A number of news reports have interested me during the course of the past two or three days, the first of which appeared in The Sunday Times (26^th February 2006.)

It appears that by virtue of laws enacted to prevent discrimination against gays, gay clubs will be forced to allow entry to heterosexuals.  That a fairly drafted piece of anti-discrimination legislation should achieve this result does not surprise me.  What does surprise is that gays did not see it coming.  Well drafted fair laws that seek to achieve social justice do just that, they prohibit any discrimination within their ambit.  Thus heterosexuals who wish to visit good bars and clubs that happen to be gay, will be able to do so.  Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you might say.

The second article, which is found in The Times (27^th February 2006) reports comments purportedly made by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, on Sunday morning television (ITV – Jonathan Dimbleby’s programme) the previous day.  He took the view that Muslims had to accept free speech and that those who wished to live under Sharia Law had the option of leaving the country.  I cannot say that my politics are the same as those of Mr Phillips, but ever since I first saw him on The London Programme in the early eighties, I have always listened to what he has had to say.  It was refreshing to hear his comments, which comprise no more than reasonable, common sense.  However, I did have to reflect that such is the state of our current politically correctness, these comments could not have been made by a white Englishman, without having caused a great furore.

The last report, by Greg Hurst (accompanied by a leading article) also appeared in The Times (27^th February 2006) and related to, amongst other things, the asking of written questions by MPs.  We are advised that the cost of providing an answer to each question amounts to £138.00.  We are further advised that a lot of silly written questions are asked, mostly by new MPs trying to “get known” (largely, I understand, by way of the dastardly www.TheyWorkForYou.com.) 

Perhaps I am wrong, but I had the distinct impression that The Times considered this sort of thing a Bad Thing.  Leaving aside the question of how the “£138.00 per question” cost is calculated[1], the written question has always been an important method of extracting information from Government, so what’s the beef?  If Government actually gave straight, honest answers every time, then perhaps some of the “cost” would be saved.  The sort of people who register for information on the TheyWorkForYou site are not likely to be impressed by the asking of silly questions anyway, so the odd MP (or researcher) who drafts such questions will shoot himself in the foot.  In any event, the answers are sometimes far more silly than the question ever knew how to be, particularly when the question was very serious and worthy in the first place, which the majority of them are.

1. Why does the Bill change the current procedures for the enactment into our law of EU legislation? 

2. What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in the EU Constitution by the back door? 

3. If the Bill is just a simplifying measure for deregulation, why does it contain no requirement for any orders to actually reduce the amounts of red tape and regulation? 

4. Why does the Bill give the power to create new law, including new criminal offences, to the Law Commissions, which are unelected quangos appointed by Ministers? 

5. If the Law Commissions are supposed to be staffed by impartial technical experts, why are Ministers taking the power to amend the recommendations of the Law Commissions before they are fast-tracked into legislation? 

6. Why do protections in the Bill against new laws to permit forcible entry, search, seizure or compelling people to give evidence not apply to reforms recommended by the unelected Law Commissions appointed by Ministers? 

7. If the Bill allows Ministers to “amend, repeal or replace legislation in any way that an Act might”, does this not give them an unlimited power to ignore a democratic Parliament and legislate by decree? 

8. If the Bill is so sensible, why has Parliament used a different way of making laws for 700 years? 

9. If the Bill is meant to retain Parliament’s ability to scrutinise regulations and regulators, why does it not contain a provision for automatic sunset clauses in orders issued under the Bill? 

10. If the Bill gives Ministers powers to charge fees by decree, is that not a charter to bring in unlimited stealth taxes? 

11. As the Bill permits an order to be made by a Minister under the Bill provided its effect is “proportionate” to his “policy objective”, since when in our history as a democratic country has a Government Minister’s “policy objective” directly received the force of law? 

12. What guarantees are there that the Bill could not be used to bring in ID Cards by the back door? 

13. Why does the Bill give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly a veto over Ministers’ power to change the law which it denies to English MPs?

For more “stuff” about this Bill,  see Right Links

Those amongst us who resort to the threat or use of violence to win an argument number a few score and their supporters, no more than a few hundred.  Yet such is the climate of cowardice in Europe, that rather than to face them down we appear to seek to appease them.  It was depressing to read the article of Douglas Murray in The Sunday Times today (26^th February 2006) which seems to suggest that Holland is being cowed by Islamic fundamentalists.  Is this the same Holland that fought for freedom successfully against the invincible Spanish in the 16^th and 17^th centuries and allied with the Austrians and English in the early 18^th century, successfully resisted French hegemony in Europe? Apparently, it is.

The threat posed by these “Islamic” terrorists is nothing as compared with the armed might of Spain or Louis XIV’s France.  The Dutch did not flinch against the Spanish or French and if the challenge ever arose again, they would not do so in the future, either.  The problem is that whereas it is easy to mobilise against an aggressive foreign power, it is not so easy when dealing with an aggressive cancer in your own society. Dutch silence is not a sign of weakness or of submission but of indecision.  How do you deal with your own nationals who do not wish to live by your rules, but theirs?  It is their democratic right to agitate for a society in which they wish to live and in which they wish us to live.

The Dutch know the answer is simple, though unpalatable.  At the risk of alienating their minority Muslim population and perhaps provoking a violent backlash, the secular Dutch must campaign vigorously for a society that remains forged in their image.  They know that they must confront and challenge the fundamentalists.  They must hunt down the terrorists and bring them to justice. They are gathering the resolve to do what must be done … and so must we, for their battle is ours.

Laurie Pycroft:  Sixth form drop-out.  Pro-vivisectionist.  Blogger.  Hero.

True, Mr Pycroft does not understand yet the true nature of the animal rights lobby and has yet to face the prolonged campaign of threats, intimidation and violence that must, sooner or later, be directed against him and his family. However, unlike the majority of us, he has made a stand.  He has said what he believes, that is to say, that he considers that research involving tests upon animals is vital for making advances in medical science.  The evidence that it does is overwhelming, but that has not prevented the rest of us, the silent majority, from keeping our heads down whenever the Animal Rights lobby come to Town.

Let me make it plain.  Mr Pycroft is not for instance, a lab technician or a scientist dealing with animal experimentation. He is not linked in any way to the targets of the Animal Rights lobby’s ire. He does not hunt or shoot or in any way cause any “suffering” to animals.  He has simply spoken his mind and set up a pro-vivisection website. In consequence, he has been targeted by the lobby.  First, there has been the usual misinformation spread by the anti-vivisectionists.  The Police have had to provide Mr Pycroft and his family with advice as to how to protect their property and keep safe.

The Animal Rights movement has declared War against people who have a different opinion to them.  Their tactics are the same as against the scientists and others whom they seek to terrorise. As well as the threat of and use of violence, their targets are smeared.[1]  Recent opinion polls have suggested that support for the antivivisection lobby is declining – a drop of ten per cent since 1995.  Now more people support animal testing than do not. By all accounts the aggressive tactics of the lobby are proving counter-productive. Ordinary people are beginning to put their heads above the parapet and challenge the views of the animal rights movement.  Hundreds of people, including students, scientists and members of the public, marched in Oxford today in support of research using animals.  We owe it to them to voice our support for their cause, not only for continued research using animals, but more importantly, for freedom of speech. The animal rights lobby cannot threaten us all, for we are too many.[2]

Although the “Democracy Task Force” headed by Kenneth Clarke has yet to report, it seems likely that the Conservatives have ambitions to reduce the influence of Scottish MPs on Laws deemed to affect England alone.

The Government’s response to comments in this regard by William Hague was to point out that the number of MPs in Scotland had already been reduced by thirteen to fifty-nine to reflect the impact of devolution.  This does not deal with the problem of course, given that the issue is that Scottish MPs can vote on English-only matters whilst English MPs have no say in Scottish or Welsh matters that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.  Even if just one Scottish MP could vote in English affairs, it would be still one too many.

The Government does not have any intention of correcting this constitutional imbalance because in reality, the Scottish Raj in England can continue only so long as the Government can rely upon the support of its Scottish MPs.

Opposition is growing to the Government’s latest attempts to enact to itself powers formally exercised by Parliament.  The Bill is drawn so widely that Government Ministers could rewrite current Laws and enact new Laws that at present Parliament only can make.  The Government claims that “safeguards” are in place, but no matter which way you look at it, the Government will have wide powers that it did not have before. It might not be so much a case of the “Divine Right of Kings” but rather one of the “Divine Right of the Executive”, once the Bill becomes Law.[1]

Is George Monbiot being unduly pessimistic in believing that we are gradually giving up our freedom in the United Kingdom?  I believe that he is.

Our present Government has been emboldened by having been able to enact at will, legislation that is manifestly anti-libertarian. There will be more of the same. This state of affairs has not arisen solely as a result of weak political opposition in Parliament.  A large section of the media has been nauseatingly compliant, very often reciting uncritically the Government’s excuses for needing extra powers or the necessity of curtailing our rights, in the name of national security or for defeating crime.  Public opinion has appeared muted.

The Public’s silence however does not mean that it acquiesces in the Government’s actions.  There is a watchfulness that is becoming more pronounced as the months pass.  In the Public’s mind, there is a line.  We await the Government crossing it.

By any account, Christian Europe did not cover itself in glory, military or otherwise, when conducting its numerous Crusades in the Middle East during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.  Those who have sought (with some remarkable success) during the course of the past forty years or more to rewrite the history of our civilisation, have constantly berated us for warmongering against the peace loving (Muslim) peoples of that region.  I do not have any argument with the proposition that “we” were looking for a fight.[1] However, the suggestion that the Muslim powers were not aggressively expansionist, offends against the truth.

It is often forgotten (or more likely not even known) that Charles Martel’s Frank army saved North West Europe from conquest by the Muslims at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 AD.  Spain had already fallen to the conquering Muslims, as had all of North Africa and the Middle East.  The Austrians were still fighting for their survival against the most successful Muslim Empire, that of the Ottoman Turks, in the late seventeenth century.  Barbary pirates raided villages along the coast of southern England (seizing villagers for sale into white slavery) until the middle of the eighteenth century.

It is too readily forgotten that Europe’s (and now, the United States of America's) World ascendancy has been achieved only in the past two centuries.  Before that, it was the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.[2]

[1] And more often than not, received a pasting.

[2] For an interesting summary of the history of Islamic imperialism, see James Arlandson’s article of the 27th November 2005 in The American Thinker.

Whatever demons Austria is seeking to exorcize, it should not do so by way of having laws that penalise freedom of speech.

It is mostly irritating but occasionally deeply offensive, when individuals hold views that fly in the face of the evidence.  It is even more disgusting when those unfounded views seek to deny for instance, genocide.  Such views though, are better expressed than allowed to fester in silence.  Once propagated, they can be countered forcefully and exposed for the nonsense they are.  Any people espousing or adopting such views identify themselves as fools or at the very least as lacking in any critical faculty and unworthy of any serious attention.

That there is a significant minority of people holding bizarre and unsubstantiated opinions or prejudices, should not disturb those who are possessed of the truth (or anything closely approximating to it.)  There will always be those who must believe in the most grotesque falsehoods and myths just because it suits them.  However, there are many, many more people of sound judgment who, once fully informed, will never be misled by lies.[1]

Make the most of it, because it is all down hill from now on.[1]

So says a report in The Guardian today.  Ok, I'll accept "dead", then.[1]

Forty years ago the drive to replace academic selection with comprehensive education was motivated by a genuine, if idealistic, belief that all children might experience the quality schooling then enjoyed by a few.  By contrast, the grudge campaign against the remaining grammars seems infused with a mean spirit of levelling down.

So says Mick Hume in The Times today.  I couldn't agree more.[1]

Dr Theodore Dalrymple doesn’t pull any punches in telling it as it is.

That Chris Huhne is an opportunist becomes plainer by the day.  It has now come to light that he wrote an article in the Oxford student newspaper Isis in 1973 where he argued that drugs should be accepted as part of society.  That he did not really hold such a view then and certainly does not hold now, I have little doubt, but it shows a tendency that he seeks to curry favour with his peers by saying what he thinks they want to hear.

Further embarrassment has been caused by the Institute of Fiscal Studies costing his commitment to exclude people on the minimum wage from paying tax, a measure which it is estimated would cost the equivalent of a rise in the rate of income tax of 5½ pence in the pound.  Mr Huhne has pledged to raise “environmental taxes” to meet the cost of his programme but no matter how the cost is met, it must result in a very large tax hike for the rest of us.  I had been led to think that fiscal matters were Mr Huhne’s strong points. Perhaps they still are, but he is clearly saying what he thinks the membership of the Liberal Democrats would like to hear.  He is not the man to hold the balance of power following the next General Election.[1]

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) whose animal rights campaigns include seeking to end fur and leather use, meat and dairy consumption[1] claimed the scalp of US socialite Paris Hilton upon the occasion of her opening Julien Macdonald’s London Fashion Week. As Ms Hilton and Mr Macdonald were making their way to the after-show party they were pelted with flour bombs in a fur protest.

Whilst this largely American organisation does not resort to grave robbing and various other terrorist acts routinely committed by their hard-line British cousins, they are similarly afflicted by an aversion to the Truth.

The BBC reports that the spokeswoman for PETA Europe, Yvonne Taylor explained,

“There is nothing remotely fashionable about the torture and death of animals killed for fur.”

And,

“Julien Macdonald may have been able to ignore images of bloody skinned animals gasping for breath in the past, but hopefully a dash of flour[2] will help him rise to the occasion and forsake fur once and for all.”

Now, just hold on a moment,

“…nothing…fashionable about the torture and death of animals killed for fur.”

Animals bred for fur are not tortured.  The animal rights fraternity always claim that animals are tortured routinely by the humans processing them.  It is a blatant untruth.  Is it truly PETA’s case that animals bred for fur are skinned alive? If so, where is their evidence?

“…ignore images of bloody skinned animals gasping for breath…”

Oh dear.  This all smacks of hyperbole to me.  Now, where did I put those rotten eggs I was saving for Ruth Kelly…

[1] Vegans.

[2] Napoleon preferred a “whiff of grapeshot” to impose his will.

I should have known that the media would not leave alone Siön Jenkins following his acquittal at the Central Criminal Court, last week.

The first warning of his continued persecution was the less than sympathetic reporting on Channel 4 News immediately following his acquittal.  There followed the next day a report in The Daily Mail, which detailed the evidence “that the jury was not allowed to hear”.  Now, today, The Times reports on the domestic violence to which Jenkins first wife was purportedly subjected and the strict discipline, which included corporal punishment, to which his children including Billie-Jo were subjected.  During the weekend we learned that Billie-Jo’s natural parents were considering issuing civil proceedings in the High Court against Jenkins.

Given that the case against Jenkins finally failed because the Crown’s case was flawed, all these revelations of “unheard evidence” do not amount to a hill of beans.  The “additional” evidence comprised nothing more than character assassination and should not have made any difference to the outcome of the case. In fact, I think I can safely say that it did not have any effect upon Jenkins’ final trial, because the jury knew about most of his alleged misdemeanours before they were empanelled.  None of the “new” information was actually new.  These revelations had been reported by the media in the aftermath of Jenkins’ conviction following the first trial.  If I could remember those reports clearly, so would any other potential juror.  On that basis, I had believed that Jenkins could never receive a fair trial.  I am glad that have been proved wrong – by a hair’s breadth.

The media might have misjudged the public’s mood in seeking to publish such material.  Jenkins spent six years in prison.  He had to suffer the stress of enduring three long trials as well as having to await the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s deliberations upon the merits of his appeal.  In the past I had always encountered heavy opposition when I sought to argue that his conviction was “dodgy”.  This is no longer the case.  People I had always considered to be members of the “hang ‘em high” faction, are now telling me of their irritation that the media keep vilifying Jenkins.

There is a wider issue. Perhaps the days when the media could easily manipulate Joe Public by publishing partisan reports which predisposed us to think the way they and the Establishment wanted us to, are coming to an end.

On BBC's "Question Time" on Thursday evening, 9th February 2006, Chris Huhne announced that a new opinion poll suggested he was ahead in the leadership contest with Simon Hughes and Menzies Campbell.  Bloggers had been discussing this "lead" prior to Mr Huhne's disclosure. 

Now, another YouGov poll puts a different slant on things according to David Smith in the Sunday Times (12th February 2006).   Mr Hughes appears to be doing well, and Mr Huhne is third.  It all comes down to which poll you want to believe.  Then again, perhaps the previous poll suffered from a skewed or unrepresentative sample...

Leaving aside the damage done to his reputation by the Orpington scale defeat at the Dunfermline by-election, momentum is building (or being built) for Gordon Brown’s succession as Prime Minister.

Mr Brown is, we are led to believe, trusted more than Mr Blair.[1]  He is perceived to be, we are told, a good Chancellor of the Exchequer.[2]  Even if Mr Brown was a better man than Mr Blair, I have difficulty in understanding how he is not tainted with all the errors of judgment, blunders, humbug, spin and most importantly failed policies associated with each New Labour administration since 1997.  He has been a highly influential, important part of the Cabinet when all important decisions were made.  He might distance himself physically from Mr Blair, but he cannot avoid his complicity in New Labour’s failure in office.  He is not in the position of the get-away driver, who complains that he thought his mates were off getting a kebab when in fact they were robbing a bank.  He is actually one of the guys with a sawn- off, shouting at the cashiers, “Give us the money!”[3]

Gordon Brown appears to be “the Man” because Labour spin has been telling us so.  However, spin is now seen for what it really is – a gross distortion of the Truth.  Mr Brown has feet of clay but the politicos cannot see it.[4]  He is not the man to deal with New Labour’s ills.

It is a great irony that the “election” of Gordon Brown might result in what Michael Portillo  believes impossible, that is to say, a clear Conservative victory in the next General Election.

As much as it irritates me to agree with a radical Muslim, Anjem Choudray, former leader of the al-Muhajiroun group in the United Kingdom, I believe that Omar “Bomber” Khayam has been victimised by his recall to Prison.  Some officials doubt whether Khayam has breached his licence.  So do I.  He should be released immediately.

For a full report putting Khayam’s wrongdoings in context, read the report today in The Times by Richard Ford and Daniel McGrory.

I hope common sense prevails.

Politicians have left the “prosecuting authorities” in no doubt that they expect action to be taken in respect of the Muslim demonstrations that took place at the weekend.

Whilst no one is openly criticising the Police for failing to arrest protestors on the spot, many people want blood.  David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary was reported[1] to have said that it was essential that action was taken against demonstrators who deliberately tried to stir up violence. He continued,

“I do expect that action should be taken – and taken soon - against those who clearly incited violence because it is vital that we make it very clear that incitement to violence has no place in the political life of the country.”

I hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will be allowed to exercise its independent judgement in this matter, without political interference.  As experienced lawyers with years of experience of what does, and does not “stick” in Court, no one is better equipped to make the right judgement as to whether any prosecutions take place.

Many things were said and done by the protesters last week that were intended to be and were provocative, but they were just exercising their right of freedom of speech.  They did not injure anyone nor was any criminal damage caused.  People who witnessed the protests seemed annoyed, rather than frightened.  We were being confronted with signs that made us angry, just as a week earlier; these same protesters were presented with something that angered them.

Alone in a dock, with the full force of the State arraigned against them, they will look like victims.  British juries punish trumped up prosecutions.

There are Labour politicians who are more deserving of a pelting with rotten vegetables, eggs and other things than Ruth Kelly, the current Education Minister, but it was good to see an honourable British tradition being followed, yesterday.  The hoi-polloi, of which I am a member, do not possess the slick, quick-witted oral skills of our political masters so it is only right that we be allowed to express our disapproval by way of a well aimed tomato or egg in the direction of a Minister of the Crown.[1]

There is a price to pay for the privilege of lobbing such missiles. Thus the miscreant in this instance, a Mike Downs, should be dragged before the local Beak, given a fine, ordered to pay for Ms Kelly’s dry cleaning and admonished.[2]  I note however, that he was arrested for witness intimidation.[3]The significance is that this offence is one deemed to be against Justice itself and is very serious. Magistrates will usually refuse jurisdiction and commit the case for hearing to the Crown Court.  A custodial sentence is almost inevitable.  This smacks of overkill.

During the course of the past thirty years or so criminal offences have been drawn increasingly widely for the purpose of ensuring that the guilty do not go free, but often the effect is that simply looking them up in Archbold[4] commits the offence. We all know what constitutes witness intimidation (or revenge).  It was not what happened on Monday.

So, the young hothead who wore a suicide bombers’ outfit during the demonstration in London on Saturday (4^th February 2006) has publicly apologised today for any affront he might have caused.

It takes a considerable amount of courage to make an apology.  Our ruling classes avoid it routinely and so do our newspapers.  This young man desires credit for having done so.  Whether or not his elders prevailed upon him, he has shown a maturity beyond his years.  He is of greater stature than three days ago.

Say what you like about the Liberal Democrats, but in the past their membership has always elected such likeable leaders.  Menzies Campbell is a case to point.  How can you dislike him?  Mr Huhne on the other hand comes across as just another ambitious politician.  More importantly, even members of his own party can see that he is an opportunist and is seeking to be what he thinks his party’s electorate want him to be.  The Liberal Democrats are notoriously blind to their own faults, so if they can smell something fishy, then the electorate at large will, too.  However, I fear that Mr Huhne’s campaign has developed a dangerous momentum. He is closer to being the new Liberal Democrat leader than many commentators care to think.

Menzies Campbell might not be able to fight two elections[1] but he is the only man who can hold the Liberal Democrats together during what is going to prove to be a very difficult few years.  It is in this sense that despite his age, he is the man of the moment, while Mr Huhne is not. At this point in time, what is bad for the Liberal Democrats is good for the Conservatives, so I am happy for the Third Party to choose its own merry path to Hell.

So says Grace Phillips in the Sunday Times on 5^th February 2006.  This follows the ill judged statement of intent issued by animal rights activists who threatened violence against all staff and students at Oxford by virtue of the University’s plans for a £20 million animal research laboratory.  You can do no better than read the report of Ms Phillips’ defiance.  There is more about the matter and student reaction to the threats, in a report by Patrick Foster and Nicola Woolcock in The Times (1^st February 2006).

I wish Ms Phillips well and I hope she is not subjected to too much intimidation by the faceless individuals who seek to terrorise anyone who opposes their view.  It would be a serious error of judgement for anyone to threaten her, because rather than being an “animal murderer” or “torturer”; she is merely holding a point of view.  It would not be only students who would turn against the “animal rights” movement.  Then again, those who God wishes to destroy, first he turns mad…[1]

The Metropolitan Police were right not to make arrests during the demonstration that took place in London, last week.  A small number of the protesters were being deliberately provocative and I have little doubt that arrest was what they craved. Notwithstanding that bystanders were insulted by some of the placards, the protesters were not physically violent and no one had any reason to be put in fear.  The whole demonstration was a lot of hot air spouted by a small number of hotheads.

I do not believe that the Police should now take action against some of those hotheads.  True, by applying the principles that the Police use in relation to other demonstrations and according to the strict letter of the law, public order offences were committed.[1]  I do not take this view because I am soft when it comes to Muslim protesters, but because I am soft on protesters generally.  Peaceful protesting does not mean just gentlemanly, peaceful demonstrations such as for instance, the Jarrow Marchers or the Countryside Alliance March a few years ago.  It includes those demonstrations where tempers are frayed and a great deal of rude, abusive, insulting language is used.  People should be allowed to let off hot air in public.[2]  It is therapeutic for a start.[3]  It lets us know where they stand, second.

I hope that the Police will now approach other, non-Muslim, non-physically violent but very loud demonstrations in much the same way.  It would save so much trouble and expense.

[2] A lot of what I do constitutes a s.4 or s.5 public disorder offence when I've just cleaned my car and a bird immediately dumps on it.

[3] And how many incidents of public disorder have escalated because the Police misjudged their response to a little bit of argy-bargy?

I am not aware of the full circumstances in which a Danish newspaper felt it appropriate to publish cartoons which caused such insult to Muslims.  I am aware of the circumstances in which those cartoons came to be republished elsewhere and doubt the wisdom of them having been so.  I suspect it was less a case of those other newspapers exercising their right of freedom of speech but rather more of a raised middle-finger gesture of defiance.  I can understand Muslim anger, though its depth betrays a lack of understanding as to why the “secular” West behaves as it does.

I do not have any issue with a Muslim possessing the beliefs that he has.  However, for my part I do not accept that The Prophet spoke the words of God any more authoritatively than any of his predecessors.  I find that there are jarring inconsistencies in the theories of Islam, Judaism and Christianity.  I suspect that if I studied the other religions, I should find fault there too.  Persons of religious persuasions other than Islam would not take my heresy as an affront, however.  There lies the difference.  Only a tiny minority of fanatical “Muslims” would seek to annihilate “non-believers”[1] but I perceive that a small but significant part of the decent, law abiding majority of real Muslims still seems to feel uncomfortable about and is unable to accept people who do not subscribe to its views.  They do not have any concept of  “live and let live” and would prefer that we all lived in some form of worldwide Caliphate[2].  They acquiesce in the behaviour of the unacceptable, violent, unprincipled minority[3].

It is this absence of understanding of our point of view and lack of empathy for our feelings that causes our hostility, not Islam.  The rant of each fanatic conjures the spectre of every tyrant who sought to bring this island race to nought. Ordinary Muslims should dwell upon that.  We use our laws to bear down upon our miscreant racist minority.  It is time that they put their house in order and consider how we feel.

It is being suggested that the Liberal Democrat leadership contender Chris Huhne “pulled a fast one” as regards the placing of his hat in the ring.  Having pledged his support to Sir Menzies Campbell and sealing the deal with a handshake, only an hour or so later he had changed his mind.  Women are not the only people who are allowed to change their minds and by all accounts Mr Huhne notified Sir Menzies Campbell immediately.  So far, so good.  Unfortunately, it appears that other “young guns”[1] in the party thought that there was an agreement that Mr Huhne and they would give Sir Menzies a clear run.  Mr Huhne denies any such agreement or understanding.  Clearly, there has been a terrible misunderstanding.  In the event that Mr Huhne wins the leadership contest[2], the young guns’ own leadership prospects would be finished.  This is not going to make him a very popular leader.  Certain members of the party with whom he must work, will find it hard to trust him[3].

This does not bode well for the Liberal Democrats.  Clever chap he might be, but if as seems likely, Mr Huhne cannot cut the mustard in debate with the likes of Blair, Brown or Cameron, he will prove to be an ineffectual leader.  The Liberal Democrats need a steady pair of hands at the helm to guide them through the troubled waters leading to the next General Election.  They need Sir Menzies Campbell[4].

Stewart Tendler and David Charter report in the The Times today of the Prime Minister Tony Blair’s support for the “beleaguered” Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, following Conservative MPs tabling an early day motion calling for his resignation.

This support cannot be unexpected, given that Sir Ian is one of those now numerous sympathetic appointees favoured and nurtured by New Labour.  It is this perceived closeness which is the cause of so much unease, over and above the ill-advised pronouncements of the Commissioner that have so tarnished the his image during the past twelve months.

My particular attention was drawn to the reported remarks of Chief Superintendent Simon Humphries, who chairs the Superintendents’ Association branch of the Metropolitan Police.  Humphries purportedly commented that,

“…his members felt that Sir Ian had been treated harshly by the media and should not be hounded out of office…and the Commissioner had apologised for his mistake[1]and has the confidence of the people he leads and a large majority of the public [my emphasis]”

Leaving aside that many of the Commissioner’s colleagues might consider privately that he is a fool, as for the public, I should like to see the evidence[2] of such support, because I am not aware of it, quite the contrary, in fact.

[1] Which one?

[2] I just can’t help being a defence lawyer, can I?

The Press has reported that a log book, used by Special Branch[1] police officers during the counter-terrorist operation in which the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead, had been tampered with, the effect of which , we are told, could have passed blame for the mistake from those officers immediately involved in the incident, to those in command.  We learn also that though it was known that a mistake had been made, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was not told until the following morning. There is gleeful excitement that the Commissioner will be under “fresh pressure” by reason of these latest disclosures.  I do not see why.

These latest revelations show that the Commissioner had not been told the true facts when he faced the media, following the shooting.  As it was not he who did anything wrong, he is off the hook. We live in the Age of New Labour, where the political buck does not stop with the man (or men) at the top.  It trickles down the food chain until it reaches the first individual who looks as if he might have been the one who actually messed up and who does not have the political wherewithal to defend himself. It is that unfortunate fall guy, who takes the whole wrap.

Now we know that somebody fiddled an entry in a logbook.  The guys on the ground deny it of course, but then they would, wouldn’t they?[2] One thing is for sure. No one of any importance is going to have to resign or suffer even the slightest discomfiture over this matter.

I need someone to tell me that this report today in the The Times, is not true.   Has not the Government more pressing matters about which to concern itself?

That slick, smoothy New Labour minister Ben Bradshaw says that pet owners have little to fear from this new charter of pets rights.  Forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

Matthew Parris asks some pertinent questions in his article in The Times, today (28th January 2006). Unfortunately, the answers are all too obvious.

When a Government’s policies are all style and no substance, it is not immediately obvious to the naked eye that they are built on thin air. Not immediately obvious to politicians addicted to style over substance, that is.

I did not have any inkling of Simon Hughes' pending "outing" earlier this week.  I cannot say that I took any pleasure from his discomfiture, save that I have always fumed at the manner in which he allowed his supporters to disparage the openly gay Labour candidate, Peter Tatchell in the 1983 Bermondsey By Election.

The revelation about Simon Hughes' bisexuality, taken in conjunction with his less than frank remarks about the issue during the course of the past week or so and the Bermondsey blot in his copy book, must have put him out of the running for the Liberal Democrat leadership.  Someone is just that bit closer to claiming the Leadership, but is it necessarily Menzies Campbell?  Who is next for the banana skin?  If Ming is truly merciless, who might be his Flash Gordon?

And remember.  This leadership contest might not be the definitive one prior to the next General Election. There are still 59 Liberal Democrat MP's to go. 

I have never been a believer in conspiracy theories, but the recent demise of so many senior Liberal Democrats in recent weeks has set me thinking. Is there someone who is plotting their way quietly to the top?  If so, which one of the remaining sixty MP’s is it?  Can it be a Tory “sleeper” planted in the dying days of the last Tory Administration?  Have New Labour had a hand in it?  Where was the BBC at the time of the crime?  How about the other usual suspects?  Who is going to “get it” next?  Or have I been reading too much Guido Fawkes?

It appears that the law on prostitution could be changed following a “lengthy consultation process”.  Fiona Mactaggart, a junior Minister at the Home Office announced the Government’s new strategy last Wednesday 18^th January 2006.

Rejecting amongst other things, David Plunkett’s “red light zones”, the new proposals for instance suggest allowing “worker run” brothels involving two or three women, replace financial penalties for soliciting with an “intervention penalty” and amend legislation which results women convicted of soliciting being official designated as being “common prostitutes”.

This is all really “bog standard” New Labour reform, all style, no substance and it achieves little, if anything.  The idea of allowing up to three women work together is to enable them to “protect themselves”, we are told.  The intervention policy is to “ensure that prostitutes receive help with drug or alcohol problems”.  The term common prostitute is “outdated and offensive”.  All of these laudable aims could be achieved so much more effectively simply by a change of attitude to the idea of prostitution.

Ms Mactaggart’s real attitude to prostitution can be gleaned from various public pronouncements she has made this week and late last year.  Rejecting any suggestion that many women make a choice to undertake this life style and were workers in the ordinary sense of the word, Ms Mactaggart announced that,

“[It is] wrong to regard those involved in prostitution as sex workers…”

She went on to say,

“Tough measures were needed to tackle the markets for prostitution”

and

“I’m not tolerant of the view that prostitution is the oldest professional in the world and there is nothing we can to do to reduce it.  Prostitution blights communities…Men who use prostitutes are indirectly supporting drugs dealers and abusers.”

Last Wednesday, she was reiterating that,

“We are not going to eradicate prostitution overnight.”

To round off Ms Mactaggart’s fifteen minutes of fame we were treated to a television news item by the BBC where the Minister accompanied some vice officers on a curb crawler bust.  An unfortunate punter was detained and processed by the Police whilst the hapless young lady who had been the object of his attention was subjected to a condescending, patronising lecture by the all knowing Ms Mactaggart.

When you know that there are 80,000 prostitutes in the country, 95% of whom are dependent on crack and heroin and that they are all abused by their pimps, clients and are unfortunate victims of a cruel Society it is hard to take against Ms Mactaggart’s Wilberforcian crusade.

The problem arises when you examine the facts.  It is the Home Office that estimates (my emphasis) the number of prostitutes in this country.  Facts and figures emanating from the Home Office in recent years have been shown to be highly dubious and very often wrong.  In this age of New Labour spin so many facts and figures are massaged when being used in support of Government policy, it is hard to accept anything unless it can be independently verified. What of the statistic that 95% of prostitutes are crack and heroin addicts (not just drug users, of say cannabis, amphetamines or cocaine, but the seriously addictive substances?)  I do not believe it.  It is preposterous.

The arguments of those “in the know” who are more sympathetic to working girls are minimised and dismissed out of hand. The truth is that people who inhabit the sex industry need the protection of being involved in an activity which is lawful and socially tolerated, if not accepted.  Legalised brothels for instance would ensure protection of those persons involved in that section of the industry from violent criminals who current pimp and the abusive clients.  Health care for these workers (including drug counselling for the small number who need it) would be so much easier to provide. Social acceptance would raise the esteem of these working girls so much more than changing an old law that describes them as common prostitutes if they are convicted of soliciting more than once.  Does Ms Mactaggart intend to proscribe the use of words such as “tart”, “slapper” and “whore” (to name just a few) which are derogatory terms that have arisen over the years entirely because of the attitude of people like her towards the provision of sex for money?

The anti libertines might find comfort in the fact that less than half of men use prostitutes now than was the case in 1949.  They are winning the War. However, if they are deluded enough to think that prostitution can be eradicated, then they are fools.  It is natural for men to seek sexual gratification.  Women are naturally suited to providing that gratification for something in return, be that by way of a complicated social contract called marriage, cash or benefit in kind, or for the less adept, for free following the provision of too many alco-pops.  You are not going to be able to prevent these sex-for-money contracts without increasingly draconian (but ultimately ineffectual) laws.

To feminists, a woman selling her body to a man is subjugating herself to him, and this must not be allowed to happen.  Faced with evidence that a woman might choose to earn money in this manner, feminists ignore it, choosing to believe that the girls are forced into such behaviour by one means or another.  In their view of the Universe, men (which, for the theory to work, are all intrinsically evil) are always the cause for the girls' downfall.  As many working girls will admit, their choice to earn money by offering sex was made because they could not earn so much working as, for example, a sales assistant at Woolworths.  Many part time working girls (who I suspect, without anything other than empirical evidence, represent the majority) supplement their income even though they do possess other employment or forms of income.  Perhaps if the more mundane jobs were better paid, many girls would choose those and not sell sexual services, though I am not entirely sure.  Some women appear to be comfortable with the concept of charging for their services and do not feel that they have diminished themselves in any way by doing so.

That a few influential feminists had pronounced a Holy Jihad against prostitution was not of great significance.  We know who they are and instinctively take a pinch of salt with anything they say.  However, a more worrying development of recent years is the rise of a new Puritanism which has allied itself with the feminists. This is all the more worrying as New Labour is heavily infected by this Puritanism.  There is always something unsavoury about a creed that is so intense and inward looking that it wishes to impose itself upon unbelievers.  It is worse when that creed is laced with large helpings of hypocrisy.  It is a politically correct Puritanism.

Only fifty years ago, men who indulged in sexual practises with other men were considered by most “right thinking people” as disgusting perverts.  The most innocuous homosexual acts were punished with imprisonment for months and the more intimate acts were visited with sentences of years.  The uninformed “straight” majority were all convinced that these vile individuals were also routinely a threat to our children. The Police expended much time and effort tackling the “threat” that these practising homosexual males posed to Society.  Common sense eventually prevailed.  The bogus facts upon which bogus arguments were based were gradually exposed.  Homosexual behaviour was finally legalised and gay relationships absorbed into the mainstream of Society. As one of Kinsey’s subjects once announced when questioned about why he saw himself as a heterosexual male when he regularly indulged in the “habit” (as it was then called in the US, apparently) he answered, “sex is sex”.  Exactly. If consenting adults wish to indulge in a particular sexual activity, it matters not whether it is man on man, woman on woman or man on woman upon the payment of a fee of fifty quid.  Of course, homosexuality is protected by being one of those politically correct lifestyles/conditions and there lies the hypocrisy.  A woman charging for sex or a man being prepared to pay for it is no more reprehensible than two men wishing to be sexually intimate with each other, or any opposite sex couple indulging in pre marital sex.  Call me a Jeremy Benthamite, but I say that any consensual, adult human to human sexual behaviour should not be proscribed and the moralisers should butt-out and mind their own business.

Much misinformation is published to support the case of the New Puritans in their War against men and prostitutes.  We are led to believe that many women are trafficked to the United Kingdom and tricked or threatened into prostitution. Research in 1999 indicated that 0.06% of prostitutes found themselves in that unsavoury position.  The estimated number of prostitutes at the time of the survey was as it is now, that is to say, 80,000.00.  In other words, there were 48 women who had been trafficked and brought into prostitution by this means.  Of course, since this research was published, this current Labour Administration has admitted to having made a mess of immigration, so no doubt there are now a few hundred such girls; or 0.24% of the total.  Not a lot is it?  It is certainly not enough to warrant “eradicating prostitution”.

I have already stated that the figures concerning hard drug abuse amongst working girls looks dubious to say the least, but we have to examine what else the puritans have to say in this respect.  It is this equally fabricated fact; that the girls are introduced to drugs which are used to trap them into prostitution.  Forgive me for pointing this out, but it is highly improbable that 95% of our 80,000.00 working girls (that is 76,000.00 girls) were tricked into drug addiction so that they then had to become prostitutes.  Think about it.  It does not add up.  I do not have any gripe with the proposition that many girls use might use drugs.  It goes with the territory and the socio-economic class from which they derive in the main. That this use is other than largely recreational, under control and involves the “lesser” drugs, is simply not believable.  That some chaotic drug users do “go on the game” to pay for their habit is correct, but the point is that they were already heroin and crack addicts.  I would not even disagree that there are many hundreds of such girls.  I cannot imagine that they would have a lot of business, or repeat business. They are likely to be so desperate for a fix that they continue to brazenly solicit such that their arrest becomes inevitable and routine (and documented; Oh! And there the puritans have their evidence!)

In essence, the “case” against prostitution is just another example of dangerous, woolly thinking by those amongst our political classes who have an axe to grind, in this instance an alliance of feminists, moralists and fellow travellers.  It is complete and utter humbug.

“I don’t like what you do and I’ll fight to my dying breath to stop you doing it!”

Voltaire will be turning in his grave.

I do not profess to know whether or not Tony Blair's proposed education reforms are going to improve the state of education in England and Wales. I perceive that our system of education is not so effective or successful as it once was, before decades ago the tinkering began in an attempt to improve upon the supposedly inequitable system that had evolved following the Education Act of 1944.  At the very least therefore, I accept that a full debate upon this issue is essential.

These latest proposed reforms by the Government do not have any impact in Scotland, where the Scottish Assembly has sole jurisdiction concerning matters involving education. Parliament is thus faced with an issue that affects England and Wales, alone.  It is reported in The Times today (21st January 2006) by Rosemary Bennett and Tony Halpin, that up to a third of the forty strong group of Scottish Labour MPs intent to actively oppose the Government's education reforms.  This opposition is to be low key, we are told, so as not to attract attention to the "West Lothian Question", which would be a diversion from the main issue.

It is wholly objectionable that Scottish MP's should be allowed a say in English affairs when Parliament has no say over the same matters in devolved Scotland.  That a Labour Government will never address the West Lothian Question, is without doubt.  The plain fact of the matter is that, save for the odd aberration, a Labour administration needs its Scottish contingent to carry the vote in matters relating to a largely Conservative/Liberal Democrat England.

The current "hot" debate that has arisen in relation to the Animal Welfare Bill currently before Parliament has provided more evidence of our politically motivated classes being unable to think through the logical consequences of their prejudices, or of the cans of worms they open inadvertently.

I am not qualified to comment as regards the rights and wrongs of tail docking for "working dogs".  It makes sense to me that if the undocked tail of a dog will suffer repeated injury during its working life, then docking very shortly after birth is the answer.  Then again, routine docking of all dogs of certain breeds suggests that in many cases the purpose is more aesthetic, than for health reasons.  The problem I have with all the concern generated by the issue, leaving aside the waste of parliamentary time that is likely to result, is the fuzzy thinking that it discloses.

Tail docking is not a great moral issue of our time.  If it was, all such similar mutilation of mammal body parts would be up for debate.  As Byron Walmsley, a Consultant Urological Surgeon, says in his letter to The Times today (21^st January 2006):

"How can a Government that is so concerned for the welfare of puppy dogs' tails, continue to allow the practise of male circumcision for non-medical reasons?"

Quite.

So, the two Thai fishermen responsible for the rape and murder of Katherine Horton on New Year’s Day 2006 have been sentenced to death.

It has been customary in those jurisdictions were the death penalty remains, for the ultimate sentence to be reduced to one of a life sentence were the crime is admitted and a guilty plea entered at Court.  In fact, the principle of a routine reduction of sentence upon admissions being made and/or guilty plea being entered is common to many jurisdictions for many crimes, both serious and minor.  A spokeswoman for Amnesty International, Sarah Green was reported to be “disturbed” that the death sentence had been passed upon the two men, Bualoi Posit and Wichai Somkhaoyai.

It is very disturbing.  Leaving aside the indecent haste with which the whole trial process proceeded, it is very likely that the defendants were persuaded to enter guilty pleas for the sole purpose of avoiding the death sentence in the event their “not guilty plea” failed at trial.  The intervention of the Prime Minister of Thailand, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra could not have been helpful[1].

No one can be criticised for drawing the conclusion that the death sentence was imposed for the sole purpose of protecting the tourist industry and had nothing to do with the perceived seriousness of the crimes committed.  This is a case of Justice clearly not being seen to be done.[2] 

I have been deeply disturbed by the case of Paul Reeve, the teacher whose appointment was authorised by a Minister, notwithstanding having been cautioned for an alleged offence relating to viewing pornographic sites containing unlawful pictures of under age children. 

Let me state at the outset that I endorse many of the comments of  Matthew Parris  in The Times (14.01.06) and Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times (15.01.06). 

The problem I have is this. Given the nature of Mr Reeve’s “offending” I do not see anything wrong with his appointment having been approved after careful vetting by a Minister of the Crown.  I understand how the public furore came to be and why the Government has found itself in hot water over the issue.  However, save for the inadvisable act of allegedly viewing child pornography, following his caution being administered by the Police, Mr Reeve’s behaviour has been, to all accounts, blameless. 

The exact details of Mr Reeve’s offending are not known; save that following his credit card details being associated with a child porn web site (as a result of Operation Ore) he accepted a caution from the Police. 

The Police have strict guidelines as regards whether a suspect should be offered a caution rather than being prosecuted.  Factors taken into account include the offender’s previous good character but more importantly the seriousness of the offence involved.  A caution is not given where the offence might merit a term of imprisonment.  This leads me to the irresistible conclusion that the “child porn” that Mr Reeve admitted to viewing was very tame.[1] 

The caution system is very useful in enabling the Police to dispose quickly of cases where the miscreant is “banged to rights” and has admitted the offence.  Having said that, it is my experience that unfortunately people sometimes accept a caution in circumstances where they have a triable defence but wish to avoid publicity and the embarrassment of a trial.[2]  In Mr Reeve’s case it is easy to understand how he might have accepted a caution “just to get the matter over with”. 

As Mr Reeve is now a “sex offender”, he is deemed to be a risk to children.  On the known facts the risk that he poses must be so tiny or theoretical that in fairness he should not be barred from teaching children. Thus it was right that his case was carefully vetted and that he was cleared to continue teaching children. The decision of the then junior education minister Kim Howells was unimpeachable.[3] 

Much is made of the myth peddled by the Child Protection Industry that all sex offenders work their way up from viewing porn to actually abusing children.  This is such dangerous nonsense.  In the present climate, all cases must be considered upon their own facts, otherwise injustice results.

Mark Honigsbaum and Alok Jha report in The Guardian today (14.01.06) about amongst other things, the tight security on site at Oxford University’s planned new animal research laboratory in South Parks Road, Oxford.  As will be well known, animal rights activists have used terror tactics in an endeavour to close down animal research establishments and intimidate anyone connected to them.  The previous contractor at this site withdrew after a campaign of intimidation against its shareholders. Now, workers of the new contractor are escorted to and from work each morning.  Commenting upon the security at the site, it is reported by Honigsbaum and Jha that the head of the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit, Superintendent Steve Pearl explained,

“In the past, activists haven’t hesitated to commit criminal acts against contractors and their suppliers.  Last year we also saw arson attacks on college boathouses.”

It had been noticed that the workers on site wore balaclavas which hid their faces.  Though it was admittedly cold, the protesters picketing the site remarked to the reporters that they did not believe that the balaclavas were for warmth alone.  A spokesman for the protesters is reported to have explained,

“Perhaps it’s because they are ashamed.”

That may be, that may be.  Then again, it might be that each worker appreciates that if his identity became known a dear departed relative’s remains might be unlawfully exhumed and secreted away by someone from a terrorist Animal Rights organisation or fellow traveller.

Since a child I have felt a little uneasy at the knowledge that an animal has been killed so that I can eat meat.  I have taken some comfort from the fact that I have been designed by Nature to be omnivorous[1] though I have never been entirely convinced by the pro-meat eating argument (most recently propagated by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall eloquently in his book “The River Cottage Meat Book”.)  However, because I have never been presented with a convincing, decisive argument in favour of vegetarianism, I have continued to be an “omni”.  It has not been uncommon for my meat eating prejudices to have been reinforced by half-baked, flawed arguments made by vegetarians in favour of their preferred diet, relying upon facts I know to be bogus.[2]

I was reminded of this when reading the letters page of The Guardian Weekend (14.01.06).  My attention was drawn to correspondence by Nitin Mehta from Croydon, provoked by an article in the same publication a week earlier, entitled “Super Green Me”.

Remarks Ms Mehta,

“Some 55 billion animals are raised and killed for meat every year.  Our planet is simply not big enough for these numbers. The result is destruction of rainforests, spreading of deserts and massive methane gas emissions.  The grain fed to these animals could feed almost 4 billion people…”

Leaving aside the dubious, funny figures quoted, the destruction of rainforest arises almost entirely by way of demand for wood (such as teak) from the First World.  Thus in the main, these forests are not cleared for agriculture and where they are, it is not exclusively for growing fodder for animals that are to be killed for meat.

The staple diet of the six million people currently living on this planet is not grain (in fact it is more likely to be rice.)  If the land to which Ms Mehta refers were put over to producing the type of vegetable foods[3]  that those 4 billion people actually wanted to eat, it could not support all of them.

Yes, methane is a greenhouse gas, but the Earth has always been full of it and remember this, the alleged Greenhouse Effect is still a hypothesis, no matter what the Media says to the contrary and some scientists would like us to think.

Woolly, lazy thinking like this is enough to make any reasonable person reach for their chicken roast.

Ferrets in a sack 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More from The Sunday Times

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is David Cameron for?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ouch!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Cameron and the Tory Front

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not a public authority!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the Tories for? # 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are we all potential child abusers and paedophiles now?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the Tories for? # 2

For those Conservatives out there looking for ideas or inspiration, eat this!

3rd October 2005

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 What are the Tories for?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the news this morning, sixteen thousand people have joined the Conservative Party since David Cameron was elected as its Leader in December 2005. Now, we are told, the party has more members than The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats put together. This returns us to the situation that had existed prior to the "bad old days" (1992 - 2005) when Conservative Party membership had usually exceeded that of the other major parties individually, by a fair margin.