Longrider

The onward and relentless surge of enthusiasm for surveillance by those who would control our every move (and, doubtless, thoughts if they could) continues apace. The recent story regarding the utterly naive assumption that tagging air passengers like criminals will, in some magical way help to curb terrorism, is now added to by the desire to fingerprint pub goers (courtesy of El Reg), presumably in a desire to control drunken behaviour.

The government is is funding the roll out of fingerprint security at the doors of pubs and clubs in major English cities.

Funding is being offered to councils that want to have their pubs keep a regional black list of known trouble makers. The fingerprint network installed in February by South Somerset District Council in Yeovil drinking holes is being used as the show case.

Right. Strike Yeovil off my list of places to go for a night out.

“The Home Office have looked at our system and are looking at trials in other towns including Coventry, Hull & Sheffield,” said Julia Bradburn, principal licensing manager at South Somerset District Council.

Make that, Yeovil, Coventry (why would I want to go out for a night in Coventry anyway?) Hull and Sheffield.

Gwent and Nottingham police have also shown an interest, while Taunton, a town neighbouring Yeovil, is discussing the installation of fingerprint systems in 10 pubs and clubs with the systems supplier CreativeCode.

Fuck me! That’s Yeovil, Coventry, Hull, Sheffield, Taunton, Nottingham and Gwent all out of the running. The world is rapidly shrinking.

Bradburn could not say if fingerprint security in Yeovil had displaced crime to neighbouring towns, but she noted that domestic violence had risen in Yeovil.

Oh, really? Well, there’s a surprise…

The council had assumed it was its duty under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) to reduce drunken disorder by fingerprinting drinkers in the town centre.

Did it indeed? Well, I can assume, therefore that Yeovil town council comprises of a bunch of nasty authoritarian fuckwits who assume rather too much. Their duty may be to reduce drunken disorder; their duty is absolutely not to treat every drinker as if they are a criminal.

El Reg points out that licensees were not exactly unanimous:

Some licensees were not happy to have their punters fingerprinted, but are all now apparently behind the idea. Not only does the council let them open later if they join the scheme, but the system costs them only £1.50 a day to run.

The sting?

New licences stipulate that a landlord who doesn’t install fingerprint security and fails to show a “considerable” reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licences revoked.

There’s a word that describes this behaviour. That word is “blackmail”. That local politicians resort to extortion to get their way simply reinforces the notion that the nasty little arseholes are emulating their bigger cousins in Westminster.

At no time will I ever patronise any hostelry that requires me to provide fingerprints. I don’t want to go into pubs anything like enough to allow them to treat me as if I am guilty of criminal behaviour.

So, that’s pubs and flying down. What next, I wonder?

This post started life as a comment on Doctorvee’s post about libertariansim, UKIP and the Devil’s Kitchen. However, it became rather rambling (as is my wont) so I’m putting it here.

Doctorvee points out what he sees as inconsistencies in the Devil’s Kitchen’s libertarian credentials because of contradictions in UKIP’s polices; or, more to the point, contradictions in statements made by Nigel Farage. The conclusion being that UKIP aren’t really that libertarian, so this undermines DK’s position, somewhat. I think I’ve got that right, but I’m sure I’ll be corrected if I haven’t.

I don’t see any conflict though. Political ideologies are all very well, but we live in a world that is far from the black and white of the purist. We have had a Labour government for nearly a decade. What happened to public ownership of the means of production? Cameron’s Tories are embracing the principles of the NHS. What happened to the free market economy? What happened, of course, was pragmatism. The tacit acknowledgement that politics is a dirty business fought in the centre ground; which is where the votes are. Therefore, the acquisition of power means compromise. Compromise in itself is no bad thing. That’s how we reach agreements, and, hopefully, avoid too much conflict. It’s how we rub along, so I’m not going to knock it.

Libertarianism in its pure form is anarchy. If you are to have individual freedom, sooner or later you are going to need commonly accepted rules to govern the limits of that freedom. Put simply, all freedoms are limited to a greater or lesser degree. I do not profess to have the freedom to do as I please if it hurts others or impinges on their freedoms. The moment we accept this principle, we have stepped away from the brink of anarchy that is the absolute of libertarianism.

None of the libertarian bloggers I frequent appear to be offering anarchy as an alternative to what we have. This means that they recognise the need for some form of collective behaviour where individuals are unable to achieve their aims alone. We need government for foreign policy, policing, defence, local services, for example. Therefore, we accept (grudgingly) the need for general taxation to fund these activities. Depending on just how extreme is the individual will decide just how large that list is. So all of those libertarian bloggers are prepared to compromise. It doesn’t damage their libertarian credentials, though; it merely makes them pragmatists.

For an increasingly disenfranchised electorate, our vote is something we cast to the least worst option. UKIP are probably the least authoritarian party on the British political landscape at present. This does not fill me with cheer. A libertarian blogger throwing his weight behind them is understandable. That they may not be as libertarian as we would like is, well, compromise.

Anyway, on to the matter of immigration control – or as Doctorvee puts it; governments telling people where they can live.

But predictably, just one minute later, he advocates the view that governments should be able to tell people where they can and can’t live.

…

The fact that different countries have different GDPs is not a good argument against “the unfettered free trade of peoples between countries”. GDP is a measure of all of the income earned in an economy. So if you say that a country has a lower (per capita) GDP than another, that just means that the average income of a citizen of that country is lower.

Different people have different incomes. That is a fact of life. These differences in income exist within Europe. They also exist within the UK. They also exist within Kirkcaldy.

If this is so much of a problem that the government has to set some kind of limit to immigration, then it must also be enough of a problem to set a limit to the amount that people move within a country. There would be quotas on the number of people who can move from the Highlands to the Home Counties. They would build a moat around Ferguslie Park.

Personally, I’m happy with the principle of open borders. However, for that to be a viable option, all nations would have to operate open borders to have any hope of a free movement of labour (you can take it that I don’t like protectionism in trade either). Ours is a small island with a population of sixty million. Inevitably, immigration control will rear its ugly head. That people who are otherwise libertarian should be advocating such controls is not a contradiction, it is just evidence of that compromise coming into play. It is a pragmatic recognition that lines on maps are, indeed, important. So important that humanity has fought wars over them. I wish it wasn’t so, but it is; that’s life; so we must accept it. The argument comparing movement of peoples within the UK and peoples moving in from outside is fine but for the small matter of numbers. Just how many people can we accommodate before it becomes too much? Therefore, considering the possible imbalance between low and high GDP countries makes sense. Another factor to consider is the steady outflow of UK citizens to the sunnier spots in the EU. There’s still an imbalance, but again, needs to be considered. As DK himself pointed out, he has reservations.

All I was saying was that I have reservations about that policy, and my reservations are on the grounds of space and culture too.

Voicing reservation is not hypocrisy.

Jarndyce makes a charge in the comments of DV’s post. An unfair one, I might add:

You’ve pinpointed the glaring hypocrisy of most people who call themselves libertarians. They’re usually nothing of the sort: more like “what I have, no matter how I got it, is mine”-ians.

You could add to that; “and what is yours, no matter how you got it, is yours”. I’ll add the caveat that I am assuming on both counts we are talking about legal and honest means.

Libertarians compromise – well, there’s a newsflash. Everyone compromises. Where the debate begins is determined by the degree of compromise each individual is able to swallow.

Bliar is suggesting that political parties should get more state cash according to the BBC report today.

Political parties could get access to “greater levels” of public finance, the man reviewing funding arrangements for the prime minister has suggested.

I see. These are the people who have so disenfranchised the electorate and their own supporters that they verge on bankruptcy. Whose fault is that? Ours, it seems. Not theirs. Not the people who are currently being investigated for selling peerages, not the cynical bastards who betrayed every ounce of decency they may have once had. No, it is we, the electorate who are to blame. Well, those who bothered to vote, presumably and those who were vapid enough to vote for Princess Toni and his bunch of thieving bandits despite the evidence of two terms in office. Oh, but, we must be aware that this is all so necessary for the preservation of our moth-eaten democracy:

Sir Hayden Phillips warns that “we cannot have a healthy democracy for nothing”, in an interim report due to be published on Thursday.

You stupid, stupid man! Of course we can have a democracy for nothing. If the political parties engage with the electorate and encourage activists, they will be self supporting. Having betrayed the trust of that electorate and frittered away the support and subscriptions income from activists, you, you nincompoop, want to reward their arrogant conceit with money from the tax payer’s coffers. How bloody dare you!

Labour and the Conservatives have said they are in broad agreement with him.

Well, yes, they would. They are all swine from the same farm feeding from the same trough. Except that swine display more honour, honesty, dignity and decency in one trotter than this bunch of thieving, lying arseholes between them.

I see that the thoroughly egregious Ian Paisley is playing his usual silly buggers.

Ian Paisley today pulled out of his first scheduled round table talks with Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams, as a row intensified over ministerial pledges to support the police.

My word, Paisley and Adams talking together in the same room; possibly two of the most obnoxious men in these fair isles. What a sight that would have been. And there was the devil, net at the ready, just waiting for the right moment. Doubtless he will be disappointed. Ah, well, another time, perhaps. :devil:

Doctorvee is but the latest blogger to comment upon the vexed question of veil wearing and the government’s double standards over both this and their attempts to pass legislation enforcing gay rights.

There are a number of issues here, so I’ll try to break them down rather than ramble. As I see it, we have the matter of religious dress and dress codes, communication and that of trading and private property all mingling in.

Dress Codes

Let’s start with the dress code story that’s been doing the rounds, from Jack Straw’s comments to Aishah Azmi wearing a veil in the classroom. However, can we get one thing out of the way first, please? The veil is not a religious symbol, it is a cultural one. In particular, that of the Wahabbi Arabs of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, when people cite the Q’ran’s requirement for modest dress, it does not specify wearing a veil. The reason this issue is hot news is, I suspect, because Jack Straw did what tactless men always do; he said what many were thinking.

So, on the matter of dress, is Phil Woolas right to state that Ms Azmi should be sacked? Well, the answer is, in all likelihood, “probably”. What Ms Azmi wears in her own time is entirely her own decision. What she wears on her employer’s time is theirs. If they have a written dress policy that requires, for example, conventional appearance, then she is in breach of the code and they have every right to take disciplinary action. I’ve been down this particular road, so have some experience in the matter. What Ms Azmi is doing here is making a statement. That statement is; “I’m different”, she is setting herself apart from those around her. I don’t have a problem with this; I do it myself. I like to wear my hair longer than is fashionable for men, I like to wear leather jackets and jeans, not to mention full length leather coats – yeah, yeah, so I have a thing about leather… However, when I am training on my clients’ premises, I dress conventionally. That is, I wear a suit and tie. There is nothing immodest about conventional business clothing and as a professional educator, it is reasonable of Ms Azmi’s employers to expect her to adopt professional dress. If they specify it in a written policy, the law allows them to enforce it and sack her if she refuses to comply. The question, I wonder, is did they?

Communication

The matter of communication has been raised as an objection to the veil. Doctorvee in his comments challenges this:

More seriously, it is a fact that people are able to take in more information when they are not looking at the speaker’s face. Taking in information from somebody’s face is a waste of brain power. I find myself that when I have to listen carefully I end up focusing on a stationery object in middle distance. So in what way is covering your face going to make people listen less?

Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts this – even if it is the good doctor’s own personal experience. Much of our communication is non-verbal. Around 90%, in fact. We do it all the time, so much so, we take no real notice of it. Until, that is, we are deprived of it. When on the telephone, we have to listen carefully to catch the words – a distraction can mean missing vital parts of the message (at least it does for me). The rail industry has been struggling with communication for decades. Their own internal research suggests that the majority of incidents have communication as an exacerbating factor. This is why the aviation industry and the emergency services use strict protocols for communication; they are compensating for the loss of face-to-face communication. You would not normally expect to use repeat back to ensure understanding in a face-to-face communication, as it is a fairly simple matter to read body language and tell whether the message was understood. Ms Azmi is a professional educator. As such, she will have a profound understanding of the importance of communication in all its forms on the learning process. Frankly, removing a significant factor in that communication in the way that she has, is unprofessional. I too like to be different and assert my identity; but never at the expense of my professionalism.

Gay Rights Legislation

In his post, Doctorvee raises the government’s current stalemate over the gay rights legislation as part of the overall discussion and specifically, Ruth Kelly’s double standards. Ah, yes, hypocrisy writ large from Ms Kelly. Well, what did you expect? However, I believe Ms Kelly is absolutely right to stall this legislation, but for entirely the wrong reason. On this, I take Tim Worstall’s position.

In a free society I must be able to take those quirks of my own character and desires into account when I decide how to dispose of my widget. For if I cannot it is not my property that I am free to keep or dispose of as I wish, not so?

Quite. This law is wrong because it seeks to involve the government where it has no right to be involved. Remember that leather jacket that I like to wear? Well, on more than one occasion I have been turned away from public houses by landlords who do not like motorcyclists. They have the absolute right to refuse whomsoever they wish, much as this might annoy me. My response is to take my business to a hostelry with a more liberal landlord and give that establishment my money rather than the prejudiced git who turned me away. Bed and breakfast establishments that discriminate against gay couples will either lose or gain business according to their stand and society’s view of their stance. The market will decide. The gay community tends to have plenty of disposable income. Those businesses that would rather not do business with these people will lose that slice of the market; possibly more as others will also seek out less prejudiced establishments. And, if that business fails as a consequence, well, so be it. What we do not need is government ministers involving themselves where they have no business poking about. With whom we choose to trade is a matter for the parties involved and no one else.

As December melts into January snow;
I ask myself; where did autumn go?
The gold and russet of gentle summer passed
And now has October gone so fast?
Mellow September has waned away
And the equinox brings a shorter day.
Dark midwinter will soon be here
And has October gone for another year?

It is looking as if Richard Dawkins is likely to be an unlikely bestseller this Christmas.

A BOOK that rejects religion and argues for the non- existence of God is heading to be the No 1 bestseller for Christmas.

Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion is at the top of the bestseller chart of the online bookseller Amazon, and is climbing up The Times bestseller chart.

Dawkins is a bit evangelical for my taste but I can’t help a quiet smile at the delicious irony in the timing.

Electronic tagging of air passengers could become the norm according to this story

Electronically tagging passengers at airports could help the fight against terrorism, scientists have said.

The prototype technology is to be tested at an airport in Hungary, and could, if successful, become a reality “in two years”.

It’s like a relentless march; the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties by those enraptured by the lure of “technological solutions”. Sounds almost final, that. I wonder, sometimes, just what passes for brain matter between the ears of these people. Tagging passengers will not stop terrorism, it will simply allow the authorities to harass and menace innocent citizens going about their lawful business.

He said: “The basic idea is that airports could be fitted with a network of combined panoramic cameras and RFID (radio frequency ID) tag readers, which would monitor the movements of people around the various terminal buildings.”

Let me put this plainly; where I go in public area of the terminal building is my fucking business and no one else’s. Usually, this is from check-in, through the interminable security checks, a brief sojourn in the departure lounge and onto the aircraft. If I nip to the gents sometime during that process, I absolutely do not want Big Brother following me about.

The tags do not store any data, but emit a signal containing a unique ID which could be cross-referenced with passenger identification information. In the future, added Dr Brennan, this could incorporate biometric data.

Here we go… Now why did I know that was going to come up. These nincompoops just love the sound of that one, don’t they? And this belies any “civil liberties” assurances they attempt to offer. This is all about eroding civil liberties. This is about treating ordinary law abiding citizens like criminals.

The plan, he said, would be for each passenger to be issued with a tag at check-in.

The day that happens will be the last day I fly anywhere. I will absolutely not be electronically tagged by anyone, anywhere. This is not negotiable.