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.

Tory policy group wants to slap yet more tax on alcohol

One could be forgiven for wondering, what on earth the party ‘formerly known as the Conservatives’ that Dave the Chameleon leads should be called these days? ‘Symbol’ might do – something involving a white sickle and a hammer maybe - blue background of course. That tree thing looks like something a loan company would come up with…

The much heralded report by the ‘Social Justice Policy Group’, chaired by Iain Duncan Smith, former party leader, is recommending extra duty on drinks. An overall rise of 10% (3p on a pint of beer, 15 p on a bottle of wine and 25p on a bottle of whisky)

Their plan is to use it to double the amount spent on the treatment of drug and alcohol problems. Sounds sort of ok-ish on the face of it…

No doubt IDS has been listening to the Sturmtruppen of the BMA and their tales of out of control bloodshot eyed, wild haired, binge drinkers rampaging across the country, knuckles dragging with a broken bottle in one hand.

Exactly how are they defining an alcohol problem these days?

According to the Institute of Alcohol studies in 2003, the definition of binge drinking used as a benchmark in official national surveys is: Consuming double the daily guidelines in a session.

That would be 6 units (about 2/3 of a bottle of wine) for women, or 8 units (about 4 pints) for men.

So Guys, officially if you have ever had 4 pints over the course of one evening, or drunk the equivalent of a whole bottle of wine in a sitting that would make you a binge drinker by that definition. Ladies – ever had 2/3 of a bottle of wine with a meal out? You too then, binge drinker. So that would be mostly all of us, at one time, or another, then…

Doctors may well see detrimental results of drinking. These are self selected especially for them, along with the questionably ‘disabled’ and those who are apparently suffering from ‘stress’ and need to retire early on medical grounds. Even the genuinely disabled and stressed are obliged to jump through the pathetic hoop to some extent.

This is not representative of the population as a whole, anecdotal evidence suggests many people actively avoid the Dr if at all possible. Face it you need to have plenty of spare time between 9 and 5, weekdays only, to even get to see a Dr these days.

When a significant proportion of everyone they meet fall into the pathetic ‘can’t manage their own lives’ camp it is hardly surprising that Drs begin to believe it applies to the whole population, ditto the Social Services - But no excuse for health fascism.

Dave the Chameleon will reject this idea, if he has any shred of self preservation, to avoid further completely unnecessary internal rows. Still the mere fact that this group is promoting Nu-Lab’s technique of using increased taxation to attempt social engineering is a damning indictment on his party.

Why does every politician reflexively reach to increase taxation?
Many of us enjoy a drink and have no problem with alcohol, apart from the fact that it is taxed so very much more heavily in the UK than anywhere else in Europe.

Why should the sensible majority be expected to subsidise the relative few who have no self control, and/or a violent nature and use the fact that they have been drinking alcohol as an excuse?

If someone has a sufficiently bad problem surely they are likely to come to that attention of the police. Given some appearances before the beak for drunk and disorderly, ABH or GBH surely it would be more effective if a court fined them and used that to send them for treatment.

If someone sought some sort of treatment for themselves why not supply an interest free loan and arrange the treatment for them.