Warning: Creeping Stateism is bad for your Liberties.

A “>report has been published in the British Journal of Cancer. It concerns the possible causes of various, predictably enough, cancers. Fair enough and all well and good so far.

It is based on medical researchers doing correlations and statistical analysis rather than any clinical tests, that is always prone to possible mis-interpretation, but it is not unreasonable to take the findings at face value.

It finds that lifestyle choices influence your likelihood of getting certain forms of cancer. That smoking is the main cause of lung cancer and second but far behind is a lack of fruit and vegetables in the diet possibly responsible for oesophageal or gullet cancer, half of the risk comes from eating too little fruit and veg. too much salt in the diet a possible cause of Stomach cancer. Way down there under 5% is drinking too much alcohol and being overweight.

Useful information if taken sensibly, along with other studies that show moderate levels of alcohol seem to be actually beneficial.

So what is apparently the knee jerk reaction of the Royal College of Physicians? True to form a demand for authoritarian legislation. Their president, Sir Richard Thompson, claimed the findings were a “wake-up call to the government” to take stronger action on public health.

He stated that rising incidence of preventable cancers showed that the 'carrot' approach of voluntary agreements with industry is not enough to prompt healthy behaviours, and needs to be replaced by the 'stick' approach of legislative solutions,"

Maybe Sir Richard Thompson’s intentions are good, but his instincts seem to be to order, to force and that is not.

Diane Abbott, Longstanding New Labour luminary and current Shadow Public Health Minister, said: "The government is failing on all the main public health issues.”
So let’s leave aside ideas of punitive taxation of burgers and sweets, making it illegal to smoke anywhere else or legislating illegal anti competitive minimum prices for alcohol for a moment. Lets rewind.

That reflexive authoritarian statist demand that the government get involved, do more.

Exactly what business of the state is it if I want a glass of wine after dinner in the fist place?

OK so I am not as fit or as skinny as I used to be but I can see how it is my business, maybe my “significant other”, my tailor even, but the Government?

The only justification I can see is how much I might cost the state. Possibly in increased pension payments from a scheme that I am basically forced by law to pay into by the Government if, I live significantly longer due to good lifestyle choices. Or increased medical costs from a scheme that I am basically forced by law to pay into, use it or not, by the Government.

So the only real justification for the State to be involved, apart possibly from the odd public health warning, is how much I cost systems that they force me to participate in and thus cost er - well me.

Catch 22.

Democracy at work?

Earlier this month I posted on Lord Moynehan’s proposed bill to give the police the power to raid homes in order to search for so-called "performance enhancing drugs". Allegedly to prevent cheating at the 2012 Olympics.

I took my own advice and wrote to Eric Pickles Chairman of the Conservative Party and Conservative MP to voice my concerns. Nothing like going to the top.

He replied fairly promptly and actually answered the basic thrust of my letter, so good for him in that. The relevant section of his reply was as follows:

“I understand your concerns about this issue. Whilst I believe these measures are necessary to safeguard against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, it is important that they are not used unfairly against members of the public who have been prescribed these drugs for genuine medical purposes.

Please rest assured that my colleagues and I will press the Government to ensure that these powers are used for their intended purpose.”

Do you know... I really don’t think he did understand half my concerns about the issue based on his response.

Sports are a game. There may be money tied up in them, a lot in some cases - and prestige, but they are in the end still a game.

What’s more they are essentially a private arrangement between individuals, or groups of individuals, who agree a set of rules they will abide by. It may even go so far as being a contract, but that is still essentially between the individuals involved.

If someone cheats on those rules then it is a matter for all the other participants and the organisers. The governing bodies of the sports. The rest of us may form opinions about what was done and the people who did it, but that is it.

Even if the state decides to organise a sporting event it is still essentially a private matter.

I, like the overwhelming majority or citizens, have entered into no agreements. I am not involved in it, except possibly to be inconvenienced by it when travelling and directly, or indirectly, involuntarily having to pay towards it.

Also possibly watching a fraction of it on TV, after having paid again to do that too, either by means of the UK TV tax, or directly to one of the other content providers.

I don’t care particularly strongly about the games, not nearly so much as I do about how much I pay in tax. They let them use advanced materials and equipment in some events.

If they gave athletes carte blanche to use performance enhancing drugs as much as they liked the performances might even be more entertaining. They would certainly be on a guaranteed level playing field then… except some would not have so much money to put into training and equipment or time. Maybe they should insist on equal funding as well.

The thing is the staggering majority of us are not a part of it or involved in it in any realistic sense any more than we would be involved in horticulture if we had a day out and visited a country fair that had a vegetable growing competition.

It is simply wrong for the state to pass any law relating to the rules of a private competition. Would the government seriously consider making a law to ban overacting on the football pitch? Giving the police the power to curtail a footballer’s thespian leanings?

You can hear the catch slogan now… “Two to five for taking a dive? – It’s the LAW”

So… no Mr Pickles. If you believe for a second the measures are necessary then you clearly feel the state has far more right to interfere with my liberty than I do.

The state has no business whatsoever attempting to safeguard against the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.

It is interesting to note the measures are proposed by an unelected Tory Lord who is completely unaccountable to the electorate. And that Mr Pickles, occupying a safe Tory seat as he does, is effectively only practically accountable to the Tory hierarchy.

The legislation in it’s very conception is anti democratic and authoritarian.

As for his assertion that “I will press the Government to ensure that these powers are used for their intended purpose”, at best I fear this simply demonstrates grossly misplaced optimism on his part.

We are all well aware that very little recent legislation that has been passed granting powers to the police of councils or virtually any public body has actually been used as they were allegedly intended. In practically all cases there has been creep. As I mentioned in my previous post on the subject and my letter to Mr Pickles.

So from his letter it seems he has a touchingly misplaced faith at variance with the observed facts that this legislation will, unlike most other recent legislation not be abused by those executing it. Plus a certain authoritarian belief that the state has a God given right to be intrude where it should not even be considering intruding.

Is it worth telling him do you think?

Another brick in the wall

Here is yet another truly sinister piece of proposed UK legislation and it goes to show that it is not just Labour who has little concern for citizens rights.

Tory Lord Moynihan has drawn up a draft Bill to give the police powers to search for performance enhancing drugs.

His ostensible reason, he claims, is to help prevent Olympic athletes cheating with performance enhancing drugs come the 2012 Olympics.

This sounds almost acceptable - if you are the sort of person who does not bother to to think to closely about these things.

The first thing to consider about any legislation is how it might go wrong because it has been poorly drafted.

It is unlikely the bill will be able to distinguish between ordinary citizens and athletes, let alone Olympians.

Also this relates not to so-called illegal drugs whatever you consider the merits or otherwise of prohibition. This relates to drugs which it may be perfectly legal to posess, may even be medically necessary for some conditions, but that also may enhance athletic performance.

My elderly mother is on steroids of some sort. She is therefore certainly in possession of what might be considered “performance enhancing drugs”.

The second thing is to ignore the claimed reason for it and consider what powers it will actually give to the state and it’s increasingly politicised police ‘service’.

You can be absolutely certain, whatever the ostensible reason for the additional powers, the police, or anyone else given them, will be using them to the fullest extent that is possible.

If you doubt this you only have to look at the lawful, but effectively misuse, of legislation that has resulted in the police harassing innocent photographers.

Or the violent ejection of an elderly Labour Party conference attendee from Conference when he made the mistake of criticising the Government.

Or the hundreds of incidences of local councils misusing anti terrorist legislation to spy on people’s refuse bin use, or where they live.

So what will this proposed piece of authoritarian legislation do? Apparently it will allow the police to raid a place of residence, for no better reason than to seize perfectly legal (if performance enhancing) drugs.

Another significant chunk of your and my right to live unmolested by an increasingly authoritarian state being gradually and stealthily stolen away while you don’t notice - and it is just too much bother to make a fuss over such a small thing.

Why this time? For the truly world shattering and absolute necessity to make it a little bit more difficult to cheat at sports. Even if it were instead supposed to save lives it might be a price too high to pay

You should be concerned. Don’t just sit there. Take 5 minutes to actually do something. Complain to your MP. It is easy and completely free, just go to the ‘They work for you’ site. Enter your post code plus a few details and the site will forward your note to your MP.

If you can’t think of how to put your objection then just paste this in:

Dear Sir/Madam/etc.,

I am writing to you as my MP, my representative in Parliament to make you aware of my strong objections to Lord Moynihan’s draft bill that proposes to give the police powers to search residences for, otherwise legal drugs, that enhance athletic performance in time for the 2012 London Olympics.

Even with safeguards this legislation poses a great risk to our rights and liberties. It is a case of the proverbial hammer being used to crack the nut. All in the name of sports.

Many people require these so-called “performance enhancing” drugs on a daily basis for their health. Such legislation could theoretically mean police would have the power to search the homes of many people who have nothing to do with the Olympics.

We have seen a number of recent instances where other supposedly laudable, but draconian, legislation has effectively been trivially misused in ways we were assured would never occur when the legislation was passed, take the matter of councils spying in on household refuse for but one instance. I am sure like the rest of us you must be well aware of others.

If these powers are granted they will inevitably be used and more.

Can you please advise me, in clear language, weather you intend to represent me, my views and oppose this legislation, or not.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your reply.

yours faithfully

#your name here#

Arrested for filming changing of the guard?

Well that is interesting. It seems. The UK Government has been busy “protecting” us all from TERRORISM and ORGANISED CRIME again… oh so quietly.

Why quietly? Because as is usual when they are ”protecting” us It is at best a two edge sword, but usually just involves another mechanism that is curiously suited for oppression.

Even Dame Stella Rimmington former head of MI5 thinks the New Labour State is exploiting the fear of terrorism to restrict our civil liberties - and she ought to be able to spot it if anyone can.

So what have New Labour quietly sneaked in under the radar this time? Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act is what. It is supposedly there to stop TERRORISTS gathering intelligence on the police and Armed Services by taking pictures of them.

Now what did they do with Communists who wanted to take pictures of sensitive stuff and situations during the Cold War? Presumably arrested them for spying. They didn’t need such a law then. Presumably the government of the time had a greater regard for civil liberties.

Part of the blizzard of new laws that make it an offence to do things like commit murder on a Tuesday as opposed to say just committing murder. Then there would be committing murder on Wednesdays whilst wearing a hat…

So what does this effectively do? It gives the police the power to arrest anyone filming them or taking a picture of them, say for instance, when they are doing something that might lay them open to criticism.

It seems even the rank and file police officers feel this may be a step too far and their “union” the Police Federation have expressed concerns.

We have already had it repeatedly demonstrated that the New Labour Sate and their pet New Labour senior police officers can be relied upon to misuse any such legislation, practically as soon as it is passed to suppress political dissent and embarrassing revelations/facts. Even to the extent of having senior opposition ministers arrested.

And they have the nerve to criticise Mugabe, when he is only watching them and learning.

Good times to bury unwanted stories

Hasn’t it been a really good time to bury bad news recently…

The political equivalent of building a new overpass with lots of concrete.

Amid all the blanket reporting of the problems with the banking system and stock markets globally the MSM have had such a problem paying attention to things like the New Labour State’s obsessive desire to control and spy on it’s own Citizens.

Even 24hr news channels only seem able to find room for one or two story lines, repeated endlessly, or they cut to an empty podium and talk rubbish waiting for a speech. God forbid they should actually report a wider variety of news.

So the leopard does not change it’s spots. New Labour does not trust the citizen. It apparently does not believe the average citizen is capable enough adult enough to run their own lives and affairs.

They cannot be trusted, they need to be kept safe from the malice of others and their own stupidity. They even need to be told what they can eat and drink.

They need a patrician socialist class to govern every aspect of their lives… And if they object then doesn’t that show how foolish and irresponsible they are?

The silly citizen has a foolish traditional belief in their hard one ancient rights and liberties, but these just get in the way of shiny new legislation that the state needs to protect itself and it’s interests the public.

There is little that can be does to amend this pernicious attitude. New Labour need to be removed from power for a generation to contemplate the error of their thinking and the ripe contempt they apparently hold the citizen in. It would appear that this sort of medicine can work, ask David Cameron…

Another day, another New Labour Governemnt Database

The Nanny state, apparently deeply concerned that it is leaving us any privacy at all, is now turning it’s attention to the creation of a newsuper database to record when we make phone calls, or send emails and who to, oh and all the web sites we visit.

Of course this is purely ‘for our own good’, to protect us all from terrorism. That catchall ‘bogeyman’ excuse of the Authoritarian state, ‘protecting the citizen from the terrorist and criminal’. The same citizen that the State will not permit to defend themselves against criminals with the frequently used threat of prosecution hanging over them if they do.

A Home Office spokesman disingenuously attempted to claim that: "Changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and the investigation of crime - and use it to protect the public.

Now as far as I know it is still possible for the authorities to tap phone conversations and intercept post, within the law. They do not currently have a database of all letters sent and to whom as far as I am aware. Nor have they ever had one.

So when the spokes person claimed:"Losing the ability to use this data would have very serious consequences for law enforcement and intelligence gathering in the UK." it did not follow logically at all.

The simple fact is that the state already has access to this and more, such as emails and web useage if they suspect someone. It is going too far to monitor us all.
And we all know the State can be trusted to look after this information and not loose it on a bus, or sell it, or something.

And we all know just how much the promise of the State is worth when they say they will only use legislation only for the purpose it was framed.

...Or maybe we could ask Islandic banks about how anti terrorism legislation was recently limbered up ready to be used to freeze Islandic funds in the UK. Or how other legislation was used to silence and eject hecklers from a Labour party conference.

The Constitution/Treaty that refused to die

The Irish – Alone out of all the countries of the EU, were actually allowed to vote, to have a referendum by Europe’s politicians, on Lisbon treaty.

There is no plan ‘B’ Barroso said if they rejected the treaty. No, because there is no retreat. They will not abandon plan ‘A’.

All the rest of Europe’s politicians including the election promise breaking Gordon Brown were too fly to permit such a vote, knowing as they did it would almost certainly result in a rejection by the population of Europe the political elite are doing their best to shanghai.

Well the Irish voted decisively to reject the treaty, as would the British, had they been allowed their promised referendum - now the European political elite are desperately attempting to rescue the treaty cobbled together by Angela Mercal that was in turn to revive the rejected bankrupt constitution.

One rejection should theoretically have killed the treaty Gordon Brown so traitorously agreed to over New-Labour’s election broken manifesto promise to ratify it by referendum.

Right now the Political classes of Europe are mostly trying to pretend the Irish rejection just didn’t happen.

These people simply will not take no for an answer. What part of ‘no’ don’t they understand you might ask? They understand it all right. They are just not prepared to accept it. They have little care for democracy. They want to become a new ruling class of, well aristocracy.

It will be interesting to see what lies and contortions the go through to keep it alive or re package it. You can bet they will avoid any referendums if it is at all possible next time.

Is it the gullible favour 42 day detention?

Democracy is all very well. But it depends to some extent on the education and intelligence of the voters for it’s success. Their enlightened self interest. How deep and well they see.

We are all capable of deciding, at a basic level, if something is good or bad for us and for society.

The problem comes much more to the fore with the more complicated stuff, the deeper things.

A classic example is New–Labour's current desire to set a precedent of locking people up for 42 days. It seems that YouGov survey found that a massive 69% of the public support Gordon Brown in this, despite doubts expressed by senior police officers and many others who should know.

One can only assume that these people who support him have been gulled by the false claims of New-Labour that they can actually provide security - if only this is agreed, if only they can have more power. Until of course it proves not to provide absolute security after all, then they will want to raise it again… because things are complicated…

Also those deluded soles who support it probably think it will never be used on them, being law abiding citizens. That it is only intended to be used on foreign terrorists anyway isn’t it?

I have news for them. If a law exists, it will, sooner or later, be used. Once the precedent is set for one person to be treated in this way it opens the door for all of us to be treated that way.

Don’t forget the huge volume of ill thought out legislation New-Labour have saddled us all with since they came to power.

If you know it, or not, it is now much harder to technically speaking be a law abiding citizen than it once was, before they came to power - and often you need to prove you are innocent now, rather than they need to prove your guilt.

New-Labour used anti terror legislation to keep out an ejected party member in his 80s heckling senior party members from their own conference. It was never intended to be used in this way – but it was used that way all the same.

An excellent example of the problem of an ill informed electorate is the sort of government that they actually elect in places like Iran.

So people. Wake up and smell that coffee - or by the time they come for you too, who will be left to speak up in your defence? The price of freedom is to brief yourselves and to actually PAY ATTENTION!!

Threat of yet more laws and another huge UK State database

New-Labour’s developing fascist state moves a little closer as it’s Ministers consider plans for a vast and intrusive database of electronic information. A real move in the direction of a sinister total surveillance society.

Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.

Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.

A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.

Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.

In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.

The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.

Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.

Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.

Just how illegal should cannabis be?

Cannabis is illegal. You might not think so from general observation, but it is.

The Authoritarian State in the form of New-Labour’s Jacquie Smith wishes to make it more illegal (Class B) than it currently is (Class C), despite advice to the contrary from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Probably as much from a desire to try to pretend to be decisive, after the electoral thrashing they have just had. Dave the Bloke’s fluffy, environmentally friendly, Conservative party, hinting at it’s less fluffy antecedents, is apparently solidly with New-Labour on this.

One suspects the police would, on the whole, rather leave it where it is,

Given that the State’s policy on drugs effectively makes criminals out of (one suspects) a majority of the population - the otherwise law abiding, the question that occurs is: “What impact does this have on the population as a whole’s respect for the law?”.

One fears much the same as prohibition in the US, almost entirely negative – except for organised crime. One imagines they might pump a fair bit into lobbying for Cannabis to remain illegal…

What’s wrong with New-Labour

I was listening to some of the spin and damage limitation over New-Labour’s pretty disastrous showings in the local and London mayoral elections on Sky News this morning.

They were speaking to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, (she of being afraid to walk the streets after dark fame).

She was articulating all the excuses New-Labour seem to be developing while Gordon gets up the courage to show his face in public again and avoids the initial heat. Need to take the lesson on board and listen to the electorate, etc.

Any way she said something cut out of later repeats and I paraphrase as best I recall, about providing the leadership the electorate needed. It struck me as a bit of a Freudian slip. That’s just it – we don’t want to be told what to do by them we want to be left to live our lives in peace the way we wish to.

That is part of the whole problem with New-Labour and their natural bedfellows who seem to populate social services, education and local government, some of the upper echelons of the medical profession, etc. They seem so convinced that they know best and they will damned well force us to follow their will for our own good and we will all be grateful in the end really…

They want to control and regulate us keep record about everything and force us to prove who we are. Watch us all the time, tell us how to raise our children, what we can eat, drink and do in public and private. Make every thing illegal unless they have given specific permission, preferably controlled by expensive permit or licence that we have to pay for.

These are many of the reasons New-Labour did so badly, do they see it? Hell no! It seems the beast will never change.

WHO seeks to persecute law abiding drinkers

“A New world authoritarian order?” He types, from his secret, heavily armed bunker, somewhere in Texas ;-)

Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?

Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”

One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.

Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.

They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.

Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.

The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.

That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.

This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.

WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.

Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.

Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…

Can a child really be detained for being overweight in London?

I heard something disquieting on the radio. It was Friday just before 2 pm, one of those radio phone ins on LBC.

The caller Identified himself as a Metropolitan Police Officer. The discussion was centred around how much police time is taken up with paperwork – A truly staggering amount these days by the sound of it.

What concerned me was when the officer mentioned some sort of initiative called something like ‘Every Child Counts’, you wonder who thinks these ghastly titles up.

He was holding it up as something that eats up police time unnecessarily, but as he explained it, it sounded more than a little sinister. It bothered me that he was apparently quite willing to implement it with little concern for civil liberties, but only objected to it as a poor use of police resources.

The idea is apparently some draconian Nanny State version of concern for child welfare.

The scenario offered on the radio was: An officer sees a ‘child’ (presumably anyone apparently under the age of 17) they judge to be overweight out in public on their own.

Said officer Stops the child (on what grounds was not made clear). The child would be required to provide full details of name age address, parent’s details, etc. – again why on what grounds?

The officer would then feed the details into the ‘system’ for onward transmission to social services and possibly interview the parents, presumably after having taken the child home.

There may be more criteria involved, time, location, age. But from what the officer said it could as easily happen to a 12 year old child minding their own business on the way to a football match, in the park, on a Sunday afternoon.

If this is actually the case then it is absolutely outrageous. Truly an example of the burgeoning New-Labour fascist state at work.

A young person, detained, though presumably not officially arrested unless the officer is doubtful of the details given to them, prevented from going about their lawful business – apparently for the crime of being a little overweight.

It would be interesting if anyone can verify this or deny it.

Local Council use anti terror legislation to spy on ordinary family over school application

This is not the first time this blog has touched upon the UK’s sinister (but innocuous sounding), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Now don’t get me wrong - in this day and age there may be a place for some of the draconian measures within it. But only if kept under the tightest controls, left exclusively in the hands of the police and security services - and fiercely overseen and regulated.

As was predicted, this slapdash piece of state control legislation is being used by local councils - and who knows what other jumped up junior clerks, to spy and intrude upon ordinary people - on us.

It seems Poole Council are getting into the James Bond business, spying on school children and their parents. Petty beurocracy given powers far beyond their remit or capability.

If this act gives them the powers to do so, when it was railroaded through on the basis of countering terrorism, then it is simply yet more of New Labour’s Fascism-Lite (or maybe not so Lite anymore) at work; and deeply, morally, wrong. It should be repealed, or amended beyond recognition at the earliest opportunity.

It is part of the same mind set that uses so-called anti terror legislation and the police to violently eject and bar an 82 year old who speaks up for what they believe in from a party conference and heckled a minister. The same mindset that wants us all to have to carry ID cards to prove we have a government granted right to even exist.

It is supposed to be the other way around, we the citizen are supposed to grant the government the limited right to exist for around 4 years.

Make no mistake. If legislation exists it will, sooner or later, be used. None of us should countenance any legislation without keeping it in mind that it may be used - not as allegedly intended, or advertised, but on ordinary people.

Not just mad bombers, or criminals who ‘deserve it’ but people like you and me.

How long before they use this and other legislation to spy on you over something like your council tax, or a library book or parking ticket, for all we know they are already…

Police threaten to shoot legal team seeking order to release election results in Zimbabwe

Things do not look good for Zimbabwe.

Clearly its ruler Robert Mugabe and his cronies have no intention of giving up power. They have used the police to prevent opposition legal representatives entering court to apply for an order forcing the release of presidential election results. They went so far as threatening to shoot them if they went into court.

Zimbabwe is effectively close to being a police dictatorship, masquerading as a supposed democracy, where the results can be faked, as it’s ruler wishes. He seems to be taking a leaf out of the EU's book having presumably noted how they handle referendums.

Something went wrong this time, maybe Mugabe and his government actually believed their own lies, they misjudged the strength of feeling against them, the people briefly actually got a chance to really express their will and they lost badly. They are now working out how to correct that.

Sadly all this is apparently being silently colluded in by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, as the man most in a position to actually do something to actually help the poor people of Zimbabwe. Also to a greater or lesser extent by most of the other African states.

Things do not look good for the people of Zimbabwe.

Amnesty say Olympics are actually making things worse in China

One hears much guff that engaging the Chinese Government over the Olympic Games. There has been much talk about the possibility that the presence of western media (around 20,000 reporters) might help improve China’s human rights record.

It was not a good sign when British authorities, apparently colluding with Chinese oppression, decided to force UK athletes to sign a gag order, preventing them criticising the Chinese government, before they will allow them to attend the games. Why they felt it necessary to do this when other countries did not remains open to question.

Now it seems this may not necessarily result in an improvement after all. According to Amnesty International it is in fact making things worse.

Clearly the Chinese authorities see the prospect of any dissent as an embarrassment and are ruthlessly pre-emptively suppressing anything, or any one, that has the potential to flair up in front of the western media before they get there in numbers.

One only has to look at how they ejected reporters from Tibet and manipulated reports and figures. down playing the number of Tibetans killed by a factor of 10 or more. Or the vast numbers of troops they have sent into the country to suppress the native population.

Zimbabwe’s 'elections'

The results of Zimbabwe’s elections have still yet to be announced. The longer they take the more one worries.

It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?

The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.

Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.

It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.

I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.

If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.

Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.

The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.

Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.

Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.

Vicount claims ‘action’ is needed over ‘unregulated’ sat nav information

It seems that Crossbencher Viscount Tenby is concerned that "unregulated information" on satellite navigation systems was "causing" juggernauts to get stuck in narrow lanes unsuitable for them - and he wants come of that good old Statist Government action to solve the problem - and save the pathetic proles from themselves.

These things do happen from time to time and are reported with relish. Still I was under the impression that users of such systems were not actually compelled to obey them when they can see with their own eyes - and common sense informs them, that a gap is too narrow, or a bridge too low for their vehicle. Such errors of judgement, in extremis, are covered by the offence of driving without due care and attention. Is it possible Viscount Tenby believes otherwise?

Maybe he should address the terrible problem of "unregulated information" on ordinary maps, that, based on his logic, we must suppose ‘caused’ such incidents prior to the advent of Sat Nav systems. I recall reading tales of the odd bus taking their top deck off on a low bridge long before the advent of Sat Nav.

His use of the word ‘unregulated’ is worrying and perhaps telling, it implies he believes the information we are allowed to have access to should be ‘regulated’ - state regulated.

If there is a demand for such a facility it will probably be supplied quickly enough by the manufacturers as a 'bells and whistles' selling point. It does not need State intervention, very little actually does.

Issue of DNA records of the innocent reaches European Court

Did you wonder why Det Supt Stuart Cundy, who led the murder hunt which led to Mark Dixie's conviction, started going on about a compulsory national DNA database the other day? What his agenda might have been?

Unlike Scotland, where they take their civil liberties a wee bit more seriously, In England and Wales if the police arrest you, even if you have done nothing wrong, like the guy with the MP3 player, they will take your DNA and you will go into New Labour’s National DNA database, never to be removed.

This is unlike the tried and tested system with fingerprints where they only keep them if a person is convicted and people don’t mind giving them for elimination purposes because they know they will be destroyed afterwards.

Now the police’s practices with the DNA database is being challenged in the European Court of human rights as an infringement of an individuals right to privacy and anti-discrimination.

This database is scarily already the largest of it’s kind in the whole world.

If they win then the police will have to remove the DNA records from the system of those who have not been convicted and the system will have to work more like the fingerprint system or the Scottish system.

It is quite probable that a compulsory universal DNA database (that the police appear to be covertly working their way towards already) would indeed probably result in a few extra detections, or earlier detections of crimes.

Then again, so would electronically tagging every citizen, at their own expense, with a mini GPS system, camera and Microphone that relayed the info it recorded to a central database would too.

The question is, is the price paid in the loss of your civil liberties worth the benefits of the illusion of safety. DNA evidence can be spoofed, or compromised, by the savvy criminal and it is not always necessarily as reliable as it is imagined to be by the general public.

If they ever do manage to force a compulsory national DNA database on us by some devious means (Passports? ID Cards?). it will be great for the Authoritarians who want to check our every move.

Then there is the good old mission creep factor. What else would they get up to with the information? - One could do racial profiling in the name of medical research for instance…

One thing is certain - before long every junior civil servant and council worker in the country would have access and you could be sure they could not be trusted not to leave millions of records on a bus somewhere, or just loose them.

Best it is stopped. It comes to something when a UK citizen has to appeal to the European court to protect their civil rights from our own Government.

Tesco willing to work with the UK State (thus logically against it’s customers) on banning 'cheap' alcohol

It is interesting to note that Tesco appear to be cravenly responding to New Labour’s, authoritarian, patrician, health fascist line, that supermarkets are selling alcohol to the proletariat too cheaply.

At first thought one might wonder that some are willing to go along with anything and conjecture they may be hoping for a position of relative authority over the other prisoners in the concentration camp.

It is also quite possible that they are just boxing clever by responding to the likes of Professor Julian le Grand, when they know the only route is really even higher punitive taxation.

This is undoubtedly where the government would desperately like to go, but even they clearly realise that, without first demonising alcohol and all those who sell and drink it, this may be a step too far - even for New Labour supporters. That is why they now have their like minded medical glove puppets whipped into doing a chorus line on the subject.

Tesco's executive director for corporate and legal affairs, Lucy Neville-Rolfe, pointed out that it was actually really in the State’s hands as: "We can't put up our prices because people will simply shop elsewhere - it could be commercial suicide - and we (the supermarkets) can't act together to put up prices because that would be against competition law.”, in other words a price fixing cartel and "Supermarkets are not allowed to act together to put up prices because that would be bad for the consumer."

Tesco knows perfectly well the government can’t bypass that - or they would run afoul of the real law of the land in this respect - the EC and the European Court.

It is possible they are betting both ways… any further such pronouncements though - and I will be voting with my feet, on principle.