Longrider

…it happens here?

Kenya has started to register all mobile phone numbers in a bid to cut crime.

Users will have to supply identity documents and proof of address before they get a number.

Any numbers still unregistered at the end of July will be disconnected, the government says.

Just askin’ is all.

Following the England football team’s recent draw with Algeria, I must admit to a wry smile. If ever there was the most dramatic illustration of the triumph of blind optimism over harsh reality, it is the regular international footballing extravaganzas where we see the same tired display played out for our delight.

Prior to the start, supporters are full of bluster – and remind us again about 1966 (*did something happen then?). During the inevitable failure of the players to live up to expectations, reality sets in and the recriminations begin.

Finally, the manager gets sacked or resigns.

Here we go, here we go, here we go… Again…

For me, England going out in the group stages will merely mean marginally less enthusiastic wall-to-wall coverage. No, I don’t care who wins.

————————————-

*Actually, something did happen in 1966. I enjoyed a wonderful holiday in Polperro with my parents and sisters. Much enjoyment was had fishing in rockpools for crabs and shrimps.

John Demetriou comments on the recent execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner and asks the age old question:

The death penalty. What do you make of it?

Okay, I’ll bite…

My opposition remains implacable, which puts me in much the same company as Bella, Falco, Rab, Mrs Rigby and other libertarians. I’m opposed on two grounds; the first is that the state has decided that it is wrong for us to kill, therefore it is wrong for the state to do so on our behalf, even if we recognise the perfectly valid argument that it prevents recidivism, which it does. If it worked effectively as a deterrent, then there would never be a need to carry it out…

Secondly, and for me, much more importantly, is the matter of miscarriage of justice. No justice system is perfect and ours is a fuck-up, frankly. One thing of which we can be absolutely certain, is that innocent people will be convicted of crimes they did not commit. It has happened all too frequently and I am reminded of the infanticide cases during the nineteen nineties when innocent parents were convicted of murder on the testomy of an “expert” witness – should we have exeucted them? In past centuries, that is exactly what happened. Imprisonment may be a living hell, but the operative word here is “living”. We can at least set the innocent free and compensate; for what what is worth. Once executed, it is too late.

JD answers this point reasonably on the face of it:

Also, Gardner 100% without a shadow of a doubt did it. And there will be many cases where, similarly, there can be absolutely no fucking shadow of a doubt. If you look into the Gardner case, you’ll see what I mean.

So, the fear of miscarriage of justice need not necessarily apply, if the penalty were to only be appliedi in case iron guaranteed guilty verdicts.

Well, yes… Gardner was unquestionably guilty, but what mechanism can be used to determine that point where people are unquestionably guilty so must be put to death, and others who have been determined – incorrectly – by a jury to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

No, better by far not to go down that road.

Violent offences should be fittingly punished and life really should mean life, but the state has no business executing people, no matter how heinous the offence as it will, sooner or later, kill the wrong person and that is never justified. Recognising this does not make me a bleeding heart, it makes me a pragmatist who recognises the fallibility of the organs of the state.

I have had a taste of military life. For a few years during my twenties I was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve. Although I mostly enjoyed the experience, I realised that it wasn’t for me on a full time basis. I cannot and never have been able to, simply follow orders without question. I’m too independently minded. I can, however, respect those who do. Had I found myself facing an enemy invasion, doubtless I would have taken up arms, but I am thankful that I was not called into action to serve in wars fought on behalf of politicians, rather than for defence. Again, I have some respect for those who can put such sensibilities aside and do what they have signed up to do even if it is wrong. The wars our troops have become embroiled in recently have been morally questionable at best. The armed forces should be for defence, not aggression in other peoples’ countries. We are not and should not be the policemen of the world.

However, my blood boils when a politician thinks he has the right to lecture me about such matters.

David Cameron, the Prime Minister, tells the public it has a duty to provide more support to the Armed Forces.

I have no such duty. I pay them via my taxes. I expect them to be used appropriately in the defence of the nation. I also expect the MoD to pay them well and ensure that they have the appropriate equipment necessary to carry out their duties. That’s it.

He makes clear his belief that it is the whole nation’s “social responsibility” to put Servicemen and women at the “front and centre of our national life”.

Of course this is part of Cameron’s “Big society” cockwaffle. I want nothing to do with his big society or some perceived social responsibility and beyond conducting their roles competently as we should all do in our work, I see no reason to treat service personnel any differently to any other individual carrying out a vital function. And, like other such functionaries, they are volunteers, unlike many of their predecessors.

Mr Cameron also praises public support for repatriation ceremonies at Wootton Bassett and military parades elsewhere.

Given my proceeding comment, I find this constant televising of the Wootton Basset arrivals, both mawkish and macabre. It’s just as well they aren’t facing another Somme or Normandy landing. Or, to put it into perspective, we are measuring the casualties in this war in the hundreds, not the thousands or millions, when repatriation would become untenable. What we are seeing is, frankly, a self indulgent luxury that previous generations had neither the means nor the inclination to gratify.

I respect the dedication to duty and the courage under fire that occurs on a daily basis during warfare and am thankful that I don’t have to do likewise – but I am not putting them or anyone else at the front and centre of anything, frankly. Nor am I going to fall for the social responsibility claptrap. And I’ll be damned if some jumped up politician tells me to. 

——————————————————

Update: JuliaM picks up on another “big society” wheeze. They can stick that up their collective arses, too.

As I don’t drink alcohol, drinking and driving isn’t really an issue for me. I was in my late teens when I rode home once after a couple of ciders and frightened myself silly. From that moment I adopted a zero drink policy when riding or driving. Over the next few years I gradually stopped drinking alcohol anyway – the foul taste coupled with the loss of cognitive control combined to put me off.

You would think, therefore, that I would be a natural ally of speedkermit.

The public assumes the drink-drive limit is far lower than it is; lowering the threshold will catch those who are truly intoxicated

Speedkermit is a serving copper, so he probably would say that, wouldn’t he? I know exactly what the drink-drive limit is, as I am bound by a much lower one imposed by the Transport and Works (1992) Act. The limit for driving is 80mg per 100ml of blood, for railway workers it is 30mg and we can be randomly tested at any time, quite apart from the wake of an incident. I have also had to instigate testing, on one occasion leading to a signaller losing his job. So, yes, I do know what the limit is. That others do not is hardly a reason to reduce the current limit.

The perennial debate about drink-drive limits is upon us again, this time instigated by Sir Peter North at the request of the previous government. He argues that a reduction in the current limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg is necessary in order to save lives, and he might have a point.

He might if he can provide hard evidence…

As a police officer, I’m often asked how much a person can drink and still be safe to drive. My first answer is that they should probably consider not drinking at all, but if they insist I usually say “it depends”. There are many impact factors that can either reduce or increase the intoxicating effects of alcohol. These include body weight, whether you have recently exercised or eaten a meal and even gender – women have a higher fat-to-water ratio in their bodies and so water-soluble alcohol molecules present themselves at higher concentrations in their blood.

This is quite right. It is also the opinion I would proffer if asked. “It depends” is spot on and makes a mockery of all that bunkum about safe limits bandied about by health control freaks and government ministers.

As a non drinker, a glass of wine would adversely affect my driving. I’d only downed a couple of ciders all those years previously and felt light-headed with my reactions affected.

But how far is the gap between perception and reality? Well actually, really quite wide. Although it is worth noting that you can still be arrested for being “unfit” on amounts of alcohol well below the legal limit (if you happen to be someone who has trouble coping with intoxicants), the more resilient drinkers among us would probably find that they could imbibe a lot more than is generally considered acceptable.

Lurking in that paragraph is why I have a problem with the author’s overall conclusion. While he sees a logical justification for reducing the limit in line with what most may think it is, I would argue that surely it is bad driving that should be the focus. If the police can pull over a driver for driving in a manner that causes them concern, then alcohol becomes a moot point. It doesn’t matter why the driver is unfit, merely that they are. Surely the best option is to vigorously prosecute people who cause harm through their bad driving, irrespective of the underlying cause of that bad driving.

To my mind, this information presents us with an excellent opportunity to bring down the current limit to the level that the public imagine it to be.

Why? If the many already drink well below the current limit and only a few ignore it, why would those few obey the new limit and what difference will it make – let alone “save lives”?

The poppies are out again, so I thought another venture out with the camera was in order.

Despite my dislike of football and the dreary tournaments and semi-literate garbled garbage that the pundits ram down our throats at every opportunity, I’ve never thought of going this far…

Two Somali football fans have been killed by Islamic militants after being caught watching World Cup matches.

I know it’s tempting, but really?

The deaths happened on Saturday near the capital Mogadishu when members of the Hizbul Islam group stormed a house where people were watching Nigeria play Argentina.

A further 10 people were arrested by the group, which has imposed a strict version of Islam in the areas it controls in southern and central Somalia.

Ah, yes, the good old religion of peace strikes again…

What should a good citizen be doing then?

Sheikh Mohamed Abdi Aros, a spokesman for the militants, said Somalia should respect their ban on the World Cup and focus on pursuing jihad.

Ah… “respec” crops up again. Everyone seems to be demanding respect these days. Why don’t they go out and earn some? Why should anyone respect a silly ban that should be systematically ignored merely to make the point. Indeed, if watching football was banned in the UK, I would put a peg on my nose and make a point of watching every match – including the ones holding my eyelids open.

Instead of watching football, what you should be doing is going out and killing people watching football.

“It is a waste of money and time and they will not benefit anything or get any experience by watching mad men jumping up and down.”

Can’t argue with that…

H/T NickM

I see that Iain Coucher is to leave Network Rail. Well, frankly, not before time. I worked for Railtrack at the time that Network Rail took over. One of Coucher’s first acts was to cut around three hundred middle management jobs. He was right to do so. However, instead of conducting a reverse recruitment exercise, identifying what skills and posts were surplus to requirements, he – along with his team – created a system based upon subjective criteria using the Network Rail “behaviours”. This gave line managers an excuse to remove people who had dared to disagree with them; the awkward squad if you like. This was a breach of employment law as this was not redundancy, it was unfair dismissal. For me, it was an opportunity as I was indeed disengaged with the company and had already lined up an alternative. As it was, I went with a very nice little financial package as a bonus. Network Rail included in the package the sum they would have been required to compensate me had I taken the matter to an industrial tribunal. So, like the others, I took the money and went quietly. On the face of it, it was a cheap solution to the company’s perceived problem – too many managers and too many people who didn’t toe the company line.

Unfortunately, those who like to be surrounded by “yes” men fail to recognise the value of those who have the effrontery to say “no” or to recognise that “no” might be the right answer or that the person saying it is doing so for sound reasons. I was one of the awkward squad – or as a subsequent business partner suggested, one of the creative minds who was selected on the night of the long knives; or as Network Rail put it, Operation Violet. All of this followed the absurd farce that was Q12 trialled during the summer of 2003. The company sought to remove those employees identified as disengaged without asking the basic question; why might that be? And, no, Q12 doesn’t answer that question, either.

Like many of those who were subjected to this breach of employment law, I was back fairly quickly in a different guise. I met those who, after a brief period of time were re-employed as their expertise was essential to the business, so the money spent dismissing them was wasted. On the other hand, expertise went and projects suffered as a consequence. One of my erstwhile colleagues phoned me shortly afterwards because she now had to deal with signal sighting – and she knew nothing about it. It was no longer my problem and I was no longer in a position to help. I subsequently spoke to people who had similar experiences on discovering that particular expertise had walked out of the door on November 17^th 2003 with no plan to replace it.

One of the nastier aspects of that day was people finding out that they were “redundant” when they tried to log onto their email only to find that they were locked out. Operation Violet typified the new mood in Network Rail; a vindictive nastiness coupled with rank incompetence.

I still meet Network Rail employees who complain about yet another reorganisation that serves no useful purpose and the morale seems no better than it was a decade ago. Iain Coucher represents all that is wrong with Network Rail. His departure comes not a moment too soon. He won’t be missed, but I doubt the corrosive culture that exists both within Network Rail and its relationships with other rail companies will change anytime soon.

I don’t like football, nay, I detest it, absolutely and utterly. I was introduced to it at the age of eight and pretty quickly realised that it and I had no future together. I don’t watch it and when I am asked by people meeting me for the first time about what team I support, I politely advise them that I don’t follow it, which often kills the conversation stone dead as my questioner digests this unexpected response. That said, despite finding it – and all the banal drivel talked about it – tedious beyond measure, I’ve never considered banning it.

Nobody serious about political change can shirk the fact that the game has to be abolished.

Thus speaks Terry Eagleton in the Guardian (where else?). Terry is a socialist and he thinks football is all nasty capitalism, so needs to be banned. That’s what I like about the Groan, there’s always a freak show on offer, and Terry is no exception; a totalitarian fruitcake extraordinaire.

Last month, when discussing John Kirby’s risible apologia for identity cards, bemoaning the fact that his is now useless plastic junk, I mentioned that I had seen a woman making similar comments on the BBC television news. I since discovered who she is. Writing earlier this month for the Manchester Evening News, Angela Epstein trots out the same lies, misinformation, half-truths and myths that we have seen regurgitated in various forms by ID card proponents during the past nine years.

Angela, in her stupid article, claims that she is going to sue for her thirty quid. Well, good luck with that. She knowingly volunteered for a trial that involved paying £30 for processing. She was processed and therefore got exactly what she paid for. She did this knowing full well that both opposition parties had pledged to cancel the scheme if they won the election. The risk that the trial would result in the cancellation of the scheme was, therefore, not just a risk, but a foreseeable one. For this reason alone – even if one believed in the principle – a reasonable person would have avoided taking part in the trial and paying for the privilege like they would a dose of ebola.

I realise that it is becoming tedious tearing down the paper-thin excuses and assertions put forward by ID stooges, but as they keep repeating the same canards, it is beholden upon us to keep pointing out that they are untrue, so that people really do get it and we are not faced with the prospect of this scheme again.

And as the first member of the public to acquire one of these now collector’s items, I’m deeply disappointed. Disappointed that the scheme, trialled right here in Manchester, has been strangled at birth before it had the chance to prove that ID cards could be incredibly useful as a safe and portable way of proving identity.

Most people don’t need to go around proving their identity and, therefore don’t need an identity card. On those occasions where it is necessary, there are perfectly reasonable alternatives. If someone doesn’t drive or travel abroad, they can apply for one of the privately operated schemes’ cards, should they so wish that does not involve the government and does not involve a database and is, therefore, rather safer. Interestingly, when pushing ID cards as a harmless means of proving identity, the Epsteins and Kirbys of this world never mention the whacking great database, which was the primary objection of opponents.

Instead, our new Government delivered a knee-jerk response and scrapped the scheme, preferring to appease the so-called civil libertarians who hysterically clamoured that the introduction of ID cards was a blow for privacy and further damning proof of an ever encroaching nanny state.

It was not a knee-jerk response. It was clearly stated by both coalition parties long before the election. Again, as Angela does not mention it, the database involved a serious encroachment into personal privacy, demanding 51 pieces of personal information that the holder was obliged to keep up to date on pain of a £1000 fine. So, yes, damn right is was proof of an ever encroaching nanny state.

If this wasn’t a blatantly cynical exercise in tactical popularism then I don’t know what is.

Whereas David Blunkett’s announcement in the wake of the Twin Towers attacks was nothing of the sort. We appear to have a government that campaigned against the scheme, people voted for them and they did what they said they would – and Angela Epstein thinks this is a bad thing?

I won’t re-heat my views on the hackneyed, oven-ready arguments that were marshalled in opposition to ID cards.

As opposed to the hackneyed, oven-ready clap-trap we have had to put up with and counter over and over for the past nine years. Every argument put forward by ID proponents has been systematically debunked as the nonsense that it is. It usually ends with the pathetic bleat that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. They always do, having run out of any rational argument to support their pet project.

Except to say if you were a law abiding citizen you had nothing to lose and everything to gain from something that carried little more information about you than your supermarket loyalty card.

Well, damn me, there it is… The “nothing to hide” argument is the ID equivalent of the Godwin rule. Once they trot it out, they have lost the argument. But the supermarket loyalty thing is a peach. I don’t have a supermarket loyalty card. Supermarkets don’t force us to have them. Still, it was news to me that they demand a face-to face interview, gather 51 pieces of personal information including photograph and fingerprints and fine you £1000 if you fail to keep them updated.

They don’t?

Oh.

So Angela Epstein is lying, then?

They do put you on a database that tracks your shopping habits though, which is why I don’t have one. I’m not aware that Tescos is planning to make registration compulsory.

What’s more, this was always a voluntary scheme, which I personally embraced because it suited my life.

Every home secretary from David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith and finally Alan Johnson has clearly stated that the scheme was always intended to be compulsory. The trial was voluntary as a means of getting people on board. Over time, documents such as passports would become designated, forcing holders onto the database by default. There was nothing voluntary about this scheme and to suggest otherwise is to lie.

I never wanted to be a poster girl for the ID project – as much as the cards vociferous opponents would have you believe.

Yet you write articles in the Manchester Evening News extolling this totalitarian project. Another lie, then.

Above all, I never had any kind of evangelical wish to make other people register for an ID card.

By taking part in the trial, you did just that. Another lie.

Yet, detractors of the scheme were crowing that I shouldn’t have one. If someone was manipulating Big Brother’s controlling hand, it certainly wasn’t me.

More lies. Detractors were perfectly happy for you to have a card if you so wished. What they (we) were opposed to was a scheme that was always intended to be compulsory, that involved an intrusive database and was a massive encroachment into people’s privacy. You could, if you so wish sign up for a citizen card and not one detractor would complain.

But before we consign ID cards to history, or rather until another Government is brave enough to re-embrace the scheme, there is a small matter of house keeping to tidy up.

Namely the fact that 15,000 of us paid out £30 for our cards.

Tough shit, frankly. The rest of us have contributed via our taxes, against our wishes, rather more than Angela’s thirty quid. Perhaps we should be demanding a refund of all that wasted money from the stooges who bought into the scheme, eh? Fair’s fair, after all.

That’s £450,000 of public money swirling around parliamentary coffers that doesn’t belong there.

No. It. Isn’t. It’s a paltry recompense for the millions squandered on this white elephant.

And it’s time we got it back.

We should, you shouldn’t.

Of course, I was never immune to the possibility a new Government would get rid of ID cards – though mainly because they perceived it to be a vote winner. What I didn’t expect was they would also be dishonest enough to hang onto the proceeds they had made so far.

Cockwaffle. An incoming government does what it said it would do and Epstein doesn’t like it? That is the price of living in a democracy. The alternative is a totalitarian oligarchy where citizens are tagged and monitored by the state; something that appears to be appealing to the likes of Epstein and Kirby. There is nothing dishonest in what has happened. The stooges paid to be processed. They were processed. They got their money’s worth. End of.

Sure the scheme and its infrastructure cost around £257m to set up.

But for that, we takers are not accountable.

Yes, you were. You chose to enable this scheme. The wiser heads among us chose not to. You have no cause for complaint, we do. You and the other stooges willingly went along with something that would ultimately have been forced on all of us against our will. For that you are accountable and for that, I despise every one of you almost as much as I despise the control freaks who devised it.

We ID card holders have paid for something the Government will no longer deliver.

You paid the previous government for something that the new government has no obligation to deliver. It was a trial what part of “it was a trial” do you not understand?

It will not even reassure us that the  life span of existing cards will be honoured. So I want my money back. Otherwise, it is simply tantamount to theft.

No it isn’t. You got exactly what you paid for. If the card itself is no longer of any use, look upon the £30 as a tax on your gullibility.

Epstein then goes onto compare this with the expenses scandal and as such is a waste of further effort. She and the other 14,999 people who volunteered for this scheme are guilty of enabling the control freakery of the Labour government that devised it. As such, they get no sympathy from me; not least when they still regurgitate the tired lies first peddled by the appalling David Blunkett and revised and reissued by each of his equally dreadful successors. Epstein, Kirby et al are either idiots or knowing collaborators in a totalitarian device intended to secure government control over personal information. Either way, their loss is well deserved and should be an object lesson. For those like Epstein who try to get their money back, I do hope they go ahead and try. The outcome is likely to be another – rather more expensive – object lesson in stupidity. Bring it on.