The Annual Boarding Up of properties Event

A commenter on my previous post wondered when the police would have the guts to ban the Notting Hill carnival. I suspect we all know why it's the last thing they'd do, although to put it specifically would leave them wide open to accusations of racism, far, far, easier to ban a march by the EDL despite the fact that it costs less to police an EDL event than the potentially riotous Carnival.
In the past, despite having 11,000 officers on the streets during 2008, around 40 troublemakers threw bottles and bricks at officers once the carnival had finished, while there were 330 arrests.
In 2009 the number of arrests fell to 215, including a group of 38 youths who had planned violence during the event. A 15-year-old youth was also stabbed.
In 2010 there were also two stabbings, resulting in minor injuries to the victims and were 230 arrests across the weekend, with most being for drugs offences and public disorder.
Plus the huge number of police compares with the Royal Wedding, which was deemed a terrorist threat.
Mail. 

Battening down the hatches: Shopkeepers board up windows over riot fears as record police numbers prepare for Notting Hill Carnival
Shopkeepers were today boarding up their windows over fears that the Notting Hill Carnival could descend into the violent scenes that rocked London earlier this month.
Record numbers of police will take to the streets in a desperate bid to deter the rioting and looting that spread across the capital.
There were fears that the carnival could become a focal point for unrest which lead to suggestions that the annual event could be cancelled.
But instead the annual carnival will see the highest number of police officers on duty in the event's 47-year history in the wake of the London riots.
Double the number of officers that policed the Royal Wedding will be on duty at the carnival next weekend, with the Met planning 20,000 shifts split over the two-day event, it is understood.
It is Scotland Yard's biggest public order test since the riots during an unprecedented security operation at the two-day carnival.
Businesses were boarding up their shop fronts earlier today as a precaution in the wake of the widespread violence and looting.
Police received criticism about their handling of the riots and will be keen to ensure there are no repeat disturbances.
More than a million revellers are expected to descend on the capital over the coming days for what is Europe's biggest street festival.

To be honest, unless there was actual rioting going on in London on the days leading up to the event I didn't expect a ban. Though I do expect one of two things, either it will go without a hitch as everyone will be at pains to make sure the event isn't tarnished by the riots (unlikely but possible) Or it will start off quiet and explode as it gets later. (more likely)
 Still, Scotland Yard has staged a series of dawn swoops in a pre-emptive strike to avoid trouble at this year's carnival. A total of 40 suspects have been arrested in raids across the capital which suggests some forethought by the police, but will have done little to ease tensions in the communities involved. Plus I'm quite uneasy about arresting people simply because you think they might be a problem.
I think personally that the Notting Hill Carnival has to be seen as a success by the powers that be who were quite badly shaken by the riots and if that means draconian policing it will be seen as worth it despite our civil liberties being dragged through the gutter again. Problem with overt policing though is that it does have negative consequences too.
It will be interesting to see how this goes, but I predict trouble will erupt at some stage.

More about → The Annual Boarding Up of properties Event

Setting yourself up for a fall

I accidentally deleted my blog this morning when I was tinkering with the account email settings and deleted the access account by mistake as I never really use it because I already have another gmail account along with 3 hotmail accounts and a yahoo account too. Fortunately the good people at google blogger were able to retrieve my mistake, something I suspect from the speed of response they are used too. As to why I have 5 email accounts? Well, I use them for different things, work, family, play, research (FOI requests, writing email campaigns and to politicians) I'm not alone in this, it's not paranoia as such, though there is an element of caution in it, simply good sense to compartmentalise what I do out here and keep my real name and family out of sight to all but the most determined of snoopers. I'm fairly sure minions of the state know who I am and who I'm linked too, but your average stalker/troll wont and long may it remain that way.
A bit of a rambling intro I know, but it allowed me to show you an example of what happens when you tinker around with something you shouldn't.
Express.

JUDGES and magistrates have been given the go-ahead to jail rioters after a signal from Whitehall, it appeared Yesterday.
The message was to forget normal soft sentencing and get the thugs and looters behind bars.
This was claimed as magistrate Novello Noades jailed a man for six months for hoarding property looted from a music shop.
Mr Noades, chairman of London’s Camberwell Green Magistrates Court, dismissed a request from the man’s solicitor for bail and a pre-sentence report.
Mr Noades replied: “Our directive for anyone in the rioting is a custodial sentence.”
However last night mystery over the supposedly emailed directive deepened when the Judicial Office, which represents judges, denied any instruction had been issued.

Now whilst I'm all in favour of locking away criminals, including looters and rioters, I can see a massive problem looming if this is indeed the case. I can already see the first appeals winging their way through the system if as has been claimed someone has told judges to ignore sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are there to serve a purpose and whilst judges are given a degree of latitude in enforcing those guidelines (they can choose to ignore if the circumstances warrant it) normally they follow them because when they don't an appeal due to the severity of the sentence will follow as sure as night follows day. We do complain often enough when the sentencing is too light, we rarely complain (unless we're involved) that the sentence was too harsh, but we do generally expect the judges to follow some sort of criteria when sentencing, we don't expect the state to step in capriciously and say the guidelines don't apply in this instance.
If the government thinks the sentencing guidelines aren't tough enough, it's up to the government (or the people electing them) to get them changed. What we don't want is the government stepping in and telling judges to just ignore them. That leads to the HRA and compo claims and we already shell out enough in taxes without paying some scumbag millions for banging them up without following the rules.
I want the scumbags put away for a long time, I want the sentence to fit the crime. What I don't want is the government to have the ability to tell judges to ignore the rules, because even if it's only for scumbags this time, at some future stage it might be me (or you) next.

More about → Setting yourself up for a fall

An utter waste of time

Seems there's going to be a new (all expenses paid) independent commission to discuss a new UK Bill of Rights as people are not too happy with the European Court of Human Rights interfering in our system using the Human Rights Act as justification for its meddling (thanks Labour).
BBC.

An independent commission has started to seek views from the public on the need for a UK Bill of Rights.
The Commission on a UK Bill of Rights was set up by the government in March to explore a range of issues around human rights law.
It came amid a row over a 2005 European Court of Human Rights' ruling that the UK was unlawfully operating a blanket ban preventing prisoners from voting.
MPs voted overwhelmingly to defy the ruling and maintain the ban.
The free vote took place in parliament in February.
Prime Minister David Cameron famously said that the prospect of lifting the ban made him feel "physically ill".
The controversy was one of many in which the application of human rights law infuriated parts of the press and the country.

Sounds great so far, though here's the main problem, the source of all the complaints will have to remain in place and be the building block of any new Bill of Rights...

However, the Commission's terms of reference make it clear that a British Bill of Rights will build on the UK's obligations under the European Convention and ensure that the convention's rights continue to be enshrined in British law.

In other words they are wasting our time and money doing something which isn't going to work anyway.
The only way a UK bill of Rights will work is if we remove the Human Rights Actand go from earlier Bills of Rights which suit our people and not an amorphous EU whole. That's not to say I don't think people, even criminals have rights, just that some rights aren't actually a right at all. With rights there equally should come responsibilities, if you break the law, you lose certain rights including the right to roam free and commit further crimes and also the right to respect for family life and privacy along with any opportunity to vote too. A complex system of equal rights for all simply will not work if the villain has exactly the same rights as the victim. The only rights a villain should have are the right to a fair trial, the right to appeal and the right to be housed and fed securely and safely at her majesties pleasure. That's all the basic rights they need, the law abiding rest of us get the full package.
Cameron was supposed to be getting rid of the HRA, naturally enough he hasn't, he really even tried for a British Bill of Rights, he got told by Ken Clarke that such a bill would have to lie on top of EU law anyway and not supersede it. No-one in government it seems is prepared to do anything about injustices within the HRA system, no one in government it seems is willing to leave the EU, the ECHR and scrap the hideous legislation foisted upon us by the previous government such as the HRA and the abysmal Equalities Act.
Seems they'd rather ignore abuse than do something about it and then they wonder why we hold them in contempt.

More about → An utter waste of time

My gaff my rules

People should have the right to defend themselves and their property, the law even (supposedly) allows this with a reasonable force addendum to any crime in which the perpetrator is injured. Though personally speaking the states idea of reasonable force and my idea of reasonable force don't really match as mine includes the possibility of the perpetrator never being in a position to attack/rob me or mine (or anyone else) ever again, which seems reasonable to me.
So it still irritates me to see headlines like this in the media.

BBC.

A burglar has been stabbed to death and the householder arrested on suspicion of murder after an attempted break-in at his house in Salford.

Four masked men attempted to get into a house in Ethel Avenue before midnight on Wednesday.

The stabbed man, 26, is believed to have been carried away by the other intruders as they fled, before being dumped in a street in Pendlebury.

Peter Flanagan, 57, son Neil, 29, and his son's girlfriend are being held.

The men and the 21-year-old woman are being questioned on suspicion of murder.

Police said the stabbed man was found on Hospital Road and died a short time later.

Ch Supt Kevin Mulligan, who heads Greater Manchester Police's Salford division, said the man suffered "at least one stab wound" during an altercation in the house involving at least one person from the address and four people breaking in.

He said he could not comment further on the injuries or the cause of death until a post-mortem examination had been carried out.

He also refused to comment on whether the weapon had been taken into the property by the intruder or if it belonged to the householder.

 Now to my mind, anyone breaking into someone else's house immediately puts themselves beyond the laws protection, that ought to make them fair game for any self defence that the property owner/tenant should decide to use to defend themselves and their goods. Not according to the law of the land though, as far as they are concerned if you commit a crime defending yourself then your going to be prosecuted. The law as it stands only allowing you to defend yourself physically if your opponent is facing you. Stab them in the back and it's assault and upwards and you probably spending more time inside than they do such is our crazy system, just ask Tony Martin.
No, I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to set mantraps in their gardens, but what I am saying is that felons are beyond the laws protection either coming towards you or running away during the course of the felony and you have the right to use as much force as you like as they are fair game. You do not have the right to go round to their place the following morning and shoot them though, however the rules of hot pursuit should be recognised too, their only recourse being to turn themselves in whilst trying to escape.
In the USA you shoot a burglar, you don't get arrested, but in certain states the people with the burglar are arrested and charged with the manslaughter/wounding with intent as the injuries sustained committing a crime are deemed to be the criminals responsibility. Strikes me as common sense which is probably why our legal system will persecute the victims rather than the perpetrators.
The state wants all forms of violence firmly in its hands or those outside the law, has done for a while now, after all armed people might just go after the powers that be. That in a nutshell is why people who defend themselves frequently end up being prosecuted and incarcerated themselves.

More about → My gaff my rules

Do you see what I see

Technology can be wonderful and it also can be a burden when it comes to intrusions in our lives, but trying to stop technology being introduced is a bit like swimming against the tide. Still you’d think that when introducing a new bit of technology the requirement would be to opt in, rather than opt out.
Mail.

Facebook is at the centre of another privacy row after bringing in facial recognition technology to automatically identify users in pictures.
The world’s leading social network has begun rolling out new technology that automatically identifies and ‘tags’ people in photos uploaded to the website.
The feature has been expanded from a limited test run in the U.S. to be widened across all of the States and ‘most countries’, Facebook said on its official blog yesterday – and, by default, it’s turned on.
Facebook’s ‘Tag Suggestions’ feature is designed to speed up the process of labeling friends in photos posted on Facebook.
If a friend ‘tags’ you in one photo, the technology will automatically scan your face and then try and find matches among all their pictures.
Daniel Hamilton, director of privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘Facebook users will rightly be alarmed to hear that their private information will be used in this way. This is yet another nail in the coffin for online privacy.
‘Websites like Facebook owe it to their users to respect their privacy, not to scan their photo albums with facial recognition software.’

As I don’t use Facebook I have no particular axe to grind here and the program itself does limit itself to only your friends and family online. The worry is of course that it will simply run in the background and build up a pictorial database of the people using Facebook and that somehow or other the information gathered will be hacked or used by “villains” including the “State” to track down people they want to find or monitor. Though I suspect a lot of the more savvy villains don’t have their pictures up on facebook, just the odd idiots who advertise their villainy
Still it is an example of the intrusions of privacy into our lives by information technology and a warning to those who actually take notice of such things that whether you’re aware of it or not a hell of a lot of information is held about you from your online wanderings, be it from spyware, to malware to legitimate businesses like Amazon or even social networks and if you think the state can’t get at the information if it decides to take an interest in you then you are deluding yourself.
What people need to be aware of is just how vulnerable they are, though I suspect a lot don’t give a damn, after all the message nothing to hide nothing to fear seems to be almost a mantra of various people out there when others raise alarms. The problems might start though when or if the state becomes so intrusive that people do feel they want to remain more anonymous and find they can’t.
Saying told you so is going to be cold comfort…
There are various ways to protect yourself, here is a decent start don’t use internet expolorer, use firefox with various security addons such as adblock plus and no script. But be aware, if your info is out there, it’s probably out there for good.
Be careful out there, you never know who is looking.

More about → Do you see what I see

This is not a right

The older I get the more I despise the effects of the Human Rights Act and the way it's interpreted by judges and lawyers if only because the vast majority of people who seem to benefit from it are criminal scum who pass through the justice system. Not that I consider all asylum seekers to be scum, but they have used the HRA and the legal system to their advantage when it comes to staying here even when they have no right to do so...

Telegraph.

Tens of thousands of asylum seekers have been awarded British residency under a controversial human rights law which allow foreigners to stay because they have a partner or children in this country.

Out of 161,000 foreigners allowed to remain in Britain as part of the Government's "back door amnesty", a significant number were ruled to have a case under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "right to family life".

It was this factor that was decisive in winning the right to stay in Britain, rather than any evidence they were genuinely fleeing persecution.

In many cases, initial Home Office delays in processing the claims will have been the factor that allowed asylum seekers who entered Britain as young single people the opportunity to start families.

The development exposes the impact of asylum failures under Labour, which triggered a long-running project to clear more than 400,000 asylum cases, dubbed "legacy cases", which had been allowed to fester since the late 1990s. The exercise was heavily criticised last week in a report by MPs on the all-party Home Affairs Committee.

There you have it, get into the UK, sometimes illegally, claim asylum, find and knock up some woman and you can stay, ok, ok probably not as crude as that in all cases, but certainly the case for some including Aso Mohammed Ibrahim who ran down Amy Houston and ran off leaving her to die whilst disqualified from driving, yet instead of being deported was allowed to stay because Ibrahim's lawyers argued that his human rights would be contravened if he were sent back to Iraq as he now has a family here.
Most would say his family can go back with him if they want.
Cameron was supposed to be getting rid of the HRA, naturally enough he hasn't, he hasn't even tried for a British Bill of Rights, he got told by Ken Clarke that such a bill would have to lie on top of EU law and not supersede it. No-one in government it seems is prepared to do anything about injustices within the HRA system, no one in government it seems is willing to leave the EU, the ECHR and scrap the hideous legislation foisted upon us by the previous government such as the HRA and the abysmal Equalities Act.
Seems they'd rather ignore abuse than do something about it and then they wonder why we hold them in contempt.

More about → This is not a right

How to win friends and influence people....not

There are a few things that get peoples blood boiling, Israel/Palestine, left/right, toilet seat up/down and of course boundary disputes. Nothing quite like setting neighbours at loggerheads than one supposedly discovering that the boundary fence may be in the wrong place or even a tree branch is over their property. Few however have the nerve of Donald Trump.

Telegraph.

Donald Trump angers neighbour after erecting new boundary fence and then billing him
Their David and Goliath dispute over a proposed £1 billion golf course has raged for several years.

But Donald Trump has infuriated one of his Scottish neighbours and longtime foes once again by erecting a fence around his house and then billing him for it.
David Milne, 46, found himself at loggerheads with the tycoon when he refused to sell his home to the Trump Organisation.
The couple are among five home owners who live on the Menie Estate in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire, where Trump is in the process of building the "best golf course in the world".
They fear they could be evicted as Trump looks to secure more land.
In the latest twist to the saga, Mr Milne has disclosed that the American billionaire recently decided that the boundaries which separated their land were incorrect and instructed his team to erect a fence without any warning. 

He then sent Mr Milne an invoice of £2,820 – half of the total bill of £5,640.

The health and safety adviser said Trump's demand was "ridiculous" and that he would not pay a penny towards the fence.

He said: "I'm just ignoring the demand. There is no way I'm going to pay it.

Now I don't understand the rights and wrongs of the actual dispute itself, though I do believe that it's a long running thing and that the SNP are involved in the process somewhere. The lovely Subrosa has a better view of what's going on up there than I do.

My take is on the sheer nerve of arbitrarily deciding that the land boundaries were wrong and building a new fence on what you believe to be the new boundary and then having the nerve to charge your neighbour whom you haven't consulted half of the costs! 

Land boundary disputes usually involve a visit to the H M Land Registry in England and Wales at least and if the dispute can't be resolved amicably by mediation then go to the courts. Now Donald Trump or whoever decided that the boundaries were wrong  is well within their rights to erect new fencing along the boundary, there are a few stipulations in that the uprights all have to be on your side of the boundary and no higher than 1 metre next to a public highway or 2 metres elsewhere, but what you don't get to do is charge your neighbour for erecting your fence, even if it's a shared boundary.

I suspect this is intimidation and it doesn't exactly make Trump look too good, but from previous stuff he's got up too, I suspect he doesn't care, he has lawyers for that sort of thing.

As I said previously, I don't know the rights and wrongs of what's going on, but I know where my sympathies lie now, Donald Trump has made sure of that.

More about → How to win friends and influence people....not

Can't do the time?

Yes, it's that saying, "can't do the time, don't do the crime" save only that some pathetic scumbag thinks he might just have come up with a get out of jail card in the Human Rights Act.

BBC.

A 33-year-old Nottingham burglar has appealed against his sentence, saying he needs to care for his five children.

Wayne Bishop, of Southchurch Drive, Clifton, was jailed for eight months in April at Nottingham Crown Court.

He said on five nights a week he was the sole carer for his five children, who are aged between five and 12.

His lawyer Ian Wise said the sentence violated Bishop's right to respect for family life under article eight of the Human Rights Convention.

"This case is of public importance and could have significant wider repercussions," Mr Wise told Mrs Justice Gloster.

Bishop, of Southchurch Drive, has joint custody of his five children, aged five to 12, with his ex-partner.

Mr Wise said article eight of the Human Rights Convention "enshrines the right to respect for family life and privacy".

Yes, because he has to look after his kids under joint custody he thinks he can use the HRA to prevent himself from being sent to prison for burglary. I wonder about his victims rights not to be robbed by this little shit? Will they be taken into account? Or do his rights trump theirs? I does seem that way more often than not doesn't it?
Yes I know I've ranted on at the HRA and its misuse and abuse in the past and probably will do in the future, however that's not to say I don't think people, even criminals have rights, just that some rights aren't actually a right at all. With rights there equally should come responsibilities, if you break the law, you lose certain rights including the right to roam free and commit further crimes and also the right to respect for family life and privacy. A complex system of equal rights for all simply will not work if the villain has exactly the same rights as the victim. The only rights a villain should have are the right to a fair trial, the right to appeal and the right to be housed and fed securely and safely at her majesties pleasure. That's all the basic rights they need, the law abiding rest of us get the full package, so I hope he loses this appeal, it's a damned disgrace his legal team even went for it!

More about → Can't do the time?

Risk

Such is the fear of getting sued in our increasingly litigious society that local and national authorities are moving heaven and earth to try and make things safe to all by ever more oppressive legislation to the point where they force something which hasn't had an accident at all in its 30 years of operation to close down.
Express.

FOR more than 30 years children have played safely on Gordon Channer’s field without so much as a grazed knee.
It has proved a godsend for parents in keeping their youngsters away from a busy main road. Now the gates have been locked, however, after it was ruled that uneven ground at the back of the land poses a health and safety risk.
To make matters worse Mr Channer, 76, cannot level out the surface because his council refused him planning permission to do so.
“It is such nonsense,” he said. “In all the years children have been playing there I can’t think of one single accident. The land at the back end of the field is bumpier, not by much mind you and certainly not enough to cause serious harm to anyone.
“I can’t do anything about it anyway because the council won’t let me.”

First off we have the problem of what someone wants to do on their own land, if they were planning on building over it, I could see a potential problem requiring planning permission, but all that seems to be needed is for the land to be levelled, something Gordon Channer seemed willing to do in his own time and at his own expense.
Secondly by closing the field the council themselves have endangered the kids because they have nowhere else to go.
Now I'm a great believer that what someone chooses to do on their own land is their business, that strikes me as being a basic right, along with the right to take the consequences should whatever you do on your own land harm anyone else. Naturally this means a risk of eyesores sprouting up all over the place, but in general I think it should be a basic right.
In this case though, because the previous government made it easier to sue for basically frivolous injuries, the insurers have decided that everything should be as safe as possible so they don't lose money unnecessarily, it's what insurers do after all, reduce risk or play the odds.
What the council have done is told the owners they can't do anything on their land that the council doesn't like.
So as it stands the insurers lose money because the owner can't get insurance, the kids lose out because they have nowhere safe to play and the council lose out by looking like authoritarian dickheads (though they probably don't care as they tend to be authoritarian dickheads anyway)
All this came from a change in the law that allowed no win, no fee compensation cases to go ahead, an unintended consequence? Well perhaps though it should be remembered that the PM's wife at the time was a lawyer. Something that should have increased our freedom has eventually lost the kids in Penwith the freedom to play safely.
This is why we need fewer but better laws, along with the recognition on both sides that a little risk is not such a bad thing.
That and somehow getting the legal system to apply common sense.

More about → Risk

Contra mundum

Obscure Latin legal term that normally nobody ever would have heard about save only that these days it's coming somewhat into vogue because of gagging orders. It literally means "against the world" and it does seem that many of these gagging orders are being used specifically to deal with instances of preventing the public knowing about instances of companies as well as the rich and famous getting caught and their affairs published worldwide by the press or even bloggers I guess as the term is a catch all.

BBC.

Prime Minister David Cameron has said he feels "uneasy" about judges granting injunctions to protect the privacy of powerful individuals.

He argued that Parliament, not judges, should decide on the balance between press freedom and privacy.

The courts are using human rights legislation "to deliver a sort of privacy law", he warned.

His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have banned the identification of celebrities.

Mr Cameron was challenged about the use of injunctions during a question-and-answer session at the General Motors factory in Luton.

He said: "I think there is a question here about privacy and about the way our system works."

"I think we do need to have a proper sit back and think: is this right?

"What ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy, is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection we want for individuals and [on] freedom of the press and the rest of it."

But Mr Cameron admitted he did not have all the answers and that he needed to think some more about the issues.

Of course parliamentary privilege means that an MP can get up and say what we aren't allowed to, though the Carter Ruck's of this world have recently tried to gag parliament itself, fortunately without success.
Thing is though if a company or guy gets caught with their figurative hand in the cookie jar why should they get legal protection via a gagging order? Ok I don't really give a damn about which premiership footballers are shagging other women outside their marriage, but if they are caught with their pants down then no, they don't get to gag the press. Same with Trafigura and Ivory Coast toxic waste.

Even today a judge set a new benchmark for secrecy laws yesterday by granting a TV star a permanent gagging order until now reserved for killer children.

The ‘family’ man, a household name, won the High Court injunction to suppress for ever ‘intimate’ photographs of him with a woman.

It is the latest in a series of increasingly draconian secrecy rulings and came just one day after appeal judges decreed that another celebrity who had an affair with a  colleague should remain anonymous to protect his children.

Perhaps he should have thought about protecting his children by not doing what he was doing? But for life? I can't imagine what the judge thought he was doing.
We really ought to be getting back to a situation where if you're caught doing something you shouldn't be then you pay the consequences. If that means having your name dragged through the mud by the press then so be it, gagging the press to prevent publication of your peccadillo's is not healthy for society as a whole, be it business or private individuals. If you don't want your kids to know what a scoundrel you are, then either be more careful or don't be a scoundrel in the first place, you shouldn't have recourse to the law to cover up your sins.

More about → Contra mundum

Hyper-injunctions -The Secret Misery

I don't often link to other blogs directly, but if you have the chance take a wander over to Anna Racoon's and look at this post.
Then get very angry.
Then pass it on before they come up with a way to stop us.

More about → Hyper-injunctions -The Secret Misery

The silence of the Imam

Evolution, not everyone agrees with it, particularly those of a religious conviction, but it strikes me as a non religious type as being as good a theory as any, not perfect, but reasonable enough compared to say God creating the world in just 6 days 6000 years ago but taking the time to add fossil records dating back millions of years, still I suppose that's what you get if you have a perfectionist God, well the religious types think so anyway I guess.
Still most followers of a religion are pretty tolerant of us non religious types and our doubts and don't threaten us or their co religionists if they wander from the paths of orthodoxy, but, there are always a few...

BBC.

An imam has retracted statements about evolution and the right of Muslim women not to cover their hair after death threats were made against him.

Dr Usama Hasan, a science lecturer, has voluntarily suspended his role in taking Friday prayers at Leyton Mosque in east London.

He said he went too far in the way he defended the theory of evolution.

He acknowledged many British Muslims believe in creationism, adding that he intended only to begin a debate.

Yes, you guessed it, it's our friends in the religion of peace trying to stifle debate (again) and yes I know Christian fundamentalists in the USA could no doubt give them a run for their money, though admittedly they usually don't carry out their death threats unlike Islamists.
Now in most areas I'm not bothered by what people believe, some people live in their own little fantasy worlds for a good deal of their lives anyway, politicians and those who believe that the state owes them a living for example. I do believe though that any belief system has the right to be challenged and yes that does include evolution and most certainly includes creationism. I also believe that most belief systems are robust enough to handle criticism and can certainly give you a damned good run for your money when it comes to debates. I don't even mind if the debate eventually falls back on insults and slander, it's not pleasant but some people can't handle not winning a debate, I usually take it as I've won if someone has to descend to abuse, though I am prepared to dish it out if they start first.
Where I do draw the line though is death threats and Islam has a history of trying to stifle any sort of criticism over the centuries by threatening, bullying and killing any and all who dare to even mildly criticise anything to do with it. Take a look at the murders in Pakistan over its blasphemy laws where individuals have taken it upon themselves to murder any who said "hang on this isn't right".
So, again the adherents of the religion of peace show their true colours, believe as we believe or die. Personally I don't believe there's a place in the UK for people who  think like that, but that just makes me a racist or fascist or Islamophobe for saying so in some peoples eyes. The tide however is turning and peoples tolerance of the intolerant is being strained to its limits, something will snap eventually and it wont be pleasant when it does. I foresee interesting times ahead.

More about → The silence of the Imam

Cost or common sense?

The New Labour anti-paedophile Vetting and Barring Scheme.was an utter fiasco where anyone who had any contact even remotely with kids faced a humiliating check (sometimes at their own cost) into their backgrounds. The result was a predictable downturn in the number of people who sought to do voluntary work with kids, plus a high degree of indignation from groups such as the Gloucester Cathedral Flower Guild who refused to have their pasts examined. The scheme was also forced on St John Ambulance volunteers, and millions of other volunteers who had to undergo the vetting process to clear them to come into contact with children.
So finally the government of today acted...

BBC.

Millions of people in England and Wales who work or volunteer with children and vulnerable adults will no longer need criminal record checks, ministers say.

The change is part of the government's Freedoms Bill, being unveiled later.

It also includes limits on police stop and search powers, ends indefinite storage of innocent people's DNA, and gives residents more control over CCTV.

All well and good, but mostly brought in because the government were under pressure from a lot of human rights groups and were looking at massive compensation claims.

But some child protection campaigners fear it will be easier for adults in positions of trust to abuse children.

Well they would, they'd be out of a job if they didn't come up with guff like that. problem is of course that a lot of child abuse is "in house" and isn't done by strangers, where it is, it tends to be organised criminal gangs who weren't facing checks anyway. Nor are the government removing checks on those who have direct contact with kids either, though no doubt Sunday School teachers will still feel aggrieved even if the church bell ringers don't.

However, former police detective and child protection expert Mark Williams Thomas has told the BBC he believes the changes will give offenders more opportunities to gain access to children.

"If it was about keeping children safe then this vetting scheme would continue. CRB would continue in the fashion it is," he said.

"This is simply about saving money, it's about scrapping any ideas that Labour had previously. Whoever is advising the government on this position has got it completely wrong."

Well he may have it right on saving money, but it was wasted anyway, it was being applied to anyone who came into remote contact with kids, there was even a case not so long ago where 2 lady police officers were being forced into crb checks because of job sharing and child care arrangements between each other. Labour took it too far which is par for the course for them and gave a lot of bureaucrats work so they were beholden to the state for their cash and would vote Labour to keep their jobs. That's how Labour thought and that's why the country is broke, they were buying votes, the evidence is pretty much all around us in the bloated bureaucracies, fake charities and quango's they set up and fed taxpayers money. So yes these steps are welcome even if it's just a money saving exercise, that said, the coagulation are not doing anything like enough to trim the state back, this is just window dressing, using a scalpel when they should be going at it with a chain saw.

More about → Cost or common sense?

Culturalism failure

I live in Kent in the Medway area, though I'm not from Kent, still it's a nice county and has a good few interesting places to visit and walk, also London is just 30 miles away if I feel the need to enjoy big city delights, which to be honest is about once a year if that and is mostly a West End show followed by a few drinks. I fit in quite well here, after all I'm English and have pretty much the same roots and outlook in life as the people down here though they (technically) draw their roots back to the Jutes and my antecedents seem to be of Viking ancestry. So you'd think it would be the same for anyone from the same country in that what they have in common would unite them.
Well not in Folkestone...

Express.

A SEASIDE town has been turned into a battle zone by rival gangs of Afghan asylum seekers settling tribal differences, terrified residents say.
Tensions between different factions being housed in Folkestone, Kent, erupted into a pitched street battle last week that left one man dead and five seriously injured.
Families living in the area are scared to go out at night, with some fleeing their homes to escape the violence that has come with the influx of immigrants.
Michael Straw, 50, who lives near the scene, has been staying with friends since the mass brawl, said: “It is absolute chaos and like being in a war zone. I felt scared being there and cannot face going back.”
An elderly man, who did not want to be named for fear of reprisal, said: “This used to be a holiday town but in the last few years it’s turned into Beirut.”
Former police officer Malcolm Montgomery added: “There’s a lot of problems around here. I wouldn’t feel happy walking at night.”

Another joy of Labours open door immigration policy, they're even from the same country and they don't get on with themselves never mind the people here. We can't even deport them, their human rights would be breached if we did as their rights trump the residents who only want a peaceful life and don't want Folkestone turned into a war zone. They've brought their culture with them and it isn't the usual ethnic cuisine restaurants you normally see springing up, it's their tribal warfare. And no it's got nothing to do with their religion, the Afghan tribes have been fighting each other since before the days of Alexander the Great, we've just imported a tribal war that has its roots back to the days of prehistory. It's not a multiculturalism failure either, they're the same culture and they aren't fighting the locals (yet) but they have some of the locals scared out of their wits.
Something needs to be done, starting with leaving the EU and scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with something that suits our needs and that of the law abiding people here. These Afghans need to be deported to where they can butcher each other without involving us, Afghanistan perhaps or Somalia at a push. And no, I don't care if their lives will be endangered if we deport them, that's their lookout, our country, our rules, live with them or leave.

If only...

More about → Culturalism failure

The fascist left

On paper it sounds great and a lot of politicians including David Cameron put their names as support, however over the years it has become more and more apparent that Unite Against Fascism and their political master the Socialist Workers Party are a cancer on the body politic and those who wish for freedom and free speech. That's not to say that I oppose those who wish to protest, just not those who would attempt by violent means to silence their opponents. Which is exactly what Unite Against Fascism Freedom are about...

Demotix.

Members of Unite Against Fascism (UAF) waited for British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin to arrive at the Frontline club in Paddington where he was due to hold a Q&A session on the documentary film 'The Battle of Barking'.

He arrived promptly at 1900 hours at which point many people ran towards him shouting 'GET HIM!!'

Mr. Griffin's security detail protected him with one spectacular scuffle in the street. They also used some sort of spray ink, which got one cameraman and one protester in the face.

Numerous police rushed to the scene.

I don't like the BNP myself, but as a legitimate political party they have the right particularly as two of their members are MEP's to meet and discuss things with their constituents.Griffin was speaking to people who wanted to hear him. He broke NO law and the Police should have protected his right to free speech, they didn't. As much as I detest Griffin, his party leadership and what they stand for they have the democratic right to hold view's that the great majority of this country find abhorrent and he has the right to voice his opinion as others have the right to hear them it is called freedom of speech. How can I oppose griffin if I am not allowed to hear what he has to say. This is the true danger of the UAF, they have stopped me hearing what he had to say so this morning I could not comment had I so desired and there was a strong possibility that my comments would not have been favourable. So instead of a blow for democracy the UAF have furthered the cause of fascism and again allowed the BNP to claim victim status as they were able to do on Question Time.
The UAF are also the same group who accuse the EDL of violence, yet actions like this reveal the UAF for what they are, fascist thugs who can't stand any sort of dissent, freedom of speech, freedom of thought or freedom of action.
No wonder so many politicians like them. By allowing this sort of thing to happen, by not arresting, prosecuting and jailing the perpetrators, the message extremist groups get is clear, violence and intimidation gets results.
Why the British government seems hellbent on allowing the spreading of that message far and wide is beyond my ability to comprehend.

It's rumoured (though not proven) that Winston Churchill said "The fascists of the future will call them selves anti fascists."

More about → The fascist left

The creeping hand of censorship and the state

Every day it seems the government is interfering in our freedoms, usually using some pretext or other involving something that some don't like to bring out a raft of legislation to give them (the state) a degree of control over who sees what and how. The internet is of course one of their biggest bugbears, the rapid dissemination of information and news through it causes governments throughout the world headaches, even if a lot of it is half truths and conspiracy theories, though the current Wikileaks hoo hah is a prime example of governments getting upset over their dirty washing being aired in public, even if non of it was too surprising or particularly controversial.
One of their methods is of course to attack our freedoms by attacking porn. There are certainly some disgusting examples out there and some of it does break current UK laws, though as it isn't held on UK sites, there's not a lot the government can do other than prosecute those who download it here. Well that's never stopped the state for looking out for a means to control the internet access we have.

Telegraph.

Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, has called a meeting with the country’s biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, to explore changing how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to explicit websites, a block will be placed at source, meaning adults will have to specifically opt in to receive the images.

The move is designed to prevent children from being exposed to sex at an early age and follows warnings about the hidden impact of pornography.

However, many technology experts said the plans were unworkable even if the broadband providers signed up to a voluntary code. It relies upon the Government or the internet service providers themselves having a complete and up-to-date list of pornographic websites.

Also, critics argued, the move was "censorship through the back door", and could end up restricting many legitimate websites.

And I've no doubt, the critics are right, the government of this country have driven a horse and cart through our ancient rights over the last 30 years or so, so an attack on what we look at on the internet is not that surprising. Using porn as the pretext is part of their usual "for the cheeldren" approach as it gets over protective numpty parents on board to support various illiberal pretexts to censorship. If they don't want their kids looking at porn, don't give the kids internet access in their bedrooms out of site of the parents, simples. Though truth be told, most kids can run rings around their parents when it comes to technology, still, with graphic images, it's a lot harder. Though the parents have no control over what their kids will see at other kids homes. Still, the government shouldn't be encouraged to think they can get away with this sort of thing and such measures need to be fought for by civil liberties groups, because once the government have a degree of control, the bastards are sure to expand it to block sites that they don't want us to see involving the government. Much easier to control us if we don't know what's going on after all.

More about → The creeping hand of censorship and the state

Justice? I don't think so.

Asylum seekers are here on our good sufferance, we let them stay here because they may face persecution at home (the genuine ones anyway) In return we expect them to obey our laws and generally keep their noses clean, we don't expect them to kill people unlawfully and then be allowed to stay, well not unless you're a judge anyway.

BBC.

An asylum-seeker who left a girl dying under the wheels of his car while banned from driving can stay in the UK, two immigration judge have ruled.

Iraqi Kurd Aso Mohammed Ibrahim was jailed for four months after knocking down Amy Houston in Blackburn in 2003.

Her father Paul Houston, from Darwen, told judges last month they had the power to bring his "seven years of hell to an end" by sending Ibrahim to Iraq.

But two senior immigration judges have now ruled he can remain in the UK.

The judges agreed with Ibrahim's legal team's case that his human rights would be impinged if he was sent back to Iraq.

And what about Amy Houston's human right not to be run down by a driver who was banned? Why should we allow an asylum seeking murderer* leave to remain here, I don't care if his human rights are infringed by sending him back to Iraq, he's already made it damned clear he doesn't give a shit about our human rights or laws!
And only 4 months for killing someone whilst banned? Justice has become a joke in this country and some out there wonder at the rise of the EDL when people like this just get a seemingly slap on the wrist and then to add insult to injury are allowed to stay!
Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, should have served 25 years, if possible transferred to an Iraqi jail, if not taken from prison after his sentence, put on a plane and dropped off at Baghdad airport and at the moment I'm of the opinion that dropped off should be at 25,000 feet!

*Call it manslaughter if you will, but killing someone whilst driving a car after you're banned puts it into the category of murder in my eyes.

More about → Justice? I don't think so.

So what are our laws for then?

Labour were forever trumpeting the "fact" that crime was falling despite peoples personal experience, plus the interesting fact that a lot of people didn't report crimes anymore as they felt the police weren't interested.
Seems that of the crimes reported, 75% of those deemed serious weren't ever solved anyway.

Express.

SOFT justice under Labour’s Britain was exposed yesterday by the revelation that thousands of criminals were let off by police.

Official figures showed only one in four of the most serious crimes reported to police were solved.

Of the 4,338,604 notifiable offences recorded in England and Wales in 2009, 28 per cent, or 1,204,967 offences, were marked as detected, the Ministry of Justice figures showed. But only half of those detected by police resulted in criminal charges. 

More than a fifth, 269,552, offences were dealt with by police cautions and just under one in 10 led to penalty notices.

In all, 1.7 million defendants had their cases taken to court in 2009, with only 94,586 being sentenced in a crown court. Of these, 51,801 were jailed, with an average sentence of 24.3 months. But 19,749 were given a suspended ­sentence, 16,174 received a community sentence and 2,300 were fined.

Of the 1.3 million cases dealt with by magistrates, 943,194 people were fined, 179,593 were given community sentences and 48,389 were jailed.

The MoJ statistics showed the number of defendants found guilty of violence soared by 4.6 per cent to 43,300 in 2009, compared with 41,500 the previous year. The number of offenders found guilty of drugs offences also rocketed by 7.4 per cent from 52,900 to 56,800.

The figures showed the number of women found guilty rose by nine per cent to 314,700 in 2009, compared with the previous year, and was up 43 per cent compared with 1999.

The number of men found guilty remained unchanged from 2008 at 1.05 million, which was down 11 per cent from 1.18 million in 1999.

However, overall crime recorded by the police fell by eight per cent in the last year. Reported incidents of ­criminal damage were down 17 per cent, offences against vehicles were down 16 per cent and domestic burglary fell by eight per cent compared with last year, the latest Home Office figures for the year to June 2010 showed.

Violence against the person, which includes murder, attempted murder and causing death by dangerous ­driving, also fell, down seven per cent from 421,072 to 392,473.

Firearms offences were also down, dropping two per cent from 8,113 to 7,966. But the number of recorded sexual offences rose by eight per cent.

The statistics were released the day after the Government’s Spending Review outlined plans to cut the police budget by four per cent year-on-year to 2014-15, raising fears that the number of officers could fall by up to 20,000.

The total spending cut on police amounts to between 14 per cent and 20 per cent, depending on how much money is raised through council tax.

The first thing that springs to mind is what on earth are we paying them for? Don't get me wrong here, I know it's simplistic and that red tape and bureaucracy as well as imbecilic political correctness all divert resources away from catching criminals, not even the feared cctv really prevents crime either. Take into account the never ending war against motorists and you do have to wonder what the point of the police is anymore. They do appear to be unfit for purpose more often than not siding with minorities against the majority too if my observation of the police handling of EDL demo's is to be taken as an example.
So, what do we want? Well a crime free environment in which to live is a plus, also a clear definition of what is a crime and what is simply someone doing their own thing. Prison being the place we put people who harm others, not themselves, a society of few laws yet rigorously enforced. A place where you could drive at over 100 mph on the motorway, yet know if you have an accident and injure or kill someone, you'll go to jail for a long, long time, not just get a slap on the wrist and a 3 year ban.
Simple laws, where the definition of harm is seen to be how it affects others, go around robbing pensioners, expect 5 to 10 years, pull a knife and threaten someone, 2 years, hurt them 5 to 10 depending how bad, possibly more sentencing being open ended. Murder someone, life, meaning life, other sentencing being on a scale of personal harm to others. But no crime at all to carry a knife or gun, that's down to individual responsibility.
Fact is, Labour opened our eyes as to how ineffectual the law and the enforcers of it are. I can't bring myself to thank them for it though, they were after all responsible.

More about → So what are our laws for then?

Game, set and match

People had been saying it ever since they were introduced, but cops and politicians loved them so handy were they at raising revenue saving lives.
 However the first town to show any sense over the matter by scrapping the speed cameras has seen its decision justified.

Express.

THE first town to switch off its speed cameras is celebrating the decision after accident rates and fines plummeted.

There have been no deaths on Swindon’s roads since the fixed cameras were turned off in August last year.

In the past 12 months, the town has had just two serious accidents and 14 slight accidents.

This is compared to one death, five serious and 15 minor crashes the year before. The council raked in £80,000 less than the previous year, issuing 1,341 fewer speeding tickets.

Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, in charge of transport for Swindon, said: “I am encouraged by these figures. They justify what we did.”

Swindon’s move came after the Government cut £38million from the Road Safety Grant, which funds the devices.

But the AA’s Andrew Howard said: “We have said that cameras should not be switched off. ”

You see, it isn't speed that kills, it's reckless or inappropriate driving and there's nothing quite like a speed camera to produce inappropriate driving. People upon seeing one suddenly become obsessed by their speedo's rather than looking out through the windscreen at traffic. I've observed people actually on or below the limit suddenly apply their brakes (just in case) when passing a camera and have nearly tailgated them in the process because it's an unexpected move, lets face it, even keeping lane disciple and correct distancing can be endangered by someone throwing on the anchors on a busy road at seemingly random. It also slows down traffic flow too. The problem for speed cameras is one that their proponents can't answer in that they don't catch dangerous driving or dangerous drivers, they just catch people going over a certain speed limit and whilst that limit may be suitable for rush hour traffic, it's wildly inappropriate for 2am in the morning. They are also quite discriminatory in that yes they catch people speeding (safely speeding) they don't catch the morons who are unsafe at any speed. Government stats already show that speed is a factor in only 3% of accidents, 97% of car crashes have nothing to do with breaking the speed limit. The figures from Swindon prove the point of all motorists who saw them as revenue raisers alone and nothing to do with road safety. Swindon is apparently safer without them.

More about → Game, set and match

The right to offend?

First, let me make this clear, I do not like burning books, any book be they the Necronomicon, Bible, Koran or even the Sunderland AFC yearbook (tempting as that is). But, I do believe that people have a right to do such things provided that it is their own property, nor do I believe they should be arrested for such either. However when it comes to the so called "Religion of Peace" it seems they have protected righteous status.

BBC.

Six Tyneside men have been arrested after filming themselves apparently burning copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Police said the men, all from the Gateshead area, were detained after a video appeared on the internet.
They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries.
Plans by a US preacher to burn copies of the Koran on 11 September resulted in widespread condemnation.
In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole.
"Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."
Two men were arrested on 15 September and a further four on 22 September.
In the video a group of men wearing tea towels are seen pouring fuel over what appear to be copies of the Koran and setting light to them.
Plans by a US preacher Terry Jones to burn copies of the Koran, sparked worldwide protests and brought condemnation from American president Barack Obama.

 No doubt these guys will be charged under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which was brought in by New Labour to protect their (mostly) Labour voting Islamic pets. To my eyes though, as others have said, you do not have any right not to be offended, this applies to any situation. If Islam is not mature enough to deal with those of us who deride its 7th century barbaric mores and cultures written by a mass murderer/sociopath pretending to be the word of (a) god, then the fault surely lies with Islam and its adherents.
No religion in our land should have protected status, no religion should have its followers riot because it can't handle abuse or criticism. If they can't abide by the law other than having to hide behind laws introduced to protect what seems like only them, then surely there is no place for them in our society?
The government really needs to remove this law and other like it, what I or others choose to do with our own property so long as it harms no-one else is none of the states business, the Koran is just words on paper, same as the bible, whilst I wouldn't burn either, I surely have the right too if I own them? This is something the righteous state have imposed on the majority to pamper a minority, give them special status.
It's a recipe for disaster, no doubt about it, something will crack and it wont be pretty when it does. You cannot legislate away peoples thoughts and feelings. The majority in this country are beginning to view Islam as more trouble than it's worth, sooner or later the political parties will have to deal with it, not bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is nice in multiculty Britain because they have protected their pets by law.

More about → The right to offend?