Wake up Eric!

A certain Mr E Joyce seems to have forgotten that Parliament has been prorogued.  Unlike, for example, John Redwood or Tom Watson, who have made it clear that they are now Parliamentary candidates, rather than MPs, oor Eric still has

I am the Member of Parliament for Falkirk.

I've done a quick check for some others - Lynne Featherstone, Douglas Carswell and David Jones,  definitely get it - making it clear they are just candidates. Tom Harris has it overtly on his banner but has forgotten to amend his "about" page and Dominic Grieve needs to fix his <title> tag!

John Barrett, Sir George Young and John Baron have just temporarily closed their blogs. Nadine Dorries and Richard Bacon definitely join Eric in the naughty corner.

Update - I thought I would go up market (or down, depending on which way you see it) and check the party leaders. Witney Conservatives have it correct for the Cameroon - it's a pity that davidcameronmp.com still has him as MP for Witney.  The Tory site is still claiming "There are currently 195 Conservative Members of Parliament in the House of Commons" too!  The revolving healthcare assistants at 10 Downing Street still have McRuin as an MP and Alex Salmond is still "MSP MP" or "MP / MSP"although Nick Clegg's site is as compliant as the best of the backbenchers.

Update 2 - Both of Eric's blogs are now sorted, as is davidcameronmp and, I think, Nadine's.  No10, both Salmond bios and Richard Bacon's site are still out of compliance.  If they can't get the little things right, why should we trust them with something actually important?

Election: WTF?

The Scottish Labour manifesto.  Rebuild the economy with hi-tech jobs (as if the govt can do that, right!)

Launched at Ravenscraig - epitome of the old, low-tech manufacturing ...

And it was a steel plant, so not even irony!

WTF Dictionary

From the egregious Joyce's blog.

Tweeple.

Of course, a couple of his hopeful colleagues are no longer on Twitter.

Election Quote of the Whatever

"Gordon Brown is a man of substance", C Whelan.

Quickly followed by the SPAd - "The Prime Minister ... is making us all laugh".

No, you cock.  Brown is the Prime Minister, Whelan just gives him money.

"Freemen" or "Free, at Large, from A Secure Hospital"?

In "another place", I found myself in discussion with yet another bunch of whackos - the so-called "Freemen".  During that discussion, those of us both with an appreciation for English law and its derivation from the common law had great difficulty in understanding where they drew their 'knowledge of the law' from.

Then one of them, by nym 'Barny' came up with a little list:

And In order to backup those principles we can employ the Maxims of law.

If every man did the same we would have the basis for self governence. No one entity would be in control hence the maxim - Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory.

However, as things are currently, when a freeman asks you for your oath, by maxim you are compelled to provide it. Please see below...

Court and Pleas

There can be no plea of that thing of which the dissolution is sought.
A false plea is the basest of all things.
There can be no plea against an action which entirely destroys the plea.
He who does not deny, admits. [A well-known rule of pleading]
No one is believed in court but upon his oath. [including judges.]
An infamous person is repelled or prevented from taking an oath.
In law none is credited unless he is sworn.
All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation.

...

Right - so, as far as 'Court and Pleas' we have a brief statement of the beliefs of the 'Freemen". Where did this come from? Well a little bit of diligent googling leads us to a fuller list here. Ecclesia.org is the home of the "Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community" - an USian or, at least, North American bunch of Christian Young-Creationist whackos.  Their statements contain such gems as:

The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere.

Erm, yes there is - where do kiddies' helium balloons go when they release them?  And that's carrying all that plastic and string!  Light gases in a warm atmosphere can achieve escape velocity.  Molecular He (a single atom molecule) has an weight slightly less than 4 x atomic H.  Very light.  Any way, back to the law.  I think I've found their source.

So, our immediate thought is to the credibility of Mr Charles A Weisman.  Well, given this purports to be a legal text, we would look for its publishing by one of the great legal publishers - Butterworths or Sweet and Maxwell (or their USian equivalents), or even one of the standard textbook publishers - the great University Presses, Pitman, Wiley, McGraw Hill etc.

Or ... wait for it ...

Publisher: Weisman Publications; 3 edition (February 1, 1995)

Nope, that's a simple strike for credibility. (Ed notes: if the maxims of the law are unchanging and unchangeable - why new editions rather than merely reprints?) Okay, we'll have another look - what about the author?  What else has Charles A Weisman written?  Scholarly books on the law?  Perhaps he is a scholar of medieval and church law?  Or, maybe, just maybe, he is a common or garden racist (anybody whose books are onsale at the Stormfront bookstore ain't going to be selling tranquility), anti-semitic¹, nut-job?  Lets see:

# The Origin of Race and Civilization
# Essential Health Issues
# Antichrists In The Land
# Maxims of Law
# Is Universalism of God?: A theological study into the nature of God's…
# Jewish Identity- An Examination of the Jewish Issue Showing the Origin and…
# A Handbook of Bible Law
# America, free, white, & Christian: The foundations and principles in…
# Laws and Principles of Marriage, As Expounded Upon and Made Precedent…
# Life, Liberty & Property
# Who is Esau-Edom?: The Life, History, Genealogy, Prophecy, Predestination…
# The De Facto Government of the United States: A Discussion on the Unlawful…
# The Authority of Law
# A Treatise on Arrest and False Imprisonment
# The Right to Travel
# Facts and Fictions Regarding Noah's Flood

That doesn't reek of 'author credibility' to me.  So, lets have a look at a brief selection of these 'maxims' and their applicability to English law.

He who does not deny, admits. [A well-known rule of pleading]

Absolutely true.  In the USA.  US civil suit filings are full of the impact of this standard (example from Groklaw from the SCO vs IBM debacle):

1. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 1, except admits that UNIX is a standard specification and a brand that characterizes certain computer operating systems.

2. Denies the averments of paragraph 2 as they relate to IBM, except refers to the referenced licenses for their contents and states that IBM is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or entity.

You'll notice that they have to be very specific about what they are accepting, have not got enough information to accept or deny, or denying - paragraph by paragraph from the original complaint:

1. UNIX is a computer operating system program and related software originally developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories (“AT&T”). SCO/UNIX is a modification of UNIX and related software developed by SCO and its predecessors. UNIX and SCO/UNIX are widely used in the corporate, or “enterprise,” computing environment.

2. As a result of its acquisition of the rights to UNIX from AT&T and its own development of UNIX and SCO/UNIX, SCO is the present owner of both UNIX and SCO/UNIX software. UNIX and SCO/UNIX are valuable software programs and SCO and its predecessors have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their development and enhancement. SCO (which, as used herein, includes its predecessor) has licensed UNIX and SCO/UNIX both to software vendors such as IBM and computer end-users such as McDonald’s. The UNIX and SCO/UNIX licenses granted to software vendors and end-users are limited licenses, which impose restrictions and obligations on the licensees designed to protect the economic value of UNIX and SCO/UNIX.

Burden of proof is a much more difficult concept in the UK.  Under UK law, para 1 is both true and, essentially, harmless.  Para 2 is more interesting but is, in essence, also true - the question was not the ownership of the software, it was the ownership of the copyrights - which are a much more formally bound thing under US law.

Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.

I'm not even sure if this is true in the USA - in the UK, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977,  the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, various employment law provisions all regulate the law of contract - as do common law ideas such as force majeure and duress.

He who consents cannot receive an injury.

Used to be considered to be true - although it had never been tested to the limit.  Clearly now superseded in common law by R v Donovan (1934), R v Brown and others (1992), and probably HRA98 Article 3 (although the Spanner Trust disagreed.)  True, the consensual application of torture is a limiting case but hey, all of these arguments have to be assembled through limiting cases.

An act does not make a man a criminal, unless his intention be criminal.

Strict liability offences - possession of kiddy porn, a sawn-off shotgun, carrying a blade in public without a lawful excuse (except a folding knife of less than 3" etc, etc).  B0llocks.  Sorry, these people have no clue.

That which is against Divine Law is repugnant to society and is void.

I like this one.  Whose "Divine Law"?  Iran, Saudi, Harris, Ireland, Israel (no, not actually a theocracy but they do have a startlingly large number of legal exemptions for the more weirdly Orthodox) etc, etc.  Stand back and let the battle commence. :)


1.

Although the Jews have appeared in the histories of other nations throughout the centuries, they were never able or willing to establish a nation of their own. They remain forever desolate in this regard. The only way the Jews got possession of Palestine was by using other people to steal it from the Turks and Arabs for them. The so-called 'Israeli' state is
nothing but a parasitic state, since it is occupied by parasites. The Jews get billions of dollars from Germany as 'reparations' and 'restitution payments' for its alleged 'war crimes' against Jews. They get billions more every year from the United States. It (Israel) has to steal or buy technology from Western nations as the Jews have not the creativity to develop their own. The Jewish state of Israel would collapse in a minute without the continued support, protection and assistance from Jacob/Israel (The White Nations of Christendom). It is not, never has been, and never will be a self-sustaining nation.

(Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, pp. 27-28).  And he's very wrong about Israel and technology (okay, they still get a lot of their military kit from the States but just look at the number of Israeli computer security companies!)

Please rearrange: "! are BRAINS coming eat They to your"

I apologise that this almost Unity-length post has taken quite some time but I have been busy with other things - even some work and the project has increased in scale pretty much every time I found myself in the shower or with other musing to do.

Billy, from Paisley, is a 9/11 truther.  And a 7/7 truther.  Who first came to our attention Under the Rose, where I had the temerity to suggest that the legal justification for the war in Afghanistan was reasonably strong, especially compared to Iraq and the Balkans.  He has previously been featured chez moi.  Then, I did promise a longer post about 9/11, both in the article and in the reply to Walrus's correction of my typo so here it is.

Billy believes, as far as I can tell and I welcome corrections, the following:

• There is a huge conspiracy to hide the fact that the US government carried out 9/11.  We know this because ...
• The videos are fake because it is "against Newton's Laws" for an aluminium aircraft to go through the steel / concrete / glass structure of the towers.
• The planes "melted" into the towers.
• No bits of the planes or the towers are seen falling off as the plane goes in.
• That the towers were destroyed with "Star Wars" direct energy weapons because ...
• The towers hit the ground with only the "force of a jackhammer".
• Steel would not have melted in the temperature produced by jet fuel so the towers must have remained up (as the steel formed the structural framework.)
• The Twin Towers collapsed at free-fall speed "against the laws of physics".
• The earth's magnetic field dipped at "the exact moment each building collapsed".
• There's lots of material missing.
• Vehicles caught fire "miles away".
• That this is all 'proven' by the law suits filed against NIST and others by other truthers (two of whom have PhDs.)

I will try to deal with most of these.

Refutation Point 1: the conspiracy - this is the weakest rebuttal of the lot (at least, in scientific terms).

Conspiracies are possible - tightly held or kept from direct public interest the truth may never come out.  If the CIA & the Mafia had John F Kennedy killed (they almost certainly didn't) this could have been done with one shooter and the people ordering him to do it - half a dozen who knew the details.  However, this event directly killed 3000 people, including members of the US military, law enforcement and rescue services, and has led to wars involving the deaths of thousands of others (UK losses alone in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently 458, and US casualties stand at 5419 - with much higher casualty figures amongst the Iraqi Army militias, Taliban and, unfortunately, civilians - many of the latter being killed by the guerillas rather than by the coalition military).  If this were a conspiracy, the number of people needing to be co-opted in to it is huge:

• The people who developed the weapons.
• The people who deployed the weapons.
• The people who faked the movies.
• The people who were actually in Manhattan that morning.
• The airlines.
• Depending what you actually think happened to the planes - the people on them or, if you've had them killed, the people who killed them.  And the people who destroyed the planes or have hidden them somewhere.
• Air traffic control.
• The news organisations (no friends, except Fox, of Bush.)

A conspiracy of that size, with the public adulation and Pulitzer award to be gained from the 'true story" has no chance of surviving the 8 years this one has.

Refutation Point 2 - Hitting the fork.

Most of this was covered in the previous post but, as there are clearly some things still remaining for dispute, I'll have another try.

You seem to maintain that "according to the laws of physics" the airplanes should have gone 'splat' and crushed against the outside of the Towers.  I suggest that the forces involved in decelerating a 130 tonne plane from 300 knots plus to rest are sufficient to deform steel.  Anyway, let's assume they aren't.

Think of the outer wall of the Towers as a very long fork.  You maintain that there is no way that an aircraft can go through it.  Okay - a three stage process for understanding.

• Take some mashed potato and push the fork down on it - it squeezes through easily.
• Take some cooked potato - baked, boiled or roast - and push the fork down on it - it takes a tiny bit of effort but it squeezes through.
• Take a raw potato - push again with the fork - you get considerable resistance but, look - it goes through (and the resistance appears to decrease once you get a bit of speed up.)

Even if the huge forces involved in decelerating a 767 to a halt within 64m (we both agree, if for wholly different reasons, that no significant fraction of either aircraft¹ went straight through the towers) were insufficient to stress the outer steel past the point of plastic deformation, most of the aircraft would have gone in.  Which takes us to our next point.

Refutation Point 3 - Nothing fell off (remember here we are talking only about why the videos must be fake - some assumptions and simplifications that don't correlate too well with reality can be taken).

Let's assume that the planes were doing about 300 knots - less than half their maximum speed (and slower is better for you - I am being very generous here - AA11 was estimated as doing 710km/h, UA175 870 - 500 or 615 knots.)  They were 48.5m long.  300 knots is just over 150 m.s^-1.   So, assuming your "melting" implies no slowing in velocity, any bit falling off would have on the order of a third of a second of nearly-but-not-quite free fall (in fact, air resistance would be so low at starting speeds, that 'free fall' is an excellent approximation).  So, some simple calculations, x=g.t²/2, gives you a total distance fallen of just over 54 centimetres.  In your grainy, out of focus 720 * 480 stills, that gives you a maximum displacement of 4 pixels.  Now, you're not going to spot that easily, are you?

Updated: Of course, that's not a particularly accurate calculation - I haven't allowed for the fact that the plane is not flying at right angles to the tower in the shot, so the projected length of the wingspan is less than the actual 47.6m (which I incorrectly asserted would reduce the pixel per metre count - see people can admit mistakes) - so a more accurate calculation, using the velocity of AA11 (good for me), assuming it reduces by half during the collision (bad for me but is on the right order as we know that after outer, inner, outer little debris exited) and allowing 30% for the angle (bad for me again) - we get 2 pixels but, hey, what's a couple of pixels between friends?

Of course, if you actually agreed with the real world and the planes did actually hit the tower, you can extend the period of time between the nose and the tail hitting the outer wall.  Of course, you then have to take in to account that momentum will carry nearly all debris from the impact into the tower through the hole that the plane has carved but, by that time, you've agreed with me!

Refutation Point 4 - Jackrabbits and falling buildings.

500,000 tonnes per tower seems to be an accepted (if startlingly round) number for the weight of each tower.  Okay, for Charles' sake, lets do some more kinetic energy calculations.

The maximum possible impact for each tower would be if an ideal point mass, of 500000 tonnes, hit the ground having free-fallen from half the height of the tower.  Debris falling free, energy taken up in overcoming structural strength, air resistance (in fact any effect which absorbed kinetic energy), even an extended duration impact would all reduce this but, let's go with the ideal, O-grade physics case.  E_k = E_g = mgh.  h = 207m, therefore E_k = 1.02TJ.  Now, converting that to the Richter scale is not easy - websites give me anywhere between 3.7 and 4.8.  While I hate to reference the WikiMonster, it says that is about 10% more than an Atlas rocket at take off.

Remember, that is the maximum possible impact - so, lets move that to the bottom of the scale and call it 3.7 Richter.  That's on the "hundreds per day" world-wide.  Less than (or roughly equivalent to) the Kursk explosion - 7 warheads, 4.2 Richter.  Not actually a huge amount for half a million tonnes.

9:58:59 A.M. EDT

With no warning that could be discerned in WTC 1, WTC 2 collapsed. The shudder as the more than 250,000 tons of steel, concrete, and furnishings hit the ground was felt well beyond the site. Seismic sensors located 100 miles away recorded the time and intensity of the event.

Interestingly, the impact energy of a commercial jackhammer appears to be in the 40 to 60J range.  I used to be able to punch harder than that so I call hyperbole.

Refutation Point 5 - Steel would not have melted due to heating from Jet-A fires.

You are completely correct in your statement and completely wrong in the results you draw from it.  For a start, the Jet-A could have merely ignited other fuels in the building with higher burning temperatures - you can get up to 2000°C with a carbon fire in air - but that didn't happen.

Unfortunately, steel weakens with heat - quite considerably.  At the 650°C level the experts expect the fires in the towers reached, this would have about halved the strength of the structural members².  This was enough.

• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

• In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building.

WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

Refutation Point 6 - Freefall.

This is simply erroneous.  A pure free fall collapse would have taken no more than 8 seconds.  The towers collapsed in around 10 seconds.

Refutation Point 7 - Cars catching fire miles away.

I would go and have a word with your old geography teacher if I was you.  FDR Drive is 1 km from the WTC site and the pictures from the car park at the "North-West corner of Vesey and West Streets" - that is less than a couple of hundred feet.  Anyway, there is a simple process to explain burnt cars and intact sheets of paper - dust and slightly larger particles fall to ground with the main structure of the towers, heating up as they go (gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and heat) and then spreads out causing fires (and, if you look at some of the photos - covering things in very directional dust.)  Paper, on the other hand, that which fell free of the towers takes some considerable time to fall, losing any heat gain to the atmosphere and reaching the ground after the dust has cooled (some would fall in to any fires still burning but if you've ever tried to burn papers in a bonfire, you'll know how much escapes.)

Refutation Point 8 - What "direct energy weapons"?

This was covered, somewhat in one of my comments on Sub-Rosa's blog - basically, although we do have low power laser weapons, and high power lasers and charged particle beams, we don't have now weapons capable of putting out enough power, never mind 8-odd years ago.  I wish to raise the following additional points:

• The whole thing started at 8.45 or 8.46 EDT, depending on your source.  The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 EDT.  How do you explain the this lag?  
• If it was high-power beam weapons, where are the plasma trails?  Either a laser or a CPB of sufficient power operating in atmosphere will affect the air it travels through, ionising it. This is visible, regardless of whether the beam itself is in the visible spectrum (c.f the aurora borealis - you can't see the solar wind - you can see the results of the electron settling.)  The wider problem in laser weapons is known as "blooming" and is why the "Star Wars" lasers you mentioned were space-based or on the front of Jumbos.  The effect is similar to the sudden phase transition of the early universe from opaque plasma to transparent gas that, after much red-shifting, gives us the "Cosmic Microwave Background" or, more obviously, is why the surface of the sun glows at visible frequencies.
• Direct energy beams are not Star-Trek phasers (or Klingon Disruptors) - they merely transfer energy from one point in space to another.  So, assuming the high power, they would have punched very small holes through a target.  They might have been swung to cut but this would not have bent or distorted the steel (laser cuts through metal look almost polished) and would have caused the conventional collapse of the buildings you deny rather than "turned the Twin Towers to dust".
• Update point: Antimatter.  While anti-matter weapons are a theoretical godsend to the conspiracy minded, there are three critical point to mention.  
• Firstly, there ain't enough of it about, especially not in 2001 (and, for once, the USA is not the technological lead in such matters.)  
• Secondly, if you did have a matter / antimatter annihilation event in the twin towers , the energy release would have done far more dramatic things than a bit of concrete to dust conversation.  Think small to large thermo-nuclear bomb and, whatever you think happened on 9/11, that certainly wasn't it.) 
• Finally, there is a similar delivery problem to the beam weapon - only this is worse.  A beam of antimatter would have mutually annihilated the atmosphere on the way - with the massive energy releases from the above point - which didn't happen.

Refutation Point 9 - Lawsuits.

There are lots of civil lawsuits in the USA.  Many of them are worthless or even actively harmful to society (SCO versus anybody), many fail.  Also, you need to have, to place a civil suit, something called 'standing'.  In the UK, there is an equivalent, albeit less formalised concept - you must be able to show that some damage was done to you.  You cannot sue on behalf of somebody else.  And, in most cases, a simple untruth, without damage, is not actionable.

However, what about a quote from US Law making it clear that, erroneous or not, the NIST report is not actionable:

No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 107-231).

My culpability?

Which am I? One of "the ones who are too lazy to look at the facts as presented by Dr Wood", or "the ones who are trying to cover up the truth", as you so reasonably put it?

There will be updates ...

1. Two wheels from AA11's main-left landing gear were found outside of the WTC1 footprint - one embedded in an exterior column panel was found 700ft or so south on Cedar Street; another wheel was found a similar distance further south.

2. "supports the commonly held rule of thumb that the yield strength [of structural steel] at 538°C is about one-half that at room temperature."

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.

Thankfully NOT an April Fool

Well done to Simon Singh, on winning his libel appeal against the British Chiropractic Association.  Off to read the judgement, if I can find it.  More later.

Update 1: Judgement here

Update 2: I believe this is now citable precedent under English Law:

We would respectfully adopt what Judge Easterbrook, now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a libel action over a scientific controversy, Underwager v Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994):

    "[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs' interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."

That's a definite win for common sense, a definite defeat for woo.

Update 3:  Some mild analysis from outlaw.com and a statement released by BCA.  I particluarly like the way the latter refer to Mr Justice Eady as "one of the country’s leading libel judges" while not referring the fact that the three appeal judges included the two senior judges in England.

The limits of humour

In a world increasingly difficult to tell from a badly scripted satirical (or satyrical) play, April Fools' Day can be a bit of a trial.

Already we've had the "no, you fool, not even as a joke" post from Dizzy, a weak effort from the Register,  and, given it only comes round once a year, an entire 'blog' from a retired accountant (but, for verisimilitude, you'd have think he would have put some comments in.)

The BBC, who seem to have rested completely on their laurels since the famous "spaghetti tree" broadcast, can only manage this and this risible effort.

Although I got this from Firetoys.com - unfortunately with a 1 year wait for delivery.  Edited to add - Hoverboards - but they've killed the link and replaced the picture.  :(

Lovely Quote

Via Ross on Light Blue Touchpaper, from here:

Foreigners don't have much very complementary to say about Lithuanian food.  When I am asked about it, I usually say it's 1001 ways to cook potato, many of which should be banned.

Why does this not surprise me?

RAF Airbus transport fleet 'not fit for war'

The National Audit Office said the Airbus deal was years behind schedule

It could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to equip the RAF's new transport aircraft to fly in war zones, the Ministry of Defence has been warned.

When I saw the BBC headline, I thought it was talking about the current, geriatric Tristar and VC-10 fleets.

£10,500 million pounds for 14 aircraft seems quite a lot - £400 million per year lease cost - 20% of which is AirTanker's operating costs. Now list price for 14 A330-200 would seem to be $2.5 billion (and there would be discount for ordering 14 identical planes) - so the MoD appears to be paying at least a 300% premium for some combination of tanking kit, the finance and its own incompetence.

For something not fit for purpose - military tankers that were never specified to "fly directly in to high-threat environments"? At least not without the fitting of several hundred million £ worth of improvements over "a number of years".

NAO summary and report as pdfs.

Update - Okay - I'm reading the full report and we are only getting 9 aircraft - to replace a current fleet of 24.  That makes it a 650% premium.  There will be 5 further aircraft procured - which can be commercially leased out and we have to pay extra to get if we want them.  Sighs.  Update to the update: the "Public Sector Comparator" was based on a purchase of 19 B-767 - albeit with 20% less fuel capacity than the A330 MRTT.  Even then it was cheaper ...

Update 2:  Was thunkin.  Are the 5 non-RAF planes going to be equipped with the defensive aids suite?  If so, does MoD have a veto on whom they are renting to?  If not, and we then need them, how many months is it going to take to have them fitted before they are useable?

Wonderful

So there is a use for spam filters after all!

Filters have trashed e-mails with the word "socialist"; substring "Cialis" is erectile dysfunction drug.

Now, we just need to invent the 'andles' legal high ...

Serious Woo on the BBC

Humans do seem to feel a sense of kinship with dolphins, intelligent, playful, talkative creatures that they are. And separate research shows people feel the benefit from getting up close and personal with dolphins, says Dr Dobbs.

No, not that, what is about to follow. Now, there are no quotes here - unlike other bits in the article, so I don't know whether this is Dr Dobbs (PhD not MD but FRSM) or Elizabeth Diffin who is guilty but:

This is because dolphins are thought to emanate "chi" - the essential life force in Chinese medicine - and the basis of various therapies for clinical depression, autism and brain damage.

So dolphins are good for us because they emanate eastern woo - which can cure things?  Don't these people have editors to stop them fitting their fantasy theories in to the middle of otherwise credible articles? Or, if that is Dr Dobbs opinion (and there are plenty of MDs who believe - or claim to believe - in various sorts of woo, so he wouldn't be unique), couldn't they have got a direct quote?  Journalism, supposedly trained!

Insecurity Leaders?

Okay, I've just got my copy of the infosecleaders.com Career Survey. Now, you'd think that somebody emailing something like this out to a bunch of people who think they are, and may even be, information security 'leaders', would obey some basic principles of email security? Especially as it has been over a year since they set the survey up (as an aside, I don't remember completing it but don't really doubt that I did ...)

Anyway, one of these is that any links in the email should point to a URI in the domain of the sender - so (made up) www.infosecleaders.com/1stsurveyresults.pdf - for example. Instead we have, under the "Download the results here." link: http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/? and some php variables".

Fail. Seriously. If we can't get this sort of thing right then why would anybody bother listening?

At least they didn't link you to a page requiring you to log in ...

A Sensible Politician?

Just where did the Tories get Philip Davies? I don't see much of a future for him in the enormously-foreheaded one's socio-green-europhilic movement. I hope his rather slim majority improves if he continues to come up with stuff like this:

I know that we have other business to discuss today so I shall not detain the House any longer. I despair at the endless consensus that there seems to be in the House, which is forever seeking to restrict people's freedoms in this country, to try to stop them doing things that they do legitimately and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, without any problem. For hon. Members to lecture people constantly about what they may and may not do, and what they should and should not say, is depressing beyond belief. The report is more of the same-more of the nanny state.

I know for a fact that the moment the proposed measures are introduced, the zealots represented on the Select Committee will be back for more, and back for more again. They are never satisfied. Dr. Taylor said that he wanted the Government to go a little further and do a little more. Unfortunately, he and the people whom he represents always want the Government to go a little further and do a little more.

and this:

My problem is that those are the sort of measures that his Government are keen to introduce as well. We appear to have a Dutch auction between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government as to who can introduce the biggest nanny state of all. I am afraid that both are going in completely the wrong direction. I agree with the sentiment behind his point, but I do not think that his Government are any less guilty than the Scottish Executive.

The debate was about minimum pricing for alcohol. But that is unimportant. H/t to the Filthy Smoker over at DK.

Quote of the Day

From the Test Match Special live text feed:

From Tony at work in Jakarta, via text: "Need to toss a coin here - heads to follow the cricket, tails the F1, and landing on the edge doing more work. Tough choice"

Unfortunately, I've two reports to write. But I have a 2nd monitor ...

Newton's Laws

Dear Billy,

(Cartoon is a classic from xkcd.)

I have addressed your points - Everything you say is against Newtons Laws - an aluminium plane cannot do what you are claiming.

All videos of 911 show the planes melt into the buildings, with the builings sealing themselves up after the plane has entered, then exploding inside after coming to a sudden halt, then the building is supposed to have weakened and collapsed because of the fires from the plane fuel which burns at 816 Degrees Cent (in an enclosed space even though you see the fuel burn up in seconds on the videos) when in fact steel melts at 1482 Degrees Cent.

in lieu of a longer post, which will have to wait until I finish work today, I am posting "Newton's Laws" - I assume you meant 'Newton's Laws of Motion" - I can't see what gravity, cooling or viscosity have to do with this.) Which of these states that an aluminium (they're not, really, but it probably doesn't make that much difference) aircraft will bounce off (or be completely stopped outside of) a modern building?

1.  Law of Inertia. Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

2. The change of momentum of a body is proportional to the impulse impressed on the body, and happens along the straight line on which that impulse is impressed.

3. Law of Reciprocal Action: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Now, when a Boeing 767 hits the glass and concrete facade of a steel-frame building, it will slow down. Rapidly. At 300knots there is nearly 20 million N.s involved in that impact. Moving at roughly 150 m/s, and at under 50m long, you are going to get a lot of force.  Basically, Law 1 says that, unless you have a force, the plane will keep on moving.  That force comes, mostly, from the structural materials of the building.  Law 2 allows you to calculate or estimate the forces involved and you then start to have to worry about sheer and other stresses (oh, and the integrity of welds and effects of corrosion and all sorts of clever materials effects).  Law 3 says that the necessary force on the plane is matched by an equal and opposite force on the building.  Please note here that you maintain that the plane(s) could not have gone in to the building- that they would have been stopped by the concrete surrounds of the windows.

Glass and the thin concrete in the facade simply do not have the shear toughness to take this and crack or crumble, failing to provide enough force to stop the plane,  which carries on into the building. Slowing down quite rapidly and falling apart (because aircraft aren't tough enough to take this sort of thing either) - although some of the bits, especially the engines, will keep going for longer being both more dense and more sturdy. At some point (not many seconds later), a large plane, like a 767, will hit the frame and either shatter that (causing a fairly immediate collapse) or come (mostly) to rest. A light plane (Piper Dakota, for example) will wear off its velocity against other objects - desks, computers, people, filing cabinets, whatever - and may not reach the main frame - especially if the floors are quite strong.

I will note here that as kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity and momentum only linearly, then there will now be a lot of "spare" energy about.  Under the first law of thermodynamics, this can't just wander off and go for a coffee, so has to hang around.  Most of it will be as heat energy.  Which will have a bad effect on all of the fuel now inside the building ...

A slightly heavier (than the Piper) but much less tough (either then the Piper or a 767 - aerospace technology has improved dramatically since then) plane (a 10 tonne B-52 B-25 Liberator bomber, without bombs) hit the Empire State Building in 1945.    No direct energy weapons then.  Eye witness accounts, from inside the 79th floor, have the plane exploding inside the building ...

Rats to the Rescue

This is superb.

When they smell a landmine, they stop, sniff the ground and begin to dig. This signal lets the Apopo staff know they have found a mine or some other explosive, which can then be removed.

Rats, according to Apopo, are much faster than men using metal detectors and are not distracted by metal contaminants. They are much cheaper to maintain than dogs and are easily passed between different handlers.

Human vermin plant them, careful rodents help us to dig them up.  And, unlike dowsing rods, it actually works.

Quote of the Day

From the good Mr Worstall, elsewhere:

the one where we start our economics by assuming that politicians are indeed lying weasel felchers right at the beginning.

The only thing I would change is to widen the concept by substituting 'thinking' for 'economics'.

Why the 'Scare Quotes'?

BBC:

NHS money 'wasted' on homeopathy

And, this is 'news'?

True Labour

Somewhat tardily, from Tom Harris:

We can assume that, in an STV election, the minor parties (Conservative, Liberal, SNP, etc) would be represented among the seven MPs elected.

So, in the Tom Harris world (Glasgow-centric as it clearly must be), the SNP (current Scottish government and 7 out of 59 MPs and even one of the Glasgow MPs - never mind 5 out of the 17 MSPs) and the Lib-Dems (12 out of 59 MPs and Labour's quislings in the last Scottish Executive) are "minor parties"? Okay, yes, the Tories are ...

I can't be arrsed collating the vote figures but Labour's 6 out of 7 Glasgow MPs (especially remembering that one of them was unopposed, well, by anybody serious, at the last General Election) isn't looking like a safe bet this time round.

Just for info:

How Tom Harris voted on key issues since 2001:

Voted moderately against a transparent Parliament.
Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.
Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.

And finally, a view on weegie politics via the WSJ.

Bloody BBC

Article.

Section title:

Cyber-warfare

Section:

Sir Stephen's comments followed speeches from his Army and Royal Navy counterparts.

He described his views on the future nature of warfare as "complementing and not contradicting" those of his fellow service chiefs.

His emphasis was on the uniqueness of air power, its ability to shape campaigns and the huge advantage it gives Britain's forces, not least in the current campaign in Afghanistan.

He made clear his view that the RAF's role was a much broader one than many realise - whether in a support role, intelligence-gathering, reconnaissance or close air support.

Go on. Which part of that addresses "cyber-warfare"?

Surprised?

Shocked even? This, from the BBC:

More than half of those of both sexes questioned said there were some circumstances when a rape victim should accept responsibility for an attack.

Now, that just shows both how difficult the debate has become and the wider issues surrounding "one person's word against another's" crimes - domestic violence, for example. And women who have been raped are appalled by the survey results.

It (the BBC article, the report, the questions in the research for the report or the questioned) also misses the fundamental difference between 'responsibility' (or as the subsequent comments have it 'blame') and 'contributory behaviour'. I would like to demonstrate with two much less emotionally charged or controversial examples:

• I accidentally forget to lock my car when parking it in a city centre car park. Somebody steals the car, or something from the car. They are a thief and are criminally responsible for their actions. My behaviour in parking the car in the city centre is neither (unreasonably) contributory nor responsible. My failure to lock the car is significantly contributory. This should make no difference to the criminal case but might reasonably change the amount, for example, that my insurance company would pay out.
• I am dismissed from my job for some heinous offence against good taste (I have a number of ties that should do the job.) My tie-disaster is so extravagant evil that they fail to follow the corporate disciplinary policy and summarily dismiss me with immediate effect. I go to Tribunal. It is, because of the failure to follow policy, automatically unfair dismissal. In a heroic devotion to justice and truth, one of the lay members of the panel asks to see the tie. As they are rushed away to Intensive Care, the Chairman declares that my behaviour contributed 99% to my dismissal therefore my compensation will be minimal.

'Blame' for criminal acts, whether life-changingly drastic like rape or trivial, lies with the criminal (unless they do not have the capacity for mens rea in an offence that requires it - in which case they need to be in, or under, some form of care.)

Yes, there are defences of, or similar to, provocation (e.g. self-defence) and there are pleas of mitigation - only the former of these shifts (or removes) responsibility. And I fail to see, under modern British law, how 'provocation' can apply to sexual offences.

Edited to add: Having reread this post, after reading Bella's comment, I can see how my two examples (where the contributory factor is high) might lead people to think I am excusing rapists or blaming victims. If you get that impression - please reread the third and second-last paragraphs of the original article, where I clearly didn't make it clear the difference between responsibility / blame on one side and low risk versus high risk behaviour on the other. No-one 'deserves' to be raped. Equally, if less significantly, no-one 'deserves' to have their car stolen. Regardless of the seriousness of the offence, 'high risk behaviour' is no excuse for the criminal.

Truth from the BBC? Never!

Yes:

Hamas is the Palestinian militant Islamist organisation that runs Gaza.

Only, it has to be said, because it's a journo that has been 'detained'. (Union) comradeship is thicker than ethics, perhaps?

Paul Martin is, of course, a freelancer for the BBC and has form locally.

Note: as a matter of simply feeling right about the world, not that that or any principle applies to journalists, I do hope that the Paul Martin who writes reasonably interesting articles about Palestine is a different Paul Martin to this one.

Probably Not the Last Word

So, Met Commander (previously a Thames Valley Police Chief Inspector) Ali Dizaei is finally convicted of something (in this case, 'perverting the course of justice' and 'misconduct in a public office'). It is almost certainly not the last we will hear of this, never mind that of his 4 year sentence (2 inside and 2 on licence, according to the judge's direction), he'll probably be out (even in the unlikely event that he doesn't appeal) for Valentines Day 2011.

A trained barrister¹, with a PhD² and in the "oh shit, we've no senior ethnics" reaction that most of the civil and uniformed services had in the 80s & 90s (as a reaction to their almost completely white male management structures - yes, institutional racism, just like the rest of society back then), he was probably a shoe-in for (reasonably) high rank. Now, I've never met the guy, so I have no idea whether he is the ignorant, bullying clown with dubious social connections portrayed in many of the comments on the police blogs and in some of the trial reports or whether, after so much investigation, the IPCC and CPS have merely demonstrated Richleau's maxim:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

It has to be said that "misconduct in public office" and "perverting the course of justice" are scarcely rare amongst the ruling class of Blairs' Britain - witness MPs expenses, John Prescott, the endless and scandalous BAE saga and John Prescott. And I've never done any investigation where I haven't found something that could be considered dubious (even where there was no evidence that the suspects or their acquaintances were even loosely connected to the original alleged issue.)

But, regardless, a couple of things concern me:

• Was this just the "entitlement culture" of the modern dictatorship, unbound by the endless 'getting away with it' (for any definition of 'it') that all of the previous investigations, the not-guilty verdicts and the compensation would have given anybody bar a saint, or did the man start out as a fraud (it must be admitted that he clearly started out as an effective self-publicist)?
• Why is a Met Police Commander - a Royal Appointment and one of the most senior ranks in the British Police services - allowed to hold dual nationality and, let's be honest about it, dual nationality in a state that has repeatedly demonstrated its armed hostility to Britain and its interests?

Update: And, yes, as I suggested might just happen, we have an appeal against his "completely outrageous" conviction as a result of the vendetta the world has against him. Would he just get out of the JCB?

1. Yes, legally qualified - but some of the news reports have this 'trained barrister' in. He joined the police at 24 - PhD by then is quick but not unusual; cramming in another year 'taking dinners' is moving quickly. Did he then complete his pupillage? If so, which chambers?

2. On 'police racism', "The Thin Black Line" - according to the Daily Hate, which also implies he took it much later (completion shortly before joining the Met), as opposed to the Telegraph's timeline - "He was privately educated at Slindon College in Sussex, trained as a barrister and took a PhD before joining Thames Valley Police in 1986." Obviously, if he did his PhD part-time or sabbatical from the cop-shop, it makes the timings in note 1 more reasonable.

And In Shock News, Today

Pope Benedict has acted as if he were a traditionalist Catholic. The National Secular Society object (but are probably too nice a bunch of people to shit in the woods.)

Richard Dawkins doesn't like Christians. The National Secular Society, unsurprisingly, say nothing.

And a very nice satire here.

Another day in the jungle.

Mathematical and Economic Ignorance

From "Scottish Business Insider" and parroted by the never-surprised-by-their-incompetence at al-Beeb:

Profits at Scotland's main companies plummeted last year by 182%, according to a new analysis.

However, the number of the country's top 500 corporates that increased their profits was nearly as high as the number who saw them fall.

The steepness of the fall was due to the crises at the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland.

Profits can't fall, never mind plummet, by more than 100% before they stop being profits and start being losses ...

I suppose they mean that overall losses this year were 82% of last year's profits but it is too difficult to tell.

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.

Is There a "Laffer Curve" for Po?

That's 'po' as in 'po-faced'. Virtuous dullness. Not quite causally the same as cretinous over-politically correct but practically indistinguishable in effect.

Hat-tip to Julia in her comment on one of Leg-iron's posts. Which led me to the not-particularly-strange-for-there post on il-Liberal Conspiracy. A bit of sincere irritation by a militant feminist after a particularly antediluvian example of the breed Councilor Uselessus, sub-speechies Fossilus Tori - rape jokes just aren't funny. Not, 'shouldn't be' - just 'aren't':

Because they’re not. Ever. They never have been and they never will be.

Probably leading to a bit of mild bansturbation. Which led to the most hilarious comment thread - made even more so by the inevitable trashing of it by Mr Sunny 'Dissenters Delendum Est' Hundal.

She's wrong of course. Rape jokes might be 'usually inappropriate' and even 'usually unfunny' - but some of them are and in some contexts, they may even be appropriate. Anyway, it got me thinking. Away from LC and Tax Research UK, we understand the Laffer Curve for taxation - like most great explanations, it is actually quite trite. (Explanation for those who haven't heard of it: If you (the govt or who-ever - the local baron even) levy no tax, you have no income. If you levy 100% tax, then no-one works in the formal economy, there is no point, no income. Some tax, some income. There are lots of distinguished arguments about the shape of the curve, where the maxima might be, and how human behaviours work dynamically around the underlying end-point curve - it can take a couple of years to arrange a migrants visa to Australia or New Zealand for example, so even if you decided to leave because of a swinging tax rate, you may need to keep working for a while ...)

Is there an equivalent for humour? You insult everybody - they get up and leave (or never buy a ticket to another of your shows). You insult nobody (and most jokes have a butt - even if it is the teller or their stereotype) and you are so ridiculously po-faced even Sunny would think you are boring. Where is the Laffer maxima for humour? How can you estimate it? And it's not a Laffer curve for humour - it's the opposite - a Laffer curve for anti-humour, 'po', if you will allow me to abuse the language so.

• It clearly varies per audience - jokes that are acceptable amongst friends may be more acceptable in the pub than in the workplace. Unacceptability makes people squirm - even ones who actually found it funny.
• Amongst a group of new acquaintances, more care is needed until the most uptight ones have gone to bed (or had half a Babycham and turned into wibbling heaps.)
• On the interwebby thing - well, you can find somebody who will be offended by almost anything (Youtube user kenjosmes commenting on this video, for example.)

Anyway, some pontificating - I'd rather have Anjem Choudry and Pat Condell, Ben Elton and Jim Davis, Peter Tatchell and Iris Robinson, even Sunny Hundal and, well, I can't think of anything vile enough to be his opposite - than I would having them banned.

Oh, Not Too Long Now

More drivel from the most expensive of the Westminster tarts, our very own Eric Joyce:

Most regular folk in Scotland see Gordon for what he is – a decent man who wants the world to be a better place, especially for the less well-off.

Different world, mate. Most 'regular' folk in Scotland see Gordon for what he is - a typical politician. Blindly clinging to the tribal loyalties of the 1920s, poisoning everything he touches, incapable of admitting error and, now, the hero of the middle classes.

For crying out loud, I'm going to be voting SNP whenever Gordo's nails finally give way and the election flies out of his stifling grasp - the fucking nationalists - just to try to get you, and him, out.

Spam Title of the Day

"Has the cold snap frozen your sales pipeline?"

It hasn't frozen the delivery pipeline either, although it got close from time to time ...

Utterly Crap Law

The Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009.

At no point in this act does it mention where the goods might have come from, who they might have belonged to, or how they were obtained. As long as the Advisory Panel says so and a politician agrees.

I have no problem with Museums being permitted to return 'stolen' property - even, perhaps, required to return it - libertarian adherence to fundamental property rights, and all that. But nowhere in this piece of appalling legislation does it require that the goods designated were initially seized, as the Title would have you believe, by the Nazis from Jews (or any other victims of the holocaust - although I suspect that the rich amongst the many persecuted were either Jewish or homosexual.) From 1933 to 1945 - any time, any place, anything. As long as yet-another-quango says "do it".

And Better!

Oh, if it wasn't so damn icy, today would be a smug day!

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman has been fined £350 after pleading guilty to driving without due care and attention.

It Just Gets Better!

George is clearly missing the atmosphere of the (Not-Really-A)-Celebrity house:

Respect MP George Galloway has been deported from Egypt.

The Bow and Bethnal Green MP was reportedly trying to return to Gaza to help members of a humanitarian convoy who had been arrested.

That brought an even bigger smile (okay, smirk) to my face than England's lucky escape yesterday.

Some Good News for the New Year

Here:

The "Viva Palestina" convoy, led by British MP George Galloway, has been blocked from getting on a ferry from Aqaba to the Egyptian town of Nuweiba where it planned to continue by road to the Rafah border crossing.

But now the convoy faces a potentially budget-draining journey back through Jordan to the Syrian port of Latakia, followed by several ferries to El Arish.

Actions have consequences. Nobody owes your opinions an airing. I bet I could make a few thousands setting up a Cowellesque vote on which one of you got to starve first.

Just fucking sort it, Gorgeous, and stop bothering people who have to live in the real world by moaning about it.

It's not his fault but?

Do they call him "Jones the Safety"?

The incidents came within hours of a campaign launched to improve safety.

Elfyn Jones from Llanberis mountain rescue team said both rescue incidents were "completely and utterly unnecessary".

What is "Illegal"?

Disclaimer - this is the author's opinion on what the law is, not what the law should be ...

Amnesty International on the Uganda "Bahati" or "Round 'em, put 'em in a field ..." Bill:

"Certain provisions in this bill are illegal; they are also immoral," said Kate Sheill, Amnesty International's expert on sexual rights. "They criminalize a sector of society for being who they are, when what the government should be doing instead is protecting them from discrimination and abuse."

Okay - there is only one word in that that I disagree - obvious from the title - and that is "illegal". I happen to think that both the Bahati Bill and the current position in Ugandan law (under Section 140 of the Uganda Penal Code) is certainly arguably dodgy law under Articles 21(1) and 32(1) of the Ugandan Constitution, although readers will note that Article 21(2) of the Constitution expressly does not mention "sexual preference" and, in fact, Article 31(2a) explicitly discriminates against homosexuals - although no more than the UK or the USA (the latter federal) do - in denying 'marriage' - (Ed notes: he is trying hard not to do a Princess Bride / Peter Cook thing here ...) But I don't think that is Amnesty's point - I think they are talking about "International Human Rights Law", here:

The final section of the bill provides for Uganda to nullify any of its international or regional commitments that it deems "contradictory to the spirit and provisions enshrined in this Act." As both the African Commission and the UN Human Rights Committee have held, a state cannot, through its domestic law, negate its international human rights obligations.

But a state can withdraw from or otherwise abrogate those treaties it has freely entered into and anyway, a reasonably careful search of the UN doesn't actually show any treaty or covenant explicitly requiring equal treatment on the basis of sexual preference. Nope, not explicitly. You do have the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - to which Uganda is a State Party without reservation (since 21 June 1995). Now, Article 2(1) states (my bold):

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Which you could read, for the States Parties, that they agree not to discriminate against people with the 'other status' of fancying or bonking people of their own sex. But this is not settled law - never mind that Article 23 of the Covenant itself seems to imply marriage being specifically between man & woman - the mere existence of the "UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity" and the opposing Arab League sponsored declaration (with nearly as many signatories - 57 compared to 67) shows that, despite the completely non-binding Yogyakarta Principles.

There are aspects of the Bahati Bill, regardless of your opinion on the core issue of homosexual rights, that are utterly distasteful (and probably even more easily corallable as illegal under Uganda's Constitution or international obligations):

• The death penalty. Although Uganda are not a signatory to the 2nd Optional Protocol to the Convenant, the Article 6(2) of the Convenant restricts the death penalty accordingly: "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes". As s3(1)(b), just for example, of the Bill would impose the death penalty for consensual, protected homosexual acts for adults with HIV, I am fairly sure it would fall foul of this (whereas s3(1)(a) - homosexual paedophile acts might not?)
• The restrictions on free speech.
• The requirement (under penalty of prison) to inform on your friends, colleagues or mere acquaintances.
• The explicit extension of the Stasi clause to ministers of religion with, at least as far as the Christian ones are concerned, the consequent violation of the sacrament of confession (thus possibly breaching the Article 18 rights on freedom of religion, although the qualification in 18(3) for morals is noted. And this is, fundamentally, an argument about opposing morals.)

So, I don't think the Bahati Bill would be "illegal". It might require amendment of the Ugandan constitution, it might (although I don't think it does) require Uganda to withdraw from some treaties currently binding it. Doesn't make it right, I know, but just saying ...

Says it all, really

The Equalities Bill:

It passed through the House of Commons without debate and is currently being read in the House of Lords.

What the fuck do our politicians think they are doing (a non-party political insult, here)? Is the draftsmanship perfect? Is there nothing in this Bill that anyone thinks shouldn't be law or could be better law (having different rules for the public and private sectors in something as basic as this doesn't necessarily strike me as the most reasonable thing) or even something that the bill has missed out (although as a libertarian, I'm not keen on extra rules, although having one Act to refer to rather than 4 or 5 and a whole bunch of Statutory Instruments isn't bad ...)

Colonies at Words

I notice that the Most Reverend Katherine Schori, Presiding Bishop of the (real) Episcopal Church in the general vicinity of Yankdom, has said something very important about the Ugandan "Bahati" bill (the obnoxious one about informing on then executing queer people - although I may have something to say about Amnesty's mouth-fart tomorrow.)

The Episcopal Church represents multiple and varied cultural contexts (the United States and 15 other nations), and as a Church we affirm that the public scapegoating of any category of persons, in any context, is anathema.

Now that, 'anathema' is a very good word. Consult your favourite dictionary for the modern usage but it fits the original meaning very well too - something being offered up to the Old Testament God of Ugandan 'Christians' and Muslims (whether we like it or not, the Muslims are actually following the dictats of their faith.)

Multicultural Hell.

Here. Nothing to say.

Someone's Missing the Point

And, to be honest, it may be me. But as the article is from the "Sunday Grauniad", it probably isn't.

The revelation has provoked outrage among human rights groups who warn that it could affect the job prospects of the innocent. They fear that whenever an employer carries out an "enhanced criminal records" check on a potential employee, the system would flag up the fact that the person had been arrested.

I have no idea whether permanently retaining records of arrests is new and we have no real insight in to the effect of spurious details appearing on Enhanced Disclosure reports (especially the super-sekret "don't tell the applicant" ones straight from the Nu-Labour "Kafka or Orwell - Let's do BOTH!" playbook.) And, we are unlikely ever too, given that the system has already been replaced by the "Independent Safeguarding Authority", which, itself, is probably on rather a short shelf life. But there is an important step missing ... Let's look!

(Liberty) "Government has fed a culture where arrest might as well be conviction, and suspicion equals guilt. In this climate, a permanent record of suspicion can seriously damage the life chances of any young person who has ever had their collar felt by the police."

...

A spokesman for the Criminal Records Bureau said: "An arrest with no further action may show up as part of an enhanced check, but the decision is made by the chief officer in each police force if they believe that the information ought to be included and that it is relevant to the application.

Hmm. Now, I am a small employer and as such have certain responsibilities when looking at applicants - and I have access to government vetting and also, in some cases, to Enhanced Disclosure rules. Now, except in cases where there is a specific ban on allowing employment (s3, s9 and Schedule 4 of the "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006" for example) - and that has nothing to do with records of arrest showing on an Enhanced Disclosure - you must have been placed on the relevant barred list (s2), it is up to the employer to consider the nature of the disclosure and its relevance to the employment activity.

In fact, as an Enhanced Disclosure will show up details of spent offences, it is an offence for the employer not to take the specific relevance of the offence into account when making a decision regarding employment. You would assume that if it is an offence to take in to account a conviction for an irrelevant crime, surely there must be (I know, I'm talking about the law here, not common sense) an equivalent offence - or at least civilly actionable tort - for taking in to account an arrest, suspicion or disclosed intelligence regarding a similarly irrelevant crime (assuming for the sake of argument that any crime had actually been committed - whether by the job applicant or anybody else.)

Or am I missing something?

Rt Rev Venner - Right or Wrong?

The Right Reverend Stephen Venner, Bishop to the Armed Forces (and apparently also Bishop of for the Falkland Islands), has been widely condemned for apparently stating, amongst other things:

The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.

Clearly, in the storm of protest (including from an MP from the anti-war, anti-army, anti-pretty much everything ilLib Dims accusing him of "giving comfort and succour to the enemy") it was an impolitic thing to do - and, despite his apology (which has itself been attacked), he is going to be pretty much on the defensive for some time and has probably done his reputation permanent (hopefully not terminal) harm.

But was what he said wrong? I don't think that it is clear cut. Yes, some of the Taliban are fighting for money, some are fighting to keep evil crusaders out of the Dar-al-Islam, some just are fighting to keep outsiders^* away from their mountain / village / compound / poppy field, etc. However, regardless of the motivation, it is axiomatic that you should not underestimate your enemy and, since before the "Art of War" went beta, that a good commander will try to understand the enemy - capabilities and motivations, strengths and weaknesses. The religious faith or even fervour of the Taliban is an important consideration in understanding them.

And, as I was composing this, Bruce Schneier's monthly Cryptogram brought my attention to this article. It is also axiomatic, particularly amongst retired sergeants, that sergeants run the army. I would disagree slightly - it is the core component of experienced soldiers, many of whom are, indeed, sergeants but some will also be your experienced captains and majors - anyway, different discussion. One of the implications of the report is that the equivalent of the sergeants within the terrorist cells are chosen by the old Soviet system (selected on joining for some combination of brains, political or religious orthodoxy, hereditary or simple nepotism etc) rather than the Western (since the time of the Roman legions) version stressing actual (combat or otherwise) experience. Bodes ill for your ability to learn from your mistakes (even if your successes don't blow you up!)

* Not just Brits, Yanks or even Russians but also those Kabul townies who've never chased a goat around a mountain.

This says something about Blair

Apropos of a BBC News sidebar article - Seb Coe does not plan to return to politics, we learn this:

And the former athlete provided an insight into the moments shortly before London was named as Olympic host at the 2005 International Olympic Committee session in Singapore.

Lord Coe revealed he was called on his mobile phone by the then prime minister Tony Blair, who appeared unable to understand the result would be kept secret until the announcement.

"He couldn't actually understand, somehow, that we didn't actually know, that there were no exit polls here. We didn't know the result," recalled the peer.

I think he is being too polite - it had nothing to do with exit polls, Blair simply could not understand that the news hadn't been given (not, not 'leaked') to the important people (i.e. him) well before the proles were allowed to know.

I'm not sure this is right.

Mr Roger Day has been arrested, by Warwickshire Police, for an offence under s197 of the Army Act 1955, being that on the 8th November this year, he did march down Bedworth High Street wearing a bunch of medals to which he clearly was not entitled.

Some people are quite surprised by this. Some people think it is, or should be^*, a reprehensible crime. I would quite like to see the stocks brought back and would be willing to travel to Bedworth and supply the local urchins with rotten fruit and out-of-date eggs.

Anyway, this deluded old fool (assuming he isn't a fraudster - in which case England has a perfectly good Fraud Act 2006 to wield) has done something objectionable (but no more so than playing rap music in public, for example), and has been arrested.

I bring to your notice Schedule 17 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Repeals and Revocations):

Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 18) The whole Act.

The MOD announced, in a Defence Internal Brief that "The Armed Forces Act 2006 will come into force on 31 October 2009" - I assume there is another enabling Statutory Instrument (there were 4 already by the end of March 09). There is no equivalent of the s197 offence in the new act.

? Or maybe Warwickshire are operating in a little time warp?

* Disclaimer - I know Adam - for a very weak (aka internet) definition of "know".

Trust Me, I'm From the Government

The government, today, released its whitewash (or, as they have it "investigation") report into the Joseph Rowntree Trust's report into the Database State.

Highlights for you:

• "The methodology underpinning its judgements is opaque and inadequately substantiated" - but somewhat less so than the methodology by which you bunch of bastards committed us to war in Iraq, for example ... Or the Civil Contingencies Act. Or, to take a more recent example, the Digital Economy Bill.
  
• We passed a law so it's legal (despite the requirements of HRA98 and the DPA and, since Lisbon, of the absolutely overriding nature of EU law.) - "This has always been the purpose of the Register since the Identity Cards Bill was brought to Parliament in 2005. The Register will hold, as specified under the Identity Cards Act 2006 ..."
• Passwords - the ultimate in security: "a highly restricted password-protected electronic system, with both server and network access restrictions"

I don't generally agree with the JRRT on poverty, I do generally agree with them on prison reform, and the "Database State" report has an heavy and honest pedigree for its authors and its production. Choose who you believe - a New Labour place-man or this lot:

About the Authors

Ross Anderson chairs the Foundation for Information Policy Research. He is Professor of Security Engineering at Cambridge University, a Fellow of the IET and the IMA, and a pioneer of the economics of information security.

Ian Brown is a senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, with a PhD in information security. He is a member of the Advisory Council and a former Director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

Terri Dowty is Director of Action on Rights for Children. She has many years’ experience in education and children’s human rights. She sits on the Advisory Council of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

William Heath chairs Open Rights Group and two new start-ups: Mydex CIC and Ctrl-Shift Ltd. He founded the public-sector IT research business Kable, now part of Guardian News & Media. He also sits on the Advisory Council of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

Philip Inglesant is a postdoctoral researcher at University College London specialising in the human aspects of information systems and e-government.

Angela Sasse is Professor of Human Centred Systems at University College London, specialising in how to design and implement novel technologies that are fit for purpose and that benefit individuals and society. She is also a member of the Advisory Council of the Foundation for Information Policy Research.

Disclaimer - I am a member of FIPR, although not of the eminence to be on their Advisory Council.

It Isn't Even Irony

A New Labour apparatchik quoting 1984 to justify the surveillance state:

In 1984, ‘Newspeak’ is a vital weapon for the totalitarian state precisely because it removes nuance. ‘The whole aim of Newspeak’, Syme tells Winston, ‘is to narrow the range of thought’.

Government must take its share of the blame for this failure of discourse. Too often, we have been overly defensive and dismissive of criticism. Government believes it is acting benignly and legally and has not adequately recognised the fears of those who believe this is not the case.

21st Century Love

Apparently, according to young Master S-E, is Mrs S-E and I watering the plants in each others virtual pets' gardens.

He is, just, pre-puberty. He'll learn!