Longrider

Yesterday, the craven cowards who represent us, backed the government and voted to overturn the protections that the Lords’ amendments would have given us in the noxious ID Cards Bill.

So now we have the Civil Contingencies Act; the erosion of habeas corpus, soon we will have ID cards and the Stasi database and the regulatory reform bill. Piece by piece, this administration has assembled the machinery of the totalitarian state and dismantled the protections that prevented one arising.

Who, I wonder, will throw the switch?
—–

My mother has a saying about going back. She says that when you move on, don’t go back. She has never fully explained this wisdom, other than to say that things are never the same.

Yesterday, I had to go to Machynlleth to carry out an assessment. I lived not far from there in a village called Corris Uchaf (Upper Corris) from 1973 to 1976. When we moved there from Maidstone, I was 15 and entering the study regime for what was then CSE and subsequently GSE exams. I didn’t want to go. Indeed, my fears were well founded, I could not easily carry on the subjects I had chosen to follow and the mismatch between a city comprehensive and a rural grammar currently going through the process of becoming one disrupted my education; something from which it never fully recovered. Much of my education has been self-taught as an adult.

Teenagers tend to go through a “fish out of water” phase. For me, that three years was a permanent state of feeling out of place. I wasn’t Welsh at a time of rising national awareness in the heart of north Wales. I didn’t fit and I knew it. I spent that three years longing for a return to England and when my father secured a job in Bristol in the summer of 1976, I left without a backward glance.

Thirty years on I met the signalling manager at Machynlleth and realised that I knew him. His colleague on finding out my history told me that his father used to own the local pub and I knew immediately who he was - I used to go to school with his older brother. We spent about a hour chewing the fat as he filled me in on people who were distant memories, people who I’d thought I’d forgotten and came unbidden from their thirty year slumber. People who were children when I knew them suddenly left the childhood of my memories behind and became adults with familes, children and in some cases, grandchildren. Some have achieved their ambitions, some have not - the mix of life in a microcosm of village life, that, for a brief while, I shared. Talking to him was like stepping back in time for most of these people were still living in the village as their parents had done through generations.

I rode to Corris after our chat and took a couple of photographs of the village and our house; Bronfynnon. It was fitting that the day was overcast and damp; just as I recalled it that day in 1973 when as an unhappy teenager I realised that this was my home. Yesterday, though, I was looking at it with different eyes. As Mrs Longrider commented when she looked at the pictures later, this is a beautiful location and how wonderful it must be to live there. What my parents saw then became all too apparent. The pull of a rural environment is what made us buy a similar property in a small village in the south of France in 2003. Now, I understand. It didn’t work out for my parents in the 1970s, so they returned to the city and they tried again when they moved to their current location in Devon following retirement.

To wake up and look across green mountains and fields, to hear nothing louder than the sound of sheep, cattle or cockerels and the trickling of the brook at the bottom of the garden. To experience a pace of life that sees no need to rush. Yes, now I understand.

I felt a pang of sadness yesterday. Thirty years ago I didn’t understand and did not value what it was we had. When I saw people who still live there, who have changed little in the intervening time, I realised. Yesterday restimulated some bitter-sweet memories, and I understand why my mother says don’t go back. You can’t change what was, so why revisit it? She is probably right.

“By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes” William Shakespeare - Macbeth Act IV scene 1

You would have thought that the Kelly affair taught the government a lesson. Well, you would if we were talking about reasonable people. People, that is, who care about their fellow man and take high office for altruistic reasons, rather than snivelling self-servitude. We are, however, talking about the mean-spirited, illiberal parasites usually found festering on the government front benches.

Simon Davies is an academic. In his role as an academic, he along with colleagues from the London School of Economics, produced a paper on the costs of the proposed ID Cards Bill, which was somewhat different to the home office costs. The government, not surprisingly was unhappy with the outcome; not least because it showed them up for the incompetent, numerically dyslexic liars that they are. So the gloves came off and it all got very personal - they lined up their sights on Simon Davies because he is also a director of Privacy International.

“Davies was one of a group of academics at the LSE whose investigation found the costs of the national identity card scheme would be as much as £19 billion — three times the government’s initial estimate.When the report was published, Clarke immediately launched a virulent attack on the report, its authors and on Davies personally. “

What arseholes these ministers are. Arrogant, self-obsessed, venal, vile, repulsive arseholes; the lot of them. They don’t like the report so they target one of the authors in an unforgivable personal attack that leads to personal loss:

“As a result, his income has halved and he has had to move from a rented house to a bedsit in London. The lack of space has meant he has even had to give away Buster, his german shepherd dog.”

They claim that he is partisan because of his role with Privacy International. Although as Sir Howard Davies, Director of the LSE points out:

“It is quite wrong to suggest he (Davies) is the sole author of the report,” he said. “I would also question the assumption that an interest in civil liberty necessarily means that one is biased when producing an estimate of costs.”

I agree with this point entirely, but even if it wasn’t the case, and Davies was being partisan, does that justify a personal attack deliberately designed to destroy him? What kind of worthless shit honourable gentleman does that?

Of course, you also have to question the feeble-mindedness of those people who will not employ Mr Davies as a consultant on the basis of the briefings being put out by ministers. Frankly, anyone who incurs their ire is someone whom I would seek to employ forthwith - clearly this is a person with scruples and judgement. Not a description that I would consider applying to government ministers. These people are morally bankrupt, without any means of salvation, the lowest of the low - and then downstairs a few more flights. Frankly, you would be better off doing business with your local drug baron than government ministers. Drug barons at least have some semblance of honour and provide a service for their clientele. Not qualities you will find on the government front benches. You’d also feel less inclined to scrub your hands with wire wool after shaking that of the local drug baron.

So, to McNulty, Burnham, Clarke, Brown and most of all, the nauseous, feculent, pustulant pox of a prime minister; Blair, I wish you only death and disease; may the latter be long and excruciating. You have demonstrated that you no longer have any remnants of humanity within your desiccated souls. Go, please, and wither away and die; it’s the one final human thing you can do.

I rarely use the words “evil” or “wicked” because they tend to over state reality. In this case, though such use is deserved; something wicked this way comes, indeed. And, to remain with the Shakespearean theme; There really is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

Britblog roundup number 52 is up over at Tim Worstall’s place.
—–

The ID Cards Bill returns to the commons next week following its mauling by the Lords. I wrote to my MP in a vain attempt to persuade him to vote in favour of the Lords’ amendments, which if the vote is successful, will effectively neuter the bill. As he has supported the bill so far, I fully expected another justification of why we need this insidious Stasi database and more plastic in our wallets. Previously, responses have used the excuse that this would have helped constituents who have been the victims of identity fraud (whether actual identity theft, or the Andy Burnham version is not clear) and that the police want them. Anyway, this morning I received a reply and it is, to say the least, interesting…

“I will certainly consider very carefully the amendments to the Bill made in the Lords. I have not had time to study them yet nor to consider any amendments that the Government might table. However, I do assure you that I will give this matter very serious attention. I do appreciate your point of view.”

Do I detect a hint of a waver? Just a teeny wobble? My letter rebutted - almost point by point - the nonsensical briefing letter he will have received from Andy Burnham. A contrary view in the same mail bundle may have helped him to think again. Maybe the predictable letter from me at each cruical point in the bill’s passage is having an erosive effect. Certainly this is a far less positive reply than the ones he has sent previously during our exchanges.

In the past, he has rebelled against the government, so he has no qualms about conscience voting if he feels the need arises. Maybe there is hope yet. I shall be interested to see how he votes next week.
—–

Over at Infinitives Unsplit, the freedom of speech conversation is ongoing. Unity comments:

“The one bit of good news is that the usual crew of rationalist bloggers; you, Longrider, Justin, Nosemonkey, Sunny and Al-Hack at Pickled Politics, Disillusioned Kid, Jarndyce, Tim Ireland and the others, are trying to make some sense of this an unpick what’s really beeing going on.”

That’s high praise indeed. I’m honoured.

It’s a bit of a mouthful and it’s just had its second reading in the commons. So, what does it mean? well, Spyblog and Talk Politics have some comment, so it’s worth visiting them for a bit more detail.

In essence, this bill means that ministers can repeal, amend or replace acts of parliament without going through all that tedious parliamentary process. Gets in the way, doncha know? Why waste MPs’ precious time scruitinising bills if ministers can take all that burden from them and shoulder it themselves? Such caring, selfless types, these ministers; thinking only of the good of others. Halos all round, chaps, you deserve it.

Of course, why should we, the electorate, worry? After all, these are elected representatives and they are only doing this for our own good. Er, well, not all of them are elected… Oh, yeah, good old Charlie Falconer. This unelected chump who thinks we should all be compulsorily tagged like cattle and entered onto his chum’s Stasi database will be able to meddle about, making it up as he goes along, all without recourse to parliament and all without any recourse to the people he works for… That’s us in case you were in any doubt.

If you thought Hitler’s enabling bill was bad and the Civil Contingencies act was worse, then this is the cherry on the cake - it is a totalitarian dictator’s dream. After all, if ministers can mess about with legislation without recourse to parliament, why bother with troublesome MPs at all? The treacherous buggers can’t be relied upon to vote properly without rebelling anyway, so what purpose do they serve? And the opposition are just an assortment of oxygen thieves; who needs ‘em? Do away with the whole bunch of wasters and el Tone won’t have to bother with tedious parliamentary votes and keeping up appearances or losing face - just tell Charlie boy and the other brown nosed cronies to get on with the agenda and hey presto. Who needs parliament?

They’ll be thinking of cancelling elections next… Oh, shit, they already did…

Democracy - it ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, you know.
—–

This cartoon stuff is grumbling on still. I notice that over at Talk Politics there’s been an interesting discourse on the matter; here, here, here here and most recently here. It’s a long read, but I recommend it and do have some empathy with the underlying points being made. I can certainly acknowledge Unity’s point that there should be some boundary; good taste, if you like; that stops people going too far. Speech that is beyond the pale if you will. One example offered for discussion was “Auschwitz, the Musical”; that support for such a project would be so far beyond what is acceptable that it shouldn’t happen, that free speech just doesn’t extend that far.

I beg to differ. I believe people should be free to put on such a musical if they want to. After all, if anyone was daft enough to stage “Auschwitz, the Musical” they would, likely as not, lose their shirt. Quite apart from pretty much universal condemnation, it would be a career killer and would flop as no one would want to see it (well, almost no one). Free speech on both sides of the discussion creates its own level and that’s fine. We don’t need to ridicule some subjects because our common decency tells us that a line has been crossed if we go there. We don’t need boundaries because our own sensibilities create them for us; we instinctively know where the line is. That line may alter depending on context, of course. Would I, in the company of family who are predominantly Christian, make a point of my atheism? No, I keep quiet out of sensitivity to their feelings. That’s what we do in civilized society. I do, however, vigorously challenge religious thinking here where debate is sought and encouraged. Context matters.

This brings me to an underlying theme in the discussions with which I vehemently disagree; that those of us who fall on the absolute freedom of speech side of the debate are closet racists. Indeed, one of the comments went so far as to openly state it. Someone called janinsanfran said:

“Of course the folks defending the publication of the cartoons are indulging their racism. The very vehemence of their enthusiasm for their right to offend betrays them. Why does it seem so important to cause hurt?”

This is offensive. It is offensive because it indulges in pigeon-holing and ignores the nuances of the argument. It is offensive because it is ill-informed generalisation. It is offensive because it is stupid - but as yet, there is no law against stupidity (give it time). It is offensive because it isn’t true. However, I am consistent. Janinsanfran is free to come out with whatever stupid, ill-informed cack that takes her fancy; with my blessing. That’s what free speech means.

If I have to take a stance, then I believe that free speech is more important than sensibilities; it is what enables us to examine contra-arguments and ideas; to examine ideologies to which we might not otherwise be exposed and, having seen what people think and have to say, we can draw our conclusions.

“By my words, you will know me.”

And, I would much rather repugnant ideologies are examined in the harsh critical light of day, than allow them to fester and flourish unexamined in the shadows. If this makes me a racist, then my accuser needs to go out and buy a dictionary. I could be offended by janinsanfran’s comment, but - and this is an important point - I choose not to take offence because it isn’t true and I defend absolutely, her right to say it.

Update: If “those” cartoons are blasphemous and offensive to Muslims, why, exactly, did an Egyptian newspaper see fit to publish them last October without a squeak of protest?