Conform, Consume, Obey

Tiltshift London

2011-11-20T23:30:00.001-08:00

I've been playing with a new app on my phone. Just a bit of fun. Here are the results when you mess about with a few photos of London.

Vive Le Tour!

2011-10-28T06:46:00.000-07:00

It's not the right time of year, but it's never a bad time to watch this. A joyful little video about the 1962 Tour de France.

Vive le tour! from Bear Thunder on Vimeo.

Citizen Smith

2011-10-11T23:28:00.000-07:00

In a moment of boredom the other day, I noticed that David Cameron's government have made some changes to the UK 'Citizenship Test'. I won't get into the "are we subjects or citizens" debate, but I do think this is a ridiculous idea.

The test is called "Life in the UK", and is a requirement for any new applicant for British nationality. So, you would think it would ask questions about everyday life in the UK, wouldn't you. But no. (Incidentally, British people of a more Celtic persuasion may have noticed that the test appears to apply to just one of the UK's four nations.)

I tried answering some of the questions here just for a laugh. I should declare at this stage that I was born in Hampshire, hold a British passport, and tend not to feel comfortable with bodily contact of any kind. In other words, I'm quintessentially British. Furthermore I have lived in the UK for all of my adult life, so I figured I'd be pretty good at this test. Er, no.

In fact I scored 18 out of a possible 24. Actually that's a pass - which is nice, as it presumably means I get to stay here for a while longer. But I couldn't help noticing that other people - British people, as well as foreign nationals who have lived here for some time - struggled with the test. These are intelligent people who are comfortable dealing with everyday matters in British life, so you would think that a test called "Life in the UK" would be a doddle. Again, no. An admittedly unscientific self-selecting sample of around 20 people all failed. Every single one of them.

So, I could only conclude there is something wrong with the test. Nobody needs to know when the first Census took place, or who the Queen is allowed to marry - or, indeed why the Queen is the Queen at all. What the test really needs is questions that do relate to life in the UK as we live it. Here are my suggestions, which Cameron is free to use. I won't even charge him.

If you can pass this test by scoring 50% or more, you should be entitled to claim a British passport. If you fail, you should have to give your passport back, and move somewhere more appropriate.

Question 1
Ownership of which item can protect you from deportation?
(a) A gun
(b) A copy of the Daily Mail
(c) A cat
(d) A whistleblowing website
(e) A huge pile of cash

Question 2
If you are caught exceeding the speed limit, what should you do?
(a) Admit liability and pay a fine
(b) Slow down
(c) Attempt to bribe the police officer
(d) Claim your wife was driving

Question 3
In a General Election, who controls the vote count and announces the winner?
(a) The Returning Officer
(b) Simon Cowell

Question 4
If a train leaves London at 0945 bound for Nottingham, what excuses will be offered for it being four hours late?

Question 5
Complete the following well-known phrase: "I see a little silhouetto of a man..."

Question 6
True or False: The Prime Minister is selected from the ranks of minor royalty.

Question 7
Healthcare in the UK is...
(a) Free
(b) Only available to those with expensive health insurance
The answer is (a), unless you are taking the test after 31 December 2013, in which case the answer is (b).

Question 8
Explain the rules of "Mornington Crescent" in 50 words or less.

Question 9
The correct response to "how are you?" is
(a) Very well thank you
(b) I'm fine, how are you
(c) Mustn't grumble

Question 10
Which is the odd one out?
(a) Short Leg
(b) Silly Point
(c) Deep Cover
(d) Wet Blanket

Question 11
Jammy Dodgers are:
(a) a professional baseball team
(b) one of your five a day

Question 12
Complete the following sentence: "I'm not racist, but..."

Question 13
Someone pushes into a queue ahead of you. Do you:
(a) Push back in ahead of them
(b) Protest loudly
(c) Do nothing
(d) Mutter quietly about the lack of morals in modern society

Question 14
Fill in the blank: "_______ Britain"
(a) Great
(b) Rip-Off
(c) Broken

Question 15
Explain the correct use of apostrophe's.

Question 16
Chips and _______
(a) gravy
(b) curry sauce

Question 17
_______ and chips
(a) Fish
(b) Whizzer

Question 18
What generally accompanies the phrase "you couldn't make it up?"
(a) A devastating exposé of the decline of Britain
(b) Shocking facts about the exploitation of hard-working white British families
(c) Something that is completely made up

Question 19
What is the correct name for a Snickers bar?

Question 20
You are leaving a pub after a long session of binge-drinking. What do you lose?
(a) Your phone
(b) Your clothes
(c) Your lunch
(d) Your self-respect
(e) All of the above

Welcome to Britain! Please let us know if you have any suggestions for further questions to be added to the test.

Not In My Back Yard

2011-09-05T23:38:00.001-07:00

There has been much discussion in recent days of the Government’s plan to ‘reform’ the planning system.

Broadly speaking, on one side we have the ever-fragrant Gideon Osborne and his svelte chum Eric Pickles, claiming that planning ‘reforms’ will boost growth. On the other side, we have everyone else – except, of course, the private companies that will significantly benefit from these ‘reforms’.

At this point I’m going to stop using their word – ‘reform’ – and switch to a more accurate word – ‘destruction’. Having failed to sell off the forests earlier this year, it seems the Tories are intent on selling off the rest of the country – whatever the long-term cost to this (soon to be formerly) green and pleasant land.

It’s not just sandal-wearing lefties, and NIMBY types opposing these plans. It’s mainstream establishment organisations like the National Trust and the RSPB. But the privatisation train rolls on. Nothing is not for sale. Not the NHS, not the prisons, not the schools, and not even the very hills and fields around us. Everything, and everyone, must subordinate their own interests to those of the corporations and the wealthy. It is “key” to economic recovery, claims Osborne – the man who has so far killed what little economic growth he inherited – to enable companies to build wherever they like, without regard to the old system of checks and balances.

As is often the case with Tory policies, particularly with this seat-of-the-pants Government, this plan doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As Martin Harper, the conservation director of the RSPB points out, “the [existing] planning system is intended to protect and represent the interests of the public in the face of complex decisions, and it will fail us all if one factor – economic growth – is set higher than any other.” Not least because, like slashing public spending down to two shillings and sixpence, it doesn’t work.

The Government claims, naturally – and correctly – that there is a severe housing shortage in the UK. But let’s not be fooled by this. There is no sudden concern on the part of the Conservative Party to help those who can’t get on the housing ladder, or those who can’t get housing at all. They’re not Tory voters, and they’re not represented by Tory policies. Never have been, never will be. You may think I’m being cynical and partisan here. I almost certainly am. But given that the Government plans to reduce the budget for building affordable homes by 60%, further exacerbating the housing shortage and driving the vulnerable into the clutches of predatory profiteering private landlords, and that the inevitable increase in rents that will ensue will have to be paid for out of taxpayer funds, it’s clear that this new policy is not driven by the shortage in housing but by the shortage in profits of those development companies who doubtless help fill the Party coffers.

All semblance of control and balance will be gone. It’s now a case of build what you like, where you like. Except, that is, if you’re an undesirable.

In the same week as the Government’s destruction of the planning law was rolled out, it was finally confirmed in the High Court that around 400 Irish Travellers living at Dale Farm in Essex would face eviction. These people have lived on this land for ten years. (Note that I don’t say they “lived illegally”, as much of the media does, as if their very existence contravened legislation.) They own it – because, when the last Tory Government removed the obligation for councils to provide pitches for Gypsies and Travellers in 1994, they were encouraged to buy land and settle on it. So they did. They bought an old scrap yard, filthy and polluted, and moved their homes there - next door to an existing Traveller settlement that already had planning permission. Technically, it’s ‘green belt’ land, but the only green on that land is oxidised copper. We’re not talking rolling hills and fields here. It was a dump. Now it’s the only home they have left. Or it was – until they were evicted for not having planning permission. If only they had been a massive corporation, instead of 80-odd families struggling to survive, and protect what remains of their culture.

The Travellers that now face eviction in the next two weeks are already starting to make homelessness applications – and, of course, the council are obliged by law to assist the elderly, infirm and very young. Which basically means all of them. Except, of course, the Government has already slashed spending on housing. So they’ve nowhere to go. No roadside. No legal pitches. Not even their own land.

One of the Government’s own Peers says the eviction is ‘stupid’. Even the UN is wading in. Those who continue to support the eviction claim, rather too often and too loudly for my liking, that it’s not about them being Travellers, it’s just about upholding the planning law. The same planning law that faces total destruction in the entire United Kingdom except this one small corner of Essex. This is disingenuous rubbish. It’s incredible to find that there are people across the country who care so much about upholding planning law hundreds of miles away, yet don’t seem to have any concerns about any other development in the entire country. Because the other developments are for profit-making companies, instead of a few families who aren’t from their culture. This isn’t enforcement, it’s a vendetta.

I have been to Dale Farm, and spoken to the families there. Like any other community, the vast majority of them just want to live their lives peacefully and within the law. Over the past ten years they have tried again and again to obtain permission for developing their small square of concrete and scrap metal, and time and time again they have been refused. This is by no means unusual. In England over 90% of planning applications by Gypsies and Travellers are turned down, compared to only 20% of planning applications from the general population.

Yet the eviction continues, despite the clear and obvious inequities involved. In 2006, the then Labour Government published a document on planning for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Notable extracts from this document include:

In some cases, perhaps involving previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land, the establishment of a well-planned or soft-landscaped gypsy and traveller site can be seen as positively enhancing the environment and increasing openness.

And:

Members of the gypsy and traveller communities have the same rights and responsibilities within the planning system as members of other communities. Planning permission is normally required for any changes of use of land. As with developments submitted by anyone the only times permission would not be required are;
i) if the land has already been granted planning permission for a particular type of land use; or,
ii) the use of the land has been established over a period of time without valid planning enforcement action having been taken by the local authority. This time period is 4 years for building or other similar physical works which do not represent a change of land use, or 10 years where the development has represented a change of land use.

It seems to me that under these criteria, Dale Farm is well within the bounds of acceptability. George Osborne claims that "sticking with the old, failed planning system puts at risk young people's future prosperity and quality of life". It’s a crying shame that the prosperity and quality of life that so concerns him does not extend to all of the population.

Reinventing The Wheel

2011-08-25T23:39:00.000-07:00

I've been away for a little while. No time to post on Libya, phone-hacking or looting. But I did see this...

I used to cycle a bit. But not like that. Hats off to Danny.

Election 2015 - The Campaign Starts Here

2011-05-10T23:49:00.000-07:00

I love this idea. The more I think about, the more I love this idea. Allow me to share it with you.

OK, so it's not actually a fully formed idea, as such. More of a notion, really. Or a suggestion. But it's out there now, and it can't be unthought.

During some idle chat on Twitter -- arguably that's a tautology, but we'll move on -- a chap called David Platt* suggested arranging candidates for all 650 constituencies** in the next UK General Election.

* No, not that David Platt. Or that one. Another one.

** Or however many are left after Cameron has finished his gerrymandering.

I like this idea. (I think I mentioned that already.) Many people in Britain are disillusioned about politics these days; perhaps more than ever before. The Liberal Democrats appear to be facing extinction at the next election, and Labour and the Conservatives seem just as out-of-touch as ever. So why not start our own party? (And like all good parties, this one's going to have a DJ.)

Before we get into the details of how to stand for Parliament, though, we need to cover the basics. Stuff like what the new party will be called. And, um, what it stands for. You see, we're already getting into a different kind of politics here, by actually suggesting we have policies. As far as I can recall, the two parties that 'won' the 2010 election hardly had any policies before the election - and those they did have were swiftly abandoned.

Today marks exactly one year since the Coalition Government took control of Britain, and that leaves us more or less four years to sort out how we take it back. It starts here, and it starts now.

To give us a headstart, I have shamelessly copied some policy ideas from Mark Thomas, who had a similar idea back in 2009. Perhaps some of these can be an inspiration for us to develop our own policies. Or, if we prefer, we can just steal the best policies off other people. It worked for New Labour, so why not for us?

Here are a few of my favourites.

All politicians should be forced to wear the names and logos of the companies that sponsor them or with whom they have financial links.

Anyone who opposes immigration into this country should be barred from travelling abroad.

To randomly arm OAPs with guns.

Require the Daily Mail to print the following on every front page: "This is a fictional representation of the news. Any resemblance to real life is purely coincidental."

Make clothes out of cheese.

Anyone found guilty of homophobic hate crime has to serve their sentence in drag.

There should be separate lanes for pedestrians based on the speeds they walk at. Ranging from a fast lane for people who know where they are going to a hard shoulder for window shoppers.

Anyone buying a second home in Somerset has to buy a house of equal value for someone who actually lives in Somerset. This house is to be built on a golf course.

OK, so we could have some sensible policies - you know, like a Tobin Tax, or scrapping Trident, or maybe rebuilding the nation's stock of council housing. But where's the fun in that? Let's be honest: there are few if any votes in proposing a tweak in business rates, but I'd wager there are plenty of votes to be won by any party proposing on-the-spot fines for anyone found in possession of a copy of the Daily Express.

But this isn't about me. I don't want to be Prime Minister. This is about YOU, people. The Great British Public. Here is our chance to really take control. Now I'm giving you the opportunity to get out there and change our nation for the better. All we need from you is ideas. And maybe five hundred quid for your election deposit.

Unlawful Killing

2011-05-04T03:26:00.000-07:00

On 1 April 2009, newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson finished his shift and prepared to walk home. At the same time in Central London there was a demonstration going on, which had nothing to do with Tomlinson.

Ian never made it home. He died, without friends or family by his side, on the pavement on Cornhill. Just minutes before, he had been subjected to a vicious and unprovoked attack.... by the police.

If a passer by had not filmed this moment, the truth would probably never have been exposed, and yet another death at the hands of the police would have passed without any consequences for the guilty party.

Despite obstruction from the police throughout this process, the truth is now out there for all to see. An innocent man was unlawfully killed by the very people who were supposed to protect him.

We all now know that PC Simon Harwood is a thug and a liar. Tomlinson wasn't the first person he assaulted that day, and it seems certain that Harwood, and many others in the police Territorial Support Group, have got away with many other similar occasions simply because their victims didn't die, and their crimes were not filmed.

Now is the chance for the police, and the Crown Prosecution Service, to prove that things have changed since Blair Peach. Harwood is not the only guilty party in this episode, but if - even after the findings of the inquest into Tomlinson's death - he does not face trial for manslaughter, then any last remaining shred of trust between the public, and the police who serve them, is lost.

Pimp My Vote!

2011-05-03T00:45:00.000-07:00

On 5 May 2011, the nation votes once again in local elections - but this time there's a twist. For the first time ever (as far as I know), we are also being offered a chance to change the system which we use to elect our MPs. Surprisingly, this has been a more difficult choice for me than I had expected - quite possibly because both competing campaigns are fronted by arguably the two most unpopular politicians in the country.

For those of you who don't live in the UK, or have been hiding in Abbottabad for the past year or so, the referendum question is as follows:

At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?

So, let's have a look at the two alternatives on offer.

First Past The Post ("FPTP")

The current system. You're given a list of candidates, you mark X against your preferred candidate, and the one with the most votes wins.

Under the UK's existing multi-party system, this often means a candidate is elected despite more people voting for other candidates than for the winner.

Alternative Vote ("AV")

The proposed new system. You're given a list of candidates, and you mark 1 2 3 etc in order of preference. (Or, just mark X against one candidate as with FPTP.) If no candidate has an outright majority of first choices, the least popular candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the other candidates in accordance with the second preferences expressed, and so on until one candidate has a majority.

This system can potentially result in the candidate who gains the most first-preference votes losing the final election due to redistributions of second and third choice votes. A recent examples of this is the election of Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour party.

OK. So far, so straightforward. But this doesn't help me much. I have lived in a variety of constituences in the past, from marginals to safe seats, but my current constituency is generally considered to be a very safe seat for the Conservatives. Of course there are a number of similar seats around the country, where one party (not always the Tories) are effectively elected before a vote is cast. What this often means is that one party can gain a majority of seats in Parliament while polling less than 40% of the nation's vote - in fact this happens in just about every election in my adult lifetime, except the last one.

Take 2001 for example. Under Tony Blair, Labour polled 40.7% of the votes, but won 62.6% of seats in Parliament. Surely, even for a die-hard Labour supporter, this can't be right. 60% of the country doesn't want you, but you've still got a strong working majority. Much the same could be said in Canada today, where the Conservatives won a crushing majority with a minority of the votes cast.

The problem with the FPTP system is that the parties tend to concentrate on the swing voters in the marginal seats, as a tiny change in voting share can make a huge change in representation in Parliament. Meanwhile, voters in the majority of constituencies where the result is pretty much obvious, are effectively ignored. This is the position I face in my constituency - basically, whoever I vote for (even if it's the Conservative candidate), my vote is wasted. FPTP doesn't really work if there are more than two parties - it's fine for Americans, but not for us.

So it seems to me that a change is required, but is AV the right one? I need to look at the arguments put forward by both sides, to see if that can help me decide whether AV would be a better, fairer and more representative system or not. If not, then should I vote to retain FPTP?

The following summaries of the arguments are as presented by The Guardian newspaper. I realise that paper doubtless has an editorial slant one way or the other, but the following summary at least looks to be factual and balanced. Whether their op-ed pieces are, is another argument.

The Yes campaign

The Yes campaign is supported by the Liberal Democrats and Greens, as well as the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties, and some Republican parties in Northern Ireland. The Labour party are split both ways.

Supporters of a switch to AV say:

• The aim of securing more than 50% of the local vote would ensure MPs work harder to earn and keep voter support. Two-thirds of MPs at the last election were elected on less than a 50% share of the vote.

• It would end the "jobs for life" culture in safe constituency seats (campaigners point to MPs in safe seats who were embroiled in the expenses scandal that hit the previous parliament).

• It would encourage more people to vote, because voters would feel that their say matters more. Campaigners say many are deterred from participating because under first past the post because they feel their vote is wasted.

• AV is moving with the times: two-party dominance has made way for a more pluralist system (notably in devolved Scotland and Wales).

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

• A switch to AV would not mean changing the current MP-constituency link.

• Supporters say the system would make it more difficult for extremist parties to win an election, because they would be unlikely to secure many second or third preference votes.

• It encourages candidates to chase second and third preferences, which lessens the attractions of negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad church policies.

The No campaign

The No campaign is supported by the Conservatives, as well as the BNP, and some Loyalist parties in Northern Ireland. The Labour party are split both ways.

Those against AV argue:

• First past the post is the fairest system because it is based on the principle of one person, one vote. AV is a "losers' charter" where the candidate who comes second or third in first preferences can actually be elected.

• Some votes will count more than others: If a voter gives their first preference vote to a mainstream party, their other preferences may not be counted. But if they vote for a fringe party candidate who gets knocked out, their other preferences will count.

• AV is a "politicians' fix" because, instead of the voters choosing the government, it would lead to more hung parliaments and backroom coalition deals.

Critics counter that the current coalition was a result of first past the post and that AV is unlikely to lead to more coalitions because it is not PR.

• AV makes decisive electoral outcomes less likely (critics again point to the 2010 election, which led to an inconclusive win for the Conservatives under first past the post).

• Switching to a new voting system would cost £250m.

• It takes longer to count.

• AV will do little to improve under-represented groups, such as the Greens, in parliament.

Both very persuasive in their own way, I'm sure. But this doesn't really help me, as neither is entirely satisfactory. How can I decide?

Some people will vote along party lines - so natural Tories will probably vote No, regardless of their views. This might be a tough call for Labour supporters however, and either way it is again no help for me. I am not allied to any one party over another, and don't see why my views should be dictated by them even if I was. Similarly, some will vote according to their opinions of the two chaps pictured above, but this doesn't really work either, as the system will outlive either of their political careers - at least one of which looks to be in its final stages already.

So, I turn to the campaigns. What are the Yes and No camps saying to persuade us? Let's have a look.

The Yes campaign appear to be focusing on the general perception that the current political system is unrepresentative, and taking advantage of the fact that politicians are even less popular than normal these days.

The No campaign appear to be focusing on the current backlash against LibDem leader Nick Clegg, who is fronting the Yes campaign.

I'm not impressed by negative campaigning. And I've already pointed out that I won't vote based on politicians I dislike. This is about an electoral system, not personalities. So I dig a little deeper, and go to the respective campaigns' websites for more.

The Yes campaign's website links to a brochure released by the Electoral Reform Society: "Why AV?" It's only three pages long, including the title page.

Of the six reasons they give to vote Yes, one appeals in particular - the fact that candidates now need to appeal to more voters, in order to get their second and third choices, if they want to get to the 50% mark. This can only be a good thing. Instead of polling 34% and relying on a split opposition, candidates must now appeal to as many voters as possible.

On the other hand, their sixth reason (clearly they were struggling at this stage) is specious at best. "When parties need to win the goodwill of as many voters as possible, they lack the incentive to create imaginary differences or to focus on negative campaigning." Rubbish. No electoral system on earth will discourage negative campaigning, not least because it works.

The No campaign's website lists just three reasons. The first is that "AV is costly", and claims that it will cost £250 million to transition. A very quick bit of fact-checking proves this to be false, or at the very least misleading. The amount quoted includes the cost of the referendum - which will be the same whoever wins - and also assumes voting machines will be required. This is not the case in any country that currently uses AV.

The No campaign's second reason is that "AV is complex and unfair". I doubt anyone who can list a short number of choices in order of preference would consider AV to be "complex", but is it "unfair"? Their only stated support for this claim is that only three countries use AV. Popularity doesn't mean fairness though, so this looks to be an empty claim.

Finally, the No campaign claim that AV will lead to more hung parliaments - despite the current hung parliament being achieved under FPTP. Again, a quick look at Australia's election results proves this not to be the case.

As Channel 4 News' excellent FactCheck blog shows, both sides are making more false claims than accurate ones. So I can't even believe them.

What if the Australians (and Fijians and Papuans) are all fools? What if, as Baroness Warsi claims, the extremists will get in under AV? What should I do? Who can I believe? One last chance to make my mind up... let's have another look at those summary points the Guardian helpfully provided.

Supporters of a switch to AV say:

• The aim of securing more than 50% of the local vote would ensure MPs work harder to earn and keep voter support. Two-thirds of MPs at the last election were elected on less than a 50% share of the vote.

Sounds good to me, but what if someone gets 49% and isn't elected? The chances of that happening are small, but it could happen.

• It would end the "jobs for life" culture in safe constituency seats (campaigners point to MPs in safe seats who were embroiled in the expenses scandal that hit the previous parliament).

I doubt this. It wasn't large majorities that caused the expenses scandal, it was the laissez-faire attitude to expenses fraud. Most of the worst offenders were long-serving MPs, but many with large majorities were honest.

• It would encourage more people to vote, because voters would feel that their say matters more. Campaigners say many are deterred from participating because under first past the post because they feel their vote is wasted.

Impossible to prove. In my opinion, the difference in turnout would be minimal.

• AV is moving with the times: two-party dominance has made way for a more pluralist system (notably in devolved Scotland and Wales).

True, the devolved nations have moved to AV. But they tend to end up with hung parliaments, just as the No campaign warn. Of course, this may not necessarily be a bad thing...

• It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

True, and a good one. Many times I've voted on the basis of "who is most likely to beat X?" rather than "whose policies are best?" Anything that moves from this to a more positively-inspired vote must be good, and it would hopefully end the situation where (for example) 65% of a constituency hate Labour, but their votes are split between other parties and Labour still get in.

• A switch to AV would not mean changing the current MP-constituency link.

True. So it's the same as FPTP in this aspect.

• Supporters say the system would make it more difficult for extremist parties to win an election, because they would be unlikely to secure many second or third preference votes.

This goes against what Baroness Warsi said. But it's telling to see that the BNP support the No campaign.

• It encourages candidates to chase second and third preferences, which lessens the attractions of negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad church policies.

For me, the best reason so far. I'm fed up with my seat being so safe that not one party - not even the winning party - bothers trying to canvass my vote.

Those against AV argue:

• First past the post is the fairest system because it is based on the principle of one person, one vote. AV is a "losers' charter" where the candidate who comes second or third in first preferences can actually be elected.

Hm. Doesn't sound good, does it. These second preferences can be pesky. Here's an example of what happens, albeit not under AV but under a similar system. Scary eh.

• Some votes will count more than others: If a voter gives their first preference vote to a mainstream party, their other preferences may not be counted. But if they vote for a fringe party candidate who gets knocked out, their other preferences will count.

Not true. Everyone gets one vote, and one only. Say you go to the pub and ask for Guinness, but the Guinness is off. You opt for lager instead. You still only get one drink. Yes, if you vote for a 'fringe' party your second or third preference is likely to count more than your first, but surely this is a good thing. It allows smaller interest parties a chance to get a vote, even if they don't win the election. And yes, this can include extremists, but this is a democracy.

• AV is a "politicians' fix" because, instead of the voters choosing the government, it would lead to more hung parliaments and backroom coalition deals.

Coming from a coalition government, this is an odd argument. The last Australian hung parliament was in 1940 (when the UK also had a coalition). Since then, only one of 27 elections has resulted in a hung parliament - compared to 3 out of 28 in the UK under FPTP. Bad argument there, I think.

• AV makes decisive electoral outcomes less likely (critics again point to the 2010 election, which led to an inconclusive win for the Conservatives under first past the post).

See above. Not true.

• Switching to a new voting system would cost £250m.

Disproved. Scaremongering is most unedifying.

• It takes longer to count.

If it's worth it, then surely a little wait isn't a problem? India takes weeks to count their votes. So what?

• AV will do little to improve under-represented groups, such as the Greens, in parliament.

The Greens appear to disagree.

So. Time to decide. In the end I need to combine all the methods of decision-making to reach my choice.

Who do I dislike most? That's easy - the BNP.

Who do I support? Nobody right now.

Who has made the best argument? Neither, but Yes just shades it, mostly because the majority of No arguments are either irrelevant, or easily disproved.

Anything else? Yes. I don't like children.

That, in the end, is why I'm voting Yes. Because anyone who stoops that low doesn't deserve my vote. Or, perhaps, because I want to see babies die.

Fancy A New Job?

2011-02-08T00:13:00.001-08:00

After all the fun I had with the BNP some time back, I couldn't resist this one.

The following job vacancy was recently advertised in The Guardian. Yes, the Guardian.

Daily Mail

•Britain’s most successful newspaper group is offering would-be reporters and writers an exciting and challenging yearlong training course, plus the chance to work at the Daily Mail and Mail Online

•We are looking for bright, sharp, intelligent writers who believe they can be fast-tracked to the very top

•You’ll be on the best journalism course in the business – and be paid a competitive salary while you train

•Successful applicants will probably have completed post-graduate journalism training or had experience working in newspapers

Apply by February 21, with your CV, 200 words on why you think you could be a Mail journalist, a 200-word news story and a selection of up to six cuttings and send to Sue Ryan, Trainee Reporters’ Scheme, Daily Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, London W8 5TT.
Please send queries to sue.ryan@dailymail.co.uk

This has been covered brilliantly and hilariously by both Enemies Of Reason and Angry Mob, both of which are well worth a read. No doubt many others have also been inspired to join in. Although I'm sure that most, or even all, of them are better writers than I could ever hope to be, I shall still submit an application. Not least because being a good writer appears to be a major obstacle to getting a job with the Daily Fail. Yes, I think I've got a good chance with this one.

So here's my application letter which I have sent to Sue Ryan.

Dear Sue

While trawling through the sordid socialist rag that shall not be named, a beacon of truth and virtue shone out at me from the Job Vacancy pages that I could not resist. I have long dreamed of being a writer - not one of those poncy lefty fools like Slavoj Žižek or Noam Chomsky, but a proper writer like Richard Littlejohn or Jan Moir. Now I see that the very thing I had been looking for is available to me via the good offices of the Mail group.

Although I have no training or experience in journalism, I do know how to copy and paste, and I feel that this alone qualifies me to move swiftly into the middle ranks of Daily Mail reporters. I am perfectly capable of writing vindictive polemics based on nothing more than an overheard conversation on the bus, or even a hacked voicemail, and I have no qualms whatsoever about stitching people up in order to advance my career.

Above all I feel I am qualified to write for the Daily Mail because I hate living in England, and have always dreamed of buggering off to sunnier climes, where I can observe the deterioration of a once-great nation from afar. This distance, as Littlejohn has proved, can be invaluable in giving me an objective viewpoint that is based entirely on prejudice and lack of research, rather than any pesky ideas like actually living here or talking to real people.

Please please please PLEASE give me the job.

Yours hurrahing for the Blackshirts,

Doug

I will let you know if I get a reply, but in the meantime please do make an application yourself. And if you do, I'd love you to share it with me on the comments below, either in full or by posting a link to your own blog. This is too good a chance to miss. Just think - the next paranoid scare story about Eastern European wheelie bin inspectors could be under YOUR byline.

A Voice In The Crowd

2011-02-07T23:26:00.001-08:00

Like most of the world, I have watched the Egyptian uprising unfold since 25 January. There is something beautiful yet terrifying about watching millions of people stand up and say - "ENOUGH". Beautiful in its power and potential, but terrifying in the prospect of how it could all so easily go wrong, as it did recently in Burma and Iran.

Now the Egypt story has a more personal dimension. My wife has managed, after days of trying, to get in touch with a friend who lives in Cairo. Initially the messages weren't clear, but it appears that he was shot in the demonstrations on (we think) January 26th, and was wounded in the head. He spent several days in hospital, but as soon as he was discharged he went straight back to Tahrir Square.

Since then, they have been communicating by Facebook and phone, and whatever method works best with the situation as it is on the ground in Egypt. And the messages we get back are truly inspiring.

I have amended names and redacted contact details, but otherwise the following messages are unedited.

February 2nd

Ok my dearest friend. Get me posted with ur news. And I will pray for u. ALLAH is JUST. ALLAH is merciful.

Ok my friend. Take ur time. I'm sorry I can't open the link. I'm getting access from my cell phone. Takecare my good friend. And plz try to eat. Salam

February 3rd

im @ home now..... @ last i can send u now freeely from my desktop.

first of all i have to say that GOOD people appear in their support to others during obstacles. and u r 1 of those good people, ALLAH gave u that beautiful heart that beats with great sensation towards humanity. ALLAH loves that heart as well i swear to Him.

i've been thru torture my friend, i was 1 of those protesters from the very beginning, from the 25th, i was there.... we've been attacked by Police, injured most of us and even killed few of us. days after a complete withdrawal of police from the Egyptian streets took place.... they made way for the terror and gangs, the latter attacked our homes and families, they were about to enter my flat where i live with my parents but i stopped it. they stole many stores attacked many people down the road and did alot of corruption to Egypt. and finally we've been attacked by those supporters to Mubarak, but actually they r not, they r like those gangs who were attacking people in the streets but now they r attacking the protesters.. they were paid for that i bet.....

thats what happened very briefly, i couldn't explain it more coz mmy English is not supporting me as usual..... i am ok now my friend, i get better than before.

here is my cell phone
+20XXXXXXXX
n my address
XXXXXXXXXXX

so when r u 2 coming to visit me then? :P u have no more excuses, u now have the address...LOL

salam my friend : ) don stop smiling plz, i missed ur face although i never saw it.

Believe it or not! Few days ago Gangs and prisoners were let out from their jails to attack the cities. People of Mubarak and the police left the gangs to do what they want . They even planned for it. They let them attack our streets and houses. But we stood against it right. And now the youth are the protectors not the police. Every area, the youth and good sons stand with huge sticks and kitchen knives in the streets waiting for those bastards. Just to protect our moms and dads. And yesterday, they sent those people on horses and camels AGAIN to attack the protesters. IF WE ARE ALL KILLED FOR ALLAH's sake TO FREE OUR SELVES FROM THIS DICTATORISM, WE DON'T CARE, AS LONG AS WE BELIEVE IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN VALUE. May ALLAH make those souls of the people who were killed among us rest in peace. May ALLAH support us more to end this unfair battle. MAY ALLAH bless u people of the west who know what A HUMAN is to be free. May ALLAH bless us all and lead us to the right guidance and the right track. Amin.

February 5th

i can't describe how happy u made me by that call.... ur support to me is always making me better......

my head injury is not so deep, just a superficial trauma caused by a direct hit on my head. It was there of course, in my heart, in Tahrir square. Those supporters to Mubarak were armed with huge sticks, swords and bombs. They wanted to threaten us by their attacks to us but it didn't work..... we stood against them although 4 died of us. That was an unfair battle. we didn't have even a small swiss knife to save us.... but we did it...

yesterday, i was at work..... i missed going o Tahrir square alot, as if i got addicted to stand for hours there... i missed the energy that we all share while we r there... i was on duty and i swear to God i cried when i saw them on TV standing peacefully, i wanted to take a permission and leave but coz i work at a hospital, but culdn't leave....... tat was tearing me appppppppppaaart.

Yes sure, let anybody add me on facebook and on twitter ( although im new on twitter and still do not know alot of things about it but it is ok with me). Ur friends are most welcomed coz they come from ur side and u r very special to me so they r special too,

thanks millions

i will get some sleep now, and i will send u at night again : ) ALLAH bless u and ur family and those people having good heart like urs.

ALLAH is Just.

February 6th

Hello from the middle of cairo, from Tahrir square. Yes. I'm back. Slept for some time, checked my family and came here all thru the obstacles of the ''avoid walking thru'' rules. They set that rule from 4pm till 8am next day. I'm here not with my friends this time but with my self. I don't feel strange, those faces were here and always stay here until we hear his resination news. ALLAH is Just. I've seenpeople in UK march today in the news. Infront of the American embassy :-) I said to my self ''those are the people of justice who do get our point from the first day''. Stones kept thrown against us from the buildings around the square on that night. 100's of people got injured deeply, to the extent that I consider my wound is nothing in comparison to theirs. ALLAH is Fair. Happy to know that u the English, the people of humanity see the image clearly and not biased and getting the hidden details easily, this is even much more promising to us, mmotivating as u said. Yes, the other side of the earth has a clear vision also :-) love u all for ALLAH's sake.

If I have the money, i'd have travelled to u as soon as we finish it here. U r a friend that really deserves travelling to. I'm praying ALLAH to make me rich first to take better care of my parentrs, help Egypt's economy in recovery and travel to my faithful friends like u. ALLAH is so fair and he is looking to those who ask him in prayers if they are honest. Imagine ALLAH turns his face to u while u r asking him. He never turn away from those who aask him, if they have faith and enough honesty. His reply to ur asking doesn't have to be immediate, the reply might take years and years. Just don't forget when it comes true that someday u asked for that, and don't forget to thank Him when u achieved what u asked. May ALLAH grant us honesty, faithfullness and patience.

February 7th

I followed the reporter. And I will get u updated my friend. My pleasure to hear that the people of the United kingdom are so attached to our issue. This is so noble, but i'm not astonished because I know that the English are very understanding to such critical topics before they judge.
Send him please my best regards and great appreciation from the people of the square.

I am now back home to see my family needs and tomorrow i'll be off from work so i'll go early to the square after I do some shopping. I'll buy alot of food for us there because it takes us everytime to leave the square inorder to get something to eat. So i'll pack my bag with food and water.

I'll get u posted with any updates. Takecare my NOBLE friend. SALAM.

Forgot to tell u that on Tuesday we will be making some maintenance to the square. It looks ugly now lol takecare

Hello my friend from the middle of Cairo, from the square. It took me alot to read all ur forwards. Sorry for not answering ur call, my cellphone is almost out of charge. I'll be leaving the square in half an hour. I've to look after my parents as well. I'll come back again tomorrow for another day in Tahrir.

Curfew has been narrowed to (8pm-6am). But it is safe to leave after 8pm as long as u have ur personal ID. It isn't that dangerous as u think, even if it is, no 1can stop ur now.

I don't have money these days. I didn't run to the bank today to withdraw as much as I can like many people did. I couldn't even reach an ATM. Most probably they've been raped violently by people's lust for cash today. Every 1 took his place from early in the morning in those ques regardless of what will happen MORE to our economy. They just wanted to drink it all now and not even tomorrow. I've to admit, this is selfishness. If I say that I am LOYAL TO MY COUNTRY THEN I'VE TO ACT IN AWAY THAT SUPPORTS ITS ECONOMY, NOT TO RUIN IT MORE. Sorry my friend for being nervous about that. I'm sorry.

Yes. Suliman is talking to OTHER opposition groups. Those who are standing in the square now are the ROOTS. Actually, Sulieman is discusing the issues concerning the leaves and guess what, of ANOTHER TREE.

Thanks to XXXX for his great concern, tell him not to worry. Even if we got arrested we won't stop.

Our country is writing a brand new chapter in her own history so as to tell those who are looking forward to being in charge, BE AWARE OF THE ROARS OF MY PEOPLE, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING FOR ME. Mubarak's tale ain't over yet, but its gonna make alot think twice before they judge on us.

To all GOOD PEOPLE of our earth. To all those very few clean hands knocking to help. THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR CASE THE RIGHT WAY. You give us hope I swear.

Sorry for being extra dramatic.
Salam

I wish them all the best of luck.

Photographs: Khaled Elfiqi/EPA & John Moore/Getty Images

Reactions To Tucson

2011-01-13T03:50:00.001-08:00

I do have a lot to say about last week's shootings in Tucson, but rather than do so, I would just ask that you compare...

And contrast...

I think you get the picture

A Review Of The Year - 2010

2010-12-21T23:41:00.000-08:00

The human perception of time is a strange phenomenon. Looking back over the past year, it seems like aeons ago when we celebrated the turn of the new year, and looked forward to 2010 being somewhat better than the total rubbish that was 2009. So much has changed since then. Not least the abolition of optimism.

January

It seems incredible now, but back in January the nation was covered in snow, airports were closed, and even the replacement bus service between Ilford and Braintree was struggling to negotiate mini roundabouts. And look at us now. How far we have come. Er, covered in snow, flightless and trainless, and blaming the Government for not stocking up on their grit supplies. 'Twas ever thus.

February

The General Election campaign began in earnest, and to be quite frank, bored most of us to tears and/or bigotry. We all knew Gordon Brown was about as popular as a fart in the confessional booth, but we also knew that David Cameron only had to turn up in order to win. Provided they didn't do anything mindnumbingly stupid, like (say) order a massively expensive run of posters that were too easily satirised, an overwhelming Tory majority was pretty much nailed on.

Conservatives and right-wingers often like to tell us that Government is useless, while they rapidly dismantle the state's ability to support its most vulnerable citizens. And this lot were so keen to prove that point, they couldn't even wait to be elected to show just how useless they were. The lies and personal abuse reached levels that only residents of Alaska wouldn't be shocked at, and the Tories' number 2 man George Osborne seemed to go missing down a Chilean mine for several months, in the hope that people might not realise he would imminently be running one of the world's largest economies. Off the edge of a cliff.

March

The world turned. Stuff happened. Nick Clegg was still, back then, an anonymous posh man that most people had never heard of. Greece still had an economy, and English fans generally still believed we had a chance of winning the World Cup.

Me, I blogged matters canine in a vain and fruitless attempt to gain more hits. I have no shame. Or talent, to be fair.

April

Three explosive events captured the world's attention over the space of just one week. On April 14, newsreaders across the nation cursed their luck and came into work an hour early to practise pronouncing Eyjafjallajökull. On April 20, BP executives around the world cashed in their shares as Deepwater Horizon exploded, killing eleven workers and making the Gulf of Mexico the world's second oiliest entity, after George Osborne's personality.

[I never thought I'd use the the word "personality" so close to the words "George Osborne". Never let it be said that blogging doesn't introduce you to all sorts of new and unforeseen experiences.]

I said three explosive events. Of course the third, and by far the most inane (and therefore the only one of the three that I blogged), was the first in a series of three leaders' debates in the UK general election campaign. (It was three, wasn't it? I honestly can't remember now. Nor do I care.)

May

And finally, with a sigh and a whimper, it was over. Gordon Brown returned to Fife, and the evolution of Nick Clegg's short political career from zero to hero to villain began in earnest. It all began so well. It's difficult to believe, now, but back then the phrase "I agree with Nick" was so popular that some people actually discovered who Nick Clegg was. Then the election happened; the Tories snatched a best-loser position from the jaws of an easy victory; and one sunny day two well-scrubbed former public schoolboys joshed happily in the garden of 10 Downing Street. The electorate outside looked from Liberal to Tory, and from Tory to Liberal, and from Liberal to Tory again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

June

The world watched in awe, amazement and ennui as a collection of highly paid men in brightly coloured shirts kicked a leather ball to the soundtrack of a swarm of angry bees. Yes, it was time once again for the quadrennial ritual of British tabloids printing bizarre xenophobic chest-beating articles about how "our boys" would thrash the mighty Hun, followed shortly by "our boys" being righteously thrashed and humiliated by, er, the mighty Hun.

In retrospect, I believe this is also the only month of 2010 which didn't involve the wrong kind of snow falling on the Southend Victoria to London Liverpool Street line. Although I may be wrong.

July

Was there a July this year? Are you sure? Can't say as I noticed. It just goes to show - if you didn't blog it, it didn't happen.

Oh yes, one thing did happen of some note. Wikileaks - you may have heard of them - published the Afghan War Logs, simultaneously scoring a major coup for free speech and openness, and also proving what we already knew: that we are losing the war. Somewhere just across the border in Pakistan, an old man with dodgy kidneys pissed himself laughing.

August

Actually, I'm beginning to wonder whether I was in a coma this summer. Apart from a short holiday, I can't remember a single thing about August. Not a thing.

I'd like to think that, while I wasn't watching, the new coalition Government finally decided to properly regulate the banks, that Simon Cowell was imprisoned for crimes against humanity, and that a keyboard-playing cat was elected Prime Minister of Italy. At least one of these events will probably happen in 2011. Yes, it's the cat one. But you knew that didn't you.

What actually appears to have happened - according to a short and decidedly lazy bit of research on my part - is the World Bog Snorkelling Championships in Lungwort Wells. Now I'm beginning to wish I had paid more attention.

September

The year, rather like this blog post, limped wearily into its latter stages. The actor Tony Curtis died, triggering the first of two occasions this year when Twitter was dominated by the #IAmSpartacus hashtag. Showing FIFA how it's done, Britain staged the Bognor Birdman Competition and the World Gurning Championships in short order, and without a vuvuzela in sight.

Elsewhere, 33 Chileans went to hitherto unseen lengths to avoid having to watch the X Factor.

October

The Chilean miners re-emerged in designer sunglasses to cheers from around the world. Incredibly, there was some good news on the telly for once. Right in between reports about natural disasters in countries that Americans can't find on a map, and reports about the disappearance of the British welfare state. And manufacturing economy. And money.

In other news, I turned 42. Much gin was consumed. Canny hedge fund managers could have made a small fortune on the temporary shortage of Bombay Sapphire.

November

Are you still there? Good. Not long now.

What a cracking month November was. Aung San Suu Kyi was finally released from house arrest in time to watch England's surprisingly competent start to the Ashes series. Apparently she had some other business to attend to, but I can't remember now what that was. Something to do with dictatorship and genocide. Details.

Researchers at CERN trapped antimatter for the first time in human history, unless you count the accidental meeting of the Lib Dems' manifesto with the harsh glare of reality. In homage to the Prime Minister and his old Bullingdon chums, thousands of students converged on London to trash the gaff. Amazingly, this time no newspaper vendors were killed.

December

Don't ask me. Look out the bleedin' window.

Too Many Blacks

2010-12-05T23:27:00.000-08:00

Last week the inevitable happened - England failed in their bid to host the World Cup in 2018. Far more interesting than the story of the bid, though, is the story of the post-bid recriminations.

Since the Panorama broadcast which highlighted FIFA corruption, just before FIFA's decision was announced, it is hardly surprising that most of the blame has been directed at FIFA as their apparent corruption has been exposed - although, more shamefully, some have blamed the BBC for daring to broadcast their allegations at such an inconvenient time. How dare they? Without going into this well-trodden debate too deeply, suffice to say that I would far prefer a free press to a World Cup.

For me, though, there was one angle on the bid failure that almost all news outlets failed to pick up on. All but one - the Daily Mail.

In a quite extraordinary article entitled "Was this the video that cost us? The very un-English presentation screened to FIFA delegates", the blackshirts' favourite daily (through the medium of the hopefully-made-up "Paul Harris") decided that the bid failure was entirely down to - you guessed it - Political Correctness Gawn Mad.

In an article peppered with sarcasm, and liberally sprinkled with screengrabs from the England 2018 bid video (one hilariously subtitled "A clip from the part of the video depicting a Muslim country" - gasp! Muslims! RUN!!), the Daily Fail employs the usual code, not quite racist enough to prompt a complaint but plenty racist enough to make most sane people feel ill.

This, remember, is the same paper that arguably started the process of the bid failure by exposing Lord Triesman's affair (and his off-the-record allegations of bid corruption) some six months ago - including this classic pair of 'articles' praising Lord Triesman's mistress and pointing out TWICE that it is not hard to see why he might find her "ivory skin" alluring. God forbid that a man might fancy a girl with some colour.

They didn't even bother trying to rewrite the sentence:

The woman who cost Football Association chief Lord Triesman his job is revealed as a flame-haired 37-year-old with an impressive academic background.

As the Labour peer reflects on his speedy exit it is not hard to see why a man of 66 might find Melissa Jacobs with her slim physique and ivory skin alluring.

And....

It's not hard to see why a man of 66 might find Melissa Jacobs attractive.

With flowing flame red hair, a slim physique and ivory skin, she looks younger than her 37 years and has, it seems, an impressive academic background to boot.

Note to journalism students - clearly if your work to date comprises lazy stereotypes, and liberal use of copy/paste, there's a career out there for you somewhere.

So. Anyway. Back to the bid, and why it failed. It's not so much the article itself that is staggering - although it is, particularly with quotes like:

Selfless, that's us. Doing it for the greater good of the world. You could see it in the faces the film featured from locations all around the planet.

They've got the wrong kind of faces, you see. That's the problem. We failed because we used "ethnically diverse figures" (ie black people), or "African and Asian spectators" (ie black people), featuring fans including a "Caribbean family" (ie black people). To be fair they also point out that "close-ups of the players further underline the multinational diversity of our favourite Premiership icons" (yes, it seems even the team itself has been infiltrated by... black people). Terrifying, isn't it.

Well... no. No, it isn't. Not as terrifying as some of the comments, anyway. Here is a selection.

Britain has "multiculturalism" and is frightened to death of "offending" anyone.

- But at least we're not frightened of "superfluous punctuation".

Silly me thinking England was predominantly a white, christian country. Shows How wrong I was then.

- Or, perhaps, it just shows how racist and intolerant you are. Silly you indeed.

How disgusting that whoever organied this shambles of a bid chose not to portray England as English.

- Did we portray England as Fijian? I missed that bit.

Of course the good thing about losing the bid is that we wont have thousands of "spectators" claiming asylum.

- The bad thing is, you already live here.

The way we are going England is going to look like that before too long anyway.

- Yes, that's right. Because THEY breed, don't they.

Until the english start having some pride in Englishness instead of constantly living their lives through the cultures of other ethnic and national groups, they are simply not going to get themselfs out of the social malaise they're trapped in.

- This from a reader in, er, New Zealand.

Dear oh dear. We seem determined to PC ourselves out of existence.

- I think this one was looking for an IT helpline.

Maybe if England had done more to promote the Englishness of football and a little less multicultural ribbish theyd hVe had a better chance. Sucking up being all PC obviously failed miserably

- And this from a reader who loves England so much he lives in, um, Canada. Where apparently they say 'ribbish' a lot.

Once again, an example of how we are too scared to celebrate our national identity for fear that the PC brigade will come along and moan that there are not enough different cultures and minorities represented.

- Now I'm getting images of the PC Brigade, sort of like the Light Brigade, but with black people instead of horses.

This is the problem with multi culturalism...everyone loses their identity amidst the racial and cultural mash.....

- Bloody hell, even the potatoes are multicultural.

toe curlingly embarrassing, the insincere simpering and whimpering, the extraordinary, and weird obsession that this country has developed for multiculture

- Yes, it's us that's obsessed with multiculture isn't it. Yes.

Our heritage has been sold down the river, what remains is a hotchpotch that few people feel any connection with. England I am afraid is dead and soon even its history will be rewritten!

- Branching out from a World Cup bid to a complete rewrite of the school history curriculum. Because of these fools, we lost at Agincourt and Waterloo.

In this film Britain looks like a foreign country, which increasiingly it seems to be

- Based on last week, that foreign country is Greenland. Brrr.

It makes me feel sick to the stomach when we have this 'multicultural' rubbish rubbed in our faces. We should stick to traditional values and celebrate our heritage.

- Yeah! We want traditional values! Like xenophobia! And bigotry! Yay!

Final proof our identity, heritage and history have been whittled away!!

- You read it here first, people - England is now just a sharpened stick.

I want to see a video of GB, not Africa!! It's about football!! Not multiculturalism!!

- No!! It's about exclamation marks!! Lots!! Of!! Them!!

We are hardly the country we used to be. We have been watered down to much by uncontrolled immigration and folks wanting asylum.

- Ah yes, the purity of our gene pool, watered down by... oh I can't be bothered.

Typical. Hijacked by the PC loony left multiculturalists.

- Loony left? Who, exactly? David Cameron?

This country is dying because of its own generosity. Anyone can come here, be what they like, pray how they like, behave how they like.....no worries, the natives will pay, the natives will tolerate. It doesn't surprise me that our promotional video was full of foreigners; even if it had only been filmed in England it would still have been full of foreigners. Did I say this country was dying? yes, we had an Empire but it was largely taking good things to the world.

- I don't know where to start with how wrong this statement is. I just hope this person doesn't live near me.

well i am pleased, it will keep some of the scum of the world trying to get here more easier on the back of being a football supporter.

- Er, I'm pretty sure we've got plenty of our own scum right here...

And my personal favourite:

Well done Daily Mail for having the courage to speak up and say the things the silent majority are thinking!. It's about time we took pride in OUR culture for once.

If only Diana were here to see what this nation has become. What would she say?

Now, ask yourself. Honestly. Do you want to host a World Cup, and find people like this welcoming fans and players from around the world (ie black people)? Neither do I.

Disappointed kids wondering what Diana would say

More Tea, Vicar?

2010-11-09T02:50:00.000-08:00

I have been inundated with requests to resume this blog.

Oh, alright then, I got two requests.

From my father and my sister, if you must know.

But hey, who am I to decline. So here goes.

There has been much focus recently on the 'success' of the billionaire-funded ultra-reactionary Tea Party movement in the US mid-term elections, followed by today's release of George W Bush's memoirs, in which he claims (inter alia) that torture helps prevent terrorism. I'll leave the staggering wrongness of that assertion aside - for now, at least - and just copy below a series of comments written by Doug Offenhartz, which I saw on the Twitter feed of Ayelet Waldman.

Hey, tea bagging pricks! NOW you're mad?

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy and push us to invade Iraq.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.

You didn't get mad when we spent over $800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.

You didn't get mad when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.

You didn't get mad when over $10 billion in cash just disappeared in Iraq.

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Osama Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when Bush rang up $10 trillion in combined budget and current account deficits.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed Hospital.

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the filthy rich, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks.

You didn't get mad with the worst 8 years of job creation in several decades.

You didn't get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.

You didn't get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.

You got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.

Beautifully put, Doug. It just makes you wonder how people's memories can be so short, that Obama is now taking the blame for all the ills that the US is currently suffering. Given Bush's total lack of remorse for the damage he did, the above comes as a useful reminder of just how far we have come in the past two years. Now it's up to the American people to make sure we never go back.

A Short Announcement

2010-07-18T23:38:00.000-07:00

This blog has been suspended/discontinued due to lack of interest/talent.

Ch Ch Ch Ch Changes...

2010-05-03T23:38:00.000-07:00

The most closely fought and unpredictable election of my voting life is now drawing to a fascinating denouement. Here's my take on the past few weeks' campaigning, starting with the losers. And, just to make me look even more silly after the count on Thursday night, I've also added my predictions.

Labour - Gordon Brown

Yes, I know we are all voting for candidates, not parties or leaders, but such is the way the campaigns have all been structured - particularly with the new leaders' TV debates - that UK elections are becoming ever more 'Presidential' in style. Which has been a massive blow for the incumbents, given that they have no personalities to push forward in a personality-driven environment.

Poor old Labour. Thirteen years after the heady days of 1997 when they rolled into Downing Street on a wave of euphoria, Labour are about to be unceremoniously kicked out, despite their achievements. The past 13 years have been a mixed bag, but there is no denying that Labour has done extraordinarily well with policies such as SureStart. Sadly for them, their party and campaign are led by Britain's most uncharismatic man. With the possible exception of Piers Morgan.

Staring defeat in the face, and unable to afford the sort of massively expensive campaign the Tories have been able to roll out, Labour are limping to the finish line with ever more desperate attempts to woo the wavering voters. Calling a potential supporter a 'bigot' was supposed to be a low point, but still they kept digging the hole ever deeper, culminating last week in the reappearance of Tony Blair. Surely they're playing to lose, now. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they've put a massive bet on themselves to get trounced, and thereby refill the party coffers in one fell swoop. I call this 'John Higgins' fundraising.)

Overseas readers of this blog - if there are any - may be amazed to find that Tony Blair is now considered to be a political liability. His popularity in the USA remains very high, but here in the UK we have this quaint old-fashioned thing where we still dislike politicians for lying - even though hating a politician for lying is rather like hating a dog for licking his own balls: it's unsightly, but it's an integral part of who he his. (And we all wish we could get away with it.)

Incredibly, given the massive unpopularity that is inevitable for the incumbent party after three terms and amid a crushing recession, Labour may not actually do too badly. Psephologists worldwide are no doubt scratching their heads as to how Labour can be polling 28% just two days before the vote, which is actually several points higher than they have been polling for most of the current Parliament. You've seen it here first, people - millions of votes earned purely out of sympathy for a dying animal. Labour are, in fact, the political wing of Jedward.

My prediction - 215 seats

Liberal Democrat - Nick Clegg

The LibDem campaign has been a game of two halves. Prior to the first leaders' debate, hardly anyone knew who Nick Clegg was, and the LibDems were still polling below 20%. To be fair to Clegg, I think a major reason why so many people were unaware of his existence was down to the almost total lack of coverage of the LibDems in much of the (Tory) press, but his strong performance in the debates earned him an instance bounce in the polls up to almost 30% - and, creditably, this is a position they appear to have sustained to date.

This brings me to the second half of the LibDems' campaign, and possibly the most surreal part of what has been a pretty topsy-turvy few weeks. Once it became apparent that Clegg was a real threat to the status quo, the press reaction was instant and vicious. What began with some mild digs about nobody knowing who Clegg was - patently no longer true after the first debate - quickly descended into more desperate obloquy and ad hominem attacks. Not surprisingly, this is my personal favourite:

How can anyone seriously try to get any laughs out of the LibDems when you're up against this calibre of comedy?

When the Daily "Hurrah For The Blackshirts" Mail starts falling foul of Godwin's Law, you know you must be doing something right. Unfortunately for Clegg, far beyond these pathetic attempts to scare the electorate, he is still hampered by the same ball and chain he always was - a vote for the LibDems is statistically worth around 10% of a vote for another party, in terms of seats gained. Unless they are able to overcome an electoral system strongly skewed against them, they will never get the chance to change it, and so they will remain effectively irrelevant.

So, Cleggy, it's back to "my home town Sheffield" for the public-school educated Eurocrat. But look on the bright side. You might still be irrelevant, but at least people know who you are now.

My prediction - 84 seats

Conservative - David Cameron

Anointed as the winner as long as two years ago, Cameron and his motley band of homophobes and Bullingdon chums are now limping across the line. If you had just arrived in the UK and read the papers today - mostly heavily biased toward the Tories, of course - you would think that Cameron has run a spectacularly successful campaign, and is about to win a resounding mandate from the British people.

What seems to have been forgotten is that, just one year ago, the Conservatives were polling consistently over 40% (now seemingly stuck in the mid-30s), and had a lead over Labour of over 20%. Months of 'articles' like this...

3 Sep 2009 ... DAVID Cameron is on course to win a sensational landslide general election victory next May, an exclusive Sun poll reveals tonight.

27 Jul 2009 ... Get ready for a Tory landslide. That is the prediction of a new and sophisticated electoral forecasting tool...

Stephens Scown snap poll predicts Tory landslide ... David Cameron's Tory party will sweep to power with a massive 64% of the vote...

... have been quietly shelved in favour of bizarre attacks on the opposition parties, and (unwittingly) hilarious puff pieces about Dave the normal bloke. Meanwhile, the Tories are stuck on the level of support they had when Michael Howard royally buggered up the 2005 election.

For the immensely wealthy banker's son, educated at Eton and married into aristocracy, trying to come across as a regular member of the human race must be a massive task. So I suppose Dave deserves some credit for success in this regard, in that at least fewer than 50% of the electorate believe he breathes with the use of gills. (Note: this result was obtained from a non-scientifically conducted poll, and may not be an accurate reflection of public opinion.) Nevertheless, no matter how it is spun, this election is almost certain to end up as a failure for the Tory party, even if they do form the next Government.

Some of the best entertainment in the election campaign - despite Gordon Brown's best efforts to insult his way to the top - have come from Dave. His appearances on the leaders' TV debates have been must-watch stuff: from the rabbit in the headlights in the first debate, through to the more confident (but still appearing to look like a face drawn on a thumb) in the final debate. Cameron and his would-be ministers, particularly the hard drinking Billy Hague, have been zooming around the country in private jets kindly loaned by their 'ordinary hard-working family' friends to marginal constituencies flooded in leaflets by their 'ordinary hard-working' non-domiciled tax exile friends, in a chaotic attempt to achieve the victory they all thought was absolutely guaranteed.

The tactics have been brilliantly awful. Remember promising to give tax breaks to married couples, only to withdraw the policy, and then resurrect it in a form that punishes widows of military casualties while simultaneously pretending that £2.88 a week is going to make the blindest bit of difference to anyone's marital status? Remember the "great ignored" and the "big society", just two of their bizarre poli-speak anodyne slogans which vanished as quickly as they appeared? In any other year these would rightly be seen as the shambles they are, but somehow these people are going to be running our country for the next five years.

God help us all.

Prediction - 317 seats, one term of Government, three summers of civil unrest and the total destruction of the country

Take Me To Your Leaders

2010-04-16T02:59:00.000-07:00

Three things stick in my mind after last night's historic first-ever UK party leaders' debate. Some or all of these may be utterly irrelevant, and as far from policy as it's possible to get. So if you're looking for a serious analysis, try a proper blogger.

The Missing Billions

About half way through the debate, Brown and Cameron's bickering about National Insurance Contributions (now known as "jobs tax" in Toryworld) reached a nadir with this exchange:

GORDON BROWN:

If you were elected, in a budget in July, you've got to take six
billion out of the system, other than health and defence.
Where does that money come from? You've promised you'll
take six billion out. It can only end up with the loss of
thousands of jobs, including teachers. You will not back us
and support us on keeping education. Why won't you support
educational spending, as we do?

DAVID CAMERON:

I think people can hear that this is a complete invention of a figure plucked out of the air. We're saying the government
could save one pound out of every hundred it spends. Now,
what small business, what large business, what family, frankly,
hasn't had to do that during this difficult recession?

David Cameron responded to Gordon Brown's claim that the Tories plan to cut £6 billion by stating that the figure was a "complete invention". I have italicised the relevant sentence above. (Incidentally, I can think of one family that probably hasn't had to cut their expenditure by 10%. Step forward Mr & Mrs Cameron of Witney, Oxon.)

Now if that were true, and Gordon had just plucked the figure out of the air, imagine my surprise when this happened:

AUDIENCE MEMBER:

How certain can you be that your party's policies will deal with
the budget deficits without damaging economic growth?

ALASTAIR STEWART:

Mr Cameron?

DAVID CAMERON:

This is an absolutely vital question, and I'm glad it's been asked, because we've got to get this economy moving. We've
got to get this economy growing. What we say is save £6
billion in the coming current year in order to stop the jobs tax
which we think will derail the recovery.

Now I'm a little confused. If this six billion was a "complete invention", where's the money coming from? Oh, I see:

DAVID CAMERON:

These two constantly argue about waste as if we can
create...or we can fill the black hole in public finances by
saving money on paper clips and pot plants in Whitehall. Of
course we can get rid of a bit of waste. But that isn't the big...
That doesn't really address the big questions we need to ask
ourselves. I think we need to be clear with you, open with you,
straight with you. We've tried to do that. We've set out £15
billion worth of savings. I've listed some of them.

... it's because the six billion is in fact FIFTEEN billion. "Some" of which Dave has listed - yeah, paper clips and pot plants. Thanks a million. Or, actually, thanks fifteen billion.

Serving Your Country

All three of the leaders used the tactic of anecdotes about 'real' people. Here's an example. This man has served his country above and beyond the call of duty.

DAVID CAMERON:

I was in Plymouth recently, and a 40-year-old black
man made the point to me. He said, "I came here when I was
six, I've served in the Royal Navy for 30 years."

Now, I may be wrong, but I have my suspicions that this man does not actually exist. I'm pretty sure the Royal Navy no longer uses ten-year-old boys on their ships. Unless Dave thinks the forces are still in the age of Horatio Hornblower.

Cross-Party Consensus

I couldn't resist. I tried, really I did, but I couldn't resist. So here it is - the (completely un-)official "I agree with Nick" count.

Gordon Brown - 4 (plus a "Nick also agrees with me", which Nick rebutted)

David Cameron - a very disappointing nul points

And I thought I even heard Nick Clegg himself say it at one point.

All quotes are taken from the BBC website, who kindly posted a full transcript in pdf format.

Mutts

2010-03-21T07:43:00.001-07:00

This is still a young blog, and it doesn't get many readers. So imagine my surprise when - having already blogged on the BNP, the snow, and toilet roll dispensers - the number of hits on my blog quadrupled once I posted a few photos of my dogs.

So, in a shameless attempt to increase the hits yet further, I am eschewing political comment and taking the easy option. (Although I do appreciate that I may also get hits from people Googling "Nick Griffin dogging", and I hope they get over their disappointment swiftly.)

It has been almost a year now since Azul and Blackie arrived from the dog rescue centre in Spain.

Prepare for close-up...

Generally speaking, the boys have settled in well. Probably their biggest shock since arriving in England has been the snow. They absolutely loved it. Not having to commute through it probably helped.

I can only guess that they had never seen snow before. First time out, they just barked at it. The snow seemed relatively unimpressed at this display. Eventually their curiosity took over, and they got pretty excited about the idea of playing in this new stuff.
("Excited" generally means, for Azul, spinning round and round like a gyroscope with ADHD. Blackie is more sedate - excitement generally manifests itself as circular tail-wagging. Blackiecopter.)

They are still best mates, as you can see here. Playfights are a major part of their daily routine, apart from barking at ice cream van jingles. They never seem to get bored; there's always something valuable around to bite. Including eachother.

Like most dogs with husky DNA, Azul likes to counter-surf when we're not looking. This tactic has worked (he once scored half a Beef Wellington) as well as backfired (he once chewed up a whole box of dishwasher tablets). Blackie's dining tastes are somewhat more esoteric: he's quite happy eating the cats' food. Both before and after the cats have.

Surely the greatest ad ever for taking in a rescue dog, no? No? Oh.

To the victor, the spoils.

True Colours

2010-02-15T03:37:00.000-08:00

I've been watching the general election campaigns warming up with some interest, particularly with respect to what appears to be increasing desperation in Tory ranks.

Just recently we've had lies about crime figures, lies about who attends Cameron's speeches, crass interference in the Northern Ireland peace process, lies about teenage pregnancy, lies about Tory funding donors, lies about Labour's tax plans (which also scuppered a cross-party consensus) and Cameron making personal attacks on Brown.

But this is what really struck me as to how low the Tories, or in this case one of their chief bloggers, will go.

These three tweets were posted last night on Twitter by a blogger who calls himself "Tory Bear". His tweets, and blogs, are generally a series of childish personal insults, smears and innuendo, but even he has sunk to a new low here.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I always felt that mocking politicians was fine, but mocking disability is just cheap and nasty.

Similarly, I think it's reasonable to hold a politician to account for his actions, but to deliberately repeat smears about drug dependency is not only desperately vicious, but also seeks to trivialise what is a serious issue for thousands of people.

And finally, just in case you thought the above wasn't tasteless enough, there's always the last resort of the utterly vile scoundrel: label your opponent as a paedophile.

Jolly well done, Tory Bear. Cowardly enough to tweet this disgusting abuse, and cowardly enough to try to delete the evidence when called to account for yourself.

Yep, the offending tweets have now been deleted. Classy.

No doubt he'll get away with it, and be free to continue his trivial vendettas against other people, but I for one think this spokesman for the Nasty Party has shown his true colours. Vote blue - fight dirty. Just the sort of people we want to ru(i)n our country for the next four or five years.

Snowing Me Snowing You (A-Ha)

2010-01-11T00:49:00.000-08:00

In case it has escaped your attention, it's been snowing a bit in the UK.

Quite apart from the usual snowy Britain experiences - cancelled trains, slushy roads and over-excited weather forecasters - I've also learned a few slightly more esoteric things about life, which I am generously sharing with you, dear reader. Never let it be said that this blog doesn't enrich your life. Even if it is self-evidently true.

A new respect for ungulates

Being as I am one of those weedy people that can't feel their toes once the mercury drops below 4 Celsius, in the past few weeks I've taken to wearing two - or even three - pairs of socks at once. One of the unforeseen side-effects of this additional insulation is that my shoes no longer fit, and I end up tottering down the road like a satyr that has had a few too many sherries (albeit without the perpetual erection, I might add).

I never gave much thought to what it must be like to have hooves before, but now I realise how ungainly they are, I say 'jolly well done' to all the sheep, pigs, horses and Satans out there.

Panic buying can get surreal

I went down to my town's supermarket over the weekend to get some supplies, only to find the store resembled a scene from a nuclear holocaust movie. No bread. No tinned food. No milk. All the staple items had been bought en masse by people presumably expecting to be sealed off from civilisation like Ernest Shackleton for the next six months.

I guess this is to be expected, particularly with the newspapers enjoying stories about how Britain has returned to the Stone Age, but there was one particular item that I did not expect to see people fighting over - cat litter. Yes, cat litter: those absorbent little pellets are apparently the best substitute for road grit available. Now the pavements are strewn with cat litter, I do wonder if the local feline population just thinks the town has become one enormous toilet.

No change there, then.

A sholley is a weapon

There is a fairly high proportion of retired folk in the town where I live, which adds a little extra spice to the snowy scenes. I was expecting to see carnage in town - old people flying all over the place, broken hips aplenty... but in fact the cunning old codgers seem to have worked out that their sholleys act as an extra foot, giving them the stability of a tripod.

Unfortunately this is also allied with the braking and steering ability of a supertanker. Anyone walking within 20 yards of a sholley-wielding pensioner is therefore in imminent danger of being swamped by a phalanx of tartan-clad shopping bags.

Believe me. It's no coincidence that the more pointy parts of the sholley are exactly at testicle height. You have been warned.

There is good money in plastics

Sales of non-essential items have plunged during the cold snap. Perhaps that's not surprising, that people are postponing the purchase of large items when they can barely walk. But there are still some items flying off the shelves, and it would appear that none are selling faster than sledges.

Not those nice solid old wooden sledges, like Rosebud. Oh no. This is 2010, so our wee kids have to have a pink slab of moulded plastic to sit on. At £30 a pop.

Even Russell Brand is at it. I'm clearly in the wrong line of work.

I am not ready for Canada

Here we are in the third or fourth week of the Big Freeze (TM), and it amazes me that not only has the country not ground to a halt, but I also currently still have a full quota of toes and fingers. Nevertheless, if there is much more of this sub-zero ice-fest, I may have to go into hibernation. I would not last five minutes in Calgary. Especially walking like I've got hooves.

Noughties & Teens

2010-01-05T00:11:00.000-08:00

Another year has turned - another decade, too, according to some (but not all) - and traditionally one tends to look back at the year just gone, and look forward to the year to come, which might make one look like Marty Feldman for a moment (I've actually got a headstart on that one). This blog entry is made in something like that spirit, only without actually making any sense.*

LOOKING BACK ON 2009

Well, what a year that was. Last year I:

Saw the G20 demo in London

I was working that day, but did manage to see at least a little bit of egregious police brutality. Mostly because a riot kicked off right outside my office. A highlight has to be the demonstrator dressed in a pink Star Wars Stormtrooper outfit. At least I assume he was a demonstrator, he could have been FIT undercover...

Got married

Actually that's not quite true, I got married in 2008. But I stayed married in 2009, which I consider to be equally momentous as an achievement. Yay me. (And yay my wife, obv.)

Met Paul Watson

Somewhere in the bowels of HMS Belfast, I managed to grab a few words with eco-legend Paul Watson. Watson is currently in the Southern Ocean, chasing down Japanese whalers with a view to ramming them, throwing rancid butter at them, and casting aspersions on their parentage. Good man. Me? I got a signed book and a hoodie. You don't actually expect me to DO something, do you? Sheesh. It's cold down there, you know.

Got dogs

For some reason, my wife obviously thought there wasn't nearly enough farting going on in our house. Believe me, there was no shortfall on my account.

Gor blimey that's a fruity one...

LOOKING FORWARD TO 2010

This year I hope to:

Start a revolution

Frankly I'm fed up waiting for the Iranians. Clearly they're just not putting the effort in. I therefore propose to combine my 2010 holiday with some good old-fashioned revolutionary fervour. This may include executions at football grounds (I currently favour Fratton Park, starting with that idiot with the sodding Pompey Bell), extraordinary renditions (again, Fratton Park comes immediately to mind as the most unappealing place I can think of, offhand) and brutal suppression of the media. Actually, bringing down the apparatus of the State takes a secondary priority to eliminating the world's most annoying campanologist. The revolution can wait.

Rename the year

Twenty-Ten, or Two-Thousand and Ten? Such is the current debate on naming the new year. Well, let me tell you something - you are ALL wrong. It's twenty hundred and one-oh. Or possibly the square root of Forty-Forty-One-Hundred. I hope that helps.

Make better use of similes and metaphors

It's as clear as beer. If I can hit that bullseye, then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. I speak with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.

Start training for the Olympics

Bearing in mind that I am both British, and hideously unfit, I need to select an event carefully. One that involves sitting down, ideally. And one that involves almost no physical exertion. Currently I'm torn between going for the PS3 Call Of Duty event, or the 4x400 spliff-rolling relay. Either way, I'd better get my thumbs in condition in time for London Square-Root-of-Forty-Forty-Eight-One-Hundred-And-Forty-Four. Hup hup hup... aaaaand relax.

Happy New Year!

* Should all or any part of this blog entry actually make sense, please disregard. This is clearly an unintended side-effect. Please ensure all jars of peanut butter are kept at a safe distance until the effect wears off.

Kaminski, Your Time Is Up

2009-10-19T04:36:00.000-07:00

Much has been said and written already about David Cameron's new friends in the EU. Anyone who has read much of this blog will know how I feel.

Each time the issue is raised, and someone expresses their concern at the beliefs held by the likes of Michal Kaminski, the usual Tory reaction is to ignore the issue - and, where possible, accuse the accuser.

Not content with kicking out the only Tory with the balls to question this ill-starred alliance, it now appears the Tories are attempting to rewrite history itself, in a risible attempt to make Kaminski look respectable.

Just a couple of points that someone in Tory HQ might find useful.

Number 1. Wikipedia is not the only source of information on the internet. In fact, arguably, it isn't a source of information at all. Still, it's good to know where you get the base data for your policies.

Number 2. If you are attempting to manipulate the published facts for your own sinister purposes, next time don't do it using a House of Commons IP address. With ignorance like that, it's a wonder you found the internet at all.

As for the rest of us, I think this is something we're going to have to get used to under our new Government. As I remember reading somewhere once: "All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers."

Next week: Boris Johnson's Wikipedia page is amended to show his five Olympic gold medals for wiff-waff.

Free Speech Isn't Free

2009-10-18T23:45:00.002-07:00

One of the most basic rights available to those of us living in democracies is the right to freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. From this comes the right to vote, to report on events, to express our opinions, and to hold our leaders to account. Most, if not all, of us take this right for granted. And so we should. It is integral to our freedom in general.

The recent Trafigura debacle - where a previously little-known oil company used a notorious firm of libel lawyers to attempt to gag reports of a toxic waste dumping scandal - has reminded me how precarious this right is. And I'm not just talking about big companies using their financial muscle to (hilariously fail to) overturn 300-year-old laws just to cover up their own wrongdoing, which is egregious and heinous in itself, but that this sorry episode is just one small part of an increasing movement by various interests to restrict individual rights as part of their own agenda. It helps if you make annual profits of US$400million plus, so you can afford lawyers like this.

In the UK, we now have "super-injunctions", as used in the Trafigura case, where an injunction can be sought not only to prevent (say) a newspaper reporting on toxic waste dumping - but also that the same newspaper is not allowed to report on the injunction itself. This Kafkaesque moebius-strip of logic means that there may well be thousands of super-injunctions preventing what most people would consider public interest stories being released... and we're not even allowed to know about the injunctions themselves. As Richard Littlejohn might say, if he ever did any research - "you couldn't make it up".

As a Brit, I envy the United States somewhat, in that their rights and freedoms are clearly written down in a Bill of Rights and a Constitution - in contrast with the mishmash of common law that we have. The First (and by implication, therefore, the most important) Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads thus:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now obviously there need to be restrictions on the right to freedom of speech - and there are. No reasonable person would say that you have the right to be offensive, and to provoke violence and hatred, for example. And a US case from 1925 states that this freedom does not allow persons to use words which "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state." Seems fair enough, doesn't it.

Here's an example. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case where a man sold videos of pitbulls fighting. The man got three years in jail for animal cruelty (although Fox News still calls him a "dog lover"), but still has the right to free speech - and this, his lawyers contend, even extends to his hateful videos. Personally I consider this bizarre and incredible - but it does demonstrate how precious this right to freedom of speech is to Americans.

Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I discovered the other side of this story. I remember the stories last year about how Sarah Palin tried to have books banned from Wasilla library. But that's Sarah Palin - she kerrrazy. Surely this sort of paranoid madness isn't that common. Americans are way too keen on their freedoms - aren't they?

So this is what Trafigura reminded me of. The utter nonsense of trying to suppress a story so much that you end up trampling on a 300-year-old law (and shooting yourself in the foot in the process), brought to mind another recent story that I had to read twice, it was so unbelievable.

You see, it's not just children's books about gay penguins that people want banned. Oh no. It's really serious hardcore stuff. Like Harry Potter. Or that dangerous revolutionary Philip Pullman. Stuff that millions of normal kids read. I mean, it's got so bad, that America now has a Banned Books Week.

I know.

America. Land of the Free. Banned Books Week.

WTF? It's THAT bad?? Shouldn't they be banning Jeffrey Archer first?

Don't they know this kind of stuff almost always backfires? Haven't they heard of the Streisand Effect? Or are these people (whoever they are) so blinded by hatred, intolerance, greed or whatever motivation they have, that they'll gladly ride into the valley of death to attempt to restrict the freedoms they claim to hold so dear?

Who are these people? Isn't it rather scary that some people are willing to go to such great lengths to stop other people reading words?

Some of them are companies with deep pockets who don't want us to know what they've been up to. Some of them are religious fundamentalists (y'know, the kind that seriously think Obama is the antichrist) wanting to impose their intolerant morality on the rest of us.

But ALL of them are dangerous. And if we don't stand up to them now, what price will we pay for our freedom in future? We cannot afford to live in a society where you can buy silence, or obtain it by threats. And surely we don't want to live in a world when harmless children's books are banned, while stories of vital public interest are quietly buried. Do we? The question is - can we afford the lawyers?

This is a slightly amended version of a blog post originally uploaded on 15 October, and (ironically) taken down on 16 October

Power To The People

2009-10-18T23:45:00.001-07:00

I recently attended a residents' meeting, held to coordinate opposition to a planned green belt development. Having never dabbled much before in local politics, I looked forward to a lively debate, and - with any luck - a bit of a ruck as well.

Imagine my disappointment.

The first clue that things might not quite kick off as I had hoped, was the venue: The local Methodist Church.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Methodists - no more than I do against any other Christian denomination, anyway - but I think it's safe to say that Methodists are not generally known for their rabble-rousing shenanigans. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Methodists aren't really known for anything.

On arrival, though, signs were initially more promising. A shifty-looking geezer was loitering outside the church hall entrance, shivering in the cold. He had a fistful of leaflets he was handing out to passers-by, which could not initially be discerned in the dark. As I drew near, I prepared to accept a leaflet. Just as I extended my hand, a terrible stench drew close around me, as if the gates of hell themselves had opened briefly to allow some excess sulphur to leak out. In the darkness, the BNP logo on the leaflet became apparent. I scuttled past.

I wish, now, that I had taken one. I'd love to see an insight into the BNP's angle on planning issues in rural Essex. I'd particularly like to see how they got the race angle involved, in what is possibly the whitest place I've ever lived. Sadly I may now never know.

The Methodist hall itself probably holds around 100 people. It was packed. I can only assume the live entertainment in the local pubs was pretty light this week. Maybe it was even karaoke. That would explain a lot.

The first part of the meeting consisted of the organisers of this little protest group introducing themselves to the assembled throng, and setting out the aims of the group - namely, to stop one particular development from going ahead. We were all showered with facts regarding flood plains, flight paths, traffic infrastructure and the lack of local school places - all good stuff, and strong arguments, but I did wonder whether any single person in the room didn't already know these facts. (Unless the BNP guy had got in, of course.) The proposed building site is indeed in a flood plain, and under a flight path... and it's on green belt land. So far so dandy - but we hadn't really learned anything yet.

All this would change in the second part; the open forum Q&A. This is the part we had all come for. Although admittedly in most cases it was because they had a question to ask. Rather than, in my case, because I hoped a particularly annoying question might result in fisticuffs.

Sadly, as you might expect, most of the questions - and answers - turned out to be pretty anodyne stuff. In fact, all bar a few questions were people asking whether we knew that the proposed development was on a flood plain, was under a flight path, was on green belt land, and did not have sufficient infrastructure to handle the additional traffic. Sigh. At this point I was beginning to wonder whether it might actually be me that started a fight, just out of sheer frustration. Fortunately, ennui just got there ahead of frustration, and I retained my inertia. I'm starting to develop a useful skill of remaining completely immobile while on hallowed ground. Just in case, you know. Just in case.

Most of the remaining questions were about other planned developments in the local area. Each one was dismissed on the grounds that this group was focussing on just this one development. Only. It must have taken a couple of dozen repetitions of this fairly simple concept before the questions dried up. I began to wonder if some people had come in here looking for salvation, and got lost in the talk of drainage solutions.

One contributor to the Q&A deserves special mention. Following a gentleman who described himself as an 'outsider' for living in the next town for the first 15 years of his life, I was initially surprised to find a besuited man stand up and claim to be a proper local resident, in a broad Scottish accent. He had a rant which he had prepared beforehand, plus visual aids. This could be good. This might even be 'it'.

But no.

Just as he'd got rolling, and was beginning to reach a crescendo of irrelevance, he was shouted down. "Excuse me sir, this is not a political forum" - we have polite hecklers out our way, you know. The man continued gamely for a few words, but the chorus of disapproval grew, and he sat down, chastened. A murmur passed around the assembled residents. I just caught the words 'UKIP' and 'idiot'. I wondered whether he had picked up a BNP leaflet outside. I also wondered whether a residents' meeting was the best place to canvass about the evils of the EU. I wasn't brave enough to raise my hand and ask, though.

And just as well. As the meeting began to draw to a close, we were all entreated to attend the council planning meeting next month, and to write objection letters to the planning committee in the meantime. The group organisers had brought some local councillors with them to help us understand some of the more arcane concepts relating to local planning law. What they didn't expect was to end up in a ten-minute bickering exchange on whether residents should support the Core Strategy or not. On such small matters can hang the success or failure of entire revolutions. So it was probably just as well that the matter was brushed under the carpet just before it got really nasty. Of course, nobody now knows whether they should support the Core Strategy or not, but hey - that's democracy. Or indecision. I forget which.

And so it ended. Or, more accurately, so it continued as I sneaked out. They might have still been going the next morning, for all I know.

So there it is. My first real contact with local activism. I don't know whether to be impressed with the protest group's confidence in the face of a vast development conglomerate, but I was expecting at least a minor scuffle. I hope Wolfie Smith would have approved.

The BNP can kiss my indigenous ar*e

2009-10-01T06:11:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to my first blog post, some of the Twitterati have alerted me to the fact that the BNP now have a freephone number.

So, "fellow patriots", feel free (it's in the name, after all) to phone 0800 008 6191 from as many public phone boxes as you can, and leave the phone off the hook. And feel free to pass this on to as many people as you like.

Update: It might be wise to dial 141 first. Some people are getting call-backs from the BNP!

Spot The Difference

2009-09-23T06:07:00.001-07:00

Since I was a child, I liked those games where you get two pictures that appear similar, and have to find the small subtle differences. Here's my take on this old chestnut.

Today's Daily Express front page:

A recent BNP demo outside Lunar House (HQ of the UK border agency):

And, finally, more BNP idiots in Dover:

How interesting that a national newspaper should directly quote the slogan of a racist party. Right down to the superfluous "up" at the end. And, of course, the fact that it's patently false doesn't help.

A cynical person might see this headline, and think that this supposedly great historic media organisation was actually run by a shower of small-minded idiots. For example.

UPDATE I see that the ever-excellent Tabloid Watch beat me to it.

The War on Terror... and other abstract nouns

2009-08-27T00:30:00.001-07:00

Almost from the moment Kenny MacAskill announced his decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, the backlash began. For the first time since his inauguration last January, Barack Obama actually seemed pretty miffed. Even Gordon Brown claimed he was 'repulsed' - although this comment appears to be more directed toward the rapturous welcome the shellsuit-clad Megrahi received in Tripoli, than any comment on his release. Perhaps it was the shellsuit itself that Brown found repulsive.

Now I don't want to get into too much detail about Megrahi here. Plenty of people in the know believe that his conviction was unsafe, and based on circumstantial evidence - although this of course was not a factor in the decision to release him. Balancing the need to punish a man convicted of 270 murders, against the need to show that "we" have a moral superiority over terrorists and can recognise that in some circumstances it is better to treat people with compassion rather than revenge, is a minefield. I'll leave it to those who are paid to make these decisions.

But I do want to focus, briefly, on the backlash. And not just the silly idea of boycotting Scottish products which has been mooted, presumably by the Freedom Fries brigade.

Broadly speaking, it seems that the major objection to Megrahi's release - understandably - is that many families remain bereaved by the murder of 270 civilians back in December 1988. Worse than that, he has failed to show any remorse for the crime - not least, presumably, because he had (until his release) been appealing against his conviction.

I remember clearly when I first heard about the Lockerbie tragedy. I was horrified. There is something about terrorism in the air that really has an emotional impact. And of course the terrorists know this. 9/11 is the prime example.

So, fair enough, I say. If you lost a loved one on Pan Am flight 103, or on the ground in Lockerbie itself, then you have every right to feel angry about Megrahi's release. As many relatives of the victims have pointed out, Megrahi didn't show a shred of compassion to the people he killed, so why should he be the beneficiary of compassion? Why, indeed, should anybody who blows up airliners full of civilians feel anything but the full force of the law?

For example...

Five months before Lockerbie, the USS Vincennes was steaming through the Straits of Hormuz. At the same time, Iran Air flight 655 was flying from Bandar Abbas to Dubai. 290 passengers and crew were aboard the Airbus A300, including 66 children. In the process of chasing some Iranian patrol vessels, the Vincennes shot down the Iranian jet, with the loss of all lives on board.

It took four years for the US Government to admit that the Vincennes had been in Iranian territorial waters at the time of the incident, and that the Airbus had been in Iranian airspace. The Americans' explanation that the aircraft had been mistaken for an attacking F14 Tomcat is of course laughable - the Airbus is 54 metres long and cruises at 515mph; whereas the Tomcat is just 19 metres long and travels at up to 1,500mph. This is a bit like mistaking an African elephant for a domestic cat. In broad daylight. With state-of-the-art military radar and aircraft recognition equipment. And at least one decent pair of binoculars. And a big sign saying "This Is An Elephant".

In August 1988, then President George H W Bush said of the incident: "I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are." Which just about demonstrates the US attitude to destroying aircraft in mid-air... unless someone else does it, of course. It wasn't until 1996 that the US agreed to pay over $130 million in compensation. Which sort of looks like an admission of guilt. A bit.

So where is the outrage? The commander of the Vincennes, Captain William C Rogers III, was awarded the Legion of Merit in 1990 by President Bush "for exceptionaly meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer.... from April 1987 to May 1989". No trial took place, and Rogers was not subjected to a court-martial, despite the fact that he stated he did not believe the Airbus (which was transmitting an IFF code) was non-hostile. Sort of like mistaking a white flag for an RPG launcher, only even more stupid and reckless.

I don't know about you, but if I had lost a relative on Iran Air 655, I might be more than a little put out that the man responsible for its destruction was not only allowed to go unpunished, but was actually openly rewarded for his conduct at that time. Arguably, had the US taken this incident more seriously instead of attempting to cover it up, Lockerbie may never have happened.

But Iran Air 655 was still an accident, right? Well, possibly. But this wasn't.

6 October 1976. Cubana flight 455 is en route from Barbados to Jamaica, with 73 passengers and crew on board. Two explosions rip the aircraft apart, and the pilot crashes it into the ocean, once it becomes apparent he will not be able to make it back to land. All on board died.

14 October 1976. Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch are arrested in Caracas. Weapons, explosives, and a radio transmitter were found at Posada's company premises. Both men had been trained and employed by the CIA. A declassified CIA document quotes Posada as saying "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner... Orlando has the details" in September 1976.

8 August 1985. Two co-conspirators are found guilty of aggravated homicide in a Venezuelan court, and sentenced to twenty years. Bosch got off on a technicality (evidence wasn't translated into Spanish in time), and Posada escaped and went on the run.

Fast-forward to today. You might think that the United States government, with all the noise it makes about pursuing terrorists, might have nabbed these two by now. Perhaps they are languishing in some hellhole prison after being extraordinarily rendered by the CIA. Er, no.

In 1990, President George H W Bush (yes, him again) granted Bosch a pardon. He now lives in Miami. Posada was in fact arrested by US authorities in 2005, but only for illegally entering the United States. The charges were later dismissed - apparently because Posada faces the possibility of torture if extradited back to Venezuela. And they say Americans don't do irony. Like Bosch, Posada now lives freely in the USA - something that 73 innocent people will never be able to do.

Bosch, Posada, Rogers, and any number of other US-backed killers remain alive and at liberty; Abdulbaset al-Megrahi is about to die. It seems to me that Megrahi has served his sentence. Perhaps now we need to go after those who have yet to be held to account for their own crimes. And perhaps we can take some advice from a man that all US Presidents claim to follow: "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

I Found A Tory Policy At Last

2009-08-19T04:22:00.000-07:00

I have been casually following the Healthcare debate in the United States recently, most notably because of some of the more bizarre and outrageous statements that have been made about Britain's "socialised" healthcare system. Did I say statements? I meant lies.

For example, Fox News's Glenn Beck - never a man closely acquainted with the truth at the best of times - claimed that world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking would have been left to die by the NHS. Hawking immediately rebutted:

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

That just about covers that, then. Well done Glenn. As "fair and balanced" as we have come to expect.

It gets worse, though. Much worse.

Hypothetical question - what would YOU do, if you knew you had (a) no coherent argument, and (b) were about to lose a debate? That's right... you reach for Godwin's Law (Limbaugh), call the other side Nazis (Beck), and harp on incoherently about an "evil" system involving state-sanctioned murder by "death panels" (Palin).

Nurses model their new NHS uniforms [above]

Obviously we have come to expect this sort of behaviour from the Fox News brigade, and the shock-jocks. This isn't new. But for a recent VP candidate, and probable future Presidential candidate, this demonstrates an alarming shift towards the loony end of the political spectrum from the Republicans.

Even the British are at it (or, at least, one Brit who makes a career out of talking complete bollocks). The NHS isn't perfect, but this doesn't tally in the slightest with my experience of the NHS. This, however, is a reasonable riposte to Mr Hannan which I wholly endorse:

Despairing of anything that might resemble a proper fact-based debate in the United States, I turned closer to home to see if the recent elevation in this story's prominence might actually prompt the Tories to come up with a policy. I've been waiting a long time for this moment. Would "Call me Dave" Cameron oblige, or would there just be more mealy-mouthed words about supporting the NHS, while packing his team of health ministers with people paid by private healthcare companies?

Searching for Tory policies these days is no small task. Yes, they make statements on a daily basis - and some of these statements appear, at first glance, to be policy-type commitments... but on closer inspection they generally turn out to be piffle. Thus far, I have found one in particular that caught my eye, thanks to the snappy name they gave it - the "Bonfire of the Quangos". Oh yes, Tories, very clever and hilarious. Shame there's no substance, but never mind. At least you've set your stall out in terms of not supporting massive unelected organisations running the nation's infrastructure. And fair enough, I say.

Back to their health policy. I went to the one place where surely I'd be able to find an unadulterated summary. For the first time in my life, therefore, I visited the Tories' own website - and look what I found:

Few things matter more to our country than the NHS – it’s an institution that binds the nation together.

And a Conservative Government will work tirelessly to earn the trust of the patients and staff of the NHS.

* We will always provide the funding the NHS needs and are committed to real increases in health spending
* We will scrap Labour’s plans to cut A&E and maternity services, which are not supported by evidence that patient access and care will be improved, so that patients have access to high-quality services at their local hospital
* We will protect family doctor services by opposing Labour’s plans to impose impersonal "polyclinics" at the expense of local GP surgeries
* We will make money available for 45,000 more single rooms in the NHS over five years, almost doubling their current number. This will mean every patient going into hospital for planned care can have a single room if they want one
* We will reform the way drugs are priced so that all new treatments that are clinically effective are made available, ending the situation whereby cancer drugs that are routinely available in the rest of Europe and not provided in this country
* Most importantly, we will set the NHS free from the ministerial meddling that has resulted in money being diverted from patient care to wasteful bureaucracy. We want to deliver an NHS that provides the best health standards in the world, and ensure every patient is able to choose a good healthcare provider for their needs.

Our draft NHS Autonomy and Accountability Bill, published in 2007, set out plans to release NHS staff from top-down interference and allow them to concentrate on doing what they do best: providing top-quality care to patients.

A vital part of this is the creation of an independent NHS Board to take responsibility for dividing up NHS funds between different parts of the country away from Ministerial meddling. This body will allocate money fairly and in a way which will help secure equal access to healthcare for all.

Much of this is, of course, rubbish. How can anyone, for example, disagree with the first sentence - and are there any political parties that don't say just the same as the Tories' second sentence? And what is "top-down interference", if it's not just "doing as your boss has instructed"?

The bit that interests me most, though, is the creation of a new NHS board to replace "ministerial meddling". (Funny, I thought it was the Health Secretary's job to get involved in the NHS, but no... apparently it's meddling.)

How big would this NHS Board have to be, to run an organisation with 1.5 million employees, and a budget of around £100 billion? Even Andy Burnham realises that this would involve the creation of the world's largest Quango.

Could it possibly be, that Cameron was once again talking out of his Eton-educated multi-millionaire completely-out-of-touch pandering-to-the-Mail behind? Again?

Given all the private healthcare interests already ensconced in Cameron's shadow cabinet, I think we can see through these statements to the real future of the NHS under a Tory government. And it makes Glenn Beck look almost sane.

Cartoon (c) Martin Rowson, The Guardian

Norfolk & Rest For The Wicked

2009-08-17T07:25:00.000-07:00

We have recently returned from a week's break in Norfolk, where we stayed in a converted windmill.

If you're looking for some peace and quiet, without having to fly somewhere remote (or, rather, more remote than just outside Great Yarmouth) then you could do a lot worse than here. The mill, a former drainage pump for Haddiscoe Island, is a four mile drive from the nearest Tarmac. Now known as Red Mill (for fairly obvious reasons), it was formerly known as Langley Detached Mill.

Haddiscoe Island is over 2,000 acres of drained marshes used as grazing for cattle. The island is dotted with gates and cattle grids to keep the livestock under control, and there are currently two residences (that we could see) in constant use on the island. Other than these signs of civilisation, there is little other than wildlife to break the silence.

The island's bird life is extraordinarily diverse. Even an avian ignoramus such as I was able to see (with identification assisted by my splendid wife) cormorants, Egyptian geese, herons, swifts, and many more. We even saw - in daylight - an owl taking small rodents from the long grasslands. The same owl swooped at me more than once when I stepped outside at night for a cigarette. Having spent most of my life living in cities, this place feels truly wild.

Here's a shaky video of the mill exterior, and immediate surroundings, recorded on my phone:

As you can imagine, such a place is paradise for dogs. Azul and Blackie wasted no opportunities to run off on adventures, only to reappear half an hour later covered in various noxious substances. The water in the drainage channels isn't the freshest....

Azul seemed to be mainly fascinated with the cows. However, this being calving season, the cows failed to reciprocate Azul's friendly curiosity. On more than one occasion I was walking along the track across the island, looking for the dogs after their latest escape attempt, only to find the cows herding them back to me. I've never seen a cow chase a dog before. It was worth the wait.

Blackie, as ever, is more interested in smelling, eating, or rolling in things. Preferably dirty things. If there's a filthy ditch full of stagnant water somewhere, you can be sure Blackie is heading in that direction. Or is already half-submerged in it.

Canine adventures aside, we found our stay in the mill to be most restful. It's a rare opportunity these days to be able to sit by the water and read a book. No traffic. No people (bar the occasional walker along the sea wall, or the odd passing river craft). And barely any mobile phone coverage (and thus no work). If they had mains water, and broadband, I'd happily stay there all year round.

The ground floor of the mill has an extension built to house the bathroom and kitchen, but otherwise all remaining rooms are built into the original structure. The ground floor has a cosy living room with gas fire, and steps up to the first floor bedroom, which has views north toward Yarmouth. The second floor is accessed by a vertiginous 'stairway' (ie ladder), and a similar arrangement allows you to climb right up to the cap itself, where some of the original mill workings remain. The views from all floors are stunning - and, as is so often the case in this part of the country, the sunsets are pretty staggering too. Each night we were able to sit on the decking outside the mill, watching the flame-red sky reflecting off the River Yare.

I think the dogs will miss this place even more than I do.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

2009-07-27T03:03:00.000-07:00

It was with no small sense of amusement that I noticed the following article in today's Daily Mail:

Scared to death? The REAL worry is today's culture of fear

To save yourself the mental anguish of opening a link to dailymail.co.uk - the article basically bemoans the fact that "The Authorities" (their capitals) are trying to scare us all to death over swine flu. Yes, "The Authorities". Not, as you might have thought, "The Mendacious Nazi-Friendly Tabloid Press", oh no.

I couldn't be bothered to read the whole article - seems only fair when it comes to the Mail to judge them without actually reading it - but it did strike me as odd that a paper which has been so sensationalist about swine flu could even attempt to try something so blatantly hypocritical (and staggering to think that a large proportion of their readership would swallow this without hesitation).

Here are a selection of front pages from the previous week:

So, as you can see, it's all the fault of The Authorities. Shame on them all. I bet The Authorities cause cancer and are bad for house prices, too.

Now I believe in giving everyone a chance - even racists and liars - so I picked another story from last week which grabbed my attention, and thought I'd see how that was dealt with. As a 'control' in this experiment, I compared the Mail's reporting to The Guardian (left-of-centre quality daily), and The Telegraph (close to the Mail's political stance, but written by people with intelligence). Here's what I found. I warn you - it will not come as a surprise.

The story I checked was this - the release of the latest UK crime statistics by the Home Office (or, if you prefer, "The Authorities").

The Home Office website summarises the report, very briefly, as follows:

Here are some significant crime statistics from our most recent research, Crime in England and Wales 2008-09:

* the number of police recorded crimes fell by 5% between 2007-08 and 2008-09
* police recorded 6% fewer violent against the person offences, 10% fewer vandalism offences and 10% fewer offences against vehicles, but home burglaries have increased by 1%
* the risk of becoming a victim of crime as measured by the BCS rose from 22% to 23%, but is well below its peak of 40% in 1995

Overall that looks pretty good, I'm sure you'll agree. It certainly could be worse - if you don't believe me, watch The Wire.

So how did the Guardian, Telegraph and Mail report this story? I searched their websites last week, and found four articles in the Guardian, five in the Mail, and four in the Telegraph.

Let's start with the least sensationalist - the control in this experiment, if you like. The Guardian article headlines were as follows:

Murder rate at its lowest in 20 years - comforting headline, albeit accompanied by photo of serial killer.

Murder rate at lowest for 20 years - same again but without Harold Shipman.

Crime figures: 'The largest sustained fall in crime in this country's history' - an audio entry from a senior reporter.

The Guardian also added a Comment piece: Massaging the crime figures in which they (maturely and unsensationally) discuss how the figures provided by the Home Office might have been measured.

Let's move on to The Telegraph. Surely they will be equally responsible, and not whip these figures up into some sort of crime wave hysteria. Won't they? Let's have a look:

Crime victims rise significantly for first time in 14 years - note the use of the word "significantly", and then check the second paragraph:

It represents a one per cent increase in the risk of being a crime victim - the first significant rise since 1994.

Oh right, sorry. I thought we were in danger for a moment there.

Their other efforts:

Burglaries likely to rise for first time in six years because of recession fuelled crimewave - basically a wild prediction of mayhem and trashed homes... based on figures which show a fall, or at worse a tiny increase, in relevant crimes.

Pickpocket thefts and bag snatches rise 25 per cent, British Crime Survey shows - followed by an article that then demonstrates that almost all categories of crime show a fall, and fails to mention the most likely reason for a 25% increase in reported thefts is down to an increase in reporting, rather than an increase in theft.

The Telegraph also posted a video report, following up on the above story.

Well, I thought... while I am slightly surprised at the Telegraph's relentlessly downbeat attitude to their headline writing, surely the Daily Mail can't out-sensationalise them, can they?

Oh dear.

Hidden epidemic of teenage crime: Two thirds 'fell victim to theft in past month' EPIDEMIC!

Credit crunch crime wave: Theft, burglaries and fraud rise on the back of record unemployment CRIME WAVE!

Rise of the online credit card sharks: Annual crime figures reveal fraud soaring to £610m SOARING!

Serious knife attacks rocket by 50 per cent in one year ... acknowledged to be entirely down to change in the way such crimes are counted... but still worth a panicky headline apparently.

'Dynamic' security system developed as cash card fraud spirals out of control OUT OF CONTROL!

Now, I don't know about you, but when I woke up this morning I did not expect that today would be the day I was mugged by a teenage crack whore, raped by a gipsy (sic) immigrant benefit scrounger, and then caught a virulent deadly virus from a politically correct remark.

But now I just wish I'd stayed at home. I'm terrified. And there's no point, now I've reached this level of abject fear, to point out some fluffy rubbish like "The REAL worry is today's culture of fear" when we all know...

WE. ARE. ALL. GOING. TO. DIE.

The Greatest Over

2009-07-16T02:17:00.000-07:00

Alright, so perhaps that's a little OTT in the hyperbole department... but nevertheless this is a joy to watch.

Sadly, we shall not see his like again. So let's hope his final four Test matches yield as much in terms of sheer guts and entertainment.

My Pet Hates #1 - Toilet Roll Dispensers

2009-07-01T00:23:00.000-07:00

Yes folks, here it is, the not-awaited-at-all first in an occasional series of articles on STUFF WOT WINDS ME UP. Think of it as being a bit like a Daily Mail article - but without the casual racism (although while still retaining that staggering disregard for facts).

Actually, now I think about it, the Daily Mail - there's a future candidate for this list.

Right now, though, this is my bugbear. This ridiculous contraption. Just look at it.

Ugly isn't it.

The basic rule for any design is "Form follows function". So how can something that has such a basic function - so basic that, for years, we've managed with just a stick to hold the roll - have such poor form?

OK, so I wasn't expecting Pininfarina to be part of the design process when I'm just going for a Number Two... but on the other hand, I also didn't expect to see a contraption that looks like a cross between an early Apple Mac prototype and an Imperial Stormtrooper's codpiece. So, on form, it's a FAIL.

Ah, but what about function, I hear you fail to ask.

After all, these things stop people nicking the loo roll, don't they.

Well... yes... I suppose they do. But how many people do YOU know that would nick an industrial-sized roll of bogpaper? Maybe once, in a drunken puerile prank... but probably not habitually. (Well, not since the court order.)

Now, I did some research on this. Only half-arsed research, obviously, but it was research nevertheless. And I discovered that these plastic monstrosities cost about thirty quid each. THIRTY QUID. That means you'd have to prevent the theft of at least six rolls of paper to make them financially viable. Is there a massive black market in illegally acquired industrial bumwipes? No, I think not. Opium, guns, porn... but not dunny roll. Imagine the Royal Navy chasing down a ship full of that stuff. They'd be pretty disappointed when they opened up the hold, I think you'll agree.

This particular model is getting closer to perfection

Alright then, so I agree that locking a roll of ultra-low-cost paper in an expensive plastic and metal container WILL stop all but the most determined thief. But surely the main object - certainly this is what I use it for - is to dispense toilet paper. The clue is in the name.

But here's the other "function" problem. It doesn't work. If the roll is new, the paper jams against the inside of the dispenser, and the roll barely turns at all. You have to yank it so hard the paper breaks, and you're left with enough paper to wipe the corner of your eye, not a great big fat arris like mine.

If you're fortunate enough to visit the smelliest room when someone else has done the hard work for you, and pulled out the first few metres, then you may well be able to access the paper. But only by sticking your hand up into the gap (with serrated edges) in an attempt to find the end of the roll and pull it back out again. One. Damned. Sheet. At. A. Time. By this time there's a pretty annoyed person banging on the cubicle door, and the only way to get at the paper is to smash the dispenser. Brilliant. Thirty quid please.

Persian Tyranny

2009-06-22T00:14:00.000-07:00

I have to admit to being unable to resist the emotional lure of seeing great numbers of people stand up and resist oppression. To do so in a non-violent manner when provoked by beatings, shootings and more, shows a level of courage and certainty that I find both admirable and inspiring.

Anyone that follows my Twitter feed knows that I have been trying to follow recent events in Iran closely. I have seen, and shared, a number of videos and photos with people around the world - some uplifting, some distressing.

There is one simple yet moving video which has really touched me - one that shows the passion and the deep-seated need for freedom behind the current uprising. I'd like to share it with you here.

Labour's Lost Love

2009-06-08T01:14:00.000-07:00

Last night was the final nail in the New Labour coffin. Demoted to third place in the polls, behind the Eurosceptic far right UKIP with just over 15% of the popular vote, this is an utter humiliation. A party that has been in Government for twelve years, beaten by a motley group of no-hopers. Who would have thought it, back in 1997.

Much of the media focus - and, admittedly, my own wailing and gnashing of teeth - has been in relation to the BNP's breakthrough. Yes, it's the 21st Century, yet a slice of the people of (certain parts of Northern) England decided it was in their best interests to send two Nazis to represent us in Europe. In the capital of a nation which we helped free from, er, the Nazis. The embarrassment is palpable - but, just perhaps, the sense of the end of days is somewhat overstated.

The BBC's Nick Robinson has confirmed today that the BNP got fewer votes in their favoured area, North West England, than they did in the previous Euro elections in 2004. Their total vote in the region dropped from 134,959 to 132,094. Clearly they have held on to their core vote - now we know almost exactly how many racist idiots there are in the North West - but their increase in the voting share (from 1.6% in 2004 to 8% in 2009) is down entirely to people not voting.

So perhaps the "problem" we currently face in the UK is not, mercifully, the rise of intolerance and hatred.... but the rise of apathy and disaffection with the political process. Sadly, the latter is almost as dangerous as the former.

No doubt, many of those who neglected to vote will be complaining about some aspect of Europe or another, during the next five years. I suggest they address their complaints to Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons. After all, they - just as much as the 132,094 people who voted BNP - put them in the European Parliament in the first place.

Tory! Tory! Tory!

2009-06-05T00:06:00.000-07:00

Just a short post today, in the aftermath of yesterday's local and European elections. Early results (as I write, 3 of 35 councils have declared) show a major swing from Labour to the Conservatives. Although this was not unexpected, it demonstrates that David Cameron's opportunism over the expenses scandal appears to have worked - despite the fact that, arguably, he and his MPs were amongst the most egregious claimers. Images of moats, duck ponds, and the like come to mind.

Those of us who had hoped for a radical shift in the political landscape - be that toward the Eurosceptics and nationalists, or toward the eco-friendly leftie types - will be disappointed again it seems. Except perhaps in the Netherlands, where the anti-immigrant nutters seem to have done quite well. Worrying, but again not entirely surprising (particularly in Holland).

So now we wait. And hope. Is the turnout high enough to negate the knuckle-draggers' votes for racists? It doesn't look good. How will Cameron's MEPs get on in their new post-EPP alliance with homophobes, climate change deniers, and the like? Bearing in mind there aren't that many of them, I'd guess not too well.

I can barely bring myself to look. It's bad enough that we elect these idiots domestically, but to send them out to represent us internationally is severely embarrassing.

Still - one good thing has come of all this: the chance to have another laugh at the idiots at UKIP, the party of racists who shop at M&S. Given the extreme length of the ballot paper this time around, poor old UKIP found their small band of intellectually challenged followers were unable to deal with a fold in a piece of paper. Hm - and they want to determine whether or not we remain in the world's largest trading bloc. I don't think so.

Now I'm off to watch Gordon reshuffle his cabinet. If he has any MPs left.

Dogs Have Owners; Cats Have Staff

2009-05-24T10:49:00.000-07:00

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

I'll get this out in the open - I'm a dog person. Always have been. Rarely have I met a cat that I can tolerate - even a docile, sleepy mog curled up in the far corner of the room has as much appeal to me as covering yourself in furballs and scratches (and all too often one follows the other alarmingly swiftly). So it is with great joy that I am now able to say.... "I am a dog owner, and I smell of wet fur".

Last month, my wife and I rescued two dogs from a shelter in Spain. Like most animal rescue shelters, they do a fantastic job on almost no resources - relying the generosity of people who are able to give some time or money to help out. The shelter is even now in the process of being forcibly closed by the local authorities: any dogs not rehomed before the deadline will be euthanised. Now I've had the odd row with my neighbour over the party wall, and I've had the council building regs bloke round to check on my home improvements, but this is a bit more serious. Something needed to be done.

The two dogs we chose (and boy is it hard to choose when you know whatever you do is a life and death decision) were both close friends, and shared the last kennel enclosure right at the back of the shelter. Both are great characters, and seemed a perfect fit for us - they are also inseparable, and it would have been agonising to split them up, and leave one behind. Now, the upsides of dog ownership are well-known: companionship, loyalty, exercise... but the downsides are less publicised. Nevertheless, with the right attitude, even these can be considered positively. For example, I am pleased to confirm that the acquisition of two dogs means that I am no longer the most flatulent member of the household... although I think I've just about managed to hang on to second place under a strong challenge.

Blowing raspberries is also a talent, you know...

Later blog posts will document some of the ups and downs of life with our two dogs, but here I'll restrict myself to a brief introduction to each of them.

Azul is, as far as we can tell, a cross between a husky and an Australian cattle dog... possibly with some dingo thrown in for good measure. His previous owners left him locked out on a small balcony area with no room for exercise, and little human contact (except possibly the abusive kind). Now around two years old, he is extremely people-friendly, but still a little hostile - or, more likely, nervous - around dogs he doesn't know. He would be a useless guard dog, unless we happen to be burgled by someone who is allergic to saliva.

Azul tends to prompt the most reaction from people because of his appearance, and his foreign name (Spanish for "blue", after his eye). At least one member of the family prefers to call him Abdul, and a number of people have asked whether his blue eye is blind. One suggestion was for him to wear a patch over his brown eye, "and see if he bumps into things". Clearly a zoologist at work there, a Johnny Morris de nos jours if I am not mistaken.

Azul has already shown a liking for Bombay Sapphire and Tonic... without a doubt, this dog was destined to be with us. Next time I'll leave my glass a little further out of reach though.... remember: one G&T is seven G&Ts in dog drinks.

Blackie is a cross between a Belgian Shepherd and, er, a Wookiee. His name is in fact the Spanish diminutive for Chewbacca, and is by no means a racist epithet (ahem). Nevertheless, I am careful when calling him that I don't sound like some Dambusters-obsessed Tourette's sufferer. There are some areas near where we live, where I just wouldn't call him at all. So if you find a dopey-looking dog with outsized feet wandering around W*stcl*ff On S*a, give me a call.

Blackie's rescue story is epic, and makes Reggie Perrin look like John "canoe man" Darwin. He was found when still a small puppy, being kicked around outside a local cafe by the cooks and staff. When he was fed, it was more thrown at him than served - I suspect he didn't leave a tip. The lady that rescued him asked his "owners" if she could take him away for a free neutering operation, but couldn't bring herself to return the dog to such violent owners, so called them and told them he died during the operation. As a result, therefore, Blackie doesn't officially exist - sort of like Jason Bourne, but having to turn around three times before shooting someone.

Blackie is around six months younger than Azul, and still has many puppylike traits. He is extremely playful when off the leash and out in the fields, and loves nothing more than bounding through the crops like Tigger on a frightening cocktail of amphetamines. He is, perhaps not surprisingly, very wary of people and seemed in the first instance to have no idea how to deal with physical affection. I am pleased to say that he is now settling in quickly with the help of his best mate. All he needs to learn at this stage is that there are some things on this Earth that were NOT specifically created to be chewed to oblivion.

Both of these dogs have suffered badly in their early lives, and were extremely fortunate to have been rescued by such dedicated people. We are lucky to have them, and if they are happy in their new lives then so much the better. I knew that one day I would have a dog again, but these two nutters have added more joy and warmth to my life than I could ever have reasonably expected. If you have the time, the space, and the heart for it, then I cannot recommend anything more highly than to rescue a friend for life from certain death.

The Wonders Of Democracy

2009-05-22T00:00:00.000-07:00

I don't expect this blog will change the world - in fact, I'd settle for it changing its own underwear from time to time. But I would like my first post to be at least partially serious. (The rapid downhill slope starts here...)

So, we have an election coming up - this time it's for the European Parliament, on 4 June. And after the recent political scandals here in the UK, it seems even the British are going to outdo themselves when it comes to electoral apathy.

Now I don't have a problem, per se, with people who don't vote - although I do find it odd that such a basic and fundamental right isn't exercised by people who are either too lazy, or too smug, to realise its true value. But in this particular case, I care more than usual. Unlike our Parliamentary elections, the European elections are on a Proportional Representation basis - meaning that every single vote counts. And, by extension, every missed vote counts as an increased share for the BNP. That's where it gets serious. That's why it matters.

So this first blog post is really just to urge you to vote in this election (if eligible). And I don't care who for, as long as it's not the BNP.

While you're thinking about who to vote for, here's an amusing exercise that I completely don't recommend. The BNP's latest electoral leaflet is their usual mish-mash of outrageous lies, racist innuendo, and plain bullshit. It even includes stock photos of pensioners and the like, with BNP-type comments attached. It's a shame they didn't ask the permission of the people whose images they used, but hey - that's the BNP for ya. Fascists don't ask - they just do. Hence the egregious use of a photo of Winston Churchill - a man who was most famous for fighting the likes of them.

As many people have already spotted, buried away in the small print somewhere, is a return Admail address for people who wish to communicate with our friendly local racists - so friendly, in fact, that they'll pay the postal charges.

So wouldn't it be awful, for example, if thousands of us sent the leaflets back to the BNP at their free admail address. Or, worse, if we all sent them thousands of A4 sized envelopes - these cost more than the normal size. Imagine the mayhem at BNP HQ. Imagine the impact this sudden expense would have on a small, fringe political group. It would be a terrible shame. If enough people did it, there might even be some real financial problems for our black-shirted chums.

The address I don't recommend you send anything large, heavy or smelly to, is:

National Office, Admail 4148, London, EC1A 1UY

Please don't forget to vote.