Straight To The Point

...makes all it's money from guilt. I was in Clintons yesterday, and discovered there is a new "card" day of the year - "Nurse and Carers Day". Call me tight, but the greetings card industry doesn't invent these days because it feels sorry for nurses and carers, but only because it wants to sell more cards. And a quick look at the Card Calendar at Clintons website shows that they're not afraid to invent new ones.

Put it this way - if you have 12 people close to you (in that you would send them a birthday card); two are your parents; two are your grandparents; one is your boss (or maybe several?); one is your nurse/carer; one is getting engaged; one is getting married; one is having a baby; one is having a christening this year; one is your partner (i.e. requirs a valentines card). On average you are looking at buying a card every two weeks because of the various special days that exist. And this is only if you know just 12 people. Any more, and you're buying more cards. And because they've invented these days, any nurses/carers or whatever who don't get a card are going to feel put out.

And who invents these days anyway? What authority to they have? I feel like writing a letter to Clintons and saying "actually, it isn't Grandparents day on the 23rd September, believe it or not. It's a Saturday."

Don't get me started on the ring industry. Eternity ring? What??

The Government can't even keep track of the ex-prisoners. What happened to the police computers? Where's the Sex Offenders register when you need it? How can the Government not say that the ID Card system will be a complete disaster based on past evidence?

What's the difference between murder and the shooting of Charles de Menezes?

What's the difference between taking responsibility and being responsible?

What's the difference between a war crime and the killing of 35,000 Iraqi's?

What's the difference between kidnap and Guantanamo Bay?


The only difference as far as I can see is that the Governments can get away with it.

What do those words mean exactly? Especially when you're the Home Secretary saying them after it's been discovered that over 1,000 foreign criminals have not been deported when they should? It's the perfect phrase designed to placate the press and public by seeming to shoulder the blame, but yet shouldering no blame what-so-ever.

[Update]
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I've worked out why Charles Clarke is the way he is (i.e. a bully, fascist etc..). Let's face it (and I'm saying this scientifically, not as a personal attack in a New Labour-stylee), he probably didn't have an easy time in schools what with his looks. And now, after putting up with bullies and taunts at school, he's finally decided to get his own back, and the whole of England is going to pay the price. With everything he does, from forcing us to have ID Cards to letting criminals disappear, he's saying "there you go, stitch that! That will teach you to take the mickey out of me. Look who's in charge now!".

Sorry if this is boring, but the whole foundation of justice, i.e. being innocent until proven guilty, went out the window years ago, and the latest culprit is ASBO's. You don't have to be found guilty of anything to receive an ASBO.

Why is that? Is it because it takes too much time and effort to go through the justice system? If so, shouldn't that problem be tackled rather than restricting the rights of innocent people?

And avoid having your fingerprints taken, being interviewed, tracked for the rest of your life. And don't forget you'll have to pay extra for this privilage. You can do it all on-line via here.

Your friend and mine, Charles Clarke, shows his contempt for justice yet again by saying that anyone who is a victim of a miscarriage of justice should not receive any compensation if they win their appeal on their first attempt, because it's just "the legal process taking its course".

What kind of legal process is that? He might as well say that a miscarriage of justice is perfectly acceptable because of the appeal system. Try telling that to Angela Canning, who was wrongly convicted of killing two of her sons. She would now get no compensation. And what kind of legal system is it where you need to appeal two or three times? A crap one, that's right. It also infers that we can no longer trust any court decision ever, as there may be an appeal round the corner which will over-rule it, because that's the legal process, folks.

The government will argue in Britain's highest court next week that foreign officials who commit torture abroad should be immune from civil action in the English courts.

What kind of message does this send to people? That it's okay to torture? That crime isn't always a crime depending who you are? That the Government can be complicit in a crime and be innocent, but the general public can't? And then they wonder why people have no respect for "law and order". It depends who's interpreting the law and the order, and it all beggars belief.

It seems to me the only difference between the Palestinian so-called "terrorists" and the Israeli army is that only one of them can afford an official-looking army, which somehow precludes you from being a terrorist, even if you happen to kill civilians. I wonder who has killed more civilians - Hamas or the Coalition Forces?

You've not been charged with any crime. You've not even been accused of a crime. But the Government has taken your passport, forbidden you to hold a travel ticket or enter any airports. You must also report to a police station every day at the same time, no matter where you are.

Needless to say, this is what has been happening in this country. Why do we put up with it?

Lets get this straight - a note was passed to the pilot on a Ryanair flight claiming there was a bomb on-board; it was diverted and escorted by 3 RAF fighters; passengers were left on the plane for 2-3 hours and then taken for questioning and had their pictures taken; and then no-one was arrested?

Did the note say "This is Jack Straw. We need to make the public think that terrorists are a constant threat. Please pretend you have a bomb. We'll do the rest." ?

I almost can't believe the blatant abuse of power and taxpayers money, but to cut a long story short government-owned companies are donating money to the Labour party. Yes, you did read that right.

The main company in question is Manchester Airport, 100% owned by the 10 councils of Greater Manchester, and the Labour Party has accepted a total of nearly £150,000 of Labour-controlled public money through payments handed over by the Manchester Airport Group (MAG), since 1997. After asking for it back (after being caught out), £71,000 - has never been returned.

(Credit to The Coydonian for highlighting this.)

Well there's a surprise. It was the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" last year (IIRC) that revealed that Al-Qaeda is simply a small group of men with lots of money. Anyway, I digress...

Here's a radical thought - maybe the terrorist attacks were carried out by a group of people fed up at the way the west stamps it's authority on other countries, and crushes civil liberties in its wake. The US has already virtually decclared war on Iran. Look out for the Iranian "terrorists" carrying out a pre-emptive strike. And who can blame them? No doubt that it what the US wants - to further justify it's actions.

From Music Week :-

Sir Cliff says: "I am a firm believer that the UK Government needs to extend the term from the present 50 years. Extending the term of copyright for artists like myself is crucial because our works will soon slip out of copyright under the existing law and become open to exploitation - with all that entails - from anyone." Cliff Richard.

(All that entails = not getting even more money for something he did 50 years ago).

They also wheel out the usual non-argument that "it will “equalised” with the US". What's that got to do with the price of fish?

But the best quote is from Peter Jaimeson (BPI executive chairman) who says "I can’t see that it benefits anybody not to extend it". Erm, how about the people that would normally have to pay for it? Just shows how little they care for those that actually give them their money.

Q. How can the Government stop the administrators of any secure system (say, for example, ID Cards) selling the details on to criminals?

A. They can't.

You couldn't make it up! Iraq has a lottery gameshow called "Ration Card"! I love the implication - that you have to win the lottery to have enough money to eat!

One a related note, I did a Google search for 'Ration Card'. The top two results were two news articles, both virtually identical; one by Hackie Spin and one by Jackie Spinner, both creditted as "staff writers" but for different organisations. What's going on here?

Okay, a death is a death, but the only person to be prosecuted for 9/11 in America (until they catch up with Bush anyway) has been found guily of causing the death of at least one person. However, despite this, the court will hear from relatives of some of those killed when hijacked planes were deliberately flown into New York's twin towers and the Pentagon. They are also said to be planning to read out the names of the 2,972 victims of the attacks, and show their pictures in court. Is this how justice should be led?

But what really galls me is the feeling of being the victim that American's talking about 9/11 seem to excrete. Do they not know what America does to the world, either indirectly (25% of the worlds carbon dioxide emmisions) or directly (er, war anyone)? 10 times as many people have been killed in Iraq as were killed in 9/11, but where's the pity for them? (I hope they read all those names out at the Bush/Blair warcrimes trial). And do they not think that places like Guantanamo might get people's backs up just a little bit?

America only seemed to discover terrorism in 2001. In Britain in the 80's we were living with terrorism financed by America. Suddenly when it happens to them it's not so much fun.

Especially if you're a celeb or he invites you to the Middle East.

It is of course Mazher Mahmood is an undercover "reporter" for the "News" of the World, and often poses as a "fake sheikh" in order to gain his target's trust. In my view, he represents all the aspects of journalism at its very worst; entrapment is his favourite method of getting a story, an underhand method where he gets his victims to say things whilst assuming they are having a private conversation. He mainly likes to report things that are not actually illegal (and even a Judge agrees that he does not work in the interest of the public), but are still very helpful for backing up mock outrage in newspaper headlines when the facts don't. However, he doesn't seem to like it when he is the one receiving the publicity.

It's a good job the terrorist act isn't open to abuse, otherwise people could get arrested for their taste in music.

By the way, this does give me an idea. Do you know anyone you don't like? Then just report them to the police, mentioning that they looked a bit suspicious. That's more than enough evidence required to cart them off to the police station.

(For reference, other miscellaneous abuses here, here and here. And regarding that last one ("Over 600 held under terror act at Labour conference"), I thought the Terrorism Act was designed to catch terrorists. There were 600 of them! Don't they qualify as an army?)

And in a Government-style survey, I can exclusively announce that 0% of the people in England feel less safe due to the Terrorism Act (it was a survey of one - me).

[UPDATE]
Another abuse here.

The dirty tricks that our Government will pull in order to foist ID cards upon us is ubelievable. After forcing people to enroll on the master Government databse if they wish to have a "voluntary" ID card, we now find that:-

* You won't be able to renew your passport if it has more than 9 months left on it (so preventing people from renewing early to avoid an ID card)

* The supposed "public support" for ID cards (in Scotland anyway) was based on a survey of just 158 people! So all in all, only 108 people in the whole of Scotland has said they approve of ID cards!

Democracy is being pushed further and further into a small dark corner as our Government slowly erodes our rights. We are already prisoners in our own country. What next?

[UPDATE]
Longrider has informed me that the Government has just changed it's policy, seemingly overnight. You can now "renew" your passport, but if it has more than 9 months left, they will only add a maximum of 9 months to it (see the Govt Passport Page in the link above) and will still charge you the full amount.

Can anyone else think of a legitimate reason for this policy, other than trying to make it as unworthwhile as possible for people to renew their passports before ID card become mandatory? And isn't something a bit fishy in that the rules on ID cards can be changed at the click of a mouse?

To quote Blair: I say to those who will protest [when President Bush comes]: protest if you will. That is your democratic right.

Today: The Home Office and Metropolitan Police are appealing against the High Court decision in July last year that Brian is exempt from the ban on unauthorised protest near Parliament.

The message is loud and clear: Protesting is a democratic right until the Government ban it.