Longrider

An alliance is being formed to campaign for a bill of rights.

An unprecedented alliance, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, Charter 88, Justice, Liberty and a host of constitutional reform organisations, is to be formed to campaign for a new bill of rights, amid growing concerns that laws protecting personal liberty are out of date.

The formation of the broadest coalition in history devoted to constitutional change comes at a time when public support for a new bill of rights is at a record level. An ICM poll for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust finds that 77 per cent of people now agree with the statement, ‘Britain needs a new bill of rights to protect the liberty of the individual’. This compares with 71 per cent in a similar poll in 2000.

My first thoughts are:

A bill of rights is a moot point. We really shouldn’t need one. That it is being proposed shows just how far this egregious government has eroded our liberties and I’m not sure a bill of rights would have prevented them. After all, all they would need to do is bring about a bill that enables them to amend or repeal statutory instruments without recourse to parliament – they could call it the legislative and regulatory reform bill; kind of rolls off the tongue, doncha think? And what makes anyone think that they wouldn’t do that? That this collection of organisations are banding together to make the point heard is evidence of just how far along the road toward tyranny we have come.

Having recently travelled to France on the Eurostar, I am acutely aware of the level of paranoia and consequential jobsworthery that now exists in the name of “safety” or “security” stoked by government ministers for their own political ends. Indeed, less than a century ago, we didn’t even need passports to nip across the channel, now we have to undergo the indignity of searches, x-rays and restrictions on what luggage is acceptable. That we are more likely to die as a consequence of terrorism is the new mantra and the excuse for the clampdown on our freedoms. We have always been at risk from such activities and always will; such is life. Defiance and carrying on as normal, refusing to be cowed, refusing to give up our liberty is the only proper response – apart from catching the buggers and locking them up for a decent length of time…

The coalition, Future Britain, will be formed in February and is to be co-ordinated by academics at the London School of Economics. It will conclude around the next general election, when its supporters believe the issue will become a key electoral battleground.

I would like to think so. However, I am wary of such claims. Libertariansim is still a small, lonely voice in a crowd of contented people who genuinely believe that government is legislating for their own good and that such legislation is benign. These people; that great majority; believe that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Yes, really. Stupidity is endemic. Recently, I saw my remarks here described by one such buffoon as the ramblings of a drunk in the pub loudly complaining about the world going to rat shit and demanding a return to hanging. That the person concerned was entirely (and demonstrably) wrong in everything he said (the thread in which he said it has since been deleted by the site owners, so I can’t give you a link) merely underlines the scale of the problem. The product of our education system is a populace that believes government is the answer. They cannot comprehend the concept of government being the problem – or even part of the problem.

The Observer article is optimistic, though:

History shows there have been notable successes when it comes to mobilising the public to help frame a new bill of rights. Canada introduced a charter of fundamental human rights in the 1980s while the Northern Ireland Assembly is considering introducing a bill of rights.

Well, here’s hoping they are right and I am wrong.

Like the Devil’s Kitchen, I won’t be shedding any tears over the demise of Saddam Hussein today.

The former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, has been hanged in northern Baghdad for crimes against humanity.

Iraqi state TV showed images of Saddam Hussein going to the gallows before dawn in a building his intelligence services once used for executions.

However the moment of his execution was not shown. Pictures of his body wrapped in a shroud were later broadcast on TV.

Like DK, I do not approve of capital punishment. Frankly, the images on the BBC’s website do not fill me with satisfaction that this tyrant received an ignominious end – although, it seems he may have died better than he lived. No, my reaction was one of repugnance, revulsion and horror. In the 21st century we still have societies that brutally end the life of a condemned prisoner at the end of a rope. Deserved? Maybe. But appropriate? No. Never, absolutely not. If society – the state, if you like as society’s persona – is to deliver justice; to express horror at the crimes perpetrated, then to emulate those crimes with state sponsored murder merely reduces that state to the level of the condemned prisoner. The state that decides who shall live and who shall die is as barbaric as the prisoner it dispatches. This is not justice, this is revenge and revenge has no place in justice. By now, we should have evolved beyond such behaviour. We have not, it seems. Mankind proved conclusively this morning that he is as barbaric and primitive as when he dropped down from the trees.

Will this solve anything? Nope. Will the quagmire that is the new Vietnam be any the better for it? Doubtful. Has a martyr been created? Possibly.

Happy New Year.

According to Andrew Tyrie, David Cameron is the new Benjamin Disraeli:

In a pamphlet published tomorrow, Andrew Tyrie says there are signs that Mr Cameron is pursuing the approach first espoused by Disraeli in the 1870s and then by Stanley Baldwin and Rab Butler during the last century.

…there is growing evidence that the Conservative leader is embracing policies emphasising shared national values, high quality public services and an inclusive social policy.

And there the similarity ends. Benjamin Disraeli was a political heavyweight. Cameron is a featherweight in comparison. Mr Tyrie does Disraeli a disservice with his parallel. Unless Cameron actually has some policies up his sleeve that we don’t know about? A clear vision and sense of direction? Some substance beneath the choreographed style?

Thought not.

Mr Tyrie says that One Nation Tories did not believe it was enough to simply demand a “shrink the state” solution.

Doubtless. But it would be a damn fine start.

Apparently both dog and cat owners think alike when it comes to naming their pets.

Dogs and cats may never see eye to eye but their owners are different.

Molly is the top choice in separate lists for dog and cat names released today by the RSPCA after a survey of almost 2,000 people. Molly did not even make either top 10 five years ago, when Ben was the favourite dog’s name.

Hm… Mrs Longrider and I strive to be just a little more imaginative… I don’t see Thutmose, Nefertiti, Ahmose or Arsinoe anywhere in there. Not even Cleo. Still, no one can accuse us of following the crowd.

A Scottish teachers’ union wants to bring about identity cards by the back door. It will help stamp out bullying, they seem to believe:

All secondary pupils in Scotland should be given ID cards in an effort to stamp out bullying, according to a teaching union.

The Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association (SSTA) says many schools already have card systems in place for school lunches and libraries.

It believes adding a picture would stop pupils missing meals because they have been bullied into handing over cards.

Once more we have the hard of thinking proposing a simple minded “solution” to what is, essentially, a human problem. Don’t get me wrong here; I abhor bullying.  I suffered it as a child and as a consequence have no tolerance for it. I learned that the best way of dealing with bullies is to stand up to them and fight back if necessary. It is a lesson I carried effectively into adulthood. I am all for teachers seeking opportunities to stamp it out. However, identity cards are not the solution. They aren’t the solution to anything.

However, the Green Party described the proposal as “deeply troubling”.

 Quite. Make the most of this; I agree with the green party. Put the flags out.

The SSTA’s general secretary, David Eaglesham, said the time had come for photographic identification to be added to the cards used to access school facilities.

As I recall from my schooldays, teachers knew all of the ragamuffins in their charge by sight – they didn’t need photocards to identify us. I suspect the same applies now. If it doesn’t, there is something “deeply troubling” here indeed.

SSTA members report frequently that young people are bullied into handing over their cards for school meals to others, thus leaving them without their meal entitlement.

With non-identified cards this will remain a problem. If photo ID is introduced widely, then the problem will dramatically reduce.

We used to write our names on the back of our tickets so that they were easily identified if lost. It was a simple and effective process. If teachers are able to recognise their charges by sight, they would also realise pretty quickly that one or more of them are using tickets that do not belong to them. It isn’t that difficult… or is it? Have we really reached a stage where teachers are so incapable of recognising the children in their care that they cannot tell when this type of bullying is going on and cannot recognise when someone is using a stolen ticket? Really?

Or is it more to do with this:

He said that introducing such a system would also help prepare young people for “the realities of identity management in the 21st Century”.

Ah, now, that strikes a note… David Eaglesham is the general secretary of a union. Unions support and fund the Labour party. Is it any surprise, therefore that the conditioning of young impressionable minds into subservience before the state is on his agenda? The right loathsome Tony Blair will be proud.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie has a better proposal:

“We should be preparing young people for the reality of defending their privacy and civil liberties against ever-more intrusive government systems,” he argued.

…

“These ID cards will do absolutely nothing to address the causes of bullying. Instead they will teach the next generation that an ID card culture is ‘normal’, and that they should have to prove their entitlement to services.”

Indeed.

The Bishop of Rochester is in the news again. He wants legislation enabling officials to forcibly remove the veil from Muslim women.

Legislation should be introduced giving some officials the power to remove the veil worn by Muslim women, the Bishop of Rochester has said.

The Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali told the Sunday Telegraph that “an unprecedented security situation” called for such legislation.

Er… “unprecedented security situation”? Worse than the IRA’s campaign of terror on the UK mainland? Worse than the Nazi invasion of Europe? Not too much hyperbole then… There is no unprecedented security situation; merely the government’s paranoia, over hyped propaganda and the media’s willingness to swallow complete bollocks whole without bothering to stop for a moment and consider the evidence. Yes, there is a risk to us from Islamic jihadists. We don’t forget this. However, let’s keep a sense of proportion shall we? And, what, exactly will giving officials yet more power do? It will do as it always does, empower them to want more and to abuse that which they already have.

His comments come after it was claimed that a murder suspect may have fled the UK in a Muslim veil.

Ye gods! So a murder suspect donned a disguise. Shall we ban false beards too? One escaped murder suspect is hardly grounds for draconian legislation. So, while I can agree with the bishop that jobs requiring clear communication are not suitable for the veil (and that is a matter for the employers not the state) – the use of legislation to infringe peoples’ right to wear what they want sets an awful precedent.

As a footnote, he wades into the mythical “war on Christmas” just for good measure:

And in an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Mr Nazir-Ali said Christmas was in danger of being destroyed by “thoughtless bureaucracy and the desire to be politically correct”.

He said there were people in “Whitehall and town hall… who want to write Christ out of Christmas altogether”.

So where is the evidence of these people? What are their names? Who, exactly are they? We should be told. The irony is, that they don’t exist and never have; much like the god and prophet worshipped by the good bishop.

Happy Mithras day everyone.

Joe and Helen Roberts are celebrating an out of court settlement following being questioned by the police about their views on homosexuality:

Helen and Joe Roberts, of Fleetwood, Lancashire, were questioned after they tried to display Christian literature next to gay rights’ leaflets.

Being something of an absolutist on free speech, (say what you please so long as you are prepared to accept the consequences) I see nothing wrong with their desire to display leaflets. What’s good for the goose and all that.

The couple had asked for Christian literature to be displayed alongside gay rights’ literature and “were astonished” when Wyre Borough Council refused.

During a call to the council to complain Mrs Roberts expressed her religious belief that homosexual practice was morally wrong.

That led to the council informing the police, who then sent two officers to the couple’s home to interrogate them on their views.

The expression “what the fuck?” springs to mind here. This is, is it not, a free country? One where people may freely express their views? Okay, okay, so the question is rhetorical. Of course not while petty council officials are prepared to report people to the police for expressing views that are verboten in Blair’s brave new world.

So, while I disagree with the Roberts’ views, I defend absolutely their right to express them. The settlement was right and proper – even if ten grand was a little over the top.

After a brief sojourn, I’m back. While there are still some protection arrangements to be made, my images will remain offline. It is inevitable that sooner or later content posted to the web will be stolen. Following good advice, though, doesn’t always work. The good advice in this instance relied on the thief being prepared to do the decent thing. However, the people over at b3ta are not interested in doing the decent thing. This place is a hotbed of intellectual property theft. Indeed, copyright theft and subsequent derivatives seems to be the order of the day. And if you have the stamina, the message boards are nothing more than the puerile ramblings of retarded minds with nothing better to do that deface other peoples’ work and laugh about cock jokes. Wit? Half right.

So, the usual route didn’t work. Indeed, it made matters worse. I’ve neither the funds nor the inclination to pursue a legal route. I satisfied myself with a couple of switcheroos and will set about protecting my images from further theft.

An ironic footnote to this story is that of Joel Veitch. Rob Manuel complains that Joel’s work has been ripped off by Coca Cola. At first glance it does appear that he is right, Coca Cola has, indeed, stolen his intellectual property. Normally, I would be sympathetic. That is, I would if Rob and Joel were not members of b3ta.com and Rob is a co-founder. Now, ain’t that poetic justice? It seems that for Rob and Joel, copyright is  something that applies to them and not other people. Other peoples’ copyright is treated with disdain on the board they inhabit and founded. Maybe they should clean up their own back yard before crying foul. 

Update: Following correspondence with Rob, I received an email from one of his co-founders; Denise Wilton. She apologised for the behaviour of the members concerned and has removed the offending posts. For which, many thanks to both. My faith in human nature is on its way to being restored and I am more than happy to apologise for my terse remarks above.

Interestingly, Denise mentioned in her email that some originators of source material used on b3ta are either offended or flattered. Having had my motorcycling articles “borrowed” in the past, why was I not in the flattered camp this time? Well, in previous examples of such lifting of my materials, the people concerned asked first and attributed all such work to me as the original author – none made any attempt to pass off the work as their own and none defaced it.