The hoods were briefly removed and the recruits had to lie down with a sergeant on their backs while a waterpipe was stuffed into their noses.
During a second exercise the recruits were sprayed with water as they stood with electrical cables from a field telephone attached to their necks, thighs and calves.
Now, we all know that going to war on the same side as the Americans may lead to 'friendly fire' but, really, it is unlikely to lead to 'friendly waterboarding'.
* $5k per hour, or whatever is being reported now.
The question is being asked of Kenny MacAskill today, who has demanded that the UK government, in the form of Ruth Kelly, never a body corporate nor a person slow to shit all over the liberties of us mere peons, reduce the legal blood alcohol level for drivers from 80mg/100ml* to 50.
It has to be said that this is not a new SNP policy - so they are, at least, consistent in their shit-headery.
"What's your problem?" you may be asking. Do I really want more deaths on the road? After all:
Drink driving remains a constant thorn in the side of efforts to make our roads and communities safer. The fact that 1 in 9 road deaths in Scotland were alcohol-related shows we need to do more.
Aaaargh. You utter fucking imbecile. If you want to educate people that drink driving is bad, then educate them - you're in charge of the entire Scottish education system for fuck's sake. You have an enormous PR and media budget. Prioritise the spend. But no, you are trying to change the law. You need (well, okay, you don't, you should have) a reason. A simple change of question for you.
It is not "How many road deaths are alcohol-related?", it is "How many deaths were attributable to the legal alcohol limit being 0.8g/l not 0.5g/l?"
Just one hint. Don't believe the BMA's figure of 65 UK-wide. They, just like our politicians, are another bunch of "Do as we say, not as we do", hypocrites.
* Science pedant here - what, exactly, is wrong with properly labelling this 0.8g/l? Maybe because that seems really small? Cunts.
I picked up a copy of Nassim Taleb's 'Black Swan' at the airport on Friday. Interesting book with some basic and difficult to argue with premises:
The 'normal' or 'Gaussian' probability distribution curve is only ever, at best, an approximation to reality.
Although there are some aspects of reality for which it is a reasonably good approximation (human height and weight are both examples mentioned), there are many things out there for which it is a terrible approximation.
Where it is a terrible approximation, it is normally underestimating the probabilities of "tail" events - unlikely disasters or triumphs.
Where a terrible probability approximation is used to mechanistically calculate for outcomes with high impacts, 'bad things' ™ may happen.
Although the example he regularly uses for a variable which has a long and significant tail is human earnings or wealth, where he considers that some version of a power law distribution is in force, his money has been made from using this understanding to predict high risk events in the financial markets.
How can you make money from this? By taking it from others through insurance or hedging. If you know (or can place a damn good guess of) the real likelihood and impact of one of his 'Black Swan' events, and everybody else grossly underestimates them, you are not going to need to spend as much as you would if their actuaries were up to speed (this doesn't apply to high-ish probability events where the actuaries just look up the number of events and the assessed costs). You can then take the upside of the event happening or not and transfer the risk of the downside to somebody who understands it less well.
Overall - I would recommend this book for anybody interested in the financial markets and how people manage to get paid quite so much for doing quite so badly. I would note, as a mild warning, that it will be a bit too mathematical for many - although he does try to flag this and allow you to skip those bits. Personally, I will try his "Fooled by Randomness" when I see a copy although I would recommend Tim Harford's "Logic of Life" for an even more sideways look at 'homo economicus'.
So Sir James Crosby, ex-head of HBOS and now quango-ing it up as Deputy Chairman of the FSA, has finally published the report into "Challenges and opportunities in identity assurance". He had been appointed by the monocular control freak in July 2006 to lead the "Public Private Forum on Identity Management", some four months after the detailed legislation for the National ID Card and National Identity Register was enacted. So, actually, it is pretty pointless.
In law, we already know what is going to be in the Register, we know how, if not exactly what, we are going to be forced to fund this statist atrocity? So why a detailed report now and why did it take 21 months to produce? I'm sure Sir James isn't saying.
But despite all the time it has taken to produce this, there are a number of problems. Firstly, it doesn't describe the UK ID Card and Register. Sir James is describing a system that is free (or, at least, cheap) - para 5.38, efficient - para 5.4, and allows for the inevitable failures - paras 4.7 & 5.37. Most of all, it stores just the data necessary for the validation of ID - summary and paras 5.20 & 5.21.
He also makes a couple of mistakes - an over-reliance on the capabilities of biometrics in para 1.17 (although para 1.19 does show some, albeit insufficient, scepticism) and a general ignoring of the 'birthday attack', particularly in para 1.18. Although he is technically correct, the approach in para 1.26 and Ch1, footnote 1 is unfortunate for its stress - it skirts the core issue that the assurance system will not have independent failure rates - they will rely on the same ID Card enrolment, issuance and validation system, for a start.
He doesn't mention terrorism - although 'national security' does get a couple of plugs, and 'border control' is mentioned.
Heathrow currently takes about 160,000 passengers per day. If you have a 1 in a million false-identification rate (which causes you to be arrested) and a 1 in 250,000 system failure rate (which causes a significant delay or being denied boarding) and there are 20 known terrorists per year going through the airport, 68 people will be falsely arrested, system errors in 271 cases will cause significant delays and no terrorists will be caught. Why? Because the terrorists will have correctly (if illegally) issued ID cards for completely 'innocent' identities.
Cutting through ninety years of bullshit, waffle and wearing civvies, the citizens of Peterborough seem to have finally realised that the Royal Air Force are part of the British military.
Note to MOD: When you left wearing uniform up to the discretion of the local commander, it shouldn't have surprised you (having spent so much time at Staff College) that they used this discretion and, even more shocking, 'discretion' sometimes means instructing personnel not to wear uniform. Pillocks.
Note to Politicians: This is not America. This may be a surprise to you but unpopular wars make for unpopular warriors.
Note to Army and Royal Navy: Not that you need the reminder but, laugh now, please.
Dog shows. I frankly don't care whether "traditional Crufts breeders" think that dancing dogs are bringing the show into disrepute. I think that dog shows bring the country into disrepute.
From today's Indefensible, as part of an otherwise reasonable article suggesting that possibly deporting gay people to Iran might offend the British sense of fair play and justice and breach the bit in the Human Rights Act which says that the death penalty isn't quite right nowadays:
Unlike gay websites, their email network cannot be shut down because it does not have a home page.
Regardless of the near ubiquity of web-mail interfaces nowadays, let me contribute to the world-wide fascist state by introducing the Iranians to the DNS 'MX' query. Err, which tells you what the FQDNs (Fully Qualified Domain Name) or IP addresses of the email servers are for an internet domain or subdomain.
Anthony Gormley says "There is an awful lot of crap out there"
Now, as much as I like the iconic "Angel of the North", I must agree with Andrew. "Firmament", on show at the White Cube gallery and available to your local council for the waste of a mere £850k, shows just how right he is. Except, that's his.
For pompous art snobs 'naive' and 'representational' ≠ 'crap'. Particularly for Marjorie Trusted, neither does 'old-fashioned' equal bad.
* Here are some of the relevant IP addresses:
Domain
Type
Class
TTL
Answer
cluster5a.eu. messagelabs.com.
A
IN
900
193.109.255.19
cluster5a.eu.messagelabs.com.
A
IN
900
193.109.254.3
cluster5a.eu.messagelabs.com.
A
IN
900
193.109.254.115
cluster5a.eu.messagelabs.com.
A
IN
900
195.245.230.51
cluster5a.eu.messagelabs.com.
A
IN
900
85.158.136.83
cluster5a.eu.messagelabs.com.
A
IN
900
85.158.140.179
PS. Yes, I know that the tables display in a manner best described as "crap". If you can help as opposed to moan, please let me know. Update: I may have corrected bodged this.
So, there I am harmlessly slowly waking up and the unattractive figure of Jacqui Smith appears on the television. We know that she shines an inefficient and low-wattage light even amongst the dim bulbs that are the current Cabinet but she was appalling this morning. On ID Cards, of course.
So we are starting with compulsory issue - first to evil furriners (except EU furriners who, according to the Brussels collective, cannot be evil), then to airport workers, students (who, as we all know are smelly wasters, spending all their time drinking at the Union while skipping lectures) in 2010 and finally, once we have been immunised against it, all of us when we go and get our passports from 2011. She did try to say that the latter two would be voluntary but, as it is the register not the card that is important, I don't believe here. And nobody, not even airport workers, will need to carry it.
Unless, and I was taking notes by this point, you want to:
Travel
Get a bank account
Get a loan
Prove who we are to the police (Wat is going to be in real trouble)
or buy property
And it will protect us against fraud. Will it? Only if we have checks against the NIR, using the biometric data on our ID cards, at every opportunity to commit fraud1. Which is a problem, because every time our identity is checked against the NIR, the circumstances of that check will ne recorded on the NIR. This is going to make the NIR much larger and much, much busier, therefore, almost axiomatically, much more likely to contain incorrect information and much more likely to fall over.
And the vaunted biometrics, in a different database to the NIR2 you know, is now just a digitised photograph and your fingerprints. Ho, hum. That will prevent terrorism, I know, Jacqui said so.
Not so - let's take an example. The completely hypothetical Abdul al Innocent comes to the UK to go to University3. After 4 years of exposure to pictures of Jade Goody, walking around piles of chav vomit / vomiting chavs, and encouraged by sermons from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Abdul decides that Britain is doomed unless we are brought under Sharia law. He goes home to get a job (having entered as a student, he has difficulty converting his visa to a work one and he is law-abiding and not going to go on the run.)
Once home, he meets up with some radical Islamists after Friday prayers and he is, over a period of a few months, convinced by them that the best way to convince us of the right(eous)ness of Sharia law is a series of terrorist atrocities4. So, he applies for a work visa which is granted5. And he comes to the UK. He has, of course, already got an ID card and an entry on the NIR. His controllers provide him with a forged or fraudulent passport, let's make it French, for Jean le Terroriste. All of his dodgy activity; training, meeting with fellow activists, purchasing parts for his explosive waistcoat, are done by Jean - and on Jean's ID Card and recorded on Jean's NIR record. Before the final terrorist activity, Jean's ID card is shredded and the earnestly innocent Abdul goes to meet his raisins. Game set match - all sorts of things could have caught Abdul but not ID Cards.
1. And as the banks found out with Chip & Pin, all that will do is drive the commission of fraud abroad.
2. Yes, the biometrics shouldn't be on any database, they only need to be on the card. But that would be the sensible way of doing things.
3. Why, I am not entirely sure. Even if Abdul was from a country we or the Yanks had bombed back to the Stone Age, he is likely to get a much better education, even in the English language, anywhere but here.
4. Adbul is not too bright. Let's say he was a "David Beckham Studies" graduate.
5. I did imagine a lot in here about his arrest under Section 132 of SOCPA and subsequent brutalisation at the hands of a militant lesbian Met Police Officer "because he looked at me funny, m'lud." But it was irrelevant so I left it out.
This guy is not just "trying it on", he is also completely wrong.
When asked by Ms LaTorre how he would like to be introduced, Mr Irvine said he would like be known as "Sir Robert Irvine, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order."
She told the St Petersburg Times: "He said there were five levels of knights, and KCVO is the highest level of knight you could be. The Queen handpicks you."
Actually, of course, there are 7 active orders of Knighthood* in Britain: Knights Bachelor, the Order of the British Empire, the Royal Victorian Order, the Order of St Michael and St George, the Order of the Bath, the Order of the Thistle and the Order of the Garter. These all have either one (Garter, Thistle & Bachelor) or two divisions of knighthood - in the latter case you are either a Knight Commander or the more senior "Knight Grand Cross".
And, there are 6 grades within the Royal Victorian Order - from the Royal Victorian Medal to Knight Grand Cross. (Ed notes: It does have to be admitted, however, that membership in the RVO is one of the honours actually in the direct gift of the Queen rather than her being advised on appointment by her Government.)
So far from being the highest level of Knight, KCVO (the Star is shown here) is actually 9th of 11* with only KBE and Knight Batchelor as junior (the Garter is the most senior order).
'Tis a pity that although his time on the Royal Yacht appears to have done wonders for his cooking, it appears not to have done much for his appreciation of the (admittedly of limited importance) matters of precedence or, you have to say, mere counting.
* I don't believe that either the Order of Merit or the Order of Companions of Honour are actually knightly orders. If they are then there are 9 orders and KCVO is 11th of 13!
With regard to the "George Medal" post below, I think it also deserves pointing out that St Andrew is hardly quintessentially Scottish. As a Patron Saint, we share him with Russia, Romania and Greece, as well as Byzantium / Constantinople / Istanbul1 - places where, unlike Scotland, he may have actually had an evangelical connection. Whether as a Jewish fisherman in Roman-occupied Galilee or as the First Apostle, his connection with our lovely country is, at best, post mortem2 and, as it seemsto bebased on the dubious authenticity of medieval church relics, probably entirely hypothetical.
Also, Mrs S-E wishes her loyal public to note that she has decreed that from times henceforth, minature bottles of alcohol, those being 5cl of spirits, 18.75cl of wine or 20cl of champagne3,4, shall be known as "sheridans", in honour of Gail of that name.
1. And Prussia, keeping my prior habit of citing regions.
2. Although the myths of St Andrew indicate he is supposed to have preached in Scythia and the Declaration of Arbroath does claim the Scots came via "Greater Scythia", so he might just have run across us.
3. Although anybody approaching her presence with champagne in volume less than a normal bottle* will be hung, drawn and quartered, just to make the point.
4. Or similar sizes. She's not a Eurocrat.
* And to be full (at least until you pour her glass), and to be left in an appropriate cooling bucket within easy reach. Thank you.
The utter stupidity of British politicians never ceases to amaze me. Which just proves that we are not always capable of learning from our mistakes.
Of course, in Scotland, the lunatics beat the the spivs in the last election, so they have so much more scope for their cretinous beliefs and ridiculous notions to interfere with those of us just trying to get along in life. Recently, the anti-English* party have been even more whacked out than normal - the Berwick stunt, Chris Harvie's moronic utterances regarding Lockerbie and, alerted to by the ever vigilant Snob, Christine Grahame, prime twit of l'affair Berwick, at it again.
Given we have had some recent high profile examples of such acts of heroism it is time we remedied the situation and properly recognised these outstanding individuals.
Whilst I accept that the current George Medal is available to people throughout the UK, it is clearly a very Anglo-centric award that takes no account of Scotland's long and well-established tradition of bravery, both in civilian life and in the role performed by Scots service personnel over the centuries.
The George Medal depicts St George of England slaying a mythical dragon, a representation that remains quintessentially English.
Now, let's just see. It is not the "St George" Medal (and Cross), it is the (King) George (VI) Medal, as can been seen in the official MOD photograph (and, yes, I know that it would the current monarch on the obverse of any new awards). And, and I appreciate that as a modern politician, Christine won't have been anywhere near the military, it is the obverse not the "St George & the Dragon" bearing side that shows.
And, of course, St George isn't English. If he existed, he was probably Turkish born, Greek speaking and thought of himself as a Roman citizen. And he isn't just the patron saint of England - he is the patron saint of (countries only); Canada, England, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Montenegro, Palestine, Portugal, Russia, and Serbia; as well as the Spanish regions of Aragon and Catalonia.
And, of course, it is not the politicians and Government, whether Scottish or United Kingdom that awards gallantry medals in the UK - it is the Queen (or the Royal Humane Society and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.) So stupidity reigns, as ever, in the bowels of Holyrood; Grahame herself and Messrs Hepburn, Ahmad, Wilson, Gibson, Kidd, McMillan and McKee. The Herald doesn't do much better:
The George Medal and George Cross were created to reward acts of bravery committed by members of the Commonwealth not serving in the armed forces, who can be awarded the Victoria Cross.
No, they were not. They were created to reward acts of bravery committed other than in the face of the enemy - whether by civilians or by military personnel. The George Cross replaced three existing awards, the Empire Gallantry Medal, the Albert Medal (1st Class or Gold awards only until 1971) and the Edward Medal. Many recipients have been military personnel - many bomb disposal officers and technicians such as Captain Peter Norton GC although other have won the awards for saving life in minefields or, in Lance Corporal Chris Finney GC's case, because the Septics are, technically, not the enemy.
I'll leave you with a comment from somebody who knows - retired police Chief Superintendent James Beaton GC CVO JP:
Bravery is bravery the world over, be it Scotland, Ireland, Wales or anywhere else. The Victoria and George Crosses are recognised the world over. If you were to have a Scottish George Cross, why not a Scottish Victoria Cross? Should I be given a Scottish award because I am a Scot living in England?
* Well, they are. Not all of them but a significant number of their politicians, many of their activists and, I suspect, a huge percentage of their voters.
Actually, I am not as politic as the estimable Mr Hardie. I don't think the words have been that fine. I think they have been grudging, late and weasely. I think that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have behaved appallingly and that Dan actually got it right here:
Only pressure will stop this Government from finding bureaucratic excuses to abandon its moral obligations and leave its former Employees to the death squads.
Do you like reading fine words? Here is the Prime Minister on the subject of Iraqi ex-employees of the British Government, speaking in the House of Commons on October 9th, 2007: ‘I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our civilian and locally employed staff in Iraq, many of whom have worked in extremely difficult circumstances, exposing themselves and their families to danger. I am pleased therefore to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff, who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in what we know are uniquely difficult circumstances.’
Fine words. What about deeds?
A small number of Iraqis - fewer than a dozen, according to people close to the operation who are in contact with me- were removed from Iraq in the early autumn of 2007. Since the Prime Minister’s admirable declaration of October, how many Iraqi ex-employees have been evacuated from Iraq? According to all the Iraqis that I am in contact with: none.
...
The Home Office is dawdling while people are threatened with death.This is either incompetence in the face of a crisis, or it is a deliberate policy of putting bureaucratic obstacles in the face of fugitives. Neither is acceptable.
Please read the whole thing and do what your conscience tells you.
I know that, in both cases "Pimp* for votes" would be more honest.
* Yes, 'pimp', rather than 'prostitute'. If it was their own money they were promising to spend rather than your taxes, they might raise themselves to the dignity of a harlot.
Mrs Sheridan appears to have been suspended from her job for being in the possession of (allegedly) and potentially purloining some airline miniature booze*, to add to her perjury charge woes.
Well, what would you expect? She is, without question, a good Socialist and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is a damn good Socialist principle. British Airways has plenty of miniatures and, if I were married to Tommy, current troubles especially, I'd sodding well need a stiff drink.
As all reasonable people will be automatically aware, this is, of course, a Thatcherite plot using the vicious Nu-Lab police to derail the paths both of the people's revolution and of true (according to good Marxist dogma) love.
* Just to declare an interest, I think I have a couple of BA Gordon's miniatures in my drinks cabinet - just for emergency gin famines, of course. And obtained as a passenger, rather than as an employee.
Our good friend at law, the Reactionary Snob, has recently had a pop at the Political Compass. In his brief account, and with his astonishment at the clustering of the American Presidential candidates, he wonders about how religion might affect this.
So, having done the test for myself some time ago, I went back and answered the questions as I think the biblical Jesus might have done. Armed with my trusty King James, Mrs S-E's New International Version and the Rector's favourite, the Revised Standard Version and, for giggles, the wonderful "The Year of Living Biblically", I got this:
Christ's political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
I had to skirt the Samaritan / Jewish issues; the money changers being thrown out of the Temple yet "Render unto Caesar"; the whole Biblical abhorrence of (male) homosexuality; the exposure as hypocrites those who followed the letter of the Jewish law but not its spirit - and many of the other issues that bedevil the Churches various in this modern era.
Feel free to quibble about my results - some of the questions were difficult to translate to biblical example but, as any honest Christian probably would have guessed, Christ is, by example at least, some sort of evil commie pinko and worse, if he ran for office* while waiting for the Second Coming, a liberal!
* Note that buy using the phrase "ran for office", I am loosely implying "in the Land of the Free".
In the Comment section of today's London Times, M(r)s Miles berates the Government, Ofstead and the local council for the mind-numbing bureaucracy involved in 'running' a local nursery school. Now, whereas I certainly have some sympathy for normal people caught up in all this, alongside the trials and tribulations incumbent in just being the parent of a small child (Mrs S-E was chairwoman of the local primary school board until school boards were abolished up here in favour of "parents' councils"), I cannot bring myself to find one iota for a journalist.
Whenever there is an accident involving a kid, especially where there is a tragedy, the tabloids of the Murdoch stable have been in the forefront of a broad press stampede, bellowing in high point capitals, "Something MUST be Done". Short of "The Matrix"-type capsules, or DK's "Toynbee Podding Hutch (TM)", you cannot stop small children choking, eating mud or worms, falling over (even off of flat balconies), wandering into the road, etc. It cannot be done. They are small, agile, fast and possessed of both the intellect that has allowed Hom Sap to achieve so much and the low cunning that does the same for squirrels.
So, Alice, I am afraid, you have brought it upon yourself. The CRB checks for parents, the fees, the "Going Out For a Walk Policy" you so correctly, now, deride. As "Columnist of the Year 2007"*, you are a poster child for the professional commentariat. It is you, not the admittedly Stalinist tendencies of local government of all political persuasions, that has brought this upon this once-great country.
* Exactly whose "Columnist of the Year 2007"? Your bio doesn't say and, if the award had any real prestige, you would expect it to? Google is remarkably silent too. Pollyanna won the "British Press Awards" version, as ably reported here. Ahh - eventually, the BBC "What the Papers Say" awards. Well the BBC thinks they "are now a fixture in the British press calendar" and are "traditionally handed out by major politicians." Lucky you!
I've just found out that I am cited in Wikipedia for citing Wikipedia in an academic (hah, that's what they claim) paper. I will go and hang my head in shame.
There was some startling old harridan on Breakfast News this morning (you can tell I am working away from home) who, apart from appearing to be auditioning for Miss Prism, was suing BT for charging her extra for insisting in paying in cash.
Now, the direct debit system is far from perfect - see here and here - but her main argument seemed to be that since cash was good enough for the Roman Empire, it should remain the main engine of payments for the 21st Century. Now, the reason we are not still mostly slaves and peasants, living in rustic poverty propping up the lives of a few patricians is the massive improvements in productivity since Caratacus screwed up in 43AD.
Cash has many problems compared to electronic payments - you need office space to receive it, cashier time to count it, change to pay out, total it at the end of the day (in case the cashier has developed sticky fingers), take it to the bank (and your courier may well be violently robbed) - who will charge you for depositing it and count it, again. All of this takes time which, axiomatically, is money. No wonder utilities prefer electronic payment.
From the front page of today's Guardian, Polly Curtis not La Toynbee:
Tuition fees favour the rich - new study
Children from poor familes say fear of debt deterred them from university.
I mean, it is not as if it is basic economics, is it? You make something more expensive and it means that it is more difficult for poor people to afford it? What next?
Ferrari and Aston Martin accused of discrimination against unemployed petrol heads. "I just can't afford a new Fiorano on my dole", says Sid, 23, from Harlow, "even if I can persuade them to give me Incapacity Benefit!"
You're a B-52. You are old and wise, and you absolutely love destruction. You believe in the principle of "peace through deterrence" and aren`t afraid to throw your weight around.
As recommended (but not linked) by Mark Wadsworth in the comments to DK's go at the Political Compass, we have the "Advocates for Self-Government" test.
My try:
Update: Wow, this post has actually got more hits than Hello Girly - the nightmare may nearly be over.
I occasionally retake the Political Compass test, if for no better reason than I keep deluding myself that I may get a result I agree with. So today is not too bad. Moderately to strongly libertarian and my divergent social and economic opinions keeping me close to the centreline on the x axis. Pretty much as before. This shouldn't have surprised me, but it did, a bit:
No wonder liberal, in its true meaning (as opposed to high-tax statist) is such a bad word in the US of A.
Well, two quite distinct withdrawals of whips from Tory politicians (as well as the additional ones who merely had to hand it back to the poor lass when their time was up.)
Derek Conway. Fool, charlatan and fraudster. Thrown out of parliament for, frankly, taking the piss. Yes, MPs have employed family members for years1. Jackart has a list. There is nothing wrong with this, provided that they do the work. Conways Junior did not. Dad broke the rules. Mind you, if we were going to throw out every MP who broke either Parliamentary rules or British law, we could move them to a much smaller office building. There are still some old-style telephone boxes near Westminster.
Dan Hannan. Eurosceptic and MEP. Thrown out of the 'European People's2 Party' for asking the European Parliament to follow its own rules. Remember their smoking ban? Fat chance, mate, but you knew that. Rules are for the little people. Now, it's not as if MEPs actually have any work to do, either - remember that the rules are made by the Commission (TEBAF Margot, twice-sacked Mandy etc) and then rammed through the national parliaments - the Parliament is just a federalist hot air factory3. And, of course, with their pay deal, no MEP needs to employ their wife or mistress - that's a perk for the Commissioners.
There has been lots on blogs recently about pin factories and whether Adam Smith ever visited one (the consensus is that he did - or something very similar, anyway). Where is the discussion of the clearly-necessary piano wire workshops?
1. If I was stuck in London all week (or most of the week) and especially if I had a job that regularly made me attend (they don't actually 'work', do they?) until 10pm, I'd get Mrs S-E a job that meant she could accompany me. And if I could have an arrangement with her boss that meant that when my life was tough, she could get a bit more time off ...
2. This reminds me of the axiom that any organisation with "People's" in its title, almost certainly isn't.
3. See:
Urges the Commission to establish
- pointless, powerless, hideously expensive statist fools. Democratic window-dressing on the tyranny of the retro-Napoleonic federal Europe. With Bliar, the Sedgefield Cat himself, about to adopt Corsican citizenship. Well, we still have St Helena!
On 29 November 2007, Peter Hain MP informed the Electoral Commission that he had not fully reported to the Commission donations he had received for his Labour Party deputy leadership campaign.
Mr Hain has since met with the Commission and provided additional information about donations he received. The Electoral Commission has undertaken a thorough review of this information.
Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service, the Electoral Commission has now referred matters to the Metropolitan Police for them to consider whether an investigation should commence.
Manic, aka Tim Ireland, who runs Bloggerheads, is of not entirely subtly* different politics than this author. But he is passionately concerned about the appalling infringements of their responsibilities and our liberties that the current bunch of egregious statists have inflicted.
I have been taking a couple of days and thinking about the Daily Hate's M&S story. H/t to both Bel (and I hope you are enjoying Den Hague, especially now you have the internet back :) and Harry:
A Muslim store worker at Marks & Spencer refused to serve a customer buying a children's book on biblical stories because she said it was "unclean".
Sally Friday, a customer at a branch of one of the famous stores, felt publicly humiliated when she tried to pay for First Bible Stories as a gift for her young grandson.
When the grandmother put the book on the counter, the assistant refused to touch it, declared it was unclean and then summoned another member of staff to deal with the purchase.
Let's assume that the Mail's printing of Mrs Friday's story is factually correct - this is dangerous as this sort of "evil Muslims trampling on British culture" is so appealing to the Mail's "flog'em'n'hang'em" brigade ...
Firstly, is it reasonable that the young Muslim lady should have taken the M&S job without making it clear that she would refuse to handle any items which she felt offended her religion? As a further assumption, this would also apply to alcohol (except, possibly, medical), pork (or any non-halal food), pigskin items, customers with guide dogs etc, etc. This is similar to the Aishah Azmi burkah case - turn up for the interview, behave in a manner that gives no indication of your unwillingness to act in a certain way and don't mention that your behaviour will radically (Ed: yes, he has been pune-ished for that) alter once you are in work*.
I don't think this is reasonable - nobody is forcing these people to take these jobs and they should be honest about their limitations when applying (and this is not an anti-Islam thing, I had the same issues with a member of my team whose wife decided that his Christian religion meant that he couldn't continue to be standby on a Sunday). I am sure that if their interpretation of the requirements of their religion is so strict or orthodox, then they can find jobs that will not put them in risk of impurity.
Secondly, is a book of Bible stories "unclean" or, as Islam has it, "haram"? Historically, Islam has been more tolerant of the "faiths of the book", i.e. Christianity and Judaism, than it has of other faiths and, under more generous readings of the commandments of Islam, are protected to a minor degree (i.e. merely economic serfdom rather than outright enslavement.) And, it has to be said but for a short time, you were at less risk of life and livelihood as a Jew in the Caliphate than as a Jew in Christian Western Europe. Now, I am clearly no imam or scholar of Islamic jurisprudence - so I will leave the clarity up to those with more knowledge. I would point out that the public consensus opinion from "British moderate spokespeople for Islam" seems to be that it isn't. Conversely, it would be a criminal offence, as I understand it, to import or sell such a book in Saudi Arabia and other sharia law states.
Finally, on the subject, let's just consider how bloody rude the silly cow was - Phil comments under Harry's article on the subject that:
If the assistant hadn’t been ‘making a deliberate point’ they could have simply feigned temporary illness and asked someone to take over from them.
Entirely true, if slightly exaggerated. A mere "Excuse me, can I get one of my colleagues to assist you?" would have skated past this whole controversy without it rising to any prominence. Common courtesy, never mind customer service, and this could all have been avoided. So why not?
And, as an antidote to all of that, here is a positive video about Islam and integration (h/t Rachel):
In December 2007, over 2,000 American Muslims were asked what they would wish to say to the rest of the world. This is what they said.
And as an antidote to that, while searching for Aishah Azmi links, I found this bunch of scumbags (NSFW and fetch a clothes-peg for your nose): the "British People's Party". Yuck.
* And, of course, there is also Section 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 or, if her employment predates that, the old Theft Act Section 16 offence of "obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception".
Well, as the Hain fiasco rumbles on, Wendy Alexander seems to be all but forgotten, Dizzy and Guido seem to have found issues with the funding of Monocular of Kirkcaldy, himself, The Mail on Sunday blats out "Hypocritical Tory Sleaze". (Hat-tip to Tony, especially as I don't want any of you to think that I actually read the "Mail on Sunday"!)
What a bunch of utter incompetents the Tories are employing now - and I am not talking about Mr Osborne. As soon as they looked like there was any media traction in the various donations rows, all of the Shadow Cabinet should have been called in to see or visited by some Central Office staffer, with a couple of forensic accountants in tow, and their accounts should have been given a thorough beating. At that point, George's little discussion with Ms Barry would have become apparent and he could have been pointed towards David Willett's procedure as an example of good practice. It doesn't matter that he probably hasn't done anything wrong and that he went and asked the opinion of the official responsible*.
So:
George Osborne: probably legally correct (the money has been declared by the party) but what an utter pillock for handing their opponents such a media coup.
Hain: just fucking resign, you piece of filth. At best you are an orange mong, at worst you are a self-confessed (once you had been well and truly rumbled) crook. You should not be in the cabinet.
Alexander: where is the report? She should have resigned weeks ago.
Brown (Dizzy): Hmm, this is actually a difficult one and, despite loathing the evil shit with every fibre of my body, I would say that benefit in kind is remarkably difficult to determine accurate valuations for; as Dizzy says, "domains are cheap as chips"; and Silverfish are not the Smith Institute so, much as I would like the tumbrils on Downing Street - he should apologise to Parliament and correct the Register.
Brown (Guido): Internal Labour party matter - but that shouldn't stop us crowing about it. It just shows that "Dear Prudence"'s economic prowess is fog and myth.
* - this, of course, assumes that the Office of the Commons Registrar operates on a more equitable standing than that adopted by HMRC: "You give us inaccurate information, your fault, a penalty fine or jail: we give you inaccurate information, your fault, a penalty fine or jail - for you.We're all right, Jack!"
Via el Diablo, I came across the Adam Smith Institute's series, by Dr Madsen Pirie on "Common Errors".
Each piece will look at a common error people make about free markets and the free societiy (sic), and explain why they are mistaken. We hope readers of this blog will be able to make use of these arguments themselves, and in doing so convince others of the overwhleming case for liberty - Ed.
The ASI don't tag their blog posts (bad, bad, people), so it can be time consuming finding stuff. So here are the current links and a few comments.
I would turn this around and say that only the perfect have nothing to fear - and, since the Fall, only Jesus Christ (or, if you are Catholic, Jesus and Mary) have been free of sin. For example, take a married person having an affair. It is very common and not illegal. Immoral, under some codes (but what if you are a Muslim or a traditionalist Mormon, where polygamy and / or concubines form part of the accepted moral framework). (Or just visiting a brothel - okay, that level of organisation in the sex trade is illegal in the UK but not everywhere - just why is this the only form of centralisation our statist masters are against?)
No, love, I'm just blogging. No, I'm not having an affair. It's just an example. When would I have time? Would you put that cleaver down and we can just talk about this? Please? Err ...
A wee while ago, I was involved with a case where a couple of (drunk and foolish) employees decided that they should get to know each other rather better and the deserted office was a good place to do so. They forgot about the CCTV. The security guard thought it was quite interesting and then tried some income re-distribution with menaces using the tape he had copied.
So, yes, many people do have something to hide (even if it is only the surprise birthday present you bought him / her a couple of weeks ago and have hidden at the back of your underwear drawer.) And most people have things they will quite happily admit to, or be unconcerned that are known by, friends and family, but not by total strangers - and other things they are desperate to hide form the family but are prepared to admin to total or relative strangers (doctors and nurses, for example.)
The English common law tradition recognizes that people can do whatever the law does not specifically forbid, but in the continental Napoleonic Code tradition, people can only do what the law specifically allows. This leads people falsely to suppose that the state is giving them these rights, when it would be more accurate to say that the state is recognizing those rights. Our responsibility to behave fairly and decently is something we owe to other people, not to government.
I agree entirely with the above but I also disagree with the main thrust of this - I believe we have some, albeit very limited, responsibilities to the state. One is participation in the democratic process (even if it is just going in and writing "none of the above" on your ballot paper) and another is paying your taxes (avoidance is fine - poliscum and bureaucretins write the rules, if you wish to take advantage of their incompetence, rock on). Struggling to think of another, though.
Absolutely, it just bought the poverty and misery of the labouring classes to the attention of the merchant classes who had been, previously, able to completely ignore it as something that happened out in the country. Why did people flock to the appalling conditions in the new cities?
Because there was paying work there. Same argument applies to child labour in the third world - if you close the factory (or stop buying from it which, frankly, is then your intent rather than your action) because it offends your morals, where do you think the kids go? In a nice clean uniform to school 5 days a week and back to a loving and comfortable home in the evening? Nope. Another factory, begging on the streets or worse. Not so much "the law of unintended consequences" but simply failing to make the effort to think things through.
The traditional whine of small children and socialists, "It's not fair". Although, admittedly, with the current British education system, the chances of either of those groups getting the apostrophe in the right place is slim.
It also allows the state to divert the money it would have spent on meeting their needs toward those less able to provide for themselves, and to give them access to better services.
The quote is a minimal justification but I hark back to the quote taken from Error 2. We should only allow the state to forbid things that are shown to have harm without corresponding benefit. But then I am not an interfering statist.
I used to spend large amounts of my time well within 100 metres of a live fission reactor. I still have one head and four limbs. My children appear to be reasonably healthy.
However, radioactive waste, not just from reactors but from other technical uses (especially within medicine) and from natural sources (including radioactive material separated from things we actually want or need in refining etc), needs appropriate, safe disposal. That doesn't make it "uniquely dangerous". See one of the ASI's other contributors here and here.
And, yes, if we can manage it, fusion is the future.
A damn good and thought provoking series. Long may it continue.
I have spent the start of my lunch-time reading the Centre for Policy Studies' utterly brilliant "The 2008 Lexicon - A guide to contemporary Newspeak". Available here (don't be discouraged that you appear to have to pay for it - the PDF is free, printed is a fiver). Get it, read it and laugh.
I'll give you two as a taster:
People: the Government. “The People’s Budget”; “The People’s Europe”; “The People’s Government”, “The People’s Honours”, “The People’s Lottery”, “The People’s Millennium”, “The People’s Money”, “The People’s Priorities” etc.
&
Social (eg social investment; social entrepreneur; social capital, social responsibility): “If you put the word ‘social' in front of any serious word, you reduce it almost to meaninglessness." F E Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty, 1973.
Not content with having Toynbee, Clinton, Smith, Harman, and Blears inflicted upon us, a large set of teeth has arisen from its media sinecure to spew forth bile:
Blogs are surely the musings of the socially inept, those people you sidle away from at parties after a couple of stabs at conversation. They are the product of the internet that has given a "voice" to millions of people who have nothing to say apart from the fact that their pet has just exited via the cat flap and the baby has soiled another nappy.
Without wishing to dwell on the inappropriateness of Janet Street-Porter criticising anybody, even for example Tracy Emin, for shameless self-promotion and not wishing to compare the blogosphere with a "viewspaper", I do realise that there are endless execrable blogs out there but there is gold among the dross.
She is also confusing the medium and the message. Much crap is written on paper, often by people paid to write it. Some is relevant, a little is good, a miniscule amount will still be being read or re-read in 100 years time. There are excellent blogs out there - you just look for them and come back to them, and ignore the others.
For your information and as I am certain you are interested - it is beneath our cats' dignities to use the cat flap. They insist on having the front door opened for them.
Footnote: A remarkable statement from one of the usually guilty, Paul Flynn MP:
When will politicians realise that not all of life’s irritations can be solved by legislation and prohibition?
Firstly, another poll - this one trying to align you with the US electoral candidates. Actually, this is a bad idea - you are not being aligned to the candidates, but to their platforms (and the difference between the two is obvious to those of us suffering under "Bottler Brown") and that they are, fairly obviously (and as required by their Constitution), Yanks. This means that they line up (as main party candidates) squarely on the traditional (il)liberal-leftist / conservative-government-minimalist lines (although US "liberals" do have a somewhat better claim to the name than the Lib-Dims). This clearly means I am not going to be that close. Once again, of course, I am slight embarrassed by where I plot - I consider myself further economically right than that - but then this is an American scale:
So, like Iain, I am closest to Ron Paul but am furthest from Fred Thompson (despite his excellent Iowa video). It would appear that I am roughly equally far from all of the Democrats, except, marginally, the two front runners. Oh well.
"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account," he said.
"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.
"I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake."
No, no, no. Whoever has done this is committing an offence. There is nothing in the DPA which prevents the investigation of alleged offences. Some company's (I assume a telephone company here) DPA policies make it more difficult - they need to determine who you are and why you have a right to the information before they release it outwith their declared disclosure policy but it is not "cannot". Inform the police and they have the powers to obtain the data.
And he was correct in his initial point about the widespread knowledge of your basic account details - every cheque, direct debit or standing order contains the same sort of bank information that was on the HMRC CDs. Those, also contained your address and other details (of which we have yet to be informed?) as well. And I blogged about the ease of setting up direct debits some time ago.
(if you really want to try it, don't. If you really, really want to try it, I've replaced some of the letters.)
And the domain? Reasonably newly registered, through Yesnic in Korea - a company I remember well from my days in the incident response trenches. No registrant details:
Domain Name: VOZEMILIOGARANON.COM Registrar: YESNIC CO. LTD. Whois Server: whois.yesnic.com Referral URL: http://www.yesnic.com Name Server: NS1.VOZEMILIOGARANON.COM Name Server: NS2.VOZEMILIOGARANON.COM Name Server: NS3.VOZEMILIOGARANON.COM Name Server: NS4.VOZEMILIOGARANON.COM Status: ok Updated Date: 05-dec-2007 Creation Date: 23-nov-2007 Expiration Date: 23-nov-2008
This seems to be one of the usual small bits of malware (downloaders) that then go off and fetch tons of shit that really fucks your computer. Well done, Kaspersky.
A high status advertiser for Britain's most popular daily comic? Nil out of 10 to News Group Newspapers Ltd. Hope you've made sure the cheque cashes properly.
Islamo-cretin of the year and, apparently, the internet's Number 11 "Radical Muslim"2. Like, as we all know, Neil Clark has Britain's best blog.
And what is he back with?
It was a good thing for Pakistan that Benazir Bhutto was killed.
The situation in Kenya is clearly the fault of the UK and the US.
Diana was killed by the masons.
The teddy bear demanded 40 lashes.
Slavery has never happened in Islamic countries (and was Britain's fault anyway).
Glad to see his absence hasn't sharpened either his intellect or his grasp of reality. I suppose if your ideal is a life of 6th Century peasantry, then neither are of any use. Hopefully we'll see him back in the comments, trying to justify his pathetic drivel.
1. Update: err, no, he isn't reliably. At 11:30 GMT, 4th Jan, he was number 10, after a guy called Mohammed Saleem, some proper news sites, Amazon and a Muslim dating site. He now seems to be back up. Not the most accurate indicator of worldwide significance, methinks. Update 2: oops. Mr Saleem is an apostate.
2. Using exactly the same criteria, can I please point out that not only I am the internet's Number 1 for "Surreptitious Evil" (which will really upset the world-wide conspiracy of the Elders of Zion, the Bilderberg Group, David Icke's lizards and the Illuminati), I am second through to fifth as well, and a full 8 of the top 10. I am just off to change the price of gold, crush the co-operative movement and introduce a 43 second delay to all internet packets carrying IRC traffic.
Many of you will not realise quite how fluffy and vague the whole legal process is, even if we stick to the criminal law. Interpretation occurs at many stages of the construction, prosecution and disposal of any case, hence there is widespread ability to deviate from the strict intent of the framers of the statute (if we even have any idea what that was.)
Let's take a look at the process (I am assuming here, just for the purposes of this traipse through the system, a lack of both error and of deliberate malice):
Once something has happened, it may or may not appear high enough up the priority list the police are given by the Government to be investigated. (Actually, it may not even be recorded, or be recorded as something else with a higher or lower, depending on how the ubiquitous 'they' wish to massage the stats.)
The investigation, assuming it happens, will try to collect evidence - there may simply not be enough left behind. Witnesses may be mistaken (they very often are), may not come forward (through ignorance, fear or loyalty to a presumed suspect) or may appear unreliable.
If there is some evidence (I am not a cop but, by repute, there is some leeway here for less serious alleged crimes) a report may be written, summarising the evidence, for presentation to the prosecuting authorities. They also have their government imposed priorities (like the current concentration on the low rate of rape convictions) and may decide not to proceed as "not in the public interest" or they may decide that there is insufficient for any charge or that a lesser charge is more appropriate (which causes all the aggro in (death by) dangerous driving / careless driving type cases). Appropriate here hopefully meaning more likely to gain a conviction of a presumed guilty party (as opposed to providing 'suitable' vengeance for a victim or their family) but quite possibly meaning "a more politically attractive (or, far worse, better for my career*)charge.
Normally, there will be a long wait. Evidence may be lost, or damaged (including contaminated.) Memories often fade, stories become blurred. People sometimes become less certain, sometimes irrationally sure in their convictions (Ed notes: apols for the pun.)
Court. Lawyers get to play clever games. The judge may decree no case to answer or direct the jury to convict.
Jury. 12 or 15 or however many you are entitled to. They certainly interpret.
Sentencing. Judges, certainly in the UK, have less flexibility than they used to but there is everything from unconditional discharge to life without parole (and the death sentence if your mileage varies.)
Appeal. And round the process again.
Why all this? Well, the CPS have finally released their guidance on the Computer Misuse Act, 1990, as amended by the Police and Justice Act, 2006. Richard has some things (mostly derogatory) to say about it. Now, apart from the fact that it does not apply in the civilised world (we have the Prosecutor Fiscal up here), hence the references to things southern such as the Fraud Act 2006, there is quite a lot to comment on here.
The bit about DPP v Bignell is really quite interesting. If I am allowed to do something on a computer, provided you present me with the right justification / bit of paper / whatever, and you con me into doing it - forgery, "I'll get it signed as soon as the boss is back", or straightforward lying - then neither you nor I have committed a CMA offence. This seems reasonable.
Using Section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Unlawful obtaining etc. of personal data) rather than CMA Section 1 (Unauthorised Access) seems a good thing, especially if the current raft of highly public data breaches results in a strengthening of the penalties above the current fine (Section 60, para 2, if you are interested.) Of course, this is restricted to an albeit important subset of illegal access.
There is very little about CMA Section 2 offences - this is not surprising as placing of charges under Section 2 seems very rare to me (never mind convictions.)
There is a little about the new (or, at least, specific) criminalisation of DDoS, with some interesting vague stuff about intent.
Of course, the most interesting is the guidance on the new Section 3A offences, "Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence (sic?) under section 1 or 3".
There is some really good stuff here, never mind Richard's points re grammar and language:
There is explicit recognition of the legitimate computer security industry, thankfully, and a requirement for prosecutors to "ascertain ... criminal intent".
There is more useful discussion of "likely", as in "he supplies or offers to supply any article believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence", than there was with the Home Office's incredible (no, actually, credible but outstandingly incompetent) 50% usage figure.
Although there is a clear bias towards commercial as in pay-for use as determining legitimacy, there is also mention of "widely used for legitimate purposes."
Overall, I think this is good guidance which, unfortunately, is not capable of completely fixing bad law. The last bullet is the one I would hang my hat on, hypothetically, if I was being prosecuted under Section 3A(2) - which is the difficult bit.
Expect briefings on the Computer Misuse Act, at least on paper, for pen-testing courses in England and Wales - but, then, those have always been a good idea, especially around the "Who do I need to get permission from" aspects of the law.
Update: Just realised that the first paragraph didn't make sense. Reworded, sorry.
* Thankfully, as British prosecutors are appointed not elected, we don't have the dance to please the baying mob that seems such a feature of American trials.
A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists. It’s not just the Lycra, though Heaven knows this atrocity alone should be a capital offence; nor the helmets, though these ludicrous items of headgear are designed to protect the only part of a cyclist that is not usefully employed; nor the self-righteousness, though a small band of sports cyclists on winter’s morning emits more of that than a cathedral at evensong; nor even the brutish disregard for all other road users, though the lynching of a cyclist by a mob of mothers with pushchairs would be a joy to witness.
I offended many with my Christmas attack on cyclists. It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry.
The critics:
(Rhyl Cycling) Club president Bill Twigg said:
From a club that lost four cyclists, anything that brings more conflict between cyclists and motorists is a bad thing.
If it wasn't for the first sentence, I could have dismissed the article as bad journalism.
Roy Spilsbury, vice chair of CTC Cymru - the Welsh arm of the Cyclists' Touring Club - said:
Less than two years ago four members of Rhyl Cycling Club, ages ranging over three generations, were killed on a public highway.
Messages of sympathy arrived from the four corners of the world - and the world's press reported the personal tragedies involved with appropriate sensitivity.
That Parris believes that such people should be beheaded beggars belief.
and:
Parris and The Times editor must be held to account. If necessary, through due process of law.
Triathlete Alison Steed, who said:
she knew of fishing line being stretched across roads at head height.*
The BBC said (showing their usual bias):
Mr Parris, who was a Conservative MP from 1979 - 86
My take - I am sure that the Rhyl foursome were fully upstanding members of society but, by and large, both in cities and in the country, cyclists are certain that the law has no meaning for people in lycra. Adults cycling on pavements, running red lights, littering (which is what Mr Parris was complaining about), blatant disregard for the rights of all other road or pavement users and smug and fucking rude with it.
Many cyclists are, in fact, a menace. Personally, I wouldn't countenance attempting random decapitation (and *: for a start, it wouldn't work unless you did it just before the peloton approached, but it might just wake white-van man up!) but a bar through the spokes of many is clearly a proportionate response.
That the most sustained increase in traffic this blog has ever had is not through me writing something profound or even just timely. It is not through getting a referral link from one of the A-list bloggers or from the Iraqi employees campaigners. It isn't even from the usual searches for my intermittent swearwords.
It is from people looking for "Hello Kitty"* fan sites. Welcome to "Hello Kitty Hell".
Update: Yesterday, I appear to have got over 90% of my visits through various Google "Hello" or "Kitty" searches - and 3 from a comment I left on Tim's site. (And, no, low traffic though this blog is, it doesn't mean I got 30 visitors.)
* My 28th December post. And now, of course, this one. Damnation through infinite recursion.
Well, what about a bit of a wish list for 2008. Real stuff, so no lottery wins or world peace (or, for that matter, merely peace in Iraq and Afghanistan). What do I think?
Clearly, Mrs S-E's business taking off would yank quite a bit of stress off me ...
A new job - or, at least, decent work (and pay) from the current one.
Prosecutions in all (I'll settle for any) of the current political contributions scandals.
Boris Johnson wins the election as London Mayor. Ideally, but unlikely, Brian Paddick beats Ken in to 3rd place.
The "megamosque" proposal is binned, never to rise again.
And the unlikely stuff:
A vote of no confidence in Gordon Brown and a snap election with a Tory win
Des Browne is cut in half and preserved by Damien Hirst. One to be displayed in the Madhouse, the other at Dover House.
A family home was saved from burning down when a pair of giant knickers were used to put out a fire.
Jenny Marsey's size 18-20 cotton pants were a lifesaver when they were grabbed to cover a frying pan fire at her home in Meryl Gardens, Hartlepool, Teesside.
Well, yet another year went by. What to remember? Good or bad. Here's a few things that stand out for me, anyway (in no particular order, significance or otherwise):
A new job to start the year. Got away from hideous ISO27001 policy work to, ahh, hideous Manual of Protective Security (based on BS7799, the predecessor to guess what) policy work.
Started blogging seriously - starting TerryWatch certainly counts as my "Public Service" event of the year (shared with RFS).
Both trips to that incessantly pronounced "ghastly defeat for the British military" in Basrah. The first for how much time was spent under cover from mortar and rocket attack, the second for how (comparatively) little.
We got rid of Blair, Prescott and Reid. Unfortunately, that left us with Brown(e), Smith (J) and Darling so a no-score draw at best.
The SNP victories in the Scottish and local elections. However much I disagree with their core policy, the rotten hereditary fiefdoms of Jockanese Labour need to be crushed and, much as I would love the Tories to be able to do it, they can't. So that means SNP victories and, as a special "Brucie-bonus", pissing Terry off.
Working with Dan Hardie and others on the campaign for just treatment for the Iraqis employed by the British government.
Struggling to get Mrs S-E's website to function under Internet Explorer :(
I will probably add to this as I go through the day.
According to the Scotsman, the SNP were crowing that their membership has risen 11% in the last year. On the face of it, this seems a significant vote of approval in their policies.
However, that has risen to a mere 13,944 souls.
To put this into perspective, the greatest shake-up in the British constitutional framework since universal voting rights, and possibly since the 1707 Act of Union itself is being driven by very few people, a mere 0.27% of the population of Scotland (figure from the Office of National Statistics):
Under 1600 more than attended Dundee United's recent 2-0 defeat by Celtic.
Roughly 10000 fewer than voted for "the most useless man in Westminster", Falkirk's very own, Eric Joyce.
Less than 9 times the number of the severely deluded who voted for the "fattest numpty in Paisley", our Hero, Terry Kelly1.
Fewer than 1/10 the number of people who work for2 the NHS in Scotland.
Well under half the number of people registered members of the Army Rumour Service website.
I just really, really didn't think it was very many.
1. - Who still insists he represents "My ward is Whitesbridge, Fischer, Baronscourt and Ferguslie. ( Ward 3 )". Actually, according to the council, he represents Ward 4, Paisley North West. Let's not let a wee thing like the complete reorganisation of the system of voting for councillors get betweeen us :)
2. Okay, "paid by" may be more relevant than "work for".
Unless noted in a specific post or article, main posts and comments by 'Surreptitious Evil' published on this site (or elsewhere) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License. Comments by other authors are their own responsibility.
A classical liberal & modern libertarian, economically laissez faire, and a governmental minimalist. Somewhat surprised to find this puts me way to the right of Chingis Khan.
Really, really pissed off at the endemic stupidity of the British governing cliques. Sometimes lets his potty mouth get the better of him.
