Longrider

This week’s Britblog is up.

I see from an article in today’s Observer that new drivers are to be given tips on “green” or eco-friendly driving techniques.

Learner drivers will be taught tips such as accelerating and braking less strongly and changing gears sooner and be assessed on their abilities as part of the practical exam.

All of which amounts to:

· Drive more smoothly: harsh accelerating and braking use up much more fuel
· Avoid excessive speed, especially on motorways
· Watch ahead to anticipate when to slow down or stop well in advance
· Change gear as soon as possible, ideally around 1,500-2,500 revs
· Once the engine is warm, turn it off if you are going to stop for longer than a minute
· Keep tyre pressure at right level
· Take any excess baggage out of the car, and racks and boxes off the roof
· Switch off or turn down air conditioning and heating
· Avoid unnecessary trips
· Buy a more efficient car

Sometimes I wonder. Then, sometimes I despair. I’ve mentioned it before here, but I’ll mention it again. Twenty years ago I qualified as an Approved Driving Instructor [ADI] and I am currently going through the process of re-acquiring my qualification. I subsequently spent five years teaching people to drive. How I managed to do this without training those people how to drive in a manner that was economical on tyres, brakes and fuel; how to drive with consideration for other road users and hazards observed; indeed if I didn’t do just those very things mentioned in the article because they are the basic building blocks of good driving; beats me. I can only presume that those making this assumption do so from a position of both ignorance and arrogance; that this thought process has been carried out without consulting the people who do know what they are talking about; driving instructors, for instance.

The DSA may be making a note of these things in the test and they may nag ADIs to pay particular attention to them, but we have, once more, a government so bereft of ideas that it is telling ADIs to do the bleedin’ obvious. Not only that, it’s the bleedin’ obvious that they have been doing all along.

Vicki Woods writes in the Telegraph of her wish to see that charlatan, Blair, go – sooner rather than later…

For some years now, my first conscious thought on waking has been: is that bloody Blair out of office yet? How I ache to see his fallen head in the back of the armoured limo for the very last time. Haloed by a thousand flashbulbs. Farewelled by a single headline: TONY OUT.

It really is time he upped and went, isn’t it? Politicians are meant to be here-today-gone-tomorrow kinds of creatures, not lifelong, Caesaro-papal, totalitarian autocrats grinning Trust me! and making it pretty damn clear that they don’t trust us.

Indeed; it is the arrogant “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude that gripes so much with me. The assumption that only he know what is best and that those who dare to heckle or voice dissent are just plain wrong. As the voices grow louder, one wonders when he will get the hint that maybe it isn’t the rest of the world that is out of step…

What I care about is that he is taking away my freedom to be who I am. The ID card lunacy alone should have the free citizens of Britain pouring into the streets à la poll tax riots. The state database is only one of Tony’s assaults on freedom, but it’s the biggest, the stupidest and the most illiberal.

Hm… What about the Civil Contingencies Act (2004)? That makes Hitler’s enabling act look positively reasonable. What about the deleterious Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill currently oozing its way malodorously through parliament? This bill, should it become law, will enable ministers to effectively bypass the parliamentary process. Vicki is certainly right; the ID Cards Act (2006) is, indeed, stupid and illiberal, but the most stupid and illiberal? That’s a moot point…

He - Tony - will never, ever be stopped by some snotty youth 10 days out of Hendon Police College and asked to “identify himself to the authorities”. You and I will.

As someone who doesn’t look “normal” (whatever that is) I am deeply worried by this possibility. When there is a crowd going through customs, it is me, the odd looking one with long hair and slightly foreign looks who gets stopped and asked for further details (papers, please). I’m fully expecting more of this and given my tendency to treat officialdom with well deserved contempt, sooner or later it’s going to get me into trouble, because sooner or later some snotty little official will get treated to the acid edge of my tongue. There’s a kind of dark inevitablity about it – I can remain civil in the face of stupidity for just so long. And boy, does it feel like a long time so far.

The Register has an article about the Home Office’s rush to add to the National Identity Register:

The Government announced last week that data from the National Identity Register (NIR) will also be used as an adult population register for a range of novel data sharing functions.

The Office of National Statistics had promoted a separate adult population register as part of the Citizen Information Project (CIP) for these functions, but the announcement states that the CIP project has been wound up and its functions incorporated into the wider use of NIR data. The announcement also changes many undertakings given to Parliament when it considered the ID Card legislation.

This was a kind of belt-and-braces arrangement anyway. If the ID cards bill failed, the Citizen Information Project would have picked up the fallout and carried on where it left off. So, we don’t get 51 registrable facts plus the audit trail if this goes ahead, we also get 51 registrable facts plus the audit trail, plus,

Within a month of passing, amongst others, the following are being considered for inclusion:

• Medical records
• Tax details
• Details of your children - to assist “tracing” them
• Council tax debt
• Confirming whether or not you have voted

 The Register article goes on to make this point:

When these plans are put into effect, personal data from the NIR will be used for purposes unconnected with crime, terrorism, illegal employment and immigration - the only purposes mentioned by Labour in its manifesto prepared for the 2005 General Election.

Well, there’s a surprise, politicians lied to us… :dry:

Function creep was always going to be a concern with this scheme. Although this is denied by the home office and its malevolent ministers, I certainly expected it. I  didn’t expect it to be so brazen or so soon, but certainly I expected it.

When Lord Goddard made his judgement in 1951, it was with good reason; the wartime identity cards were being used for purposes for which they were not originally intended – function creep had set in. The police were routinely asking for them when they had no reason to and eventually, one man refused.

Technology may have changed in the intervening half century since those events. People, human nature and the reasons for the repeal have not. Excuses that this is the 21st century and crime and terrorism are different are just so much spin. The idea the government should protect us from every risk is preposterous. Life is full of risk; always has been, always will. And, tagging us won’t reduce it one iota.

Still nice to see Charlie squirming on the hook. Couldn’t happen to a better bloke.

Charles Clarke accuses the media of being poisonous.

But I believe that a pernicious and even dangerous poison is now slipping into at least some parts of this media view of the world.

While I am critical of our media, in this instance, the poison emanates not from Fleet Street, but Downing Street. Indeed, when reading the transcript of this most obnoxious of politicians’ speech, full of non sequiturs; this priceless piece of balderdash, for example:

However, as democracy has advanced so powerfully across the world, other rights become important too. The right to go to work safely on the tube. The right no to be killed by someone who has served his sentence for violent crime but remains dangerous. The right to live at home without being disturbed by anti-social behaviour outside the front door.

And outright lies; this piece of barefaced fraud, for instance:

The National Identity Scheme is being introduced to safeguard people’s identities, not track their lifestyle or activities.

I think only of round objects. Unfortunately this brings to mind the old “Yes Minister” joke.

Who is Round? And to what does he object?

I notice while catching up on the land of blog that the Devil’s Kitchen is railing against republicans. Indeed, he uses the word “traitor” to describe such folk. Most of the time, I find myself laughing out loud at his rants. Indeed, I am in complete agreement on the matter of The London Marathon and the state of butter. But on the monarchy, we disagree. Or, maybe not entirely. You see, I’m a lifelong republican. Oh, well, I guess that makes me a traitor. Not that this worries me too much as I have never been one to dish out loyalty on the basis of such things as nationhood or the head of state. Loyalty, to me, is something earned not granted.

I blame Oliver Cromwell. If he had done the right thing instead of becoming the very thing he rebelled against, then likely as not, we would be a republic now and the argument would not exist. However, despite his faults, Cromwell did give us the kernel of the parliamentary democracy we have today – well, him, the restoration and the glorious revolution. Is that glorifying terrorism, I wonder? Never mind, back to the point.

DK points out in his rant that Tony Benn’s airline pilot argument is rather silly. Indeed it is. However, an asinine argument does not undermine the case, simply the person making it.

Naturally when considering the alternatives, the current political bogieman is waved before republicans… “Do you want Thatcher in Buck House?” They used to ask. Now, it’s “do you want Tony Blair in Buck House?” Good point, but misses it, too. In a republic, if that was the choice, so be it… As the Americans have been discovering recently, the current crop of presidential candidates are no George Washington… :dry:

I would prefer the European model rather than the American one, whereby the head of state is separate from parliament and the prime minister – a bit like our monarchy but without the divine right stuff. Of course the flaw in a republic is something the French had to stomach when faced with a stark choice in their presidential elections between the racist and the crook. They chose the crook. Of course, there is nothing that says a monarch cannot be equally flawed, despite a lifetime’s preparation. Our history is littered with bad monarchs… James II anyone? Or, what about that layabout George IV? If Charles I had kept his head, well, he would have… kept his head.

I would also like to see a head of state refuse to sign bad law – as happened in France recently. Although in that case, it was good law, but the French do have to be French. Yes, I know that this would prompt a constitutional crisis, but, given the dire state of our parliamentary democracy, perhaps that is exactly what we need. A good constitutional crisis might clear the air.

The problem for republicans at the moment is that the alternative to a monarchy looks remarkably like the French choice; making the “do you want Blair in Buck House?” a compelling argument against. I mean, what do we have to expect on a ballot paper? Blair and one or more of his thoroughly egregious colleagues? And the opposition benches has to offer what, exactly? Cameron? What a nauseating little tick that man is. Sheesh. I would hope an independent stood, someone of calibre and independence of mind. Someone who understands the gravitas needed for the job. Someone with gravitas… Mrs Windsor might be a suitable candidate, for example. Our current monarch isn’t a bad head of state. Indeed, as a person, I quite like her. It’s the right of birth and job for life thing that sticks in my craw. There’s the rub, of course. If our current monarch (who, frankly, has done rather well) stood, I and doubtless many others would vote for her.

So, while I am content to be a republican traitor; for the moment, though, I’ll live with the status quo – it’s miles better than the alternative and that just doesn’t bear thinking about.

I’ve been meaning to comment on the latest utterings by the egregious Blair and Clarke. I have, however, been tardy as a result of being in France and tiling a bathroom…

Still, no time like the present.

I recall about thirty years ago watching a television programme based upon the novel by Jesse Fryniwyd Tennyson called “A Pin to See the Peepshow.” It was a fictionalised retelling of Edith Thompson’s tragic story. Although apparently amicably married, Edith took a lover; Frederick Bywaters. Bywaters decided at some point to rid himself (and Edith) of her husband, Percy Thompson. Frederick Bywaters stabbed Percy Thompson when the couple were returning from a visit to the theatre. While there was never any doubt about Bywatrers’ guilt – indeed, he confessed not only to having carried out the killing, but to acting alone in the commission of his crime. Yet, despite this and inconclusive evidence of Edith’s complicity, she too was charged, tried and hanged.

This programme struck a chord in me – this was my first introduction to the principle of miscarriage of justice. There have been others; Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans and, since the abolition of the death penalty, the Guildford Four, and more recently the infanticide cases found guilty on the feeble “evidence” of an expert witness. Miscarriage of justice sends a shiver along my spine. I guess it’s the “there but for the grace of God” moment.

That shiver that ran a bit colder when I read the calm dismissal of it by Charles Clarke as just justice taking its course. If justice were to take the correct course, there would be no miscarriage of justice. However, evidence can be flawed, misinterpreted or a good (bad) barrister can swing a jury. These things happen and every once in a while, someone gets the rough end of it. A moral society recognises this and makes the appeal process expedient, efficient and subsequently seeks to make amends for the wrong done by compensating the victim. Yes; “victim”.

I can’t add much more to what has already been said about the appalling Clarke’s comments about cutting compensation to the victims of such miscarriages, except to add my voice to those condemning him for the noxious man that he is. Only someone completely devoid of any moral compass could even think of making such a suggestion.

Then this dreadful announcement is followed by his glorious leader demolishing what little is left of our freedoms during an email exchange with Henry Porter. In it, Blair points out that he will demolish our freedoms for the common good, of course:

And yes, I would go further. I would widen the police powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers, the cars they drive round in, and require them to prove they came by them, lawfully.

Abolition of the presumption of innocence, punishment before conviction.

I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact, I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country.

Persecution of the innocent.

But again, the reason we are acting is not a desire to be dictatorial but a genuine desire to protect our way of life from those who would destroy it.

As are we. It’s you, Dear Leader, doing the destroying.

I agree with you on one other thing. The politics of this cross left/right lines. Interestingly, in British politics today many Tories, the Lib Dems and a part of Labour (but really only a small part) would agree with you.

Blair acknowledges that others disagree. Well, hooray for that. Unfortunately in typical ZANU Labour double-think (if think is the right word) he assumes that everyone else is wrong. Oh, I don’t doubt he is right; the Sun readers will love it. But, then, do they have the imagination to stop for a moment while browsing the tittilation to consider that it might one day be them on the receiving end? Ah, there’s the rub; those who want draconian measures, want them for other people. Blair and Clarke are riding the wave of populism while ignoring the reality that they enjoy power as a result of our flawed electoral system. Populism is a dangerous wave to surf. Listening to Blair I am beginning to wonder about the effect of power and how deeply it corrupts the soul.

A rational man would not seek to sweep away those measures in our system that are there to protect the innocent. It is not reasonable, it is not rational, it is not logical, and it is not sound. Consequently, when considering the judgement of the man making the remarks, I have to conclude that he is not reasonable, rational, logical and that he is definitely unsound. Time to go, methinks. But, as Nosemonkey points out, the cancer has to go too.

If there was something rotten in Shakespeare’s Denmark, then it is positively putrifying in Blair’s Westminster .

As I write this, I am emerging from a “migraine lite”. A Migraine lite is the same as a migraine, but it fools you into thinking that it’s just a bad headache. When you are still struggling to get through the day several hours after the tablets should have kicked its arse into next week, too late, you realise that you can’t face lunch and you really should have taken Migralive rather than Nurofen Plus. Bugger!

Anyway, that wasn’t what I wanted to write about. I wanted to write about the Underground. Not, as the Devil’s Kitchen has; rather, the whole awful experience of using it.

Yesterday I had a job in Brighton and travelling back on the 16:49 meant hitting London in the middle on the rush hour. Bad enough though this was, it was made worse by a broken rail on the Bakerloo line. So, the whole crowd on the Bakerloo platform slurped its way through the tunnels to the Central line. Oh, God, what a dreadful experience this is. Tripping along dark smelly holes beneath the dingy, dirty, ghastly city that is London, crushed among the madding crowd as it plies its way home against the tide of the delays and breakdowns that the daily commuters take for granted, before being crushed like cattle into the train carriage, pressed nose to armpit with ones fellow travellers.

I have expressed misanthropic tendencies here before. As someone who makes a living training others this might seem odd. However, I do have social skills and, I do like people; on a one to one basis and in small groups. It is the crowd that I cannot stand. And on the underground, you get crowds, hordes of them, moving through those claustrophobic tunnels, crushing all before them.

I may have misanthropic tendencies, but actually, I do not hate my fellow man…

Just those who can’t be arsed to wash their armpits.