Most natural thing in the world

This is about breastfeeding, although the title is actually about being offended in someone else's name, which seems to be the most natural thing in the world for busybodies and jobsworths.
Express.

A MOTHER was banned from breast-feeding her baby in public by civic centre bosses over claims it would cause “uproar” among Muslim visitors.
Emma Mitchell, 32, was preparing to feed her four-month-old son Aaron when a receptionist warned her it was a “multicultural building” and that she should use the nearby public toilets instead.
Furious Emma then had a stand-off with a manager at Oldham Civic Centre before being offered an empty room under supervision.
She said: “It was just awful. I felt humiliated, intimidated and guilty through the whole thing.
“We all live in Oldham and use this building and what I was doing was one of the most natural things a mum can do. I shouldn’t be made to feel it was wrong just because it’s not in someone’s culture.”
The incident occurred last Friday while Emma was visiting the town’s Citizens Advice Bureau.
When Aaron started crying, she asked if she could use an empty corner of the room to breast-feed him in, offering to face the wall.
But the receptionist told her it wasn’t allowed as “some gentlemen had complained in the past” and suggested she use the public toilets nearby. Emma said: “You wouldn’t eat your dinner in the toilets, so why should my son? She rang the manager who said ‘You absolutely can’t do that here’.”
A member of the complaints department then took her to a small room. Emma’s friend Michelle Booth, 38, who was with her, said: “They were implying breast-feeding was offensive to Muslim sensibilities. It’s political correctness gone mad.”

No doubt breastfeeding is offensive to some Muslims, God knows they get offended with just about everything else, but it's not about Muslims either, I've seen old women complain in cafe's about breastfeeding mums.
Granted not everyone likes to see a woman in full view feeding her kids via the breast, but, it's something that is encouraged and not something that should cause over officious jobsworths to step in and say use the toilets. Whilst I do have some sympathy for private businesses in a sort of my gaff my rules sort of way, if an area is designated as public access, then you take the risk of some woman needing to feed a hungry baby.
So it strikes me as being offended in someone's name seems to be the most natural thing in the world for some people.
Not me though, I'm offended about a lot of things, just not in anyone but my own name, it's part of being a real grown up. If people can't cope with real life as it's lived, perhaps they'd be better off living where it isn't permitted, rather than complaining to a receptionist.
As for the receptionist...
Words fail.

More about → Most natural thing in the world

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

Nimby's

It's amazing the things that get peoples backs up and the excuses they make to justify their calls for a ban or removal of what they consider to be an eyesore, even if it's perfectly legal...

Telegraph.

Residents in a quiet village are embroiled in an extraordinary neighbourhood row after a military enthusiast bought a £10,000 tank and parked it outside his home.
The huge green tanklike crane, designed to carry out battlefield repairs, has been sitting in a lay-by since new owner Nicholas Kravchenko drove it there last week.
Residents living in the normally tranquil area of Wolvercote, near Oxford, Oxon, have branded the machine an ''eyesore''.
Police have now been called in to settle the "neighbourhood dispute" amid claims the £10,000 tank was intimidating locals.

Ok it's not the sort of thing you expect to find parked outside a semi in Wolvercote, but it is perfectly legal and as for intimidating, pull the other one, it's not like it's bristling with arms and takes the occasional pot shot at VW Polo's.

Even fits in the parking bay.

Council chiefs have already admitted that the vehicle is roadworthy and taxed. So quite frankly the residents don't have a leg to stand on, doesn't stop them having a moan though.

Paul Harvey, who lives three doors away from Mr Kravchenko, said: ''The whole situation is unbelievable.

''There's a limited number of spaces on the street and this tank is taking up a number of them.

''It's so incredibly anti-social.''

Wonder what he'd make of anyone parking a twin cab or delivery truck there?

Another neighbour Debbie Tyson, who lives opposite the tank, added: ''I have to look at that thing every morning.

And? It's a vehicle, there's a lot worse looking things on the road I can assure you, my neighbours sons customised escort for one.

Another woman, who did not want to be named, feared her neighbour would leave it there permanently.

''It's an eyesore and is upsetting and scares the little kids," she said.

"One toddler asked her mum if we were in a war. It's not right."

The kid was curious, I doubt she'll be scarred for life assuming she was traumatised at all.

War veteran David Bedford, 85, added: ''It's heartbreaking living where I do.

'I have to look at his cars every time I leave my house and it's really getting me down.

''I don't know what to do any more.''

Move? Yes that's a bit heartless of me, but quite frankly although it's an unusual thing to find in a parking bay it's not illegal, it's not particularly an eyesore and it isn't harming anyone. There's a guy I know in Plumstead has an ex American Army personnel carrier, it's parked on the street, nobody complains and he's not particularly worried about anyone not driving a truck backing into it either. What it is, is that these residents don't like Mr Kravchenko's hobby and are using this vehicle as an excuse to try and get him to conform or go away.
So long as he's not breaking the law they don't have a leg to stand on, so they go national looking for sympathy, well they aren't getting it here. I wouldn't like my neighbour to have one, but, I wouldn't go whinging to the press if he did.

More about → Nimby's

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?

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?

Bad laws

Doesn't seem to matter which political party is in power when they call for swift repatriation of illegal immigrants, for all their good intentions (seemingly) they founder on the rock of the legal system.

Sky.

A Home Office policy allowing the speedy deportation of foreign nationals refused permission to remain in the UK has been declared unlawful.

A High Court judge ruled that the policy meant people were being given "little or no notice" of removal and deprived of access to justice.

There is a general Home Office practice of giving those facing deportation 72 hours notice of removal directions.

The legal challenge was triggered by an "exceptions policy", introduced by the Government in March 2007 and widened in January this year.

It created categories in which an individual could be given little or no notice.

The decision was a victory for Medical Justice, which provides independent medical and legal advice to detainees in immigration removal centres.

Dinah Rose QC, appearing in court for Medical Justice, said UK Border Agency officers had used the policy to swoop late at night and escort people to flights leaving only a few hours later.

Distressed individuals were deprived of the chance to speak to a lawyer and, if so advised, launch last-ditch challenges against removal.

Home Office lawyers argued at a hearing at London's High Court last month that the exceptions policy was "sufficiently flexible" to ensure there were no human rights breaches.

They said detainees were given as much notice as possible and safeguards had been put in place.

But Mr Justice Silber has now rejected the Home Office case.

He said the new policy failed to ensure that those who received reduced periods of notice were able to obtain legal advice before they were removed.

The judge declared: "The policy is unlawful and must be quashed."

The Home Office has said it is "disappointed" with the decision, and will be appealing it.

Now whilst in general I'm in favour of an open borders policy, with the proviso that those who come here get nothing until they have paid into the system for at least 4 to 5 years (housing, medical, unemployment etc.) until we do get such a system then anyone who turns up illegally gets thrown out immediately after 1 appeal. We can set skill levels and job vacancies for legal immigrants (assuming we leave the EU) but you turn up expecting a meal ticket and free house then sorry no, go back to where you came from or France whichever is closest. Personally I'm of the opinion that until the system is totally shaken up you cannot get an entry visa to the UK in the UK nor be able to claim asylum in the UK, it has to be done in the country you come from or the next one along, no entry visa = no entry and off on the next plane home. Until the law is changed however you get situations like the above where do-gooders try to play the system to keep their pets in the country and supposedly safe from harm. The country is full, there aren't enough jobs to go around and those of us who pay tax are getting a little tired of supporting those who have contributed nothing to the UK.
It's time to end this human rights farce, leave the EU and repudiate any U.N treaties on refugees that allow lawyers to block deportation. Charity begins at home, not with asylum seekers no matter how endangered they are, though I'm prepared to make exceptions for those with valuable skills.

 

More about → Bad laws

Well that's a novel use of the NHS

There are some things you see when you trawl various news items to see if there's anything worth blogging about that cause you to wonder.

BBC.

A "big budget" pornographic film was shot in a London hospital when it hired out one of its wards to a film company.

The movie generated "substantial income" for the hospital, Conservative MP Penny Mordaunt said.
Ms Mordaunt, Portsmouth North MP, was speaking during a House of Commons debate on improving transparency in government accounting, on Monday.
NHS Kensington and Chelsea said the filming occurred before 2002 when the primary care trust (PCT) formed.
"When I was director of Kensington and Chelsea Council, I discovered that one of our local hospitals was hiring out one of its closed - but fully-equipped - wards to a film company to use as a film set," Ms Mordaunt said.
"To add insult to injury, the movie was a pornographic one.
"Although I cannot claim to have seen the final picture - as I understand, these things are no longer claimable on parliamentary expenses - it was a big-budget affair and generated substantial income for the hospital."
"But apart from cheering up a few of the in-patients, it cannot be said to be contributing to the objectives of the primary care trust."
NHS Kensington and Chelsea said: "We can confirm this incident occurred some time prior to 2002 under a predecessor organisation's management and prior to the formation of PCTs."

OK it's not exactly what you expect to find when looking in a "Your NHS" leaflet, but as the ward was closed and the income generated was substantial and no patients were hurt in the filming of said movie (or animals or children possibly). Hospitals are always scratting around for cash, someone has to keep the Doctors and Nurses pay packets full when the rest of the budget has to go towards keeping the administration team monitoring diversity and correlating all the forms they make you fill in.
So, I can't really see what all the fuss is about other than some MP having a bitch about societies declining morals, no it cannot be said to be directly contributing to the objectives of the primary care trust, but it made the hospital money which could have contributed to the objectives of the primary care trust had the primary care trust existed at the time, which it didn't.
Now I know some people have a problem with porn, however it isn't suddenly going to go away because some people disapprove, so if hospitals or other public service buildings are offered a lot of cash to film in their premises, then I really don't see what the problem is, so long as the filming doesn't interfere with the primary function of the hospital. No doubt if it had been a spy film or an action adventure Ms Mordaunt would have no objection, but because it's porn and therefore exploitative we have a hypocritical "think of the cheeldren" moment and faux outrage that a hospital is used for a porn film, though any trip through the darker parts of the internet would have shown you that doctors and nurses have a fascination effect in porn. (I'm told) and indeed in adult "fun" too no matter the circumstances. You can even go to a fancy dress shop and hire a naughty nurse outfit should you so desire, though they do tend to look better on women ;-)
So, this whole thing passed the libertarian test of harming no-one, but as we all know most politicians are about control, not libertarianism.

Still as Guido points out, porn in government can still bring down the high and mighty.

More about → Well that's a novel use of the NHS

Human wrongs

One of the biggest problems with the human rights act introduced to give Tony's Mrs an income is that it only looks at individual rights, that is the rights of the the person bringing a case where they claim to have had their rights breached. It isn't there to protect the majority, it's there to protect individuals, often criminal individuals and often their rights are deemed equal to everyone else. That's why you get cases like this, which puts a "terrorist suspects" human rights ahead of common sense.

BBC.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that an order which forced a terror suspect to live 150 miles away from his family breached his human rights.

The control order forced the suspect, known as AP, to live under a 16-hour curfew in the Midlands while his family lived in London.
Seven judges agreed unanimously that this breached his human rights.
AP is on bail pending deportation to Ethiopia. His curfew under immigration law is longer than the control order.
Control orders were introduced under 2005 anti-terrorism legislation.
They enable ministers to sign an order to place a terrorism suspect under close supervision that some say is similar to house arrest.
In 2008, AP was ordered to live in the Midlands to keep him away from Islamist extremists in London.
His lawyers argued the control order isolated him from his family and breached his right to liberty.
Delivering the verdict, one of the seven judges, Sir John Dyson, said the home secretary must find out the effect of a control order before imposing it.

OK, so no reason is given as to why his family couldn't visit him, he's under the order because he's liable to be deported and the police don't want him associating with extremists. Yet his rights trump all that and he's to be sent back to a place where he can mix again with extremists.
Once again a potential risk to our society is using the HRA to make a mockery of what ought to have been an obvious solution to a possibly dangerous situation, it's not as if the guy is a citizen either and is about to be deported, assuming he just doesn't vanish anyway.
The HRA needs to be scrapped or amended to take into account the rights of the majority to live without fear of a minority, it's been used and abused to allow some very dangerous individuals to walk free amongst the population and has given our security forces headaches as they try to keep tabs on them.
Now from a libertarian aspect the suspect should have a lot of rights and freedoms, however under a libertarian state he probably wouldn't be here as he'd get no benefits save what he'd earned himself, you come here, you work or you starve/rely on charity. It's not the job of the state in a libertarian society to feed you, keep you or house you. There are few rules under a libertarian state, but what there are, are rigorously enforced. You break the law and the state comes down on you like a ton of bricks and if you aren't legally here you're gone, no appeals.
I think a serious rethink of what is and isn't a human right needs to be done, but until we leave the EU, that's not going to happen and cases like this will occur on a regular basis.

More about → Human wrongs

Article 39

I'm a minarchist libertarian, it means that I believe we should live under the most minimal of states, that government should be defined and confined to certain areas of defence, aggression against a person/fraud basically just there to protect the life, liberty, and property of individuals. Part of this defence means that people have the right to trial by jury and when this is set aside, alarm bells start ringing for me, especially when it's set aside for things like cost.
Times.

A judge has ordered that a libel trial being brought by the bodyguard of Michael Jackson against Channel 4 is to be heard without a jury.

The controversial decision by Mr Justice Tugendhat comes just two weeks before the trial and has raised fears about the future of juries in libel cases. The trial involves allegations of dishonesty and fabrication by the programme makers and has already run up £3 million in legal costs.

But the late decision by the judge, who was concerned that a jury would add to the costs, has alarmed media lawyers. Matt Fiddes’s legal team has lodged an urgent appeal, to be heard early next week, which will be a test of the right to a jury in libel cases.

Trial by jury became a pretty explicit right in one of the most influential clauses of Magna Carta, signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta read: Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut desseisetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus, vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, sut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, vel per legem terrae. It is translated by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on the Trial by Jury: "No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised (To dispossess unlawfully of real property; oust.) of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers.
It is one of the most basic and ancient rights of free Englishmen and one of the founding rights of the English Constitution. Mr Justice Tugendhat has decided that one of our rights can be set aside because it will cost too much and much as I'm for saving costs this is so, so wrong on so many levels. If a judge can set aside trial by jury for one thing, sooner or later some judge may decide it can be set aside again for say a complex murder trial. We already have enough trouble with "Family Courts" removing children "at risk" on the say so of experts without going down this route.
There are many cases when the Jury contrary to the actual facts has decided that someone is innocent or should be set free, this is often enough in the case of self defence, yet if you remove this safeguard, the full hammer of the law will come down, there will be no compassion and eventually no justice, merely rule of law.

If Mr Justice Tugendhat gets away with this it will be a very bad day for justice in England.

More about → Article 39

Apparently I'm not an out of the closet authoritarian

Via the UKlibertarians

Couldn't have put it better myself.

More about → Apparently I'm not an out of the closet authoritarian

So where's mine then?

The Government is spending £8 million of taxpayers money on freebies.

BBC.

The government has defended planned spending of £8m on merchandise and promotional items such as mugs, hats, and Frisbees over the next four years.

Individual departments and public bodies use the goods to promote policy campaigns, to support public sector recruitment and to reward staff.
The Conservatives said the expenditure was "vanity marketing" when ministers should be saving every penny they can.
But a government spokesman said only "practical everyday items" were bought.
Government departments and public bodies spent £3m on merchandise last year.
This figure "fluctuated" from year to year, the spokesman said, with forecast spending of £2m a year between 2010 and 2014.
Among the items set to be ordered from 58 UK-only suppliers include promotional pens, key rings, travel wallets, tea towels, polo shirts, lip balms and "beanie" hats.
In a press release announcing the four-year contract, the Central Office of Information - which provides marketing and publicity services to government - said the firms would provide "high quality and cost-effective solutions" to departments and other public bodies.

They don't get it, it's not their money it's ours they are wasting on this stuff, I know they are buying from UK suppliers but still all that means is that the taxpayer is subsidising these companies too.
The government of this country should be the absolute minimum necessary to do the job required of it, there should be no compulsory spending, intervention, and regulation, except those whose only function is to protect individuals from aggression. The only government functions should be courts, military, and police, in other words no frills, no massively bloated bureaucracy, no quangocracies, just the sheer bloody minimum to do a quality if limited job.
Everything else should be devolved down to local level and individual choice because anything else is just daylight robbery by politicians and civil servants for politicians and civil servants.

More about → So where's mine then?

Now there's a surprise.........................not!

Politicians and the Police keep proclaiming that cctv makes life safer, that people feel more secure when they are being monitored, well people might, however the facts tell a different story as to how safe you actually are.

1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed.

The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.

In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers.

David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent."

He added: "CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

"It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.

Now bearing in mind that the UK is the most cctv'd nation in the western hemisphere and there are plans to monitor inside peoples homes. Also that more than 500,000 emails are intercepted and read every year (about 1 every 60 seconds) and that local councils use the RIPA act (designed for terrorism prevention) to snoop on the general public to make sure they live in a schools catchment area or are putting the right rubbish in the right bins.

• Fly-tipping yes, dog poo no - Jacqui promises Ripa changes (17 December 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/17/ripa_dna/

• RIPA ruling closes encryption key loophole (14 October 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/14/ripa_self_incrimination_ruling/

• Bury council carries can over spycam binmen (10 September 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/ripa_bury_council/

• Tories call for more freedom for snoopers (12 August 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/12/tory_ripa_reform/

• UK.gov dishes out £19m for comms snoop data silos (6 August 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/data_retention_grant_spending/

• UK.gov plans central database for all your communications (20 May 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/20/central_government_database_proposed/

• Police go slow with encryption key terror powers (5 May 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/05/ripa_encryption_section_49_figures/

• Spy regs used against dogs, litterbugs (28 April 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/28/ripa_council_dog_fouling/

• Local council uses snooping laws to spy on three-year-old (11 April 2008)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/11/poole_council_ripa/

• UK snoop charter: we're already getting all the data anyway (18 June 2002)

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06/18/uk_snoop_charter_were_already/

You have to wonder just when the tipping point will come, when people will finally take to the streets and say enough is enough. I don't even think it will be a major incident, just a little straw breaking the camels back and suddenly the politicians and jobsworths will discover what people power is all about and who is actually in charge.

Can't come too soon.

More about → Now there's a surprise.........................not!