lord bloody bollock-brain Falconer wants to impose them upon us. This numbskull Blairite lickspittle lackey has at least the decency to show us his true colours. He missed his calling by sixty-odd years, though. How dare this contemptuous mountebank patronise us with nonsense that our concerns about civil liberties are “misplaced”. They are not “misplaced”. Every experience with this bunch of fascist miscreants over the past eight years tells us otherwise. We have every reason not to trust them with such sensitive data.

The iniquitous Falconer and the other poltroons in government have consistently failed to engage in debate, have consistently failed to discuss costs and simply spout their disingenuous spin despite all of it being thoroughly discredited. The Lords defeat this week was well deserved. It was the right decision. Falconer and the rest of the dastardly shower that deigns to govern us will still try to push it through despite the portents. Perhaps their arrant recklessness is a good thing; defeat will be more likely to end in a bloodbath. Certainly the thought of that puffed-up conceited, smug, self-important head floating in a sea of blood brings a warm glow to the cockles…

I can only hope that this will be their undoing.

And, yes, I am angry. Normal service will be resumed shortly…

Review of Vive La France 2006
Once again, France visits the heart of London for the Vive La France exhibition at Olympia. Once again, Mrs Longrider and I took the train to London to take a look. There is the usual array of fine wines and foods. The wines are lost on us, unfortunately, as neither of us imbibe alcohol - but if you do, there’s plenty to choose from. I did succumb to the proffered cheeses though and we bought a fine slice of Gruyère. We also bought a rather nifty barbecue set that holds the food in place while you turn it, which means I’ll be more efficient when cooking alfresco next summer at L’Oustal.

Indeed, we spent rather more money than we planned - but when the opportunity to purchase the same item later is an unknown quantity, we tend to grab it now and worry later. Well, that explains the tin-plate version of Toulouse Lautrec’s Tournée du Chat Noir for the hallway anyway - that’s our excuse and we are sticking to it.

An enjoyable day out for francophiles.
—–

Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin are unlikely compatriots. Yet they share the same fate - both are being prosecuted for speaking their minds. One could question the relative value of those minds, but I wouldn’t be so cruel… I do find myself briefly enjoying the delicious irony of the juxtaposition of these two polar opposites sharing the same discomfort before considering the wider, more disturbing implications of the situation.

Abu Hamza is on trial for fifteen charges, including soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred. For his part, Nick Griffin is facing two charges of “using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred” - what a wonderfully PC way of putting it…

Mr Griffin has been ranting about Islam and terror attacks while Hamza has been vilifying Infidels and Jews.

So, where do I stand - given that I find both platforms equally abhorrent?

Both Griffin and Hamza are pretty obnoxious characters and are condemned by their own words - so be it. In Hamza’s case, the transcripts come across as somewhat deranged. This may be a result of translation, of course; but tends to suggest that he is unbalanced as much as hateful and hate filled. Griffin is a sorry little Hitler wannabe and is rightly reviled by most people. But - and here is the million dollar question - should a civilised society allow them to speak as they do?

Upon reflection, I’m with that quotation usually attributed to Voltaire:

“I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.”

It would seem the Devil thinks likewise. Hamza and Griffin and their ilk won’t go away if found guilty. The things they have to say will still be said. Just less openly.

As with the recent “Respect” nonsense from the right dishonourable Tony Blair, the latest populist twaddle is being criticised in the blogsphere. Instant justice sounds fine and dandy until you stop just for a nanosecond to consider the implications of such a concept. It doesn’t take more than that for a reasonable person to get it. Apart from the odd exception...

On the News at six o’clock yesterday evening a magistrate talked of concerns about due process and her role in these matters - it will be removed. Now, just pause and consider… A petty crime (whatever that may be) is investigated by the police. Under the present arrangements they take their case to the Crown Prosecution Service who will then decide whether they have sufficient evidence to prosecute. If so, they place that evidence before the scrutiny of the court. The court has no interest in such matters as clear-up rates or statistics. The court is concerned only with the evidence placed before it. The defendant is judged accordingly; by an independent body with no other consideration than the guilt or innocence of the defendant based upon examination of that evidence. The court then decides upon the appropriate penalty in the event of a guilty verdict or the defendant pleading guilty. And that is how it should be. If the guilty go free, it is because the CPS and police failed to furnish sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Now Blair wishes to undermine this principle. Lawyers are concerned:

PLANS for “instant justice” under which thousands of petty offences will be diverted from the courts will put innocent people under pressure to plead guilty, lawyers said yesterday.

The plans, which have the backing of Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, would involve thousands of offenders being punished by prosecutors, in consultation with police, instead of going before magistrates.

I’m not surprised. After all, it will be in the interests of the CPS and police to persuade defendants to plead guilty and accept the summary justice metered out. It saves time, saves cost and won’t it do wonders for their clear-up rates?

While I understand that low level cases may well clog up the system and that a more streamlined one may be appropriate, the idea of turning the police and CPS into judge, jury and executioner is fatally flawed. I understand what Lord Goldsmith is driving at; these people will have admitted guilt, so therefore it is only the penalty that the CPS lawyers and police will be deciding. Unfortunately, that is just too utopian. In the real world things will pan out somewhat differently. Doesn’t the prime minister understand the concept of conflict of interest?

Rhetorical question….