Arthur's Seat: Kiss me, Hardy

How it would have been if Nelson had operated under modern regulations....

Arthur's Seat: Kiss me, Hardy

Councils could seize empty homes

Our government does not recognise the boundaries of its legitimate influence. If it wants more social housing, it can tax and spend on building some. Of course it has done so much taxing and spending already, that it knows it will be unpopular.

There is no way however that it should be entitled to use the property of others against their will. It already has compulsory purchase powers if it really wants to acquire property at fair value. Why should it have the right NOT to pay for it, but to use it anyway?

It is naff all to do with the State how our possessions are used. These proposals are outrageous.

BBC NEWS | UK | Councils could seize empty homes

Race row disrupts Radio 4 debate

I have every sympathy with Joan Rivers. Accusations of racism are bandied about far too casually. It's a serious thing, to discriminate unfairly against a fellow human being for irrelevant reasons. It carries very serious opprobrium today and many of us are tired of some members of ethnic minorities who leap to blame every disappointment in their lives on the alleged "racism" of those around them. Lenny Henry satirises this beautifully with his "it's because I a black man, innnit" sketches.

It's not just blacks. Some of the Welsh have become so consumed with pathetic self-pity that they call the police if Ann Robinson or Tony Blair denigrate them. Irving Welsh wrote in the Guardian today about why Scotland has a murder rate three times higher than England. He managed, in a twisted way, to put part of the blame on the English and their "sense of superiority." This apparently makes the poor Scots so unhappy that they kill each other. Weird. I have never heard an Englishman denigrate a Scot, except in response to the most dire provocation. Nor have I heard an Englishman express his sense of superiority to the Scots, though I have often heard the reverse - and in the most blistering terms.

Get a life guys, for goodness sake. There must be some problems in the world for which the long-suffering English are NOT to blame, surely?

Libby Purves' response to this episode was pathetic. A lively debate about an important subject arose spontaneously and she behaved like an embarrassed hostess whose dinner guests were bickering. Her implied rebuke to both Rivers and Howe at the end was ridiculous.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | TV and Radio | Race row disrupts Radio 4 debate

World is a safer place despite people's fears

Presumably the Government will now, on the basis of this research, scrap its programme of attacks on our ancient liberties, and repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act and other scandalous legislation? After all, its justification for these measures has been that the world post-9/11 is a much more dangerous place than ever before. This research proves that is not true.

Telegraph | News | World is a safer place despite people's fears

ID cards vote: Labour majority cut | the Daily Mail

I wonder why the Daily Mail feels the need to put the "right" in "right to travel" in quotation marks. Those of us who will not submit to the assault of having the state take 13 biometrics in order to tag us and track us like cattle, will not be able to renew our passports. That feels like a loss of liberty to me.

ID cards vote: Labour majority cut | the Daily Mail

Labour survives ID card rebellion

Labour survives. Not our freedoms though. The truth was spoken in the Commons, but still the whipped curs ran through the lobby. They should be ashamed.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour survives ID card rebellion

Poor children may be bused to school in wealthy areas

Modern debating techniques, Part II:

"It is not some kind of social diktat or American-style enforced de-segregation"

This proposal is EXACTLY that, so the spokesman begins by denying it, thus (he hopes) taking the sting out of the criticism.

Between the ages of 11 and 13, I was bused from one village to another in the first years of comprehensive education. The schools in our poor rural area were not deemed large enough to provide the right "mix" of pupils. I remember sleepily waiting at dark bus stops early in the morning. My wife - from the same area - remembers riots and bullying on her bus, which often led to the driver turning everyone off to walk miles. The idea was quietly dropped after a few years. Now it's back in another guise, and only the local bus companies will benefit.

British education is in a mess because of social engineering, not for lack of it. Kelly is rearranging deck chairs in true New Labour style. She will do anything but admit that Labour's educational theories (and the Conservatives failure to resist them) caused the horrors of "bog standard" comprehensives and destroyed social mobility in Britain.

Labour activists will delight in depressing house prices around less bad State schools, smashing home owners' small dreams. Those who do their best for their families are again penalised for their temerity.

New Labour is in power, not because of the ever-shrinking working class, but because it has successfully deceived more gullible members of the middle class. Kelly should remember that.

Holy war looms over Disney's Narnia epic

Allah forbid that a Christmas movie should have a Christian sub-text. How crazy is this story? Islamic evangelism is rife in Britain, but there is a "row" when Disney releases the "Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe"? I can't imagine where the "row" was. In the offices of the Guardian, perhaps?

The Narnia stories are great books for children and I hope the producers of the films have done them justice.

The Observer | UK News | Holy war looms over Disney's Narnia epic

If the Tories have a drug problem, it's their addiction to past quarrels

At a business conference a few years ago, a group of 10 friends sat around a dinner table. We were all about David Cameron's age, but from several countries. The conversation turned to drug use at university. One after another told stories of "bongs" and "grass" and more. I found myself admitting I was the only one who had never used a controlled substance.

I believe that drug use is much more pervasive than figures suggest. Many millions of Britons "do drugs" at weekends. Not all of them are addicts. Not all of them will be. I suspect that if any exposure to illegal substances is a bar to leading a political party, the pool of available talent will be much reduced.

There's no reason to be interested in whether Cameron did drugs. There's every reason to wonder why the media are pressing him so hard, when they are not asking Tony Blair. How has the British media been hijacked?

Telegraph | Opinion | If the Tories have a drug problem, it's their addiction to past quarrels

Dishonest debating tactics

Armando Ianucci makes an interesting point about how modern debate is conducted. He hits the target with his example of Tony Blair ritually acknowledging the importance of civil rights before proposing the destruction of more of them.

I experience the same irritations in business life. Colleagues who know full well they are a waste of time begin wasting my time by saying, "I know you are busy and I don't want to waste your time, but..."

Ianucci is right in identifying this as a confession, but his proposed "swift kick in the loins" is not really a practical response. I confess that I don't know any better countermeasures to such dishonest tactics. In consequence I spend too much of my life politely allowing my time to be wasted. Any suggestions?

Telegraph | Opinion | Notebook

Parents: we are not the law

I can only applaud. That I should feel the need to do so when, anywhere else in the world, this article would be no more than plain common-sense, says a lot about New Britain.

spiked-liberties | Column | Parents: we are not the law

Innocent in London

I am behindhand in finding this story and blogging it. However, this diary of an innocent man arrested in London on suspicion of terrorism is an important document. I hope I can lead more people to it.

Innocent in London

BBC seeks increase to licence fee

There is no reason for the BBC's licence fee to increase above the rate of inflation. In fact, there is no real justification for the licence fee at all.

The BBC no longer fulfils its historic role as an independent public service broadcaster. It long ago went down-market to compete head on with the commercial stations. In fact ITV now produces better drama.

The BBC also appears to have given over editorial control of news coverage to the Government. Since the Dr David Kelly affair, its outlets have toadied disgracefully. Sadly, there is no guarantee that financial independence would end that behaviour. Murdoch's media also appear to have been pimped.

It is time either for the BBC to be granted independence and allowed to advertise, or to be closed down entirely.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | TV and Radio | BBC seeks increase to licence fee

Lords line up to debate right to die

The libertarian position on this should be clear enough. It's your life. If you want to die that's up to you. However, you cannot compel anyone else to kill you or assist you to die.

The problems are also clear enough. If euthanasia or assisted suicide is permitted, it will often be faked so that people can inherit wealth or be rid of a burden. The law should protect the weak by requiring a clear written expression of will in the presence of an independent witness. Relatives will disagree and the document will be important in any subsequent litigation.

If a doctor is prepared, subject to such a clear expression of will, to provide the means for a suicide, that is probably the best solution. Assisted suicide is not the same as asking a doctor to kill, which would be a problem for many; not only on ethical grounds but because the doctor risks involvement in legal disputes.

Assisted suicide does not help those who are physically incapable even of taking pills unassisted. Nor does it help those whose condition has deteriorated until they are mentally incapable of expressing their wish to die. Again, even if a doctor can be found to carry out the killing, it should only be lawful if there is a clear legal expression of the patient's intentions, made before he became incapable. So-called "living wills" can deal with this issue.

I have no doubt that, even with all necessary legal protections, many old people will die against their will if these measures are introduced. We are all too ready to convince ourselves of the truth of things that suit us. Auntie Flo's death will seem a mercy to those who stand to inherit. No caring heir will let paperwork stand in the way. Muddled old ladies will sign unknowing. Signatures will be lovingly forged.

Baroness Warnock thinks the old have a duty to die rather than be a burden to their families. If this view gains credence, the dangers are obvious. Elderly people may feel pressured to "do the right thing" by their families. If your son is massively in debt and the costs of your care are a burden; if your daughter cannot earn to support her family because she is your carer, how will you feel if the idea of euthanasia is raised? How will the State's rules on consuming your estate to pay for your care affect your view? Will you feel pressured to die early so as to save those costs and leave more to your indebted children? Many old people are a burden to the State, rather than their offspring. It would not be long before someone argued a similar duty to the taxpayer. Voluntary euthanasia could soon become involuntary, whether because of social pressures or even legal requirements.

This is one of those issues where it's easy to devise simple rules. However, the complexities of life are such that there are bound to be unforseen outcomes. While the libertarian position is clear, any changes to the law on this subject should be made with extreme caution. The Government's usual style of "legislate today, think tomorrow" will not do. Cheap headlines about "mercy killings" and heart-rending "human interest" stories on the subject, could lead to thousands of murders.

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Lords line up to debate right to die

Hoon indicates possible compromise over anti-terror laws

The Labour Party's leaders have become masterful at manipulating public perceptions. In the current "debate" (if such it can be called when HM Opposition is silent) they first proposed the ludicrous new crime of "glorifying terrorism". Critics ridiculed it. They "backed down". See? They are "listening".

Then the debate moved to the three months' period of detention without trial (and without charge). Labour's people hint they will "compromise". The Lib Dems, the only politicians engaging in the debate, signal they will not budge. They are quite right to say so, but they have fallen into a negotiating trap. Labour will say the Lib Dems are unreasonable and uncompromising, someone from the leaderless Tories will agree and suggest a compromise, and the current 14 day period for police to make a case or release a suspect will be extended, if not to 3 months, then to 2. Next year Labour will propose 12 months - and so it goes on.

The public senses the rhythms of these debates, but does not follow the details. Labour is well-tuned to the rhythms and exploits them beautifully. No-one even asks the question "...but isn't 14 days already too long for an innocent man to be held against his will without the blessing of the courts..?" No-one even considers how such powers could be abused.

Under the proposed new regime, annoy your local police and you could find yourself repeatedly held in custody for two months and 29 days on suspicion. You won't be able to challenge the police in court. You won't be entitled to know on what suspicion you were held. You will never be able to challenge a policeman again, no matter what he is doing to you or your family.

Is that an unreasonable and disloyal scenario? Is it unfair to our gallant police? I think that's what you would have told me if I had predicted that an 82-year old member of the Labour Party would be prevented from entering the party's conference under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I think that's what you would have told me if I had predicted that an innocent young man whose actions gave no reasonable grounds for suspicion would be shot 7 times in the head by muddled flatfoots on the London Underground, on the basis of an over-the-shoulder glimpse by a colleague taking a leak in the bushes outside a block of flats.

Compromise between good and evil is evil. Labour's massive assault on our civil liberties is evil.

Telegraph | News | Hoon indicates possible compromise over anti-terror laws

Gypsy row AM faces censure

How can a political assembly debate issues if certain points of view are suppressed? I don't know if this Conservative member of the Welsh Assembly is prejudiced against Gypsies or not. Certainly the comments reported here are entirely innocuous. Try substituting "Welsh" or "English" for "gypsy travellers" and they remain entirely true. They are so innocuous, one wonders why he even bothered to make them. That they should provoke disciplinary proceedings is entirely bizarre.

Until I read something more damning, I shall assume that he has said nothing worse. His enemies would surely not be quoting such mild remarks if they had anything better.

We are living through a witch hunt in this country. The mad puritans who would forbid all dissent are our enemies; traitors to everything that makes our country worthy of affection and respect.

BBC NEWS | Wales | Gypsy row AM faces censure

Climate change strategy meeting

Professor Bjorn Lomborg, a professor of statistics and a former Greenpeace member, writes in his book "The Sceptical Environmentalist" of the "litany" of received ideas about the environment. These are ideas which are now politically-correct and beyond debate. Global warming is one of them.

Because the belief is quasi-religious, at least in its intensity, people don't catch themselves using it in contradictory ways. They sub-consciously edit evidence, noting anything that suggests global warming and ignoring anything that contradicts it.

Most data used by the environmental movement is simply taken from too short a period. Often the start and end points have been selected to support a particular view. Lomberg's book contains several interesting graphs which show all known historical data, with the misleading section selected by environmentalists highlighted. Some people in the movement, no doubt with honourable intent, are deliberately presenting propaganda as science.

Nobody knows whether the "hole in the ozone layer" is new, or whether it has always been there. The variations detected since we noticed it may well be natural.

Chester (then Deva) was one of the great wine-exporting ports of the Roman Empire. Long before the Industrial Revolution, the North of England was warm enough to grow wine. On the other hand, we have historical records of weather so cold in England that "ice fairs" were held on the Thames. Why do we now believe that the weather of modern times is "normal" and any climate change must be Nature's punishment for our wickedness?

If we take a really long-term perspective, we are actually in the middle of an Ice Age. The whole of human civilisation has risen (and may well fall) during what is technically an "interglacial interval".

Global warming is a theory, and not a very good one. Of course we must monitor climate changes and consider their implications. Of course we should use non-renewable resources carefully to make sure they last until there are viable alternatives. I am puritanical enough to object to waste in principle, without needed an all-embracing ideology to legitimise my view. However, there was human society before refined oil and deo volenti there will be human society after it. There is no reason to suppose (still less to advocate) that the latter should resemble the former.

The environmental movement (and I speak as one with a monthly standing order to FoE) draws attention to important issues but it often overstates its case. Many activists are single issue fanatics. Others are Luddite technophobes, Wordsworthian romantics or reborn Puritans. Some advocate reducing the population of the USA by 85% to make its economy ecologically "sustainable", for example. Their dreams of a simpler, more "natural", society can only be achieved by the forceful exercise of absolute power. Very few of us will choose to give up the technologies which have extended our lives and made them richer.

I don't think most environmentalists are fascists. However, they do provide power-hungry politicians with lots of "right on" excuses for state interference in everyday life. That's why the politicians like to say "we are all environmentalists now". That's why we cannot accept the environmental "litany" without debate.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate change strategy meeting

Compulsory pensions? He kept that quiet

Amid all the coverage of Labour's jackboot conference policing methods, and in my indignation at Tony Blair's unsatisfied urges to destroy liberty, I missed this one. So, it seems, did almost everyone else.

Are we really so easily fooled by the misuse of language? "Moving beyond voluntarism" is an amazing euphemism for "compulsion", isn't it?

Telegraph | Opinion | Compulsory pensions? He kept that quiet

Tube death probe delay explained

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner's concerns in this letter are interesting. It was written two hours after the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. At that point, based on what the Metropolitan Police were saying in public, he should still have been expecting praise for his officers, not legal trouble. The Commissioner has claimed that, at that point, he was not aware that the public statements about "bulky clothing" and "suspicious behaviour" were untrue. So why the concern?

The really interesting question is what happened during the period Sir Ian succeeded in preventing the IPCC from obtaining access to the scene. Might it have anything to do with the mysterious absence of CCTV footage from certain cameras?

BBC NEWS | UK | Tube death probe delay explained: " "

Hero's return for Labour heckler

Labour said Mr Wolfgang could return for the conference's final day provided he did not cause further disturbances.

How dare they accuse a man of causing a "disturbance", when he was acting in the finest traditions of British democracy?

This story says it all about New Labour. They are control freaks and habitual abusers of power. The Prevention of Terrorism Act was used against this old man - a refugee from Nazism no less - for simply exercising his right to free speech. That cannot be blamed on "over-zealous stewards".

For that matter, if the Labour leadership thought the stewards were acting incorrectly, why did they not intervene? They were watching it happen. Whatever damage limitation their PR people advise today, it seems reasonable to infer that their silence at the key moment indicated approval of the stewards' actions.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Hero's return for Labour heckler: