The "rule of law" should be suspended for people we dislike

Here:

Responding to the ruling NSPCC Wales head of service Des Mannion said: "It is extremely frightening that a child rapist described as 'very dangerous' and unrepentant has been released back in to the community due to what seems like a legal technicality surrounding the timing of the offence."

This is increasingly common, not least amongst the Richard Murphy tendency.

Discuss.

As a starter, in my opinion, it is bad enough that the law is as complex as it is. The average punter has nothing expect the increasingly vague moral framework we inherit from our environment (and, of course, mandatory testing on the Road Traffic Act) to determine what is actually legal. Professionally, I have corrected senior counsel on their interpretation of the law (albeit it in a field of professional and personal interest) - and I have had fewer law lectures than I have had stats ones. And, to their credit, they admitted (after lunch) that I was correct.

If we require people to obey the law as it might be framed in the future?

This has nothing to do with whether the appropriate sentence for a specific (or any) rapist should be less than the statutory maximum - which is life.

#GenocideinGaza

(Ed notes: I drafted this on the train in to work this morning and had pretty much a day of end-to-end meeting hell. Although I now know that a [coughs] "long-term" ceasefire has now been agreed, I don't think it changes the sentiment of what I had written.)

The population of Gaza is some 1.8 million people, crammed in to an area of 139 square miles. Not quite Macau, or even Hong Kong (which I had thought was the most crowded 'country') but certainly quite cramped.

Over the last seven weeks, the planes, tanks, attack helicopters and infantry of the Israeli Defence Forces have, according to Hamas figures, killed some 2200 of them. Roughly 0.1%.

In contrast, the Rwandan genocide, conducted with machetes and fire, saw the slaughter of some 70%* of the Tutsi population.

What can we judge from this?

Either that there was (Ed note: I originally wrote 'is') no attempt to commit genocide in Gaza or that the IDF are simply not very good at it. In fact, very bad at it.

* 'Fact' from Wikipedia. YMMV.

This is petty to the point of imbecility.

While I'm not quite in the "get out the piano wire" mode of Mr Worstall, this case (Telegraph, Mirror) makes me cringe through its abject stupidity.

Kim Walmsley, 49, said her 23-year marriage was declared illegal and she was forced to return from Australia after she could not renew her passport.

Her troubles began when the registrar wrongly recorded her as a male after she was born in February 1965.

Okay, so there are two totally separate issues here - the bureaucracy and the church. Now, nobody expects sense out of any bureaucracy and nobody expects sense from the Church of England on matters that could be considered, from even a hypothetically reductio ad absurdum conservative point of view, to have anything to do with sex.

But ...

As far as the bureaucracy is concerned, a transsexual would be entitled to a "certificate of gender recognition". Mrs Walmsley should be entitled to a "certificate of sex and gender recognition". Or just "sex recognition". So that's settled.

As far as the Church is concerned, their error is far more egregious. It should not be worried about matters of bureaucratic incompetence or, in fact, bureaucratic recognition. Given that the Church's current position is that marriage is between a man and a woman - Section B, Canon 30, paragraph 1:

The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

And Kim is clearly a woman (she's given birth to five children) and, Jack is a man, then the marriage is clearly canonical, regardless of the failings of the English Registry system.

Edited to add: reading elsewhere, Kim clearly has a case for an amendment to the register under s29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953:

An error of fact or substance in any such register may be corrected by entry in the margin (without any alteration of the original entry) by the officer having the custody of the register, and upon production to him by that person of a statutory declaration setting forth the nature of the error and the true facts of the case made by two qualified informants of the birth or death with reference to which the error has been made, or in default of two qualified informants then either by two credible persons having knowledge of the truth of the case or, where it applies, in accordance with section 29A of this Act. 

Noting that s29A does not apply in this case (it is restricted to mis-identification of the father), then two qualified informants (in accordance with s1(2) of the same Act). Her parents would do, if they are still alive (and she's 49, so it wouldn't be abnormal) or two credible persons. I would suggest any of the obstetricians or midwives who oversaw any of her pregnancies or births or any gynecologist would do.

Now, this would not alter the initial in-correct registration but it would correct it and allow her issue of an accurate birth certificate and, providing the Church wasn't insanely stupid (I'm not offering odds here) belated re-recognition of the validity of her original marriage.

Hmm, I think you may have some trouble ...

Turkish PM fails to consider US First Amendment:

Turkey is to start extradition proceedings against US-based cleric Fethullah Gulen, PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said. Mr Gulen, a former ally of the prime minister, has been accused by Mr Erdogan of using his supporters to try to topple him. The cleric denies mounting a campaign against him. Turkey's government has faced a string of corruption scandals and rights groups accuse it of authoritarianism. Speaking at parliament after meeting with deputies from his Justice and Development Party (AKP) party on Tuesday, Mr Erdogan confirmed the extradition process "will begin", reports say.

Given that the Turks have "cancelled his passport" (Reuters), it is going to see how they construct a set of charges that won't simply be laughed out of any US court.

Nonsense from Avaaz

From the latest outraged petition:

Apple, one of the world's wealthiest companies, paid $0 in tax on $78 billion they made in recent years by setting up shell corporations in low-tax countries and posting profits abroad. This kind of global tax evasion gives multinational firms a huge advantage over smaller domestic companies. It's as bad for a healthy market economy as it is for democracy and economic stability.

Except, well, it's just bollocks, really. Apple does pay tax - in the USA, in the UK (albeit not much here - but that's the EU for you). Apply doesn't set up shell companies or post profits abroad. What it is doing is not repatriating profits made abroad to the USA, because of the way US corporate tax law works.

The real problem is that the idiots' meme (Lady Hodge, GMG and the LHTD - all enthusiastically evading tax themselves, of course) is winning. I despair, sometimes.

It really doesn't help ...

I honestly believe that the USA would be more likely to improve (or to improve faster) with Romney at the helm (despite his weird religion) than with Obama at the helm (despite his weird religion - although he has denounced that particular pastor.)

However, the Republican Party is quite clearly full of nutcases. And, in far too many cases, seems to want them to become elected.

Congressman Paul Broun - who can't be a complete idiot as he managed to acquire an MD before he became a professional parasite - doesn't believe in:

• Evolution
• Big Bang Theory
• Embryology (seriously? I hope none of his female patients every got pregnant.)

He, or his team, also don't understand "off the record". Seriously, can the Democrats not find anybody more electable than this?

Update: Chuckle-a-duck on the same subject.

Whinging Aussie Gits

I mean, come on?

his native Australia had made an "effective declaration of abandonment" by refusing to intervene in his planned extradition.

 My government is not my government any more. It's just a subsidiary of the United States. They got together to send him back to the US.

Oh, for fuck's sake. They should rip up his passport for being a professional whiner. He expects a democracy to intervene in one of its citizens being extradited from another democracy to yet another democracy to face questioning for something that is a crime in all three? It's bloody unbelievable. 

If he was being extradited to the US on political or espionage charges (espionage against the US not, to the best of my knowledge, being a crime in the UK, Australia or Sweden) then, well, it might a bit more reasonable. But he's not. "Rape and sexual assault".

I wonder how many of the various leftist running dogs would be supporting a Swede, living in the US, against allegations that he raped two women in London?

Notes for people who insist it wouldn't be a crime in the UK (Ed notes: references are to E&W law, the Act does not apply in Scotland, although there are similar provisions in Part 2 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009):

1. s75(2)(d) Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers " asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act" - reversing the burden of proof for consent. And as the woman has said she didn't consent ...

2. s76(2)(a) SOA03 covers the broken (or absent) condom: "the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;". This doesn't just reverse the burden of proof, it is "it is to be conclusively presumed":

(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and

(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.

It's not a "super moon"

It is the same moon that it has been for some billions of years. You are channeling an idiot astrologer.

All that is happening is that perigee (the periapsis point of a system dominated by the Earth - Gaia) is co-inciding with the full moon. The Earth / moon system has a periapsis point every lunar orbit (about a month.) We have a full moon every month (where we get the name from - it is a hint.) Some times they happen about the same time.

I'd note that the gravitational effect is even greater when perigee occurs at the new moon. But that's much less spectacular, so you don't get idiots (or journalists, but I repeat myself) writing about it.

Next occurence - June 23rd next year. Unless, of course, the world is destroyed as we roll over into a new Mayan Great Cycle, apparently some time in Dec.

There's nothing British ...

This:

They are just trying to scupper another person's opportunity for debate, which is very uncivilised and very un-British.

Bit like the fucking BNP, really. Uncivilised and very un-British.

Oh, and Ken?

The far right want to destroy our democracy and stand for the elimination of our basic rights.

Firstly, the BNP are a racist, statist hard-left party. As you should well know. As a racist*, statist hard-left mayoral candidate.

Secondly, nothing the BNP, the EDL or Combat 18 could do, hell even the SWP and the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah together could do, that would do more to "eliminate our basic rights" than your beloved Labour Party has done. Egregious fuckwit.

---

* Yes, Jews are a race, legally and probably realistically, and Ken hates them.

Dear Argentina

My dearest Christina,

While we understand the depth of feeling in your country about the status of the Falkland Islands, and your need to distract your population from your (and your husband's) appalling economic record, we do think that you might have gone a little to far, or as the youth say "might have jumped the shark", with your recent suggestion that Argentina take over the civilian airbridge to the islands.

May I remind you that you are currently attempting to enforce a de facto blockade of the Islands and are attempting to start a trade war?

And you want us to give you control over the flights in to and out? Because we know that it isn't commercial viable for there to be two airlines. Simply not enough people.

Do you think we are fucking nuts?

Yours sincerely,

Britain.

PS and BTW, we recognise all the participants as veterans. Yet you don't. If I may quote:

They say that back on the mainland their worst enemies were not the British, but their own superior officers.  They starved, humiliated, and even tortured their charges.  One common form of punishment involved tying a naked soldier to stakes on the ground and leaving him at the mercy of the Patagonian cold for days.

Sort your own camp out before whining about us.

Dear Argentina,

The maximum range of the Trident D-5 rocket carried in the Vanguard class submarines is, according to Wikipedia, over 7,000 miles. Which is somewhat more than the distance between Plymouth and Buenos Aires.

Why would we need one to be anywhere near the Falklands?

Note: Yes, I know that the boats are based in Faslane not Devonport ...

Utterly Magnificent Nonsense

Here. A sample:

Starlight from the most distant galaxy can reach earth on the fourth day of the Creation Week when the correct relativistic synchrony convention is employed.

Will fisk later.

Oh. Dear. God.

The Huffington Post interviews Fred Phelps. Some extracts ...

Look at the world of Noah. In his day there were 12 to 16 billion people on Earth, and only eight got out of that flood alive. The world is going to be devoured by fire.

12 billion people on Earth in, what would it have been, around 2300BC (according to some creationist timelines)? That's how Noah could get all of the animals in to one boat. All the rest had been eaten.

Is there anything you want to say to her?

No. Except that she should repent.

But her husband wasn't a homosexual.

So then why are they upset? If he wasn't a sinner, he doesn't need to worry. If he was, then it's too late for him. There's time for her though.

Seriously? The idiot doesn't understand why his picketing a funeral causes upset? And the dead soldier wasn't anything to do with the cause (homophobia) he is supporting? It would be like turning up to a church open day and protesting about RBS funding "Big Oil". Right or wrong? Doesn't matter - completely irrelevant.

The behaviour of these fools is enough to make me wish I was an atheist.

Election: Tweets and Twats

A certain Eric Joyce carped at me a week or so ago for pointing out that a large number of candidates for Parliament, who used to be MPs, were breaking Electoral Law by still referring to themselves as MPs.  This, he implied was trivial and unworthy of the limited time I had spent on a not very comprehensive or random survey.

This morning, I wake up to a Labour candidate in an egregious breach of Electoral Law.  Apparently,

It was a thoughtless thing to do, and I very quickly realised that it was not appropriate to put such information in the public domain.

No, you vacuous cyber-cunt - it isn't "not appropriate" - it is illegal.

Well, yes. Like Harman and Balls with their mobile phones, the Attorney General and her mysterious lack of documentation, and Lord Ahmed killing a father because it was inconvenient to be away from his text messages - we see a total disregard for the law of the land.  Add the expenses scandal and this is across the political class.  Scum.

Election: Just what are UKIP up to?

I can't remember why, but I ended up on the UKIP website, looking at their policies.  Ouch.  Really.

I agree with the main point of UKIP - out of the EU.  Whether this means EEA / EFTA or a bilateral agreement like Switzerland, I don't care but we don't need the code law, the statism or the 'social democracy'.

On the rest of it? I'll pick two of their 17 areas:

Defence

• Boost the military budget by 40% so our armed forces are properly equipped
• Demand one clear achievable mission for Afghanistan or seek a negotiated exit
• Keep Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent strong
• Look after our service heroes with better pay and conditions
• Expand the Army by 25% and double the TA
• Provide more RAF helicopters and aircraft
• Expand the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength, guaranteeing the future of Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth ports

Just look at it. Firstly - a budget increase of 40%? Yes, throwing money at a government department has proved such a success with New Labour, hasn't it? Also, we can't afford it. According to their figures, the net EU contribution is £16.4 billion. The 2009 / 10 MOD budget is a bit over £35bn. So that one commitment is taking 86% of our government revenue savings?  Never mind that this will all get siphoned off into crap we don't actually need (Typhoon tranche 3), stuff we need but a buying stupidly expensively because we insist it is built in the UK to support BAE shareholders (Apache, FRES) and general waste.

Afghan?  Nice thought but "one clear achievable mission" is an oxymoron.

Independent deterrent? Without wishing to pander to those who insist that the Yanks have a veto on launch of Trident (errm, yes, it's designed to work if the entire Western World has been left a smoking ruin?  And, no, we don't have the US, in fact - any, PAL system on the warheads.)

TACOS - are fine, thanks - nearly everybody would want more pay but a recent Arrse thread basically pointed out that as the recruitment pipelines are overflowing, pay is clearly 'acceptable'.  Yes, some bits of the system are broken (accommodation, particularly) but that is due to a combination of silly bureaucracy and worse contract writing - not something that can be trivially fixed by throwing money at it.

Expand, expand, expand.  Well, apart from the fact they clearly don't realise that Faslane is now the one Scottish military port and they can't mean the shipyards or they would have mentioned Barrow and the Clyde - you can't just do this.  You need to recreate the military pyramid (with the AcSM on top, of course) and you can only shove in at the bottom.  My training took 5 years from joining up through to my first operational post - and I wasn't doing anything difficult like flying fast jets.  Also, doubling the size of the TA?  Come off it - we can't recruit up to strength (in most areas) as it is (and, given the lesser time you can devote to training as a reservist, it takes even longer to produce a useful soldier.)

Culture & Restoring Britishness

• End support for multiculturalism and promote one shared British culture for all
• Be fair to England by introducing an ‘English Parliament’, ending the discriminatory Barnett Formula and making St George’s Day a national holiday in England
• Ban the burka and veiled niqab in public buildings and certain private buildings
• Require UK schools to teach Britain’s contribution to the world and celebrate cultures, languages and traditions from around the British Isles
• Scrap political correctness in public affairs

Oh dear, "one shared British culture"? Whose culture would that be then?  The Outer Hebridies, where running a ferry on the Lord's Day causes public concern?  Victorian puritanism (and prurience) or Georgian between-the-wars hedonism?  Chav bling and vomiting in gutters all around (and, frankly - that's what passes for 'British' these days - Ned if you want to be parochial).

England stuff - oh God.  Not more politicians?  Yes, we need to solve the imbalance of powers and the funding issues and I have no problem with St George's Day being a holiday.  (Actually, is having a day off to celebrate the death of a Palestinian or Turkish soldier part of the multiculturalism the previous bullet isn't supporting?)

Banning things. Isn't British. If you want to import French ideas, what about their health service funding?

Schools - great. So Londoners need to be taught Gaelic and weegies Kernewek?  That's what they are saying!

The problem is not "political correctness" which, at its basis is just good manners, but excess.  And there is no commitment to the incarceration of all "Diversity Officers", which would be a damn good start.

Following the trail

In the general wake of relief at the Singh verdict, I've been checking a few of the science blogs and, on the Bad Astronomy blog, found a link to this page dealing with some of the claims of the Australian anti-vaccination hysterical mob.

And on reading Tom's offical submission about references, came across this one of his references:

[35] http://www.whale.to/b/ufo_man_h.html A page suggesting that most UFOs are man-made.

Now, much of that page is the usual conspiracy theory bollocks but - the basic premise is quite right in principle - most UFOs are man-made - weather balloons and suchlike, even the occasional military aircraft, some of which (US) are not public designs.   The rest are the rare strange meteorological effect or astronomical object - especiallyVenus.

More Reverse Burden of Proof

Okay, the vile disease is spreading. The "The Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2010" has been introduced and this enables automatic gates to be used for certain classes of entrant - hence "grant or refusal of leave otherwise than by notice in writing". No stamp in your passport (unless you have a visa.) Quick, convenient, to everybodies' benefit - travellers, officials etc.

Until they catch somebody who's been through one of these gates and say "prove how you came in to the country". You have no access to the UK Borders Agency systems or the airline systems and even if you had kept your boarding card, that is only evidence that you checked in for a particular flight (it could trivially be alleged, for example, that you merely changed flights at Heathrow - therefore never actually entered the country.) But, still, from the explanatory note:

where any question arises under the Immigration Acts as to whether a person has leave to enter the United Kingdom and the person alleges that the person has such leave by virtue of passing through an automated gate under article 8A, the onus shall be on the person to show the manner and date of entry into the United Kingdom.

I'll note that in the other cases from the 2000 SI, as originally implemented, you were either given leave to remain by telephone or by a notice to a responsible 3rd party. In both these cases, I would assume that you would have had some documentation of your initial entry to the UK in your passport - which is what you have to prove - when and how did you enter the UK. It is the "leave to remain", subsequently granted and which you are not required to prove, that comes without a document.

Bastards. Just evil bastards. I'll note that this cunting thing is a draft - I hope, but strongly doubt, that they'll fix it.

An "Opinion" Piece is not a "Stupidity Licence"

Lesley Riddoch, in today's Scotsman (partial article & comments here) maintains:

Scotland is moving naturally toward the same general policy of neutrality observed by all modern Scandinavian nations.

So she clearly hasn't heard of the NATO membership of Norway and Denmark - and Iceland, I forgot Iceland - (all considered both considered Scandinavian and members of the Nordic Council - the point of her article) or the recent death of a Danish soldier in Afghanistan. There was a Danish battalion as part of the British-led Division in Basrah for a number of years, as well.

Just to make a political point ... Words fail me.

Hannan actually called Obama a misogynist homophobe!

He did, look:

Like St Paul, he made a virtue of being all things to all men.

And, even being a Christian, I have to admit that St Paul is fairly well known, if not actually renowned, for having a downer on the fairer sex and a apocalyptic hatred of gayers. And Hannan clearly compares Obama to St Paul. Therefore, exercising my massive grasp of leftie logic, Hannan has accused Obama of all of Paul's flaws as well as the specific virtue he actually used. And then we have this nonsense from the media.

There have been enough comments from sensible people about the dog-whistle "you're a racist" tactics of the nu-Lab playground bullies so I point you the direction of Cranmer and go off on a rant instead.

Gordon Brown is a sanctimonious, hypocritical cunt.

And ill-educated to boot. The nerve of the pointless blob of cowardice:

The event was intended for prime ministers and presidents rather than royals, Mr Brown added.

"But if the queen wanted to attend these events or if any member of the royal family wanted to attend these events, I would make that possible," he said.

So what the fuckup meant was that the event was intended for Heads of State and Heads of Government.  Oh, and I wonder who the Head of State is in Brown's Britain.  Actually, I'm scared to ask, just in case the answer comes back "Peter Mandelson".

I really hate to agree with the French, in fact, I think it may be "dereliction of duty" but:

French officials said the Queen was welcome and the UK government was responsible for deciding who should attend what was "primarily a Franco-American ceremony"

.