"Thanks Gloria. And two digestives this afternoon, eh? It being Friday?"
"Tea's just mashing, Mr Scroggins. Shall I bring cups for the assembly line shop stewards?"
"No, No. We'll be here all day. And porcelain upsets them. Show them in". As he looked out of his steel Crittal windows over the vast Leyland car plant, George Scroggins' heart surged with pride, pride at the haze from the leaking steam pipes, the cracked and patched asbestos cement roofs, the grimy and cracked windows and the plywood-patched skylights. From this plant came the finest automobile in Britain - the Austin-Morris Allegra. The noise of the broken door closer woke him from his reverie.
"Come in! Come in! Arthur, Frank. Sit thee down. Now I don't expect this to be a lengthy meeting ..."
"That's why you always see us at three-fifteen on Fridays, Mr Scroggins. To be fair."
"That's not wholly true, Frank, no, no .... now this is about young Donald Higginbottom I gather?"
"Foreman suspended him, yes. Unwarranted victimisation. We're demanding full restitution."
"But Arthur, he was fixing gearbox gaiters with two inch nails. He ruined nearly two hundred cars before Quality Control noticed, half of which have already been sold."
"Not his fault, Mr Scroggins. Supply shop ran out of that size of machine screws, and the screw shop said they weren't scheduled to turn any more until November. Donald was on gaiter bonus for twenty gaiters a day - not fixing gaiters would have taken food from his childrens' mouths. So he used what he had. You can't blame the lad"
"Arthur, I have to support my foremen. I have to uphold the suspension."
"We'll bring Number Two Line, the rubber shop, the window shop and the carpet-cutters out unless he's revoked. Higginbottoms are big in the eastern sheds."
"Wait wait Frank. There's no need to be precipitous. Digestive biscuit? We've had two strikes already this month, if you recall. Now what if I say he's only provisionally suspended, permitted to work as normal until his hearing, on full pay, but nominally suspended?"
"On full bonus? Even if screw shop can't supply gaiter screws?"
"Yes yes. Alright? We'll ask the Welsh Megra plant if they can lend us some screws. Otherwise we'll go with the two-inch nails. Now about next month's cars. What have we got?"
"There's plenty of bright red upholstery vinyl, so we can switch all production to that. On the paint side, there's four thousand gallons of that yellowy-brown - 'Curry' the paint shop named it."
"Head office vetoed 'Curry' as an Allegra colour, Frank. It's not the best word, is it? Reminds me of that German mustard we had at BMW last year ... I know! Let's rename it the German for mustard - Gloria! What's German for mustard?"
"Moutarde, I think, Mr Scroggins"
"That's it. Tell the dealers they'll all be getting Moutarde Allegras with pillar-box red upholstery next month, Gloria. Now, lads, was there anything else?"
"There was a suggestion that in future customers might be able to choose their own body and seat colours, Mr Scroggins. And that the waiting lists might be cut from four months to ten days"
"Bloody scaremongering. Don't pay any heed to that rubbish, Frank. I promise you, under Mr Corbyn, such things will never happen!"
Thursday, 27 September 2018
Wednesday, 26 September 2018
Trump speech - the bits you won't read in the papers or hear on the BBC
The text of Trump's speech reads as though written by two separate people. There's the Steve Bannon bits, all bull and braggadocio, pumped with adolescent hormones, in which the Donald claims that his conker is a sixer and will take on all-comers. Then there are the Trump administration's strategic drivers, delineating clearly an intellectual vision of America's place in the world. The quotes below are from the latter passages.
UNITED NATIONS, 25th September
Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth.
I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.
Many nations in this hall will agree that the world trading system is in dire need of change. For example, countries were admitted to the World Trade Organization that violate every single principle on which the organization is based. While the United States and many other nations play by the rules, these countries use government-run industrial planning and state-owned enterprises to rig the system in their favor. They engage in relentless product dumping, forced technology transfer, and the theft of intellectual property.
But those days are over. We will no longer tolerate such abuse. We will not allow our workers to be victimized, our companies to be cheated, and our wealth to be plundered and transferred. America will never apologize for protecting its citizens.
I spoke before this body last year and warned that the U.N. Human Rights Council had become a grave embarrassment to this institution, shielding egregious human rights abusers while bashing America and its many friends.
Our Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, laid out a clear agenda for reform, but despite reported and repeated warnings, no action at all was taken.
So the United States took the only responsible course: We withdrew from the Human Rights Council, and we will not return until real reform is enacted.
For similar reasons, the United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.
America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism. Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.
It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs. The United States has recently strengthened our laws to better screen foreign investments in our country for national security threats, and we welcome cooperation with countries in this region and around the world that wish to do the same. You need to do it for your own protection.
We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same. That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.
The United States is committed to making the United Nations more effective and accountable. As part of our reform effort, I have told our negotiators that the United States will not pay more than 25 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget.
In America, we believe in the majesty of freedom and the dignity of the individual. We believe in self-government and the rule of law. And we prize the culture that sustains our liberty -– a culture built on strong families, deep faith, and fierce independence. We celebrate our heroes, we treasure our traditions, and above all, we love our country.
Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.
When we do, we will find new avenues for cooperation unfolding before us. We will find new passion for peacemaking rising within us. We will find new purpose, new resolve, and new spirit flourishing all around us, and making this a more beautiful world in which to live.
So together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity, and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. And let us come here to this place to stand for our people and their nations, forever strong, forever sovereign, forever just, and forever thankful for the grace and the goodness and the glory of God.
UNITED NATIONS, 25th September
Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like nowhere else on Earth.
I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.
Many nations in this hall will agree that the world trading system is in dire need of change. For example, countries were admitted to the World Trade Organization that violate every single principle on which the organization is based. While the United States and many other nations play by the rules, these countries use government-run industrial planning and state-owned enterprises to rig the system in their favor. They engage in relentless product dumping, forced technology transfer, and the theft of intellectual property.
But those days are over. We will no longer tolerate such abuse. We will not allow our workers to be victimized, our companies to be cheated, and our wealth to be plundered and transferred. America will never apologize for protecting its citizens.
I spoke before this body last year and warned that the U.N. Human Rights Council had become a grave embarrassment to this institution, shielding egregious human rights abusers while bashing America and its many friends.
Our Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, laid out a clear agenda for reform, but despite reported and repeated warnings, no action at all was taken.
So the United States took the only responsible course: We withdrew from the Human Rights Council, and we will not return until real reform is enacted.
For similar reasons, the United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.
America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism. Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination.
It has been the formal policy of our country since President Monroe that we reject the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs. The United States has recently strengthened our laws to better screen foreign investments in our country for national security threats, and we welcome cooperation with countries in this region and around the world that wish to do the same. You need to do it for your own protection.
We recognize the right of every nation in this room to set its own immigration policy in accordance with its national interests, just as we ask other countries to respect our own right to do the same. That is one reason the United States will not participate in the new Global Compact on Migration. Migration should not be governed by an international body unaccountable to our own citizens.
The United States is committed to making the United Nations more effective and accountable. As part of our reform effort, I have told our negotiators that the United States will not pay more than 25 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget.
In America, we believe in the majesty of freedom and the dignity of the individual. We believe in self-government and the rule of law. And we prize the culture that sustains our liberty -– a culture built on strong families, deep faith, and fierce independence. We celebrate our heroes, we treasure our traditions, and above all, we love our country.
Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.
When we do, we will find new avenues for cooperation unfolding before us. We will find new passion for peacemaking rising within us. We will find new purpose, new resolve, and new spirit flourishing all around us, and making this a more beautiful world in which to live.
So together, let us choose a future of patriotism, prosperity, and pride. Let us choose peace and freedom over domination and defeat. And let us come here to this place to stand for our people and their nations, forever strong, forever sovereign, forever just, and forever thankful for the grace and the goodness and the glory of God.
Monday, 24 September 2018
Press censorship: Europe's most repressive nations
It was the Sun that set the standard back in the days when John Major was trying to fool the UK into giving away our financial freedom to Europe; 'Up Yours, Delors' was the unequivocal message that set the tone for a generation. And last week the paper was again on a burn, with its depiction of Herr Macron and Herr Tusk as armed gangsters:-
The Sun in its inimitable way embodies all that's good and right about press freedom in the UK - indeed, so used are the British to the exercise of this form of critique of the great and good, the entire population has taken it up on social media. Woe betide the inflated ego of any self-loving politician, the self-worth of dreary, humourless self-regarding Eurocrats and the pomposity of third-rate bling medal collectors, whose sciatica must surely blind them to the absurdity of their vulgar Ruritanian pretentions.
In fact, we probably regard the freedom with which the British press, British satirists and cartoonists and British sketch writers portray self-regarding nobs as being normal, Liberal and proper, but this is far from the case. The Sun's headline was just too much for the delicate sensibilities of the EU's unelected official in charge of Justice - Věra Jourová, whose name must have been cut-and-pasted a thousand times by those too lazy to hunt for unfamiliar HTML code. You might think having an EU official in charge of Justice is a bit like having an Admiral on the government payroll in Switzerland, but there you are. Vera, let's call her, is distinctly unhappy, particularly with the Sun, and as she told the Guardian, she has a post-Brexit plan for a "European approach to media based on quality and smart regulation" that will deal with this British lèse-majesté.
I read that as her desire for an EU firewall that shuts off from the gentle sensibilities of the unelected masses in Brussels any access to the Sun. In fact, shuts off from the EU any foreign papers, news channels, blogs or other media that fail to recognise just how brilliant all the unelected officials are. Well, good luck to her. The EU is already far gone down that road; two images for you. The first, those nations in which it's a criminal act to be rude about a foreign Head of State, the second, those in which Defamation generally is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment (dark red) or other penalties on conviction (light red)
For the former, Germany, Denmark and Poland have the most draconian sentences of up to five, four and three years respectively. Poland will also jail citizens for three years for insulting their own Head of State - and the liberal little Netherlands will bang you up for five years for the same.
I'd suggest that nations that appear on both maps are Europe's most repressive countries. Step up to the Iron Mask, then, Germany, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. If you're a politician from these nations, Britain's unbelievably lax press laws must chafe something dreadful.
Never mind, dears. From next year you can cut yourselves off in fairyland and enjoy awarding eachother colourful little medals. Until the whole edifice comes tumbling down.
The Sun in its inimitable way embodies all that's good and right about press freedom in the UK - indeed, so used are the British to the exercise of this form of critique of the great and good, the entire population has taken it up on social media. Woe betide the inflated ego of any self-loving politician, the self-worth of dreary, humourless self-regarding Eurocrats and the pomposity of third-rate bling medal collectors, whose sciatica must surely blind them to the absurdity of their vulgar Ruritanian pretentions.
In fact, we probably regard the freedom with which the British press, British satirists and cartoonists and British sketch writers portray self-regarding nobs as being normal, Liberal and proper, but this is far from the case. The Sun's headline was just too much for the delicate sensibilities of the EU's unelected official in charge of Justice - Věra Jourová, whose name must have been cut-and-pasted a thousand times by those too lazy to hunt for unfamiliar HTML code. You might think having an EU official in charge of Justice is a bit like having an Admiral on the government payroll in Switzerland, but there you are. Vera, let's call her, is distinctly unhappy, particularly with the Sun, and as she told the Guardian, she has a post-Brexit plan for a "European approach to media based on quality and smart regulation" that will deal with this British lèse-majesté.
I read that as her desire for an EU firewall that shuts off from the gentle sensibilities of the unelected masses in Brussels any access to the Sun. In fact, shuts off from the EU any foreign papers, news channels, blogs or other media that fail to recognise just how brilliant all the unelected officials are. Well, good luck to her. The EU is already far gone down that road; two images for you. The first, those nations in which it's a criminal act to be rude about a foreign Head of State, the second, those in which Defamation generally is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment (dark red) or other penalties on conviction (light red)
For the former, Germany, Denmark and Poland have the most draconian sentences of up to five, four and three years respectively. Poland will also jail citizens for three years for insulting their own Head of State - and the liberal little Netherlands will bang you up for five years for the same.
I'd suggest that nations that appear on both maps are Europe's most repressive countries. Step up to the Iron Mask, then, Germany, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. If you're a politician from these nations, Britain's unbelievably lax press laws must chafe something dreadful.
Never mind, dears. From next year you can cut yourselves off in fairyland and enjoy awarding eachother colourful little medals. Until the whole edifice comes tumbling down.
Friday, 21 September 2018
The Robbins Plan is dead. Time for a change of course.
We all knew that the Robbins Plan was dead in the water. It was rejected by the EU and Mrs May's own colleagues, by the intelligent press and by grassroots Brexiteers long before Mrs May started packing for her trip to Salzburg. Everyone knew, it seems, except Mrs May herself. Her evident open shock and distress at yesterday's rejection made clear she actually believed beforehand that it had some realistic chance of success.
And whatever one's regard for Mrs May's intellect or her judgement, it's impossible not to admire her tenacity and resilience. The sheer boorishness and bullying incivility of the EU capos yesterday will have sparked a tiny flame of resentment in the hearts of many non-Brexit Britons; she may be a bloody useless plank, but she's our bloody useless plank. Thank you, gents.
Likewise, many non-Brexit Brits will also have been irritated at being told that the EU capos want us to vote again, after they've smashed the windows and keyed the car and left a horse's head in blighty's bed. Malta is fast becoming a failed State, run by a criminal cabal with the island's politicians in their pockets, a place where inquisitive journalists can be murdered with impunity. I'd suggest Joseph Muscat would be better employed trying to restore justice and the rule of law to his mafia-fouled little country. And Herr Macron has been listening for too long to his granny's quavering fears.
The Federasts simply don't understand the 'hearts and minds' thing, do they? With every move they alienate more and more Brits, create greater hostility and make a future relationship more difficult.
Well, I can't tell you what the deal should be, but I'm confident there will be some last-minute accommodation, if we don't blink first. A Federast was quoted yesterday as saying 'don't think it's five minutes to midnight; it's more like half-past eight'. Well, I'd put it at about a quarter past ten myself, but point taken. Now will someone please convince Mrs May that we need a change of plan?
And whatever one's regard for Mrs May's intellect or her judgement, it's impossible not to admire her tenacity and resilience. The sheer boorishness and bullying incivility of the EU capos yesterday will have sparked a tiny flame of resentment in the hearts of many non-Brexit Britons; she may be a bloody useless plank, but she's our bloody useless plank. Thank you, gents.
Likewise, many non-Brexit Brits will also have been irritated at being told that the EU capos want us to vote again, after they've smashed the windows and keyed the car and left a horse's head in blighty's bed. Malta is fast becoming a failed State, run by a criminal cabal with the island's politicians in their pockets, a place where inquisitive journalists can be murdered with impunity. I'd suggest Joseph Muscat would be better employed trying to restore justice and the rule of law to his mafia-fouled little country. And Herr Macron has been listening for too long to his granny's quavering fears.
The Federasts simply don't understand the 'hearts and minds' thing, do they? With every move they alienate more and more Brits, create greater hostility and make a future relationship more difficult.
Well, I can't tell you what the deal should be, but I'm confident there will be some last-minute accommodation, if we don't blink first. A Federast was quoted yesterday as saying 'don't think it's five minutes to midnight; it's more like half-past eight'. Well, I'd put it at about a quarter past ten myself, but point taken. Now will someone please convince Mrs May that we need a change of plan?
Wednesday, 19 September 2018
EU enables remote customs clearances - no hard borders - in Austria
You will have missed it - it's slipped right off the main news radar - but the EU is just enabling all customs clearances and taxes for all goods entering and leaving the EU through the Italian port of Trieste to be paid, accounted and administered in the small Austrian town of Fürnitz, some 200km away. Yes, that's right. Trieste customs will now be based in Austria.
During the pilot phase, the organisers wrote
ORF reported yesterday
I rather think this proves that the Irish Border Issue isn't actually an issue. I wonder if anyone's told Mr Robbins that he doesn't have to surrender the UK's sovereignty to Brussels after all?
During the pilot phase, the organisers wrote
Trieste has a harbor with a space problem due to the narrow coastal area towards the city. Fürnitz is ideally located at the junction of the Baltic-Adriatic axis (Gdansk-Warsaw-Vienna-Villach-Trieste-Venice-Bologna) and the Tauern axis (Munich-Salzburg-Villach-Ljubljana-Zagreb-Belgrade-Sofia-Istanbul). In order to prevent delays in customs clearance and to reduce the burden on the environment, the Interreg project Smartlogi now wants to work on new forms of intelligent logistics, which should, among other things, enable a cross-border customs corridor.'Intelligent logistics' and 'customs corridors' mean that borders don't actually have to be located at borders, and that queues of trucks and containers can easily be avoided with advance clearances, computer tracking and so on - so that customs clearances are just an information exchange formality, rather than the physical impounding and holding of objects and vehicles at ports and border crossings.
The port of Trieste has a great interest in passing on goods as quickly as possible, since the area is limited by the nearby city of Trieste. Inevitably, loads are loaded onto trucks and transported across the streets. Numerous administrative and technological challenges currently prevent a so-called "modal shift" (shifting traffic from one mode of transport to the other) from road to rail.
In the Smartlogi project, the LCA in Fürnitz, which is perfectly connected to the various main traffic routes, would like to develop into a close cooperation partner of the Port of Trieste. The project is being funded with a total volume of approx. 1.3 million euros from the Interreg program Austria-Italy. In addition, the equity shares of the Carinthian project partners are being co-financed by the Carinthian Economic Development Fund (KWF).
ORF reported yesterday
Great opportunity for FürnitzIf this can be done for Trieste, why not for Ireland? Why can't Ireland's custom clearance point be in Calais, or Hamburg even? Why shouldn't there be a customs corridor from Dublin to Dover?
This is definitely a great opportunity for Fürnitz, said economic officer Ulrich Zafoschnig (ÖVP). He had received information from the Ministry of Finance that the necessary intergovernmental agreements should be made in September. Theoretically, customs clearance in Fürnitz could start this year, according to Zafoschnig.
I rather think this proves that the Irish Border Issue isn't actually an issue. I wonder if anyone's told Mr Robbins that he doesn't have to surrender the UK's sovereignty to Brussels after all?
Tuesday, 18 September 2018
Rocks and hard places - digital regulation
I don't know what the collective term is for Youtube channels, infomercials, newstainment, multi-channel infotainment, e-pinion and the like - 'digital' is too encompassing, 'media' too finely drawn. 'Content' seems to be a useful portmanteau sort of word. There used to be certain checks and standards for those who created and disseminated Content. Newspaper and magazine ownership and distribution, broadcasting bandwidth governance and licencing, professional journalists, barriers to entry including technical complexity, equipment cost and limited capacity. Making a video use to be a matter of a camera, lighting and sound crew, an offline editor, an online editor and a facility with half a million quids worth of Beta SP machines, editing suites, reference monitors and so on. Then came processing power, software and easy GUIs that meant a video recorded and edited on an Apple laptop could rival in look and feel one costing £2k a broadcast minute to make.
Regulation has yet to catch up with what has happened. If I want to broadcast a three minute speech, I need a government licence for a digital broadcast radio channel, a transmitter, and a roomful of compliance and diligence stuff and every breath I broadcast is subject to the most minute scrutiny. If I put the same speech on the web as a podcast, there are no restrictions, no standards and no regulation whatsoever bar the criminal law. One can argue that broadcast bandwidth, for the 'push' media, is a limited and valuable resource that must be centrally controlled and rationed, whilst internet bandwidth, for the 'pull' media, is effectively unlimited and use is determined by market forces, i.e. popularity.
Why should these differences be a problem? Can't we live with the way things are? well, perhaps today we can - but technology and economics mean the boundaries between the transmission mechanisms of exactly the same Content are being increasingly blurred. Established broadcasters want to regulate the Wild West of the internet to replicate the analogue regimes under which they toil. Authoritarians strive to impose their own bigotry. And all the while champions of free speech, Libertarians and democrats are resisting State control, censorship and the economic cudgels of the global corporates all seeking to 'own' the internet.
Personally, I don't buy the guff that the internet is 'harming millions'. The few sensitive souls getting the vapours because someone was rude to them on Facebook seem the same sort of folks who used to swoon at the sight of a nipple on 'Play for Today'. Yet I also want to take-down ISIS videos of lads from East Ham hacking-off people's heads, sick paedo filth or grainy footage of dogs tearing eachother to pieces. These views are not inconsistent; the latter repulsive Content types are all contrary to existing law. We don't need new laws - we just need a mechanism for we, internet users, to apply the existing law. We don't need need nine-hundred police officers crouched over glowing screens - we need ways in which we, Peel's citizen police, can act ourselves to exclude the already-illegal stuff whilst leaving the hurty words intact.
Regulation has yet to catch up with what has happened. If I want to broadcast a three minute speech, I need a government licence for a digital broadcast radio channel, a transmitter, and a roomful of compliance and diligence stuff and every breath I broadcast is subject to the most minute scrutiny. If I put the same speech on the web as a podcast, there are no restrictions, no standards and no regulation whatsoever bar the criminal law. One can argue that broadcast bandwidth, for the 'push' media, is a limited and valuable resource that must be centrally controlled and rationed, whilst internet bandwidth, for the 'pull' media, is effectively unlimited and use is determined by market forces, i.e. popularity.
Why should these differences be a problem? Can't we live with the way things are? well, perhaps today we can - but technology and economics mean the boundaries between the transmission mechanisms of exactly the same Content are being increasingly blurred. Established broadcasters want to regulate the Wild West of the internet to replicate the analogue regimes under which they toil. Authoritarians strive to impose their own bigotry. And all the while champions of free speech, Libertarians and democrats are resisting State control, censorship and the economic cudgels of the global corporates all seeking to 'own' the internet.
Personally, I don't buy the guff that the internet is 'harming millions'. The few sensitive souls getting the vapours because someone was rude to them on Facebook seem the same sort of folks who used to swoon at the sight of a nipple on 'Play for Today'. Yet I also want to take-down ISIS videos of lads from East Ham hacking-off people's heads, sick paedo filth or grainy footage of dogs tearing eachother to pieces. These views are not inconsistent; the latter repulsive Content types are all contrary to existing law. We don't need new laws - we just need a mechanism for we, internet users, to apply the existing law. We don't need need nine-hundred police officers crouched over glowing screens - we need ways in which we, Peel's citizen police, can act ourselves to exclude the already-illegal stuff whilst leaving the hurty words intact.
Saturday, 15 September 2018
Electoral Commission has lost popular trust
It's not the crime that gets 'em, they say, but the cover-up. In an excoriating judgement, the High Court has found in the Vote Leave expenses case that
Reading the court's judgement one finds a litany of arse-covering, post hoc rationalisation, weasel reasoning and straw-clutching on the part of the Commission.
However, rather than bearing this humiliation in silence with bowed head, the Commission sought to justify its condemnation by the court with a PR offensive -
A democracy needs an authoritative and trusted arbiter of the probity of democratic actions, an unbiased and expert authority vested with moral and legal trust and confidence. Simply, the present Electoral Commission has failed those criteria on every point. It is, as the court found, not fit for purpose as currently constituted and must be reformed. That means both the professional officers, and the appointed Commissioners - who fail utterly to represent the electorate as a whole.
For the reasons given, we conclude that the Electoral Commission has misinterpreted the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of PPERA. The source of its error is a mistaken assumption that an individual or body which makes a donation to a permitted participant cannot thereby incur referendum expenses. As a result of this error, the Electoral Commission has interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislationThe case was brought by 'Remain' on the grounds that the Electoral Commission had given the Leave campaign duff advice based on an inadequate understanding of the law of which they could also have taken advantage had they been given the same duff advice. You will recall that as a consequence of the Commission's misleading Leave and its general incompetence, it crowed like a cock when it itself judged Leave guilty of breaching the regulations and imposed a fine to equal that levied on the LibDems for their breaches.
Reading the court's judgement one finds a litany of arse-covering, post hoc rationalisation, weasel reasoning and straw-clutching on the part of the Commission.
"...The position of the Electoral Commission on this central issue was somewhat elusive. In its summary and detailed grounds of resistance to the claim, the Commission denied that Vote Leave had incurred expenses by making the AIQ Payments but refrained from identifying any criterion which, if met, would signify that these were “expenses incurred” by Vote Leave. The Commission submitted that making a payment is not the same as incurring an expense and that making a donation is not the same as incurring an expense. But counsel for the Commission did not at that stage offer any positive explanation of what does constitute “incurring an expense” within the meaning of the legislation....
The Electoral Commission has advanced an argument that, even if (contrary to its primary position) the payments in issue in this case were expenses incurred by Vote Leave, they were not incurred “in respect of” advertising but only in respect of making donations to Mr Grimes....
It is not easy to see how, on the Commission’s case in these proceedings, its own guidance can be correct....
Ultimately, the position of the Electoral Commission on what amounts to an “expense incurred” within the meaning of section 111 of PPERA appeared to offer little improvement on the well known elephant test of “I know one when I see one”. That is not a satisfactory approach in circumstances where a person who reports referendum expenses incorrectly is potentially guilty of a criminal offence.
When asked to address these scenarios during oral argument, the initial response of Mr Gordon QC on behalf of the Electoral Commission was to decline to do so on the ground that he did not want to comment on hypothetical examples. That response was unconstructive, as the use of hypothetical examples is a standard method for testing the logic of a legal argument...It is as clear as possible a condemnation of both the Commission's failings during the campaign and its actions subsequently against Vote Leave, which have raised widespread accusations of anti-Leave spite, bias and partiality.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that in seeking to draw this distinction the Electoral Commission was, in Aristotle’s phrase, “maintaining a thesis at all costs” ...
However, rather than bearing this humiliation in silence with bowed head, the Commission sought to justify its condemnation by the court with a PR offensive -
A democracy needs an authoritative and trusted arbiter of the probity of democratic actions, an unbiased and expert authority vested with moral and legal trust and confidence. Simply, the present Electoral Commission has failed those criteria on every point. It is, as the court found, not fit for purpose as currently constituted and must be reformed. That means both the professional officers, and the appointed Commissioners - who fail utterly to represent the electorate as a whole.
Friday, 14 September 2018
Britain proves its Liberalism in driving licence plans
Yesterday's no-deal Brexit warnings, which set out that UK drivers would in future need either one or two International Driving Permits, at up to £5.50 per year, to drive in the EU, also proved in spades our nation's innate Liberalism.
We could of course have answered the EU's illiberal and authoritarian spitefulness like for like - requiring EU drivers to be equally inconvenienced when visiting the UK. But on balance I far prefer our superior moral position, proving our natural Liberalism and our position as Europe's most civilised and tolerant nation. Official advice is that:
Don't grouse. On such a trivial matter, it's really far, far better to use the opportunity to demonstrate our moral superiority and the EU's puerile and petulant spite. Martin Selmayr may hide in his Brussels bunker dreaming up nasty little 'punishments' for Britain, but we're really far bigger than that and won't do the same in return.
We could of course have answered the EU's illiberal and authoritarian spitefulness like for like - requiring EU drivers to be equally inconvenienced when visiting the UK. But on balance I far prefer our superior moral position, proving our natural Liberalism and our position as Europe's most civilised and tolerant nation. Official advice is that:
Wednesday, 12 September 2018
The Electoral Quotient - a big issue with a boring name
The faux outrage of Labour, Welsh or Scots MPs at the publication of the Boundary Commission's final report is theatrical, at least in part. Conformity of constituency boundaries with a uniform number of voters in each - the EQ, or Electoral Quotient - has long been outside developed nation standards. An EQ of +/-5% is just about acceptable, but advanced democracies such as New Zealand achieve +/-3%. For years we have been way outside even the farthest limits, with the vote of an elector in one constituency being worth the votes of two voters in another. Any complaint at correcting this anomaly is an anti-democratic whinge. The threat to democracy is not from having a fair and robust democratic system but in gerrymandering voters equality to pander to the self interest of MPs who don't want to lose their jobs.
Let's be clear. MPs are expendable; lose one, and there's a thousand more individuals neither less nor more capable ready to take their place. As individuals they are unremarkable and replaceable. It is the form and function of the parliament, the way the Commons works that is important. As Churchill noted, the confrontational layout of the chamber is vital, two sword lengths apart, as is the small size. Churchill opined that a chamber that never had seats sufficient to sit all members at once was an advantage -
Two matters however must be addressed. One is the social worker role that has fallen to MPs, who now spend much time intervening in social welfare and immigration disputes between their constituents and the State. This is not a beneficial or useful use of their time and attention, which should be devoted to the business of the legislature. Secondly is the sheer number of government posts, including the scores of junior appointments that bind an ever increasing number of MPs to the government, hobbling the scrutinising function of the House.
Correcting the EQ is the last of the measures taken by Conservative governments since 2010 to correct the drift of our democratic systems under Labour into crookedness and democratic corruption. We will all be better off for it.
Let's be clear. MPs are expendable; lose one, and there's a thousand more individuals neither less nor more capable ready to take their place. As individuals they are unremarkable and replaceable. It is the form and function of the parliament, the way the Commons works that is important. As Churchill noted, the confrontational layout of the chamber is vital, two sword lengths apart, as is the small size. Churchill opined that a chamber that never had seats sufficient to sit all members at once was an advantage -
... a conversational style of speaking, which has long been held to be the model of English Parliamentary life. How much better this is than foreign assemblies, where they all sit in a semi‐circle, and everyone has a place, or even a desk, which he can bang when he is displeased, and where every speaker goes up to harangue an audience scattered through a large arena. The essential of keen debate is the sense of a crowd, clustering together, craning forward, gathering round the speaker, with the cheers flung back from side to side.The total number of MPs is also fairly critical. Proposals to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 featured in both the 2015 and 2017 Conservative manifestos. The essential elements of the Parliament would be preserved, and representation would not be diminished beyond comparative standards of democracy in the advanced nations.
Two matters however must be addressed. One is the social worker role that has fallen to MPs, who now spend much time intervening in social welfare and immigration disputes between their constituents and the State. This is not a beneficial or useful use of their time and attention, which should be devoted to the business of the legislature. Secondly is the sheer number of government posts, including the scores of junior appointments that bind an ever increasing number of MPs to the government, hobbling the scrutinising function of the House.
Correcting the EQ is the last of the measures taken by Conservative governments since 2010 to correct the drift of our democratic systems under Labour into crookedness and democratic corruption. We will all be better off for it.
Monday, 10 September 2018
Taxing and regulating the global corporates
I am wholly and utterly committed to low tax and efficient regulation. However, tax and regulation must above all be fair and equitable - that means low tax and light regulation for all. Our complex system has increasingly delivered a system that burdens SMEs, and firms with no significant exports, and favours global corporates. The cost of compliance with EU regulation is a case in point; a multinational can afford an entire department churning out environmental, risk management, human relations and equal opportunities policies, method statements, sustainability assessments and reports on complex systems of internal monitoring. A maker of hand-built sports cars operating out of three small industrial sheds in Suffolk, with one girl on reception and another in the back office, can't hope to churn out the same box files of redundant officiousness.
Likewise tax. A firm with a plant, a site, skilled workers, resources and substantial investment in the UK will always be at a disadvantage to the tax gypsies - the global corporates - who can pitch up in their generic Richard Rogers corporate HQ, install temporary staff and a few lawyers, and stay just as long as they're not bothered. The EU's senior unelected official was thrown out of office in Luxembourg (a small European nation about the size of Seattle) for encouraging corrupt tax avoidance that allows global corporates to harvest rich profits from one EU nation but pay minimal tax in another. And the scam isn't confined to the EU.
The advantages enjoyed by the global corporates mean they are crowding out national competition, enjoying supernormal profits and creating global oligopolies. The rest of us, meanwhile, pay taxes to build the transport and communication networks, the courts and legal systems, the schools and universities that they use for free without responsibility or care.
It may be legal, but it's wrong. And most folk can't console themselves that their pension funds are investing in these rootless and amoral firms and enjoying the profits - and those that can, may care to calculate that the potholed roads, the city centres lost to armed gangs and a generation that can't afford to buy their own homes just aren't worth the return.
Likewise tax. A firm with a plant, a site, skilled workers, resources and substantial investment in the UK will always be at a disadvantage to the tax gypsies - the global corporates - who can pitch up in their generic Richard Rogers corporate HQ, install temporary staff and a few lawyers, and stay just as long as they're not bothered. The EU's senior unelected official was thrown out of office in Luxembourg (a small European nation about the size of Seattle) for encouraging corrupt tax avoidance that allows global corporates to harvest rich profits from one EU nation but pay minimal tax in another. And the scam isn't confined to the EU.
The advantages enjoyed by the global corporates mean they are crowding out national competition, enjoying supernormal profits and creating global oligopolies. The rest of us, meanwhile, pay taxes to build the transport and communication networks, the courts and legal systems, the schools and universities that they use for free without responsibility or care.
It may be legal, but it's wrong. And most folk can't console themselves that their pension funds are investing in these rootless and amoral firms and enjoying the profits - and those that can, may care to calculate that the potholed roads, the city centres lost to armed gangs and a generation that can't afford to buy their own homes just aren't worth the return.
Sunday, 9 September 2018
Happy Jewish New Year - Rosh Hashanah!
Howard Jacobson in the Jewish Chronicle eviscerates Corbyn. Worth a New Year dram or two and a toast to our Judaic citizens.
"We know what an antisemite look like. He wears jackboots, a Swastika arm-band, and shouts Juden Raus; Jeremy Corbyn wears a British Home Stores vest under his shirt and is softly spoken. Antisemites accuse Jews of killing Jesus; Corbyn is an atheist and seems not to mind if we did or didn't. Whether that's because Jesus was Jewish and killing him meant one less Jew in the world, is not for me to say. And - and - he doesn't deny the Holocaust..."
Saturday, 8 September 2018
Will the crane-hangers or head-choppers win Labour?
With faith voting preferences so clear, it is hardly surprising that the divided factions of the Islamic faith are now fighting for control of the Labour party. Iranian-backed Shia Moslems have just succeeded in dumping pro-Israel MP Joan Ryan, whilst in London and in other large cities Sunni Moslems have succeeded in selecting candidates supporting their branch of their faith.
This is a fight for the Labour party funded respectively by the head-choppers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the crane-hangers of Iran. The first stage is to deselect all pro-Israel MPs and replace them with candidates sympathetic to each of the two factions; the recent election to the NEC of nine pro-Islamic, anti-semitic Corbynistas ensures Sunni and Shia can access the policy-making engine of the party and oppose further rule changes that may disadvantage the takeover.
The changes make even more certain that Labour will become the de facto permanent party of large metropolitan centres, with complete control of local government. The challenge for the Conservatives is to win-over the traditional Labour vote.
 |
| click to expand |
The changes make even more certain that Labour will become the de facto permanent party of large metropolitan centres, with complete control of local government. The challenge for the Conservatives is to win-over the traditional Labour vote.
Friday, 7 September 2018
Selmayr's crooked appointment
Well, it's official. We all knew that the EU Commission was nothing more than a cabal of unelected officials trampling democracy, conniving with organised crime, losing billions to theft, fraud, nepotism, corruption and incompetence, and that Martin Selmayr's appointment as consigliere to the capo of capos was as bent as a 90p piece, but now the EU have confirmed it themselves.
Selmayr claims to be a clever lawyer, which doesn't say much. So does Blair. But even he must know that the knowing and wilful beneficiary of a crooked act is as crooked as the crooked scrotes who actually did it. Anyone with half a conscience would be humiliated to hell at holding a post gained so corruptly that the appointment would disgrace the equal ops policy of the Klan.
But with his capo reported as being increasingly out of action earlier and earlier in the day due to 'sciatica', the bent cabal from the Berlaymont increasingly need leadership, and Germany is happy to lend this consigliere.
Good luck to them. At least Britain doesn't have to stomach the cesspit stench for much longer.
Selmayr claims to be a clever lawyer, which doesn't say much. So does Blair. But even he must know that the knowing and wilful beneficiary of a crooked act is as crooked as the crooked scrotes who actually did it. Anyone with half a conscience would be humiliated to hell at holding a post gained so corruptly that the appointment would disgrace the equal ops policy of the Klan.
But with his capo reported as being increasingly out of action earlier and earlier in the day due to 'sciatica', the bent cabal from the Berlaymont increasingly need leadership, and Germany is happy to lend this consigliere.
Good luck to them. At least Britain doesn't have to stomach the cesspit stench for much longer.
Thursday, 6 September 2018
Russian killer scum must be answered with severe sanctions
Back in March I made a right cods of this. My instinct and my initial post agreed with the official line that Russia was responsible for the attack on the Skripals, but scores of your comments protesting that this couldn't be the case, and the sacking of Tillerson across the pond, prompted me to add a postscript saying in effect 'not proven'.
Well now I think it has been. And I'm even more disappointed with Russia than I was in March. It wasn't the attempted assasination of the ex-GRU Skripal, but the casual and careless way that Putin's thugs discarded the poison container in a public bin, where it was retrieved by some poor bloke who gave it to his girlfriend; she sprayed it on her wrists and died. These Russian scum are heartless killers, utterly careless of human life, and we must now make their nation pay for their barbarity.
Both Russians and Africans seem to value human life far more lowly than do we Europeans; Russia killed 30m of her own people in the name of an ideological mistake. This inhuman brutality from the land of the knout, where men were still serfs six hundred years after Britons were free men, cannot be permitted in our continent. I've been happy to offer the carrot, but now is the time to use the stick. Russia must be tamed.
And I've learnt also that I should have trusted my initial instinct.
Well now I think it has been. And I'm even more disappointed with Russia than I was in March. It wasn't the attempted assasination of the ex-GRU Skripal, but the casual and careless way that Putin's thugs discarded the poison container in a public bin, where it was retrieved by some poor bloke who gave it to his girlfriend; she sprayed it on her wrists and died. These Russian scum are heartless killers, utterly careless of human life, and we must now make their nation pay for their barbarity.
Both Russians and Africans seem to value human life far more lowly than do we Europeans; Russia killed 30m of her own people in the name of an ideological mistake. This inhuman brutality from the land of the knout, where men were still serfs six hundred years after Britons were free men, cannot be permitted in our continent. I've been happy to offer the carrot, but now is the time to use the stick. Russia must be tamed.
And I've learnt also that I should have trusted my initial instinct.
Wednesday, 5 September 2018
Cressida Dick wants to go fishing
Lucy McHugh's murderer remains unconvicted, and Hampshire police think they know who did it. They believe there is evidence on his Facebook account, but to get it, must apply to the US courts for access. Facebook only grants immediate police access worldwide to user accounts in the event of imminent serious harm to a child, or of immediate risk of death or serious injury, for example from a terrorist act.
Cressida Dick has waded into the debate by voicing her opinion that social media companies should give unquestioned access to the police 'within minutes' of being asked. It is the sort of fatuous saloon-bar comment that is usually the preserve of the deeply stupid, and as such is hardly worthy of serious rebuttal. But this woman, remember, is the nation's senior police officer with operational responsibility for terrorism and the most serious investigations.
Hard cases make bad law. I am sorry for the family of Lucy McHugh but would ask them to be patient; if there is sufficient evidence to do so, police will be given access to the suspect's account. There may or may not be evidence that will secure a conviction. No one else is at risk, and immediate access cannot reverse the family's loss and grief. There is no pressing reason for change.
Cressida Dick should learn that she polices in a democracy, not in a police State. I'm sure she would like the ability to access whatever accounts are of interest to officers, and allow them to go fishing to take down opponents of the State, critics of the police and those who fight for freedom of thought and expression. If she seriously thinks we should let her, she's lost her mind.
Cressida Dick has waded into the debate by voicing her opinion that social media companies should give unquestioned access to the police 'within minutes' of being asked. It is the sort of fatuous saloon-bar comment that is usually the preserve of the deeply stupid, and as such is hardly worthy of serious rebuttal. But this woman, remember, is the nation's senior police officer with operational responsibility for terrorism and the most serious investigations.
Hard cases make bad law. I am sorry for the family of Lucy McHugh but would ask them to be patient; if there is sufficient evidence to do so, police will be given access to the suspect's account. There may or may not be evidence that will secure a conviction. No one else is at risk, and immediate access cannot reverse the family's loss and grief. There is no pressing reason for change.
Cressida Dick should learn that she polices in a democracy, not in a police State. I'm sure she would like the ability to access whatever accounts are of interest to officers, and allow them to go fishing to take down opponents of the State, critics of the police and those who fight for freedom of thought and expression. If she seriously thinks we should let her, she's lost her mind.
Tuesday, 4 September 2018
Hard left tightens grip on Labour
Twenty four hours is a long time in politics. After joking about Eddie Izzard's future in yesterday's post it emerged he had none - or not in the Labour party, anyway. He failed to hold a place on the 39-member NEC and instead the nine seats chosen by party members all went to hard left Corbynistas. William Hague writes a pile of guff in the Telegraph today hardly worth reading but he writes on the takeover of Labour
Labour's nemesis, the deeply destructive and archly corrupt Blair, is still prostituting himself for the crazed dictators, bent ministers, mafia-businesses and murderous gangs of the former Soviet statelets. His latest efforts, paid for by Azerbaijan, are to secure a landing place for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline. The Italians are naturally wary, and no doubt Blair will have to put the Blair Lie Factory into night shifts and overtime to contrive enough persuasion to overcome the objections. He must mourn the old Italian political hierarchy, when it was just a matter of directing sufficient bribe-money in the right direction. I spent £3 in order to vote for Corbyn as a 'supporter' precisely to destroy what Blair had created. Mission accomplished, I think.
As I wrote yesterday, I think Corbyn is as finished as May, but also that both will be kept temporarily in power for different reasons. May because ditching her before March risks the national interest, Corbyn because Labour have no cuddly alternatives who can maintain the yoof vote.
With the Robbins Plan now dead in the water, May needs to be strongarmed into accepting the ERG position. Once she has done so, we can ditch her.
... the hard Left does not go in for compromise to anything like that extent. They see Labour as an organisation to be purged rather than a family to be united. For some of them, this is a winner-takes-all struggle in which only a complete victory counts. For others, in the age of social media, opinions count for more than outcomes – politics is a noticeboard rather than a chessboard.His main appeal, for Brexiteers to 'compromise' - that is, to give way on all the red lines, is an appeal for the UK to be a partial EU member. Hague may also believe it's possible to be just a little bit pregnant, or to have lost one's virginity only partially. He's turned sadly into a patrician, establishment fool whose best lines are behind him.
Labour's nemesis, the deeply destructive and archly corrupt Blair, is still prostituting himself for the crazed dictators, bent ministers, mafia-businesses and murderous gangs of the former Soviet statelets. His latest efforts, paid for by Azerbaijan, are to secure a landing place for the Trans Adriatic Pipeline. The Italians are naturally wary, and no doubt Blair will have to put the Blair Lie Factory into night shifts and overtime to contrive enough persuasion to overcome the objections. He must mourn the old Italian political hierarchy, when it was just a matter of directing sufficient bribe-money in the right direction. I spent £3 in order to vote for Corbyn as a 'supporter' precisely to destroy what Blair had created. Mission accomplished, I think.
As I wrote yesterday, I think Corbyn is as finished as May, but also that both will be kept temporarily in power for different reasons. May because ditching her before March risks the national interest, Corbyn because Labour have no cuddly alternatives who can maintain the yoof vote.
With the Robbins Plan now dead in the water, May needs to be strongarmed into accepting the ERG position. Once she has done so, we can ditch her.
Monday, 3 September 2018
Boris returns to Europe
Boris Johnson uses his Monday Telegraph column (£) to politely dismiss both claims and assurances given in Theresa May's weekend piece for the paper and Nick Boles' 'Better Brexit'. With conference approaching (and with the prospect of Arron Banks in attendance) Boris is clearly laying the ground for his keynote bombshell. On May's contrived Brexit belligerence he writes;
I just hope you aren’t one of those trusting souls who still thinks it could really go either way. The fix is in. The whole thing is about as pre-ordained as a bout between Giant Haystacks and Big Daddy; and in this case, I am afraid, the inevitable outcome is a victory for the EU, with the UK lying flat on the canvas with 12 stars circling symbolically over our semi-conscious head.So much for the Robbins Plan. On the subject of which, Boris alludes to the sabotage of Brexit by the enemy within;
It is now clear that some in the UK Government never wanted solutions. They wanted to use that problem to stop a proper Brexit. Solving Ireland would mean a solution for Dover-Calais, and they didn’t really want that. They wanted essentially to stay in, and to create a Brexit in name only.And though the Damascene conversion of Nick Boles from fervent Remainer to Chequers-loathing critic, his preferred alternatives find little favour
The answer is not to lurch for a Norway or EEA option that is actually more humiliating than Chequers: it would mean taking even more rules from Brussels (on services, for instance) – and does not fix Ireland.All of which usefully prepares the ground for a true alternative to the Robbins Plan, now being finessed by Boris and his cerebral chums of the ERG, and to be served up to the sound of trumpets and at the optimum moment. And that's his advantage - he's in control of timings, whilst Mrs May is subject to the timings of others.
As for our Jew-hating Worzel Gummidge across from the Treasury benches, I have a feeling in my water that his moment has passed. He stopped being a thing sometime over the weekend. He's missed his tide, his star has turned. Yvette Cooper for one is working hard from one of her refugee-free homes to whip up her press presence; Labour's ladies at least have decided it's time for the Party's first female Leader.
Personally, my money's on Mz Eddie Izzard.
Friday, 31 August 2018
Frank Field and Trad Labour
I had a decent taste of Trad Labour in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire in the era of the miners' strike. The name was a joke, a pisstake of the Yorky Wolfie Smiths who postured and blustered and, like all empty pots, made much noise. The real heavy lifting was done by quieter Labour councillors and officers often drawn from the men that voters respected at work; pit deputies, mining and quarrying mechanical and electrical engineers, tutors at the local Tech, steel smelters, tool makers, railway engineers and the like. I liked those calm, confident men for whom nothing was impossible. They were committed to their class, to their county and to their country. They could coil a steel sheet as thick as your thigh, but it was the unexpected that fazed them. Emissaries from that there London came down to tell them not to say "Find us a cup of tea, will you, Pet" and similar things. They retreated into silence, and into the vacuum came Wimmin with green hair and Pronounced Views.
I've never met Frank Field, but I like him. Just as I liked Tam Dalyell, whom I did know. Tam chaired the all-party Parliamentary Archeology group at the time of the Iraq war, and we enjoyed a lively correspondence on the dangers of damage to unique sites in Iraq by both sides, and I've kept a score of his brief notes scrawled on Commons compliments slips with which he encouraged, fortified and thanked those with whom he worked.
It was no surprise that on the news of Mr Field's relinquishing the Labour whip yesterday, little Owen Jones proved his moral diminutiveness with a jejune, sulky, petulant Twitter post.
Well, I can guess the reaction of the Trad Labour lads I knew. They always had a very fine understanding of what was proper behaviour - and for a 76-year old MP who has represented his constituency since 1979, they'd know damn well that even his most bitter enemies in Parliament owed him gracious words. Field complained of Labour 'nastiness' and Jones has helpfully just proved his point.
I've never met Frank Field, but I like him. Just as I liked Tam Dalyell, whom I did know. Tam chaired the all-party Parliamentary Archeology group at the time of the Iraq war, and we enjoyed a lively correspondence on the dangers of damage to unique sites in Iraq by both sides, and I've kept a score of his brief notes scrawled on Commons compliments slips with which he encouraged, fortified and thanked those with whom he worked.
It was no surprise that on the news of Mr Field's relinquishing the Labour whip yesterday, little Owen Jones proved his moral diminutiveness with a jejune, sulky, petulant Twitter post.
Wednesday, 29 August 2018
Knives, Thugs and Conditional Fee Agreements
By all accounts, the Met Police did well at last weekend's Notting Hill carnival. Knife arches, proactive and aggressive policing and lots of arrests meant not a single additional murder to add to London's score of 100-odd already this year. It came at a cost however; police officers have been complaining loudly at the roughness, shoving, elbows, rudeness, scuffles and minor sprains, strains and abrasions that they suffered. There was a fair bit of physical contact, and the officers didn't like it. Given the choice, and unless prodded from behind by their sergeants and commanders, many would go out of the way to avoid a tussle. Even with a certainty of a minor offender going free.
I'm afraid getting 'stuck in' has always been part of public order policing. Men and women officers need to be decent rugby players not shrinking petals - and thankfully, many are. But with ineffective, confused commanders such as Cressida Dick, the Met is carrying too much dead beat dead weight, officers avoiding conflict and carving out cushy jobs for themselves. Dick's judgement has been questioned on everything from overseeing the shooting of a Brazilian electrician, proudly claiming 900 officers are patrolling the internet for 'hurty words' to scanning the opinion columns of the Daily Telegraph for unprofessional use of words and publicly pronouncing on those pieces that have passed her scrutiny. Her intellect is neither universally admired nor trusted.
Below are two similar photos of officers being kicked whilst carrying out their duties; one at a student riot in Red Lion Square back in the 60s, the other from yesterday as officers attempted to arrest a man in a branch of McDonalds.
The first was published on the front page of virtually every daily newspaper and attracted a tsunami of public disgust and questions in Parliament. The second features deep inside the Daily Mail behind the Kardashians and has gone virtually unnoticed. What's happened to our righteous anger at assaults against the police - our police - who are supposed to be us in uniform? Or have their bosses been responsible for alienating them from public support? The struggle between a centralising Home Office and Localities for control and ownership of the police has been going since the 60s, and the Home Office is winning. They want a national police service wholly answerable to the Home Secretary, which would be a disaster for both democracy and public trust in the police.
We can't solve the local-central issue, but there is something that the government can do, quickly and I believe with cross-party support. One of the fears that police officers have is that if they react against public provocation, they will be at the mercy of some smart-arse lawyer such as the loathsome and now disbarred Phil Shiner scabbling damages from the taxpayer's purse and fat fees for themselves. And not only the police; soldiers, NHS staff, council bin men and just about anyone in the public sector is an entry-point for these reptiles into raiding our taxes to stuff their corrupt legal mouths with our gold. They advertise everywhere for 'victims' of the public sector. It's a scam and it's costing us billions - and only the skunk lawyers are getting rich.
Surely there's a simple solution. We must legislate rapidly to proscribe civil actions against public sector bodies from Conditional Fee Agreements ('no win no fee'). It was of course Blair who introduced this pernicious error in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Like much of what he did, it was wrong, and has created a disastrous legacy for our country. If you slip on a grape in Tesco and hurt your back, fine - CFA is a good way to go. If a copper sprained your finger whilst wrestling a Zombie knife from your hand, fund a civil action yourself. No legal aid. No CFA.
I'm afraid getting 'stuck in' has always been part of public order policing. Men and women officers need to be decent rugby players not shrinking petals - and thankfully, many are. But with ineffective, confused commanders such as Cressida Dick, the Met is carrying too much dead beat dead weight, officers avoiding conflict and carving out cushy jobs for themselves. Dick's judgement has been questioned on everything from overseeing the shooting of a Brazilian electrician, proudly claiming 900 officers are patrolling the internet for 'hurty words' to scanning the opinion columns of the Daily Telegraph for unprofessional use of words and publicly pronouncing on those pieces that have passed her scrutiny. Her intellect is neither universally admired nor trusted.
Below are two similar photos of officers being kicked whilst carrying out their duties; one at a student riot in Red Lion Square back in the 60s, the other from yesterday as officers attempted to arrest a man in a branch of McDonalds.
The first was published on the front page of virtually every daily newspaper and attracted a tsunami of public disgust and questions in Parliament. The second features deep inside the Daily Mail behind the Kardashians and has gone virtually unnoticed. What's happened to our righteous anger at assaults against the police - our police - who are supposed to be us in uniform? Or have their bosses been responsible for alienating them from public support? The struggle between a centralising Home Office and Localities for control and ownership of the police has been going since the 60s, and the Home Office is winning. They want a national police service wholly answerable to the Home Secretary, which would be a disaster for both democracy and public trust in the police.
We can't solve the local-central issue, but there is something that the government can do, quickly and I believe with cross-party support. One of the fears that police officers have is that if they react against public provocation, they will be at the mercy of some smart-arse lawyer such as the loathsome and now disbarred Phil Shiner scabbling damages from the taxpayer's purse and fat fees for themselves. And not only the police; soldiers, NHS staff, council bin men and just about anyone in the public sector is an entry-point for these reptiles into raiding our taxes to stuff their corrupt legal mouths with our gold. They advertise everywhere for 'victims' of the public sector. It's a scam and it's costing us billions - and only the skunk lawyers are getting rich.
Surely there's a simple solution. We must legislate rapidly to proscribe civil actions against public sector bodies from Conditional Fee Agreements ('no win no fee'). It was of course Blair who introduced this pernicious error in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Like much of what he did, it was wrong, and has created a disastrous legacy for our country. If you slip on a grape in Tesco and hurt your back, fine - CFA is a good way to go. If a copper sprained your finger whilst wrestling a Zombie knife from your hand, fund a civil action yourself. No legal aid. No CFA.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
Catholic church must now give control to the laity
It is simply dishonest of the Pope to pretend he didn't know about sexual abuse by Catholic clergy against children. Believe me, there is not a single Cardinal, not one Archbishop, nary a bishop and not a Monsignor who is not fully aware of the appalling evil these servants of God have inflicted upon the faithful.
Yes, I know because I attended an expensive Catholic boarding school run by brothers of the De La Salle order, and though personally subject only to feral violence from several and the vituperative hate of one of the bastards to whom I wouldn't heel (may you rot in Hell, Brother Alan), not all of my fellow pupils were so lucky. Sexual abuse of boys by the De La Salle brothers was widespread and well-known to a Catholic hierarchy that bought-off complainants, shifted abusers from school to school and used threats, violence and intimidation to keep us quiet. Men now in late middle age are only now facing the abuse of those times. One of my old school alumni has a quiet website where victims, some of whom believed for decades that they were alone, can find confirmation of the institutionalised abuse at the hands of the bastards.
Well, folk are resilient, and I guess most of us got over it. They didn't destroy my faith, or my Catholicism. I can say the words of the Nicene Creed in truth and belief. The abusers are now pathetic octogenarians or nonagenarians where they still live, no doubt dreading the fate of their souls. But please don't pretend the church wasn't fully aware of the abuse. Or that the fake sincerity of the Pope's 'regrets' can put an end to the matter.
Spiritual celibacy is a gift from God that comes naturally and rarely to a few. From shamans to gurus and other holy men, it occurs universally and when it does it is valued. It cannot be forced or induced. The Catholic church now faces a revolt from we, its owners. And we demand change. Clergy should be encouraged to marry. Women should be consecrated to the Priesthood. And more, we can no longer allow the church to be managed by the same people from whom the laity need protection. The management of the church organisation must be secularised.
In Austria and Germany, Catholics must by law pay a 1% income tax to the church. Failure to do so attracts criminal law penalties like any other tax evasion. It is the one Hitler law that both nations kept; Hitler confiscated the vast tracts of church land - agricultural, forestry and city centre real estate - for the State and in return granted the church the right to levy an income tax on the faithful. It's what enabled the Bishop of Limburg to spend £26m on building a new palace for himself. So here in particular church members have a greater right than most to take over the governance of the church.
The current Pope is I believe a gift in time; few love him, and Francis is a Pope whom few Catholics respect overmuch or with whom few would regret clashing. It's the perfect moment to push reform. Bring it on.
Yes, I know because I attended an expensive Catholic boarding school run by brothers of the De La Salle order, and though personally subject only to feral violence from several and the vituperative hate of one of the bastards to whom I wouldn't heel (may you rot in Hell, Brother Alan), not all of my fellow pupils were so lucky. Sexual abuse of boys by the De La Salle brothers was widespread and well-known to a Catholic hierarchy that bought-off complainants, shifted abusers from school to school and used threats, violence and intimidation to keep us quiet. Men now in late middle age are only now facing the abuse of those times. One of my old school alumni has a quiet website where victims, some of whom believed for decades that they were alone, can find confirmation of the institutionalised abuse at the hands of the bastards.
Well, folk are resilient, and I guess most of us got over it. They didn't destroy my faith, or my Catholicism. I can say the words of the Nicene Creed in truth and belief. The abusers are now pathetic octogenarians or nonagenarians where they still live, no doubt dreading the fate of their souls. But please don't pretend the church wasn't fully aware of the abuse. Or that the fake sincerity of the Pope's 'regrets' can put an end to the matter.
Spiritual celibacy is a gift from God that comes naturally and rarely to a few. From shamans to gurus and other holy men, it occurs universally and when it does it is valued. It cannot be forced or induced. The Catholic church now faces a revolt from we, its owners. And we demand change. Clergy should be encouraged to marry. Women should be consecrated to the Priesthood. And more, we can no longer allow the church to be managed by the same people from whom the laity need protection. The management of the church organisation must be secularised.
In Austria and Germany, Catholics must by law pay a 1% income tax to the church. Failure to do so attracts criminal law penalties like any other tax evasion. It is the one Hitler law that both nations kept; Hitler confiscated the vast tracts of church land - agricultural, forestry and city centre real estate - for the State and in return granted the church the right to levy an income tax on the faithful. It's what enabled the Bishop of Limburg to spend £26m on building a new palace for himself. So here in particular church members have a greater right than most to take over the governance of the church.
The current Pope is I believe a gift in time; few love him, and Francis is a Pope whom few Catholics respect overmuch or with whom few would regret clashing. It's the perfect moment to push reform. Bring it on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)