Longrider

…put in a valid email address.

The other day, I received an email from someone called Neil Collins. He was asking for my help – although there is nothing I can do about this, as it is a local planning issue. I did, however, try to respond, but the email came bouncing back – address unknown.

Following on from the Dr Gill case a while back, JuliaM draws my attention to the RSPCA’s latest little gimmick – attempted theft from the beneficiaries of the dead.

Visitors to the website of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are told that more than half of the charity’s annual income – which totalled almost £120m in 2008 – comes from legacies in wills. “We’re incredibly grateful to these thoughtful animal lovers and, as with any donation, their gifts will be put to good use,” the site says.

Which is very decent of those benefactors.

But John Mason, whose brother George bequeathed more than £480,000 to the charity when he died, would probably disagree.

As it turns out, he has good reason to.

The 85-year-old, from Enfield in north London, recently joined a growing list of people who have been dragged through the courts by the RSPCA after disagreements with the charity.

A bit like Dr Gill, only with a rather different and altogether nastier twist.

In his will, Mr Mason’s brother divided his £1m fortune between the charity, his brother and two of his closest friends, Norman and Patricia Sharp. But, under Britain’s complicated tax laws, the RSPCA was concerned it was going to have to pay inheritance tax on its share of the estate. So it took Mr Mason and the Sharps to court to try to get them to pay some of the tax out of their bequests.

I had to read that twice. This organisation wants the other benefactors of the will to pay its share of the IHT. Yup, that’s right. Greed doesn’t come close to describing this activity. Nor does spite, malice or wickedness. This is attempted theft by any other name and it smells as foul.

However, at the High Court in London last week, Mr Justice Peter Smith dismissed the claim and ordered the RSPCA to pay the costs. The judge said the charity’s case had been “extremely weak and should not have been brought”, and refused to give it permission to appeal.

This is a sensible judgement and sets a precedent should this evil, scheming organisation try the same trick with some other grieving unfortunate.

He said it was “clear” from George Mason’s will that he had never intended for any tax liability to fall on his brother or friends. Despite the ruling, he said, the RSPCA would still receive £370,000 of Mr Mason’s money.

Yes, I’d have thought it pretty clear, too. In general, when people leave bequests, they don’t intend that some benefactors pick up the tax liability for others. It takes a deeply perverse view of the world to reach such a conclusion – or one blinded by avarice.

The problem, of course, is that bullies like to use solicitors’ letters to cow people into submission. I’ve been there and understand what it feels like to read the dire threats issued in dry legalese, intended to frighten the recipient, despite the weakness of the claim being made. It’s designed to browbeat people into giving up their rights because it will be too expensive to fight, encouraging them to take the easy, less expensive option; submission, compliance and ultimately paying up to the tormentor. This is the tactic of the coward and the bully. However, my reaction was not the typical one. I do not give in to bullies. My reaction was to stand and fight. It is good that others respond likewise.

We decided that the only way forward was to try to stand up to them. To be honest, we didn’t think they would ever take it to court, because their position was so tenuous and their argument was so technical we thought they wouldn’t risk it.

In general, that would be the likely outcome of most disputes. It was the outcome of mine, for example, the bully backed down rather than have his tenuous case tested. The RSPCA are in another league when it comes to bullying, it seems. They went the full nautical mile. And, rightly, justly, it cost them dear.

The parasite who represented the RSPCA thinks the ruling unfair.

But Paul Hewitt, a partner at Withers law firm who fought the RSPCA’s case against Mr Mason, told The Independent yesterday that he felt the ruling in that case had been “grossly unfair” and that the judge had been “wrong” to dismiss the case. He also pointed out that the “vast majority” of legacy cases in which the charity is involved are settled out of court.

Mr Hewitt clearly does not use the same English dictionary as I do, as the only unfair, wrong thing here was the wholly reprehensible action he took on behalf of his sleazy client to bully the recently bereaved in order to squeeze even more than the generous donation they were left from the deceased’s estate. And, frankly, there was nothing to settle. The charity – and I use the word loosely – was given a very generous sum of money and decided to mug the remaining beneficiaries, too. But, then, I would have nothing to do with them in the first instance. This organisation will never see a penny of my money – alive or dead.

If I say to a charity: ‘I’m leaving you £200,000′, and the charity only receives £50,000, should it just walk away?

Yes, because the dispute is with the government, not the other beneficiaries.

In general, don’t give money to the RSPCA. Don’t leave them anything in your will. And if you find yourself in the same position as the Masons, fight the bastards every inch of the way. If you do want to give to animal charities, give to the small, independent ones not the RSPCA.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to make of this piece by Nick Cohen. I read it once and then again, and am still baffled as to what he is trying to say here. Torture is okay? Or torture is okay providing you don’t get caught doing it?

Torture is wrong because… The holding of prisoners of conscience is wrong because… The oppression of women is wrong because… If you finish these sentences with anything other than …because it violates universal human rights, you leave yourself wide open to attack by your opponents.

Um, what about because they are all deeply immoral and reprehensible in a society that aims to call itself civilised?

Although I am sure that Britain is a happier country than Saudi Arabia and that a sensible person would rather live in France than Cuba, the case for basing societies on liberties is not a utilitarian one. Listen to the current debate on rights, however, and you will find that virtually everyone involved pretends that we can enjoy them without paying a price; that a cost-benefit analysis will always show gain without pain.

Are they? Actually, a cost benefit analysis applied to basic civil liberties is somewhat absurd. There is a cost benefit to not torturing people? Or is that there is a benefit to torturing them? What benefit might that be? Sure, there is a risk associated with greater liberty. There is a risk from those who would attack us and undermine it. However, in practice, the greatest risk comes from those who would protect us from the bogeymen, not the terrorists themselves. And, frankly, not torturing someone is a no-brainer, I would have thought…

On the face of it, the Court of Appeal upheld universal human rights when it decided to release a summary of US intelligence that showed American interrogators had shackled Binyam Mohamed, a suspected supporter of the Taliban, and subjected him to sleep deprivation. But a closer examination shows that the judges did not say that Mohamed was entitled to evidence that supported his allegation that MI5 was complicit in his mistreatment, regardless of the consequences for the relationship between the British and US intelligence services.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t see a problem here. If he was tortured, which he shouldn’t have been, and MI5 were complicit, then he damned well should have access to that evidence and MI5 should be publicly hauled over the coals for it – whatever the fallout. We, as a civilised society, should have no truck with torture. Not negotiable. That we have been is a fucking disgrace, frankly. And I don’t care one jot if the Obama administration is disappointed – go and be fucking disappointed. I’m disappointed that a so-called civilised society – an ally – is involved in such barbaric and medieval behaviour.

Instead, they comforted themselves with the Pollyannaish notion that there could be no bad consequences for the espionage agencies. David Miliband warned them that intelligence sharing between the two countries would suffer if they ordered the publication of information given in confidence by an ally.

Tough shit, frankly.

No sooner had he ruled than a “deeply disappointed” Obama White House objected most forcibly. “As we warned, the court’s judgment will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-­sharing relationship with the UK, and it will have to factor into our decision-making going forward.”

Tough shit. Get over yourselves. You tortured a man and he took you to court. Quite rightly. Don’t like it? Well, how about not torturing people, then?

Writers on torture insist that it “does not work”, as if the argument against torture depended on its efficacy, and as if the case for torture could be made if a torturer proved in an experiment on unwilling victims that it could be remarkably persuasive.

No. That torture does not work is a factual point that undermines its use and is a point worth making. Evidence gained under torture is tainted and unreliable – quite apart from the humanitarian issues.

Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, added a further complication when he said that the Mohamed ruling provided a propaganda victory for our enemies.

No. Torturing people did that.

But therein lies the problem. Most of the British do not behave as if they are at war. Every third-rate political pundit has ruled that we cannot say that we are in a “war on terror”. Meanwhile, politicians will not allow us to say that we are in a “war against radical Islam” because they have to pretend that religion does not motivate religious extremists.

That’s because we are not at war. A few – largely incompetent – islamists have tried to blow themselves up, leading to less than a hundred deaths on the UK mainland. This is not a war. This does not justify a reduction in civil liberties. This does not justify torture and it does not justify covering up torture – and if people think that this may hand a propaganda coup to those who would do us harm, than they should have thought about that before they decided to torture their captives.

Anyway, reading the comments, it seems I’m not the only one who finds Cohen’s arguments confusing.

Appalled is the only rational response to this from Dick Puddlecote.

Last week, the boy Puddlecote’s school e-mailed their regular newsletter. At the end of the sterile but cheery message was a plea for parent participation.

“The children are always pleased when parents hear them sing at our assembly shows, so please come along if you can. Remember to bring your CRB checks with you”

This is a real WTF!?! moment. I mean, really, what the feculent, fucking fuckitty fuck? It is when I read stories like this, that I remind myself just why I left the UK. The French do not have this obsessive paedo paranoia that pervades British society.

Last spring, I was showing my father and his friend around La Couvertoirade when a couple of young boys rode up to us on their cycles, stopped and engaged us in conversation. They were probably about ten years old and showed no fear about talking to us – they wanted to know where we came from, what we were doing and such and practice a little English. This casual childlike curiosity is perfectly natural and we felt relaxed and comfortable answering their questions. Curiosity satisfied, they rode off. I remarked at the time, that in Britain we would have been regarded with suspicion, if it had happened at all. After all, in Britain, three grown men together must be paedos. The French just don’t have this problem.

Likewise one evening during the summer last year, I was out with Mrs L photographing Lodève cathedral when we were surrounded by a gaggle of pre-teens all wanting to know what we were doing and what I was photographing. Indeed, there was a clamour to be in the picture – unaware, of course that with a 10 second exposure, they would merely be a brightly coloured blur. They danced around in front of the lens anyway and I do have some brightly coloured blurs on some of the images. At twilight, these children were happily engaging us in conversation and no one cared one jot. That’s because the French, being an adult society, recognise that there isn’t a paedo lurking on every street corner and there never was. The idea that there is, is hyperbole whipped up by the tabloids in response to a few high profile cases and a weak minded government that makes policy on the basis of red top headlines. The victims are parents, such as Dick.

So, when I see Dick’s story about this festering isle, I am absolutely sure that leaving was the best thing. If I didn’t have to return for work, I wouldn’t come back at all, frankly.

Following on from the recent case of Munir Hussain, we get another story about self defence. This one.

Builder David Fullard, 46, from Brough, East Yorkshire, was prosecuted for attacking Michael Severs, 22, after using a “battlefield weapon” to defend his home when he and Michael Smith, 19, forced their way into his home. However he was cleared of unlawful wounding in November last year following a nine-month legal battle.

In this instance, the householder was confronting intruders while in the home, which is just enough to change matters, which is why this jury reached a different decision to the one in the Munir Hussain case. And correctly so.

The court heard that Severs and Smith, who were high on drink and drugs, vaguely knew Mr Fullard’s eldest son Tom, 17, and knocked on the door of the family home claiming he owed them £5. The pair then barged into the living room and threatened Mr Fullard’s long-term partner Susan Neal, 53. Mr Fullard’s youngest son Danny, 14, was also in the house.

“I wanted the flat of the sword to hit him. I hit him once. I thought he was going to kill me or put me in hospital. I thought to myself he is going to take me apart,” Mr Fullard told the jury.

“If there had been a walking stick there. I would have hit him with a walking stick. I just wanted to stop him.”

I would argue that this was reasonable force. The jury clearly agrees. These people were in Mr Fullard’s home and threatening him, so he reached for whatever was nearest to defend himself. This is the very definition of self-defence. What beggars belief is that it took nine months to reach that conclusion. Frankly, it beggars belief that it got beyond the original investigation, as this was a clear case of self defence.

The prosecution had argued that the use of the Samurai sword was a case of self defence gone too far.

No. It could have been anything that came to hand. That it was a Samurai sword was merely fortunate – although a little lower might have been more appropriate, that’s what the Samurai would have done and Mr Severs would have lost rather more than an ear…

Following my recent comments on salt, I’ve been contacted by folk in the USA who have been facing the same assault on salt.

Dear Longrider,

I am representing My Food My Choice (http://myfoodmychoice.org), a New York City-based grassroots coalition of consumers and businesses that promotes the advancement of consumer choice in the marketplace and an environment of economic vitality. I am writing to ask that you let your readers know about our petition to save our restaurants and dverse cuisine.

This coalition started because of the threat posed to our restaurants and shops by the National Salt Reduction Initiative launched recently by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Here is a link to our recent op-ed in the Gotham Gazette:http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/comm/20100126/212/3162. The petition has garnered a lot of grassroots support opposed to Bloomberg’s food police and nanny-state governance.

Your help circulating the petition would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Orit Sklar

National Spokeswoman

My Food My Choice

MyFoodMyChoice.org

MyFoodMyChoice@MyFoodMyChoice.org

Good luck with that. And if you are in the US, maybe you should sign.

Well, there has to be one, doesn’t there? I don’t know where the Groan digs them up from, but stupidity is the mark of the beast. In this case, we get twenty-four carat diamond encrusted bunkum from Toby Litt.

As any random five-minute segment of Top Gear will demonstrate, car ownership is roughly 5% about getting from A to B and 95% about gloating.

Sigh… No. It’s 100% about getting from A to B. I have neither the time nor energy to notice what anyone else is driving, let alone gloat about it. If you gloat, then it tells me about you – that you are a twat, frankly. Anyway, this is all about us gloating about the godawful Toyota Prius, apparently:

To see the Prius recalled due to a manufacturing fault has caused an outbreak of global gloating not equalled since Silvio Berlusconi got decked. As such, it’s fulfilled its role as a car. ­Everyone from SUV-drivers to Ferrari boys to those timid souls intending to buy a Prius (but not just yet) has good cause for the schadenfreude of the rear-view mirror – which is what happens when Vorsprung durch Technik is seen to have broken down by the side of the autobahn. And, by appearing so obviously fallible, the Prius’s role as symbolic Saviour of the Planet has clearly been undermined. That position, though, is never going to be a smooth ride. It’s a clean job, but someone’s gotta do it.

Sigh… In the first comment on this bilge, the obvious retort says it all:

I think that one reason why the Prius is looked down upon is that contrary to popular belief it is NOT and[sic] environmentally friendly car.

Quite. And Toby Litt is an idiot.

Following the conviction of Commander Ali Dizaei, Auntie is asking how this affects race relations and the police.

The sentencing of Metropolitan Police Commander and Black Police Association president Ali Dizaei for corruption has prompted commentators to consider the implications for race relations in the police.

The obvious question should be; what has race got to do with anything? The man broke the law, his race is irrelevant. Or, it should be. Still there’s hand wringing to be done.

Former Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard Andy Hayman says in the Times the Police Service can move on from an age of political correctness after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry:

“The police can afford to be less frightened about dealing with racially sensitive issues: it is no longer the case that the default position of a jury is to assume that the police are racist.”

Well, about time, too. The institutional racism bollocks should never have been allowed  to get a grip in the first place. From recent stories, the police are equal opportunities offenders when it comes to control freakery.

Ex-deputy assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick describes in the Independent his time working with Ali Dizaei in the Metropolitan Police and calls it a bad day for race relations:

“Many at Scotland Yard, and those who have since retired like Andy Hayman and Sir Ian Blair who oversaw the original Dizaei investigation, will be celebrating his demise. For me it’s an ill-wind that blows no one any good, with both the Met and the Black Police Association having been damaged in the process.
The actions of Dizaei and his imprisonment will do little to improve race relations in the police service or improve public confidence in the police.”

The man broke the law, what’s his race got to do with it?

The chairman of the Metropolitan Black Police Association Sergeant Alfred John tells the BBC Today Programme the police force is “without a doubt” still racist and so there is still a need for the BPA:

Sigh… The whole idea of a “Black Police Association” is racist.

“Black people are still are still disproportionately disciplined, they are still disproportionately asked to resign and there is still a lack of progression for black people.”

I don’t know about the former, but Mr Dizaei was doing fairly well until he blew it.

In general, the comments express a healthy scepticism for the diversity agenda that allowed someone like Dizaei to go unchallenged for so long. I have to say, that the final comment from the Groan says it all for me:

Finally, the Guardian editorial calls this the most corrupt case for forty years:

“Forty years ago, when the most influential British police chief of the postwar era, Robert Mark, took over as the Metropolitan police commissioner, he made a celebrated and shocking remark. ‘The basic test of a decent police force is that it catches more criminals than it employs,’ Mark said. Then he added: ‘And the Met is failing that test.’”

When the police return to the peelean principles I’ll have a bit of respect for them. In the meantime, I don’t give a fig about racism. A man rose to become a high ranking police officer and abused that position, his ethnicity is irrelevant. He was, correctly, convicted. Good. Let it be a lesson to the others.

I had another bit of blogspam arrive in my email box today. This time from Jan Jallores representing a social networking website for receptionists. Now, when someone asks me to host paid for links despite my contact page saying specifically that I don’t host commercial links, I sigh inwardly, particularly when their opening line is about doing research. I mean, if I clearly say that I don’t do it, why bother pasting a form mail asking me? Waste of time, I’d have thought.

However, what is interesting is that a specific figure was mentioned – along with a specific piece of text in one of my older articles. So far, so good. Very precise. As is usual, I checked to see if Jan had form. They always do, don’t they?

Here the blogger concerned is offered $75 for a link. Here the offer was a mere $50, so the price has dropped. You can see where this is going, can’t you? I was only offered $35. I almost feel cheated.

From below the line commenting on a rather good piece rebutting Julie Bindel at CiF.

What should shame some of those regular contributors is that an article written by somebody whose day job is not journalism writes a more coherent rational argument than those who get paid to do so!

Indeed.