They Just Don’t Get It

So, Kelvin Mackenzie might step in to be Gordon Brown’s stooge stand against David Davis in the Haltemprice & Howden by-election. I hope Kelvin knows what he is letting himself in for by coming onto the other side of the media/victim fence. I would find it difficult to see Mackenzie, given his tabloid background, not getting personal in the campaign. This by-election was looking to be genuinely about the issue – if Mackenzie loses the plot then he will find himself reaping a whirlwind.

Add to the mix the fact that quite a few people will think that anything Murdoch/Mackenzie is for they are against, then I would say “bring it on”.

Of course, Kelvin has said he will do it if Labour don’t put anyone up themselves.

Thing is, Labour just don’t get it. Labour blogger Luke Akehurst, for example, is getting a good old kicking for suggesting, as indeed Nick Robinson was heard doing last night, that Labour should get a terrorist victim or retired Army or Police type to stand. Rachel from North London has put him firmly in his place as regards the first suggestion, and I can’t think of too many retired police or armed forces officers who would even give the government the time of day, with broken promises on pay rises, overstretched forces (both police and armed) and servicemen still at risk because of poor equipment. This seems to be a more specific form of the Yasmin Alibhai Brown “you are black/muslim/poor therefore you must vote Labour” way of thinking.

Labour – and indeed too many of the Westminster media - do seem to genuinely believe that there must be a grubby tactical motive to Davis’ actions, and that the Tories must have been just looking to give Gordon Brown a bloody nose on Wednesday. With a combination of arrogance and naivety, they sneer with derision the invocation of the principles of Magna Carta and feign deafness when mention is made of setting the boundaries of the State – presumably because the State is good, boundaries suggest constraints and why would one want to constrain Good?

Anyhow, one way or another it looks like there certainly will be a by-election. More interesting is how the last couple of days will affect that other parliamentary by-election in Henley….

David Davis Resigns

OK, so it’s a developing story – even as I had to break off to change a nappy (not mine) things have moved on – so what follows is something of a collection of random thoughts right now.

DD has given a spectacular demonstration of principle, and on a principle that I support. Reports were that he would restand as an independent (a position which his association seems to be supporting), but then Cameron says he will campaign for DD. I guess the “Independent” thing might be simply a condition of the no-stand deal with Clegg, though I doubt many Lib Dems will actually come out and campaign for DD anyway.

In fact, from the LibDem view point this isn’t good. Some will be disgusted that they aren’t fighting the by-election anyway and may even resign from the party in protest. Good. More to the point, I don’t see how the Clegg had much choice. DD has clearly made 42 days the touchstone issue, and even the multi-faced Libs could hardly oppose that one on the ground.

With Cameron publicly declaring his support for DD’s re-election campaign, presumably the various parts of the party machine, post 26^th June (Henley) will be able to head up to Heltemprice and Howden to work there, albeit with white rosettes on?

What is already clear is that the initial chatter on the media about this being a falling out between Cameron and Davis is some way off the mark. That’s not to say that they are the best of buddies, but Cameron has moved quickly to show that this is about the erosion of individual freedom under Labour, of which 42 days is the latest, and a precursor to the monstrosity of the National Identity Database.

Of course, if Gordon Brown had any political nous, he woudl announce asap (ideally before the 6 o’clock bulletins) that Labour would not contest, thus making a go of rendering the whole episode a half day wonder. Then again, if Gordon Brown had any political nous….

They’re At it Again

Blast by Pakistan Danish embassy

No, not the dodgy headline writing by our national broadcaster (how can an embassy cause a blast? Where is Pakistan Denmark?) but those who think that the appropriate response to a few pen marks on paper is to try and kill the artist’s countrymen.

It has reminded me that I have been rather remiss in not adding the appropriate graphic to my sidebar.

Nanny Knows Best … Who To Give Your Private Details To

Surely I’m not the only one who finds this somewhat sinister?

Data on people with low incomes could be shared with energy companies to help people pay their fuel bills.

The government wants to share details so extra cash from suppliers, as well as existing grants, can be better targeted at the elderly and vulnerable.

…

This could see information about who is on certain benefits shared with the suppliers, although new legislation would be needed to do this.

Age Concern director general Gordon Lishman said that the sharing of data was “controversial, but justified”.

Nanny not only knows best, but knows to pass your confidential financial details onto a third party who has no business knowing what your income level is without your permission.

This is the government that wants us to believe that not only are our details in safe hands in the form of HMRC, but that all the eggs that will be held in the basket of the National Identity Database will be equally immune from danger. Yet, with the irrepressible and naïve belief in the benign benevolence of the state that only socialists can muster, they then propose handing over thousands of people’s highly personal financial details to the energy companies.

“Oh, but they can opt out” comes the usual refrain … yes, but presuming that this scheme seems to be aimed at those who cannot use a price comparison website (though see below), then what value is an opt-out provision?

In any case, two other points come out of this:

1) If the increase in “fuel poverty” is being fuelled (sorry) by the rise in energy prices, and the government is making significantly more from fuel taxes as a result, then surely the good socialist wealth-redistributing way of doing things would be to increase the winter fuel allowance?

2) In the case of some of the older generation, they don’t like to claim special circumstances or “plead poverty” - they are too proud … or simply unaware. That being the case, will they be at all impressed that their personal financial circumstances are being officially leaked to the “gas board”? And isn’t there an underlying and insulting assumption at play here that the elderly are too thick to work it out for themselves if you just pointed them in the right direction?

Unseasonal Rant

Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay says British restaurants should be fined if they serve fruit and vegetables which are not in season.

He told the BBC that fruit and vegetables should be locally-sourced and only on menus when in season.

Mr Ramsay said he had already spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown about outlawing out-of-season produce.

I’ve come to regard Gordon Ramsey as something like a car crash. You just can’t help watching, even though I wouldn’t want anything to do with him if I found my vocation in a commercial kitchen. In fact, a past boss of mine was something like the accountancy world’s answer to Ramsey, even down to the language – yet he wasn’t a bad teacher, and I have no doubt that if that style of instruction suits you, then you’ll do well under him.

Yet Ramsey has made a second career out of barking orders and profanities at anyone who doesn’t match his standards or views, but like most Lefties (for clearly that is what he is), he doesn’t appreciate the quantum leap that is translating what he does in his own life into an imposition on everyone else’s.

If Ramsey wants his own restaurants only to serve local seasonal food then that’s fine. For everyone else, it’s their choice. As for fining chefs for not agreeing with Gordon, it fails the acid test: if this is to be a crime, where’s the victim?

(Actually, even his own restaurants don’t serve local, seasonal food, as Nick Ferrari this morning pointed out on LBC, when he examined the menu for one of Ramsey’s places: pineapples, unseasonal pears, raspberries and the like. Oh dear, Gordon, bit of a kitchen nightmare there, eh?)

And to bring the debate onto the free trade = fair trade meme, if all the guilt-ridden western liberals stop buying Kenyan green beans and coffee, how long before the Independent carries front pages decrying the poverty in African economies caused by this Western quasi-protectionism?

Not a good week for Islam

Not a good week for Islam (again).

The Gibbons case in Sudan has brought a welcome condemnation from the Muslim Council of Britain, which claims to represent the Muslim community in Britain. They are “appalled” and have demanded that Mrs Gibbons be released. I agree. They then continue:

“This is a disgraceful decision and defies common sense. There was clearly no intention on the part of the teacher to deliberately insult the Islamic faith,” (my italics)

I must say, that does rather imply that had she deliberately set out to insult Islam then the MCB would be happy to see her whipped. It is sad that the MCB isn’t criticising the principle of a criminal code which includes an offence of insulting a religion.

Not that I would condone someone in an Islamic country going out of their way to insult the religion - but I say that simply on the basis that it is bad manners in a foreign country not to respect (to a point) the host culture. I certainly, though, do think that criminalising blasphemy is one more step on a slippery slope – the next stage being criminalising political dissent. Why should insulting a religion be any worse then insulting someone’s politics?

But of course, Sudan isn’t exactly a haven of free speech or defender of human rights, is it?

Alisher Usmanov - Not A Very Nice Man?

The blogosphere has been united in it’s defence of Craig Murray and others whose hosting company Fasthosts was bullied into taking down Murray’s blog after Schillings, lawyers for Arsenal Ambramovich-wannabe Alisher Usmanov, threatened legal action. Schillings, it seems, have a lot to learn about how the internet works and even more about how parliamentary privilege works, be it Westminster or Europe. England Expects fills us in…

Tonight, during the Saryusz-Wolski report “Towards a common European foreign policy on energy” the Euro realist MEP Tom Wise will use parliamentary privilege to spell out the allegations against Alisher Usmanov. He has been talking to Craig Murray to ensure that the allegations are accurate and to the point.

The purpose of the debate is to discuss the creation of a single energy policy for Europe controlled by an European Energy Minister (or in Eurocratese a “High Official”).

As Mr Usmanov is in the words of Murray who “who ordered the cutting off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year” this is extremely relevant to the debate.

Under the rules governing parliamentary privilege, any news organisation can repeat what has been said in the Parliament chamber, allowing the MSM to circumvent the legal threats being thrown about by Usmanov’s lawyers Schillings.

The Grauniad Sports Section this morning mentions Usmanov’s colourful past, I expect more will emerge over the next couple of days.

Last Sunday, Perry at Samizdata was reflecting on the implications of the affair and how easy it is to dodge the toys being hurled from Usmanov and Schillings’ prams, thanks to the U.S. First Amendment.

A slippery slope

After I came across this piece of news recently, like Croydonian I was certainly heartened. Our Scandinavian cousins are once again standing up for free speech and democracy. After many years of left liberal rule, Sweden’s new-ish centre right government was slowly turning the country back towards the sunlit uplands. Alas, though Reinfeldt and his colleagues have surely been doing some good stuff, there is still a lot of work to do, not just judging by this story but also this one:

A 16-year-old boy from western Sweden is facing prosecution after performing a Nazi salute in a school music lesson.

The boy made the salute during a performance of Swedish singer-songwriter Magnus Uggla’s song För Kung och Fosterland (roughly translated: ‘For King and Country’). He was singing the song in a music lesson at his school in Trollhättan.

The performance was filmed by one of the boy’s classmates on his mobile phone. The film is now being used as evidence by prosecutors, who plan to put him on trial for Agitation Against a National or Ethnic Group.

Now I am aware that many might find the Nazi salute offensive, as I am of any apparent admiration of murderous regimes, including Stalin’s (both Uncle Joe and Hitler being simply extreme socialists whose differences only true pedants would discern). Even so, it is a very slippery slope when you start criminalising a mere gesture or even instance of speech. Sure, there are limits on incitement to violence, but this is a schoolkid making an immature attempt at humour or provocation. We see this trend in Germany and Austria, among other places, where Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. Now I think deniers should be pitied, persuaded of the error of their logic, even mocked – but locked up just because they express a point of view that is against the majority consensus? Or as in this case, prosecuted because they make a mere fascist gesture? Isn’t that a bit, err, fascist?

(You will note I have dispensed with the ubiquitous neurotic-liberal prologue to this post about how I am not a supporter of fascism, not a racist, etc, etc – I am taking that as read and so will not insult your intelligence.)

Nurse!

A senior judge appears to have forgotten his pills and has begun talking cobblers.

The whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has said.
Lord Justice Sedley told BBC News the current England and Wales database, which holds DNA from crime suspects and scenes, was “indefensible”.
He added it would be fairer to include “everybody, guilty or innocent” on it.

Sedley LJ says it is unfair for those who have fallen into the hands of the police at some time have their DNA on record, but those who don’t have run-ins with the Old Bill are absent from the database.

Oh dear. Where do we start?

Compulsory registration will require, presumably, so form of coercion. What if I don’t want to give a swab? Will I be convicted of a criminal offence. If so, where, pray tell, would be the victim of said “crime”?

What my Lord Sedley is arguing is it is wrong for those who have passed through police hands but are innocent/acquitted to remain on the database. Fair point, perhaps, so why does he say that the only option is to expand the database to cover the whole population (and more)? One could argue the prison population probably contains a handful of wrongly convicted people, so instead everyone should spend some time in the slammer, just to be “fair”. Surely instead he should be arguing for tighter controls over how “innocent” DNA is held?

I know this will bring out of the woodwork the “if you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve nothing to hide” brigade. Yet:
(a) If I’ve done nothing wrong, why do I have to prove my innocence? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
(b) I’m sure there were plenty of Jews, homosexuals, immigrants in Germany in 1933 who felt they’d done nothing wrong. The point is, who decides what is worth hiding and when? As Professor Stephen Bain says in the same article:

“The DNA genie can’t be put back in the bottle. If the information about you is exposed due to illegal or perhaps even legalised use of the database, in a way that is not currently anticipated, then it’s a very difficult situation.”

One last thing: aren’t the judiciary supposed to be the final safeguard of our freedoms in the legal system? Is the time getting closer when I should be buying that remote cottage in the Highlands and stocking up on ammunition?

Nannying the nannies

Parenthood brings with it an insight into many issues that previously I had taken only a passing interest in at best, some of which seem to rank as holy wars. The current one that has caught the notice of the recently enlarged Reddin family is the breast milk vs. formula milk debate. In fact, I have probably learnt more about breasts in the last few weeks than in all my adolescent years.

Now I don’t think anyone would deny that breast milk is best – it’s the most natural food and full of good antibodies, nutrients, etc, etc. However, there are many who would, as part or all of their baby’s diet, use formula for various reasons - often practical, sometimes medical - without any problems. Ultimately that should be their informed choice as parents.

And there’s the problem. Choice. There are some who would deny that choice and - yes, you guessed it - they are looking to the State to do their bidding.

Baby milk ads ’should be banned’

A coalition of charities is demanding baby milk be treated like tobacco and subjected to a total advertising ban.

OK, so two trip-wires of any self-respecting freedom-lover should already have been triggered by now – with the words “should be banned” and “coalition of”. Have you ever noticed that coalitions so often tend to be made up of either left wing groups and/or authoritarian busy-bodies?

Did you notice how formula milk was being hysterically compared to tobacco? Is this really the level to which the argument has already descended? Let’s get things in proportion: first, formula milk will not kill you. Second, people don’t get addicted to it. (Though you could validly ask: so what if they did?) But, you see, parents cannot think for themselves these days, apparently, so we must not allow them to be tempted by all those pretty colours on the formula milk tins.

The National Childbirth Trust, Save The Children and Unicef blame adverts for many mothers abandoning breast feeding before the recommended six months.

… most [mothers] move on to formula within weeks, and fewer than half still breastfeed by the time their child is six weeks old.

 

By six months, only 25% of mothers are breastfeeding at all.

There are many reasons why breastfeeding may stop “early”. Advertising is not one of them. But hey, there are people out there that need to justify their salaries:

“The law must be tightened up - the government must close these loopholes once and for all”

… says the Head of Hunger Reduction at Save the Children. Yes, that really is his job title. Sadly the StC press release doesn’t actually say how this issue comes within the remit of “hunger reduction”. I wouldn’t have thought that starving children in the developing world could be so choosy.

However, with 75% of mothers dropping out of breastfeeding by six months (however undesirable that may be), we are clearly witnessing these charities wanting to extend a law that doesn’t even work for those it already targets. And so here is my last point for now – that we are arguing over an extension to an existing illiberal law. It will be argued that the precedent has been set, and so those who would be eternally vigilant for our freedoms must run to stand still.