Perhaps it should be expected that the usual suspects criticize and make fun of Gordon Brown, but I detect that he is being left exposed in a way that the New Labour Spin machine never allowed in relation to Tony Blair.  The explanation might be that Mr Blair was all style and no substance so it was easy to create a slick media image against which nothing unpleasant could stick, initially.  Mr Brown does stand for certain things and so you have to take him for what he is.  As such, a make-over will just not work and some criticism will find its mark.  To that extent, he is vulnerable in a way that Mr Blair was not.  I suspect that certain New Labour heavyweights are  aware of this and are prepared to brief against Mr Brown, albeit quietly at first.  Even those outside the party who until now have been natural allies of New Labour are voicing some disquiet about his qualities.  Should Tony Blair leave No.10 soon, I have no doubt that its new occupant will be Mr Brown.  If, as is being counselled, it is to be next year, Mr Brown might find his dreams shattered.

You should really read the whole article published by Alice Miles in The Times today, but this little snippet interested me: -

“Incidentally, while I was researching this I came across this fact: that the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£476 a week in April 2005) is £64 higher than in the private sector (£412 a week), and the gap is widening. That is an extra £3,328 a year, along with generous pensions. I didn’t know that. Bear it in mind when you hear the moans of public-sector workers next week over their pay rises.”

At least we now know that the money Gordon Brown has ram-raided from the middle classes, particularly from their private pensions, is being well spent.

I see that the predominantly New Labour press has been seeking to divert attention from New Labour’s funding shenanigans by pointing to similar fund raising devices by the Conservative Party. This tactic will not work because a little thought reminds us quickly of the real reason for the furore. Gongs appear to be being sold for cash, by “we’ll clean up the sleaze/whiter-than-white” New Labour.  This is not the point of my post, however.   The holier-than-thou Liberal Democrats, in the guise of Lord Oakeshott of Seagrave Bay, their Treasury spokesman, have now stepped into the fray in their usual opportunistic manner. I did not anticipate having to refer to this so soon, but for the record let us remind ourselves of this.

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Shabina Begum case was disturbing for a number of reasons and happily the House of Lords has reversed it. I suspect that Boris Johnson echoes the thoughts of many of us when expressing his opinions on the matter in his article in The Daily Telegraph, today.

I do not smoke, so the recent legislation that will soon ban people from smoking in certain public places does not concern me to any material degree.  I do not hunt, so I have not been deprived of my sport by that means.  I do not shoot, so when that is banned, I shall not suffer, nor shall I when the time comes for angling to be outlawed.  I am astute enough to realise that sooner or later however, one of my little freedoms will be the subject of Government interference.  It is for this reason, that when the smokers or hunters or any other minority whose little freedoms have been trampled under foot finally revolt, I shall be there alongside them at the barricades.[1]

I have little doubt that Tracy Williams went too far when insulting Keith Smith, a UKIP parliamentary candidate, in a chat room in April 2004.  Whether he should have issued proceedings for libel is another matter.  Ms Williams’ insults were palpably false and were merely intended to insult.  No reasonable person was likely to take them seriously.  Mr Smith’s victory has done no more than broadcast the nature of the insults to millions of people rather than the few hundred who might have visited the website in question.

My concern is that Ms Williams’ insults were very tame when compared to much of the criticism directed towards other, more powerful politicians, individuals and corporations which routinely appears on UK blogs.  I hope a precedent has not been set.  Many political blogs, though full of invective and bile (and almost certainly libellous) are highly entertaining, very much in the tradition of James Gillray.  It would be a shame to see them gagged, particularly as the media in general now seems to be so feeble in its criticism of big business and big Government.  We shall have to wait and see.[1]

Of course, as a lawyer involved in criminal defence work from time to time, I should be expected to be biased in favour of the English legal system.  I do happen to think that it is sound and works relatively successfully, notwithstanding HM Government’s numerous attempts to sabotage it.  Other legal systems work as well though differently, but in my opinion, none can be described as being better.  Unlike our illustrious Home Secretary, at least I have considerable experience of the English legal system.  I have also more than a nodding acquaintance with other legal systems.  Accordingly, I think I am entitled to say that I am able to make an informed judgment about the relative merit of our own system.  It is true that I am not convinced by the efficacy of an inquisitorial system because I believe that our adversarial tradition is better at eliciting the truth.  I prefer our Common Law over the Roman Law systems of continental Europe but these beliefs on my part would not lead me inexorably to the conclusion that Johnny Foreigner’s system is inferior.

In his lecture to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, Charles Clarke glibly pronounced upon the inferiority of the English legal system as compared to that of the French. In the light of recent events, it is hard to resist the suspicion that Mr Clarke’s sudden conversion to the charms of the French criminal justice system is generated more by a malevolent petulance arising from his inability to convince either Parliament or the Public of the wisdom of New Labour inspired “reforms” supported by his department, in the face of vociferous but principled, learned criticism.  I do not have any confidence that Mr Clarke understands any of the issues involved concerning the subject matter of his current outburst.  I am left with an irresistible impression that he is a man who knows very little and understands even less.  If my assessment is right, that makes him very dangerous.

Some weeks ago, in anticipation of the tenth anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, I started work on a long article documenting successive Governments’ attempts to control gun crime by bearing down hard on lawful gun ownership, and pointing out the futility and unfairness of it all.  It is enough to say that the article was not completed.  This article by Ross Clark in The Times today says much the same thing, is shorter, better written and far more interesting.

Politicos are masters at one particular manoeuvre.  When faced with an irresistible argument that they cannot answer, they create an argument they think they can defeat and then attribute that argument to their opponents.

It is depressing to see that this tactic is already gaining momentum amongst those who wish to smother the “English votes on English-only matters” issue.  It was to be expected that the overwhelmingly pro-New Labour media would help to obfuscate the issues but it is even more depressing to see individuals who acknowledge the iniquity of the present situation, accept the argument of those who wish to preserve the current status quo.

We have already suffered Lord Falconer’s attempt to present those wishing the West Lothian Anomaly to be dealt with as pressing for an English Parliament (for which, he correctly pointed out, there is not great support.)[1]  He was unsuccessful not only because he tried to pull his “fast one” whilst being interviewed by John Humphrys, but also because too many bloggers are on his case.

Now we have Peter Riddell in an article in The Times, today:

“The stumbling block to all solutions (that is to say, English votes on English-only matters) is the relative size of England, which has more than four fifths of the UK’s population and of the total number of MPs.  Creating a separate English parliament would risk undermining the Union…”

Well, there they go again…

I should have realised that that was coming when earlier in the article he commented,

“'English votes on English laws' has an appealing ring.  Now that the Scots and Welsh have devolution, it only seems fair that English MPs alone should be able to vote on Bills affecting just England….The more you look at the idea, the more flawed it looks.”

Being extremely slow-witted, I did not see the fallacy of the argument until I read further about “stumbling blocks”.  The argument presupposes that the answer to the West Lothian Anomaly is a parliament for England but of course, that is not necessarily so.  It is for that reason that I could not see the “flaws” in the justice of English votes on English laws.

It is becoming clear that once we have been manoeuvred onto ground of their choosing, we shall then be bombarded with “facts” which mitigate against the creation of the English parliament we so crave.  For instance, we are told that the Scottish Centre for Social Research shows that, while a majority agree that Scottish MPs should not vote on English laws, there is no appetite for an English parliament or for English regional devolution.  The point is that a majority agree that Scottish MPs should not vote.  That is our argument and it is why the issue must be resolved.  That “there is no appetite for an English parliament…” is the red herring.  Once the issue has been raised in the English public’s mind, the Scottish Centre for Social Research might discover a seismic change in opinion, but as I have said, that is not what the current argument is about.

Other, equally fatuous arguments are rolled out, such as “the technical problems of identifying English only laws…” and “…creating a separate English parliament would risk undermining the union…”  Well, I’ll repeat myself for clarity. We are not demanding an English parliament as the answer to the Anomaly.  However, even if we were, “technical problems” and “undermining of the Union” have come about because of Scottish and Welsh devolution not because of calls for the resolution of the Anomaly.

Finally, we have the sop of there being a case for reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs.  The Scots and Welsh are over-represented in the Commons but that is another issue, not directly related to the Anomaly. Even one Scottish or Welsh MP voting for an English only law is one too many.

The pro-Anomaly politicos should be assured of one thing.  No matter how effective they are in stifling the debate or spinning the argument, if the English electorate believe that England is not receiving a fair deal, they will reap the whirlwind.

[1] At the moment.

I have made my views plain already concerning successive Governments seeking to rig the trial process to ensure more convictions.

I had heard of the Government's proposed advertising campaign to warn men against indulging in sexual intercourse with inebriated females because it would be treated as rape if the partner complained later of there not having been any real consent.  My immediate reaction was to think, "yes, very sensible, but what about advice to young females to avoid drinking too much alcohol in the first place?"

I learn now that the Government is minded to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so that an inebriated female is deemed to be incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse.  New Labour's feminist agenda will skew the law heavily against the defendant, if such an amendment is enacted.  It is a matter of fairness, pure and simple.  Whether or not there was consent is an important issue that should be left to the jury to decide.

If the Government thinks that amending the law in this fashion will result in more men being convicted of rape, it is wrong.  Unless the Crown is allowed to rely on some strict formula by which the young lady in question is deemed to have been "drunk" and thereby did not consent,[1] juries, trying to be fair and "do justice" to the case, will continue to make findings of fact that enable them to acquit defendants against whom they feel the prosecution case (in all other respects) had not been proved.[2]

Lord Falconer rules out an “English Parliament” because it would “destabilise the Union”.  Perhaps New Labour should have thought about that when creating assemblies for Scotland and Wales.  However, to bring the subject back to point, I need do no more than quote Oliver Heald, the shadow constitutional secretary, who retorted,

“Having English only votes on English only-laws in the Commons is not tantamount to creating an English Parliament.  The Government knows that there is a problem with the current settlement, but it seems to hope that the West Lothian problem will somehow disappear.  It is not sustainable to have measures imposed upon England on the back of votes of Scottish MPs, when the same measures in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.”

Of course, the argument in favour of English-only votes for English-only matters is irresistible.  Nearly everyone, including the Scots and Welsh, can see that.  The Government sees it too, but it suits it to obfuscate the argument.  It is not currently a question of whether there should be an English Parliament, but should the English part of the electorate consider that their legitimate grievances concerning Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English-only matters are not being heeded, it soon will be.  Then the Union really will go hang, and it will be all New Labour's fault.[1]

Nicola Woolcock reports in The Times today about Oxford University’s successful attempt to secure an injunction against animal rights activists preventing their screaming through megaphones and taking photographs. The earlier injunction had placed no restraints on noise, which enabled the activists to use amongst other things, horns, whistles and tapes of dogs howling. They had also photographed and videoed staff, students and construction staff.

The report continues,

"However, the University’s attitude towards freedom to demonstrate is called into question by its decision to apply for an even more stringent injunction at a full hearing next month. It wants the weekly protest cut from four hours to one and the maximum number of demonstrators reduced from fifty to twelve."

Why is the University’s attitude towards freedom to demonstrate called into question? The animal rights activists are not there to demonstrate, they are there to intimidate. They have not just turned up in their hundreds, had a noisy march, called their opponents a few rude names and having made their point, then gone home. They are there every day, causing a nuisance and making it very clear that if anyone disagrees with them, that person’s property and/or health might suffer. It is arguable that the University should have sought an even more stringent order. The animal rights daily gathering in Oxford is nothing to do with freedom of expression.

Henry Lui is a restaurateur. He is the proprietor of the Chinese restaurant called the Kar Ling Kwong, which is situated in East Street, Farnham, Surrey. For decades Mr Lui has selflessly, tirelessly, successfully but quietly fund-raised for local charities. A couple of years ago he was awarded a well earned MBE. The awarding of an honour in this particular instance shows our Honours system working as it truly should.

Contrast this to the granting of honours to donors of political parties. The gongs handed out to these people are worthless. They are but cheap baubles. The awarding of knighthoods to senior civil servants and their like is not much better. These establishment personnel are paid well for their service to the Country. It is not only a matter of their handsome salaries and perquisites, the power, the kudos, just look at their pension entitlement. There is too much establishment back slapping of this kind. It is unedifying, but Tony Blair just does not “get it”.

The general population understand and applaud a well earned honour. The bravery exhibited by an individual, devotion to duty or selfless hard work for the community or a particular cause for instance, set an example to the rest of us. There should be some element of personal sacrifice suffered or exceptional service before anyone is considered for an award. The handing over of a sack full of dosh for a baronetcy is just cheap.  Substantial reform of the Honours system is needed.[1]

[1] See the article by Andrew Pierce in The Times, “Lords nominees are blocked in Labour loan row”.

She is by all accounts, one very lucky lady.

It would appear that from early in her relationship with her former fiancé Howard Johnston, "they were trying for a baby".  It was when she failed to conceive that she sought medical assistance and then was diagnosed with tumours in her ovaries.  In consequence, she required surgery that would result in her being unable to have children.  What followed has been well documented.

Now, let us just assume for one moment that Miss Evans had not met Mr Johnston nor any other partner who wanted children "from day one" (as she alleges, did Mr Johnston) at that particular point in time. Is it safe to assume her ovarian cancer might then have passed unnoticed for a longer, potentially fatal, period of time?

Too often we overlook or discount our good fortune as ours by right.  Perhaps Miss Evans should reflect upon the fact that she is still possessed of her own life.

Well, William Keegan believes that the people of Britain think so.

I say, yes, we do!

For my part, I hope that Tessa Jowell is not forced out of her ministerial position.  The longer she stays, the more damage she will do to this venal Government.  With the help of the overwhelmingly pro New Labour media, the stench of the sleaze in which this administration has been too frequently drenched, has never stuck.  The Government has come to accept that it is bomb-proof.  Just wait for the hue and cry to die down, and then bring back the minister who had found himself in an unfortunate situation (of his making.)  It will not always be thus.

I suspect that Ms Jowell will be forced out sooner or later.[1]  Nevertheless, she will be back in some other capacity very soon, once “it has all been forgotten.” It will be not forgotten however and neither will any of the other sleazy indiscretions of the Government. 

The Government’s own arrogance will ensure that it is finally, spectacularly, brought to book.[2]

"The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they promise one thing to one part of the country and another thing to another part."

So says Jenny Hjul in The Sunday Times, today.  I concur.  It is blatant opportunism mixed with political cynicism of the worst kind, yet the Liberal Democrats continue to cast themselves as the guys in white.

A persuasive plea from Rachel from North London.

As ever, Matthew Parris  says all that need be said.

I do not recall it happening before in a Liberal Democrat leadership contest.  Though at one point in the 1976 contest between David Steel and John Pardoe things became a little robust[1] but this time people were left bruised.  I had the distinct impression that the leadership hopefuls were on the receiving end of suspect tactics usually reserved for Labour and Conservative candidates.

I cannot believe that it was a complete coincidence that Simon Hughes’ secret fell out of the cupboard just at the most damaging moment leading up to his campaign.  Nick Clegg was deftly outmanoeuvred into not standing as a candidate.  Then there were those curious bets and the “YouGov polls” that first gave the impression that irresistible momentum had gathered behind Chris Huhne’s campaign and then that Sir Menzies was still on top.[2]  I suspect that once one or more of the candidates suspected foul play, behind the scenes the gloves came off.  Of course, following the announcement of the result this afternoon, it was all smiles, but there will be a reckoning.

Trust between certain members of the party must have been damaged and I do not mean just the participants in the leadership contest itself.[3]  Sir Menzies now has to pull his party together, face a reinvigorated Conservative Party and soon, a temporarily resurgent Labour administration led by a new leader.  He might be able to manage two of these tasks, but the third will prove far more difficult.  When not “getting even” against each other, members of his “shadow cabinet” will be plotting and scheming in readiness for the next Lib Dem leadership contest.

I have yet to read the High Court decision involving Professor Sir Roy Meadows and his successful appeal against the decision of the General Medical Council to strike him off the Register, but in due course, I shall.  All I shall say for now is that the effect of the judgment has, rightly or wrongly, disturbed me.  For the time being, I can do no better than to refer to the article in The Times by Camilla Cavendish, which echoes my concerns.

It is ironic that the BBC, which strives so hard to serve “minorities” has been so roundly condemned by a report by Stonewall, the organisation that campaigns on behalf of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals.

The report cites numerous examples of presenters on the two main BBC channels making negative comments about gays.  The report's researchers, who included heterosexuals, watched one hundred and sixty eight hours of programming between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. over a period of eight weeks.  During that time, it is said, lesbian and gays, references to them, or related issues featured in just thirty-eight minutes of coverage, of which thirty-two minutes were deemed derogatory or offensive and just six minutes were deemed positive.

A number of things struck me about the report.  Whilst I cannot claim to have watched the same one hundred and sixty eight hours of programming as the researchers, I have watched programmes in which the alleged worst offenders, such as the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Anne Robinson and Chris Moyles happened to be presenting.  None of these individuals are homophobic.  All call a spade, a spade and are vocal about their opinions.  Chris Moyles might be a piss-taker, but very often the butt of his humour is himself.  I accept that gay characters in so many plays, soaps and other programmes seem to be a parody, but then the other characters are clichéd, as well.  I suspect that as the researchers were specifically looking for bias against gays, they found it.  Seek and ye shall find.  Had they been asked to watch the programmes and note down anything they thought to be significant but without being told what they were looking for, the result of the survey might have been very different.

Too often, focus groups and activists from “minorities” are blind to the “robust humour” to which the general population is subjected.  They are too ready to adopt the role of victim and are far too sensitive and perceive slight where there is none.  It is also a sad fact of life, that the World does not perceive any of us as we perceive ourselves, but so often, the World’s perception is right.

The portrayal of homosexuality in the media is very often trite and silly.  The BBC is pro European Union and Tory-Sceptic, but it is not homophobic.[1]

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].