Straight To The Point

I'll get straight to the points(s):-

• Why are we waiting until 2010 before we have to have an ID card? Is liberty going to be different in 2010? Is this just pandering to people who will think "it's alright, it's not happening until 2010". "Phew, thats okay then."
  
• ID cards are going to be secure? I wish the Government would tell all of us it's secret then, because I think it will be the world's first completely secure computer system.
• I may even vote Tory at the next election.
  

Terrorists (probably) use salt! Ban it now!

On a more serious note, here are some brief statistics. In the last 12 months in the UK:-

Number of people killed due to terrorism: 57 (this is off the top of my head, probably more)
Number of people killed by too much salt: 52,000 (BBC)

So why is the government wasting billions of pounds on ID cards and wars in far-off foreign countries? We all know the answer to that, but these statistics make their priorities even more ridiculous. And this even ignores that fact that our war in Iraq is increasing our chances of having a terrorist attack!

The Governments cheif liar and obscurer-of-the-truth (and language-juggler, while we're at it) on the subject of ID cards, Andy Burnham, has finally said something that looks like the truth at first and second glance - he has finally admitted that ID card will be compulsory, something that has been denied all along.

Still, thankfully the Lords has defeated them again. Ironically, the Lords seem to be the only protection democracy has. Why does this government love lying to the electorate?

The police should arrest themeslves for wasting their own time. They should also arrest themselves for being a threat to democracy. They achieved all this in one foul swoop by arresting peace campaigner Brian Haw on "suspicion of obstructing the police".

Needless to say, they had to release him a short while later as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. The police should be ashamed of themselves for the abuse of power (no doubt stemming from the Terrorist Act which we were always assured would not be abused). If everyone had the conviction of Brian Haw, the world would be a much better place.

I was listening to Today on Radio 4 this morning, and they had a piece on "American's opinion's on Guantanamo". Before they even interviewed a single person, I knew what was coming, and I was right. The first opinion obtained (from a Republican in Des Moines) was "where else are we going to put the terrorists?"

Arrghh! It just sums up their whole attitude to Guantanamo. In fairness, my attitude can be summed up as "How the hell do they know they are terrorists if they've not charged them with anything?". The Bush administration's propeganda has worked and the message implaneted on a lot of people's brains is clear - 'if they're in Guantanamo, they must be a terrorist'.

This just typifies the kind of world we live in, where "innocent until proven guilty" is become more and more irrelevent every day, and the word "terrorist" is bandied around to label anyone that fights against oppression.

(Talking about terrorism, and how the invasion of Iraq might have actually increased terrorist activity): "We must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress"

Yes we must, because otherwise that might mean that going to war was the wrong thing to do, and we can't have that.

Though it pains me to come to this conclusion, Tony Blair will get away with the Iraq war and all it's associated problems (civil war, thousands of deaths, the usual). He's not going to admit he made a mistake, and so it comes down to a "difference of opinion" between whether we were right to to war or not. No matter how vehemently you disagree with it (and I do), there's no hard and fast law against it (though there should be, in a War Crime kind of way). No matter how much we accuse him of lying, there are plenty of ways for him to wriggle out of an argument since the English language can be so vague and open to interpretation. And besides, Tony's not even going to be up for re-election again, so we can't send him a clear signal of how much we hate him - the poor Labour party will have to put up with that for going along with him. He will just pass on the mantle of leadership and then fade away slowly.

I almost pity Gordon Brown; he's pretty much got the top job in the Labour party lined up for him, but slowly the Labour party is losing support, and his dream of being PM is looking more unlikely every day. It's as though Tony's sabotaging it deliberately. After all, what has he got to lose?

It is a typical Labour tactic to get personal when in trouble, only this time it's their own man. After party treasurer Jack Dromy has stated that he knows nothing about the £14 million in so-called-"loans" (I wish my bank gave me loans like that), enemy-of-democracy Charles Clarke has said "you have to wonder how well he was doing his work".

According to Clarke's twisted logic, it's Jack's fault that no-one knew about these loans, even though the people perpertrating them (i.e. Tony Blair) wanted it all as hush-hush as possible. That's like someone who hasn't paid council tax for several years saying "well, it's the governments fault for not catching me sooner." And this is the man who's trying to force ID cards on us - no doubt if this succeeds and they turn out to be a failure, that will be our (the electorate's) fault for not rejecting them sooner!?

Just a quick thought I had; I was browsing Home Office statistics on road accidents (like you do), and it seems that the most common cause is driver distraction. So how come we allow things like billboards, which have the sole purpose of attracting driver's attention?

What has happened to the world? Can it (or rather America) not stand not being in a conflict? America has just made what can only be described as a declaration of war against anyone it doesn't like. Can't we all just get along? Why does America have to come along and stamp its way of life (I'll refrain from calling it democracy) on anyone that doesn't agree with it (thus causing far more problems in the long run and turning the rest of the world into freedom fighters).

America tortures people. America has terrorists. America has nuclear weapons. America isn't democratic. America invades other countries. Why aren't they at the top of their own hit-list?

Labour are starting to look like the Tories did when they lost power in 1997 - quagmired in sleaze. It seems to happen if you are in power for too long. This time it's money for peerages. The measures now being taken are too little too late, and no mention is made of looking into previous donations. But why bother? To quote Ms Hewitt:

"...it would also be wrong and frankly absurd to rule out somebody who had given financial support to their particular political party"

Oh yes, completely absurd! Why should we want to do this? It's not like the system would ever be abused, and if it was, I'm sure the fact the person gave money just before he got his peerage is pure co-incidence.

Here's a few choice quotes from the article:-

• The Labour Party has received a total of £13,950,000 in commercial loans from individuals
• ..the practice had been "banned" under previous general secretaries David Triesman and Margaret McDonagh. There were "various theories" as to why the ban had been lifted ahead of the last election.
• Ms Hewitt: "no evidence at all for this outrageous suggestion that people have been buying peerages". What does she expect to find? An invoice??
• On Thursday, Tony Blair admitted he had not told the Lords appointment committee three of his candidates for working peerages had given the party loans.

So only now, after they've been rumbled, has Mr Blair "pledged changes to party funding, ministers' private interests and the honours system"

Council workers are to go on strike because of Government plans to scrap the rule that allows them to retire on a full pension at 60 (BBC). Can someone tell me why they should be treat differently to private-sector workers?

From Amicus:-

Hard working public service workers will have to work for an extra five years in order to receive an unreduced pension. Public service workers do stressful and often physically demanding jobs, frequently carrying out vital roles under challenging conditions. - Yes, just like most of the rest of the country! Except we work in jobs where our employer could go bust, or have to lay people off. When did that last happen to a public-sector worker?

It's a question that many seem to be getting bored of, but at the end of the day, thousands of people have died at our country's hands, and I don't think the question has been answered yet.

Was it just for oil? To oust Saddam? Just because America wanted someone it could order about but would share half of the blame? God told George and Tony to?


None of these are particularly inspiring answers. Even the "oust Saddam" option seems to have lost it's shine now, especially when we seem to be doing a far warse job, and as much torturing, as Saddam ever did. Any suggestions? And the real question is, as the electorate, are we going to accept it?

In his defence of ID Cards, Charles Clarke says (via the BBC):

"But Home Secretary Charles Clarke said passports were "voluntary documents" that no-one was forced to renew."

Aaarggg!! Words fail me. Passports are not voluntary. We're forced to have them if we wish to leave the country (which sounds like a good idea to me). How can the Home Secretary (of all people) not see this? It's like saying that buying food is voluntary. It is, as long as you don't mind starving to death.

Longrider has some further analysis of the dictionary definition of voluntary. If you're a member of Labour, you would do well to remind yourself what the real meaning is.

The Government has stooped to Nazi-like levels by failing to categorise "taking prisoners to the edge of drowning" as torture. Their answer (according to The Scotsman) was "it would depend on all the circumstances of the case".

This is such a slippery slope it's almost vertical. How can they not cetagorise it as torture? What is it - a mild discomfort? It makes me sick that in this day and age, our own Government can be so blase about torture, which is probably the lowest act any human being can do to another (yes, that does include so called "terrorism").

Maybe Blair and his cronies need to try it for themselves to see how bad it is?

You couldn't make it up. The annual Hyprocite Report, also knows as "Country Reports on human rights," has been published, and includes such classic quotes as:-

[Jordan]: "The most frequently reported methods of torture included beating, sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension."

Erm, isn't this written by the same Government that says Waterboarding and force-feeding (never mind beating, sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension) isn't torture? The absolute hyprocricy is ubelieveable. Sort your own house out America before dictating to others.

In brief (ITV News): Andy Tierney was fined £50 for putting rubbish into a litter bin. Steve Atkinson, the chief executive of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, defended the action. He said Mr Tierney had filled the bin with the wrong sort of rubbish, meaning there was little room for other litter.

I also heard this on Radio 4 (Today). Steve Atkinson said "more public education was required". Jesus Christ! It's a bin! It takes litter! Our taxpayers money is paying for morons like this to run our council. Yes, I said MORON.

I've just heard (on Radio 4) some complete ignoramus from some American department try and justify why they are force feeding prisoners at Guantanamo, and it made me so sick and angry. All he could say about the subject was "it's in our best interests and their best interests to keep them alive." Can't he grasp that maybe life for a prisoner there is so awful that suicide is the best option? It really gets my goat up. Land of the frigging free? Lets have a look at the facts:-

• Guantanamo for a start (http://www.guantanamo.com/)
  
• Worlds highest prison population, and over a fifth of all prisoners in the world. (source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf)
• One of only 12 "liberal democracies" in the world that still have the death penalty (source: http://www.handsoffcain.org/bancadati/index.php?tipotema=arg&idtema=8000573)

I don't like to tar all Americans with the same brush, but if you can't see what a complete injustice this so-called war on terror is, and do something about it, then to quote Bush "if you're not with us you're against us".

According to the BBC, Government plans to make all passport applicants also have an ID card have been defeated in the Lords. Rightfully, they said it made mockery of the fact that ID cards are supposed to be voluntary.

Some may say it is strange that our liberties are being protected by an unelected section of the Government, but don't forget that only 1/5th of the electorate voted for Labour.

Ever wonder why drivers try and get away with driving without insurance? Then have a look at your local paper; specifically the Courts section, and find someone who's been caught. Then have a look at their fine. I've yet to see someone be fined more than it costs me for my car insurance (and thats only £290 approx, so it's not like I'm high-risk).

Who can blame them when it costs less to get caught than abide by the law?