Something worthwhile?

The new administration has done something worthwhile. Or it will if it follows through with it You might say it has justified it’s existence.

More than the previous administration did during its entire tenure anyway.

What? - You may ask.

They are to abolish New Labour’s fascist ID card system and the sinister national Identity Register.

Let's hope they make moves towards dismantling the system designed to nationally track all under 18s too.

Further promising indications towards the restoration personal liberties and freedoms are that they are considering making changes to how the National DNA database is administered and functions.

One hopes that before too long there will be a move to purge the records of innocent people that Labour were so keen to collect. The police never kept innocent people’s fingerprints, elimination prints were disposed of after use. There is no reason why DNA can not be treated the same and it might make people more willing to provide it for elimination purposes if they knew it would be disposed of after.

It looks as if the biometric passport may also go the way of all flesh and public CCTV cameras may be reigned back to some extent.

If the coalition administration actually manages to deliver on any of these it establishes it as more concerned for the citizen’s liberty and rights than the previous authoritarian Labour administration.

Last one out the box close the lid

What a difference a day makes - as the song goes.

It seems the UK is to have a coalition government.

Things looked pretty bad over the last day or so. This by contrast to that seems not quite so worrying.

We are seeing a hint of light at the end of the tunnel and hoping against hope it is not the 17:15 to Cambridge and we are not all about to become the stuffed toy on the front of the dust cart, to mix and match metaphors.

Suddenly being polite and reasonable seems to be the order of the day. I do wonder about the timing of Gordon Brown's resignation and if it's timing was designed to strain the chances of a Liberal Democrat/Progressive Conservative Coalition.

Suddenly everyone is busy saying what a statesman he was as if he was dead, I guess he is politically - so I shall refrain from mentioning any inconvenient truths, the gold reserve or pachyderms quietly milling about in the corner of the room.

Experience suggests that the chances are a coalition is likely to come apart at the seams. Driven apart by internal fault lines when push really comes to shove - look at the Lib-Lab pact. Things are certainly going to get difficult before they get any easier, are the Lib Dems up to it?

Still maybe Cameron and Clegg are really serious about government in the national interest and may really be able to drag enough of their parties along with them.

One way they could save a huge amount of money would be to demand Thatcher's negotiated payments discount back from the EU that Blair blithely gave away. Maybe ask for a bigger one of their own.

The UK pays a disproportionately large amount in to the EU to pay for civic improvements in the likes of Portugal and allow French farmers to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed, etc.

Not likely to happen one suspects what with Nick being a Europhile, still it would plug a big hole in the nation's finances.

Maybe we’ll get the best of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative policies and less useful ones will somehow cancel each other out.. Keeping each other honest with each party will acting like the other’s watchdog.

Maybe to save money they will have to hold back the expansion of the state and buy us some breathing space. Maybe some of them will actually even want to do that. Shame that the Liberal Democrats, like Labour and in favour of robbing the dead in the form of low thresholds on inheritance tax. Penalising the south disproportioantely.

I am keeping my fingers crossed - but I am also keeping an umbrella handy against the chance flying pigs coming home to roost turn out to have minimal bowel control.

Goodness knows we need politicians to get over confusing the national interest with their party's interest or even their own personal interest. The thought of them actually doing it seems almost too much to hope for or to actually believe.

Still, they say a cynic is a disappointed optimist, It seems there is a tiny bit of optimist left in me that can still occasionally and probably briefly surface...

It’s only a tiny ‘Obama moment’ of hope that I’ll probably pay for later.

Janus

There is something inherently dishonest about the Liberal Democrat's current attempt to appeal to voters.

They are desperate to keep facing in both directions and be all things to all people, including new.

Nick Clegg and his advisors are perfectly well aware that for many disaffected Conservative and Labour supporters an x in their box is a protest vote against their own parties.

Many disaffected Conservative supporters could never bring themselves to vote Labour, but feel it is important to vote, so they vote Liberal, less so in a general election that in Local elections, but they definitely do it.

The same holds true for disaffected Labour supporters. They also can convince themselves that the Liberal Democrats are enough like Labour to vote for them.

So Nick Clegg's dilemma is he needs support from both disaffected Conservative and disaffected Labour supporters. To do this he has to play coy with who and what the Liberal Democratic Party are.

Even today on the eve of the election when directly asked Nick still desperately avoids answering that question as to who he might support in a hung parliament.

He needs Conservative Supporters to see him as practically Conservative and a potential partner to a Hung Parliament Conservative Government and Labour Supporters to see him as practically Labour and a likely potential partner in a possible hung pearliest Labour government.

Obviously the two positions are mutually exclusive. One group of supporters that he is so assiduously attempting to woo are going to be severely disappointed if there is a hung parliament.

Nick Clegg of course wants to put off betraying them and blowing his carefully implied political fellowship until after they have voted for him and it is too late.

If he can get his hands on power just once for just long enough he can push for whatever change in the electoral system most favours his own party at the expense of the others and possibly the UK too.

The Liberal party is dreaming being serious contenders - for the fist time since the Great War.

Oh... remember how sanctimonious Nick Clegg was over Gordon Brown's Gillian Duffy open mike gaff? He had his own moment, maybe he should have been a little less self satisfied about Gordon's


Janus, or Ianus, was the god of gates, doors & doorways, bridges and passages of beginnings and endings. He was also the god of the entrance of the home.

Welcom to A new US president

Today is the inauguration of President Elect Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. Arguably one of the most powerful offices on the planet.

There is an incredible optimism associated with this particular inauguration. It is seen as a sea change in US politics and society. It is doubly poignant as it comes after Martin Luther King Jnr’s day and is in many respects the realisation of his dream.

Everyone speaks of a black president. As someone pointed out to me it is largely in people’s minds. Barak Obama is in fact 50% black and that somehow makes him just “black”. You could use the same logic to say he was “White”.

Whatever, many people have invested a huge amount of hope in him. Maybe they should dial back on that just a little? He is human, not a superman. He does not have a magic wand.

If people build him up unrealistically in their minds they are likely to be correspondingly unrealistically disappointed if he can’t deliver on their every wish.

So here is a hope that people don’t expect too much and too fast and then get annoyed if he can’t do miracles. Especially with all the troubles the world is beset with right now.

Between Memorial Bridge and Arlington Cemetery, there is an inscription on the memorial to the Seabees, the U.S. Navy Construction Battalions. It says:

“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer.”

If the cap fits

It’s generally considered a bad sign for democracy - in any country, when it’s government starts having members of the opposition arrested in order to intimidate or to prevent them from exposing it’s incompetence, mistakes, or shenanigans.

We all look on with disapproval at such regimes, and I am sure we can all think of examples in South America, Africa and on our own continent.

Often the population is too supine, or cowed to protest.

I have pointed out on a number of occasions that New-Labour is in the habit of passing draconian legislation with the alleged purpose of combating “terrorism” and “Organised crime”. If anyone raised any concerns over it’s misuse then they are accused of being "soft on crime", etc.

We always hear the lie trotted out, to suppress the natural concerns of those who do care about liberty, that “if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”. The BBC can usually find a gullible old lady, or bereaved parent, to back the claim up.

Well “anti terror” legislation is actually repeatedly used by the current government and it’s minions to do things like eject elderly party members from party conference who loudly tell one or two home truths too many.

It is used by local officials to spy on large numbers of ordinary members of the public to establish if they are committing such terrorist related offences as fibbing about their addresses on a school application forms, or putting their rubbish out on the wrong day, or over filling their rubbish bins…

Or it seems... if you happen to be a senior opposition member of the shadow cabinet trying to expose New-Labour’s habitual lies and spin, then it is used to arrest and attempt to silence you.

Worse still it tramples on parliamentary privilege.

Not just anti terror legislation was used this time - but elite anti terror officers were used to do the deed too...

One wonders if anyone in government felt now would be an excellent time to bury this particular “bad news”, what with the terrible events that have unfolded in Bombay.

It is a shame the Anti terror officers weren’t devoting themselves to actual anti terror work of some sort. It’s not like the Indian government probably couldn’t do with them looking to see what they can find out here that might possibly be of help.

It is only half tongue in cheek to conjecture how long before they get a trendy uniform redesign, possibly involving lots of black, calf length leather boots… and their own special logo on their collars, or lapels?

It is perhaps as well for Mr clunking fist, Gordon “Stalin” Brown, that the current opposition never used such tactics when he was in opposition, he was very fond of political leaks then and his ministers still are - when it is to his advantage.

Worryingly the senior ranks of the UK’s police seem to have long since been purged of virtually anyone interested in actually trying to keep law and order, or provide the sort of service and presence the public actually want. These days it appears to be largely run by New-Labour apparatchiks and mostly occupied with/driven by directives and policies that are designed to help give the bogus impression the state is meeting it’s targets…

When it isn’t using anti terror legislation in ways it was never intended on the state’s behalf.

One can’t help but wonder - the cynical amoungst us will have noted the outgoing Met Commissioner Ian, Blair has a reputation for being “comfortable” with the New-Labour state and is outgoing because he has been popularly ousted by London’s new Conservative Mayor.

Probably nothing to do with the latest incident though...

It is truly difficult to believe even the most insensitive, incompetent, flatfoot would have blundered in so heavy handily, or even at all, entirely on their own. One would have thought self preservation alone would have made even the brain dead think twice...

One can’t help but think they must have felt their actions would go down well at the highest level. Certainly condemnation of their actions, or Speaker Martins inaction, have been slow in coming from New-Labour’s front bench.

One hopes that complaints will be made against the officers involved for their, quite possibly illegal activity. Behaviour that strikes at the heart of the way, what is left of, our parliamentary democracy functions. They should be suspended pending the outcome of a parliamentary investigation and hopefully disciplined.

I would have thought it was in the country's interest to have things like the fact that the home office were employing illegal immigreants to look after their security, and the incompetence of those who employed them, exposed to parliamentary scrutiny. Rather than allow the home office to use possibly illegal big brother tactics to conceal such things.

This should be part of an MPs job. It is in the public interest. He should not be arrested whan he does it.

Civil wars were fought over this matter in the days when parliament had more intestinal fortitude.

Girl Power?

It is interesting to note that Obama was doing well, in front in the polls…

Until Palin became a factor...

Now the race for the Whitehouse appears to be far more even. She appears to strike a chord with many voters. It will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Bumper stickers

I was driving through our nearest town today.

I noticed a bumper sticker on the vehicle in front. It said: “I love my country - I just don’t trust it’s government.”

It made me chuckle.

Is the UK state just too big?

Is it too big? If you have visited this blog in the past then my opinion will be quite clear to you - Of course it is..

This article By Iain Martin in the Telegraph examines the matter intelligently and is well worth a read.

Time to roll back the state.

What’s the point of petitioning the UK PM?

The state was petitioned to withdraw from the European Union (EU) on the grounds that it is of no benefit to the UK any longer, being a gross waste of money that should not be funded by the taxpayer any longer. That it was an unelected, bureaucratic bloc constantly infringing national sovereignty. It attracted several thousand signatures and is by no means the only petition making similar points.

The State’s response demonstrates a certain contempt for the signatory’s ability to detect bullshit. They say:

“Membership of the European Union has brought significant benefits to the UK, in terms of wealth, jobs, peace and security.”

But fail to actually back this claim with any facts whatsoever.

Security - We are expected to believe that it was the presence of the EU and not, to pluck a random example out of thin air, say... N.A.T.O. that has guaranteed the peace in Western Europe since WWII? Very amusing…

They go on:
”Through the EU, we belong to the world's biggest trading bloc. Over half of British trade is with Europe. An estimated three and a half million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU,

They fail to mention that prior to this through the Commonwealth we belonged to the world’s biggest trading bloc. Much of our trade was with its members and staggeringly huge numbers of British jobs were linked to exports to it. As were countless jobs throughout the Commonwealth. We shall not dwell on the detrimental impact the effective dismantling of much of this trade had, or how much persists to this day

They witter on…
“..and our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe and to receive free medical care if we fall sick on holiday.”

Of course Brits were never allowed to travel to Europe or live there before this – Not.

Curiously enough many British people went to live and work in other commonwealth countries and similarly nationals of those countries did as well, Brits to Canada and the antipodes, Aussies to the UK, Canada, etc. etc.

As for free medical care if you do travel to Europe you would be a fool not to have travel insurance - including medical cover.

They continue ”Improved maternity pay, strengthening of rights to paid holidays and now the reduction in mobile phone calls when abroad are just some of the practical benefits the EU has helped deliver. And as part of the EU, the UK is better able to deal with global issues like environment and world trade, and tackle problems like crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.”

Phone calls! Get real… Maternity right, paid holidays.. Get real. The fact is being in the EC massively limits our options to improve things because either we gave up the power or it would be trading on euro toes.

Finally the stench of bovine faeces becomes almost overwhelming…”T he question of whether we should remain in the (then) EEC was put to a referendum in 1975, which passed convincingly. The government sees no case for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU today.”

They fail to point out that this was spun at the time as a trading partnership and noting more. No Superstate ruled by unelected commissioners were mentioned then, not EU ambassadors or embassies. That vote was on something else, the British public were conned with false information.. It is a probability approaching certainty that if they had so much of an inkling of what they were actually voting for at the time they would have rejected utterly.


”It is clear that by working together with other European countries, we can achieve much more in terms of promoting peace and stability, economic prosperity, environmental protection and a range of other important issues than we could achieve by ourselves.” an entirely unsupported set of claims here…

They go on to inform us disingenuously that: ”Successive opinion polls show that public support for a total withdrawal from the EU is relatively low. An ICM poll in August showed that - showed that approximately 21% of respondents favoured a total withdrawal from the EU.”

They fail to point out that the vast majority wish to halt any further integration and claw thing back to pre EU, EEC levels.

They also fail to mention that New-Labour are currently badly governing the UK on the basis of the support of a mere 22% of the British electorate at the 2005 general Election. Based upon the results of the recent local elections we may suppose it is now considerably more precarious than that…

On that basis it is easy to argue that public support for New-Labour is little greater than it is for total withdrawal from the EU

So is there a point to the government’s petition website? Or bothering to post, or sign the petitions? Not much by the look of it…

A short comment on Mme Sarkozy and ‘that’ picture

The Sarkozys are on a state visit to the UK. President Sarkozy really seems to be looking to improve/upgrade the relationship between the UK and France. He looked smart, hansom and businesslike, his wife Carla, a former model, looked beautiful, cool and sophisticated when meeting the Royals.

As mentioned she is a former model and there is in existence a tasteful enough nude photo of her, taken before she ever imagined she might ever became the ‘first lady’ of France, that is going to be auctioned at Christies.

There is nothing she need be embarrassed about, she was honestly making her independent way in the world and that was a part of it. It owes something in style to the French artist Georges Seurat. If it were in oils no one could argue that it wasn’t tasteful art.

But the good old UK tabloids seldom fail to make us look like lowlifes. The visit proved and opportunity too tempting for them miss. They published the picture together with a leering two faced “Welcome to Great Britain, Madame Sarkozy”.

If it was not intended to be a calculated insult it could easily be taken as such. It could certainly be represented as such by anyone so inclined. Especially if they considered the politics of the tabloid and the government.

If a paper wished to publish the picture, maybe it would perhaps have been better to have done so before the visit, or wait until it was done. Or better still just printed an article to accompany it rather than trying to be ‘clever’.

Every bond you break

This week I shall mostly be posting little, or nothing, as the opportunities will be few and far between. In any event one begins to wonder what the point is anyway - I am having a ‘Clegg’ moment on the futility of attempting to impede the unstoppable New Labour Fascist-Lite TM juggernaut, though unlike Clegg I am not inclined to actually assist them.

I was watching a music channel the other night with Mrs CFD when who should come on but The Police - no not the protest song the police have coined to remind the reluctant to venture out after dark Jacqui Smith of the fact that New Labour have decided to ignore the system that sets their pay because it is inconvienient for them.

I am talking about Sting (Gordon Sumner), Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland, The Police. They were playing Every breath you take and I had a little epiphany - don’t worry I cleaned up after myself ;-).

Sting said of it; “The tune itself is generic, an aggregate of hundreds of others, but the words are interesting. It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realise at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.”

But the thing that occurred to me is that it almost perfectly encapsulates what politicians are to the voter - and the ‘relationship’ the voter should have with the politician. They really should represent and in a sense belong to the voter, as should parliament.

It works very well as a song for the voter to sing, as a model of how the voter should relate to the politician (watch them like a hawk), with the possible exception of the four lines beginning “Since you've gone…”.

So here is a version for the voter to take to their heart, without those lines. I have changed them, but if you think you can do better - comments, baby, baby, please…

So let’s call it, a:

Quote of the Day

Every breath you take.
Every move you make.
Every bond you break.
Every step you take.
I'll be watching you.

Every single day.
Every word you say.
Every game you play.
Every night you stay.
I'll be watching you.

Oh can't you see, you belong to me?
How my poor heart aches, with every step you take.

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.

If it’s gone my liberty is lost without a trace.
It’s a loss, that I just don’t care to face.
It’s one thing that you really can’t replace.
So I try, to make sure that it’s not the case…….

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.

Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.......

PM’s Kiss of death for Martin

It’s been looking as though the red faced one, Michael Martin, Speaker of the house of Commons, bearer of the huge chip on his shoulder, would be able to ride out the scandal over his expenses - Especially as he is in charge of investigating them himself…

“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.

Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.

And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…

His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.

No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .

Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.

But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)

Definitely something to think about

Beaman’s World had an interesting post the other day.

It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:

Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.

If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.

There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.

Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…

Go read the post.

Conservatives want to be the 'Party of the NHS'

It seems that Dave the Chameleon has aspirations to make the Conservatives the “Party of the NHS“ replacing New-Labour.

Another general fighting the last war.

It is blatantly obvious that New Labour couldn’t manage the NHS to save their lives (or it seems those of the rest of us). What is amazing is that Dave thinks he could do better.

Realistically it is possible he might do a little better, as it would be difficult to be quite as incompetent and clumsy as Gordon & Co, but it needs more than that.

The underlying problem with the NHS is that it is run by the state on a national basis. It will do no good to put a State Quango in charge of it either, that would probably just make it worse and soak up yet more tax.

Health care in this country needs a radical shake up. Maybe the State, if it wants to be involved so desperately, should consider limiting it’s involvement to providing a basic level of health ‘insurance’ and let the medical profession manage the system.

It should get out of the management of health completely - and not institute detailed control through legislation instead.

Something like the systems operating in quite a few European countries such as Germany, Holland and Ireland. They could include coverage for compensation for loss of work due to illness.

Such a system could easily still be ‘free’ at the point of delivery and might even allow people to visit the dentist again.

If a Hospital was failing, then patients could take their custom elsewhere. If a new hospital was needed then it could be built by subscription, or privately. If there was demand it would do well if not then it would close and not waste taxpayer’s money. If people wanted smaller cleaner more local hospitals and the demand was there then they would be successful.

Quote of the day

“ Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them”

Peter Ustinov

Chavez meets his match

During the closing speeches of the 17th Ibero-American Summit (a sort of Spanish version of the meeting of commonwealth head of states) on Saturday evening, in Santiago, Chile. Venezuelan President Hugo Chav-ez barracked the Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, keeping interrupting his speech.

Eventually it got too much and probably with the prospect of getting out of there any time soon receding before his eyes, the Spanish King Carlos demanded; "¿Por qué no te callas?"("Why don't you shut up?") - As one head of state to another.

Probably not the first, by any means, to harbour those sentiments, but one of the few able to say it to his face.

Quote of the day

“ One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them:

It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Another problem with governing people is people.”

Douglas Adams

UK Police Chief advocates legalisation of drugs

Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales has announced that he will be ‘campaigning hard’ for drugs such as heroin to be legalised.

This has attracted reflex criticism from certain politicians.

Nu-Lab’s Mark Tami, MP for Alyn and Deeside attacked the idea, in an unconscious self parody, as "blinkered and dangerous". Fair enough, if that’s what he genuinely thinks and it is not politician noise.

But he went on: "As 280,000 Class A drug users are responsible for half of all crime, taking the risk of legalising such a dangerous drug is foolhardy and I would not wish to gamble so much on the health and wellbeing of our children."

Parse that sentence again - That is three statements that do not follow on one from another.

Clearly, like much of the government, the man is not strong on joined up thinking, or following through a train of thought to a logical conclusion.
Why exactly is it that drug users are responsible for so much crime?

The policeman Richard Brunstrom knows. It is because illegal drugs are expensive and addicts regularly commit crime to acquire enough money to regularly support their habit. Committing crime like that is an effort for a heroin addict, one they would probably prefer to avoid if they had the choice.

They also often end up with product of unknown strength and quality often dangerously adulterated, to the extent where they get the dose wrong and die.

When addicts use a substance that interferes less with their ability to function and earn, like cocaine and when they earn enough they do not go out to commit crime to support their habit, they just buy it with honestly acquired cash.

Many addicts are driven to commit crime because they can not afford to support their habit any other way.

If addicts such as heroin users could support their habit cheaply and legally they would at least not need to commit crime to support their habit and would be less at risk from misjudging the dose. They might even be more willing to seek help giving up as it could finally be dealt with openly.

Now looking at the matter of crime in a wider context. We all know how prohibition, during the early part of the last century in the US, fostered and promoted the growth of organised crime. The same factors are at work in the case of drugs, except it is not just organised crime that profits from the illegal trade in drugs, terrorists get funding from it also.

Get regulated legal control over the market and you cut off funding to organised crime and terrorism. It should also remove the root cause for much day to day crime, a huge economic drain of society and a source of inconvenience and misery to many of it’s victims.

Nu-Lab and Gordon Broon Breeks take note, you also have a new source of Tax revenue - and a chance to actually meet one of your precious ill thought out targets for once.

TV & Internet ‘cold turkey’

From time to time one reads of people, who as an experiment, go without TV, the internet, etc. Sometimes they appear to make heavy going of it.

I am a pretty heavy user of the internet and I usually watch at least an hour of news per day, Plus there are the papers.

I do not see myself as a news and politics junky - but I do generally take a keen interest.

In any event I have just had a two week break from TV and didn’t even rally think about it ‘till the initial idea of technology withdrawal surfaced in my mind. Ditto the internet – and I am normally a heavy user. I must confess to having read a couple of newspapers though…

I just got by with convivial conversation, reading books, sight seeing, swimming, good food, drink and relaxation.

I suppose it may have been different if I had to go without them in my normal day to day routine, but I can honestly say, that I missed them so little on holiday that I didn’t even consciously notice their absence.

UK Police Chief calls for price controls, tax hikes - and increases in police powers

The government campaign, publicly spearheaded by NU-Lab’s John Grogan, to raise extra revenue on alcohol gathers pace and now they have got Nu-Labs ‘politicised policemen’ weighing in amongst others.

The Chief Constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahy, (surprise, surprise) wants yet more police powers to stop drinking in the street and is urging his political masters to increase taxation on alcohol and raise the legal drinking age to 21.

Jon Stoddart, the Chief Constable of Durham Police, is supporting his ‘suggestions’ as “sensible” and the Chief Constable Northumbria Mike Craik is also calling for hikes in taxation on alcohol.

Maybe if these highly paid (evidently ineffective when it comes to drunks) police managers actually bothered effectively enforcing the existing applicable laws in those locations where it may be needed, before demanding new ones they might have more credibility.

Chief Constable Fahy amply demonstrates his authoritarian anti free market tendencies by also demanding the Government set price controls on alcohol. Calling for a high minimum price to be set for alcohol that it will be illegal to reduce, or discount.

"The supply of alcohol should not be left to the market," he liberally remarked…

This man is actually rather scary. This is a precedent we should never allow to be established.