A serious breach of etiquette from The Prisoner:
In your heads must still be the remnant of a brain! In your hearts must still be the desire to be a human being again!
Shocking. I think I will just go and watch it to make sure.
From bella gerens, an excellent explanation and defence of libertarianism:
The truth is that advocates of freedom are found all over the political spectrum, but the only true libertarians are the ones who advocate it at all times in all circumstances, from the bedroom to the wallet – who believe that ‘freedom from’ is the only state of being consistent with the dignity and majesty of humankind.
‘Freedom from’ is the most important part of that ideology. Freedom from coercion. Freedom from interference. Freedom from oppression.
‘Freedom to’ is where the misunderstandings enter. People on the right think libertarians are advocating freedom to burgle, rob, rape, murder – because they read ‘freedom’ to mean ‘freedom to do whatever you please.’
People on the left think libertarians are advocating exploitation, pollution, callousness, and the primacy of making (and keeping) money above all else – because they read ‘freedom’ to mean ‘freedom to do whatever you please.’
And both sides think libertarians consider the laws we have prohibiting these activities to be a restriction on freedom.
When will they realise that they don’t understand?
It is now undeniable that a century or so of managerialism — of thinking the state knows best and is entitled to trespass on your private property for your own good and for that of your fellows — has succeeded in creating a segment of society within which anything goes and from which it is increasingly hard to escape: a segment populated by libertines who torment themselves and others despite a state which tries desperately to care for them at vast expense, an expense it forces on everyone, including those of meagre means.
Of course, the approach has now also succeeded in ruining us all, though not all have yet realised it, while delivering a state with tremendous power over our lives, and virtually every aspect of our lives too. Consider:
The state now looms far larger in many parts of Britain than it did in former Soviet satellite states such as Hungary and Slovakia as they emerged from communism in the 1990s, when state spending accounted for about 60% of their economies.
The question now is not how state power should be used to save us, but how state power can be gracefully dismantled so that we can save ourselves and one another from a system which plainly does not work.
What should now follow is a social system of mutual cooperation based on private property and the rule of law. Whether such a system comes to pass is up to us.
Via MI5 chief Jonathan Evans defends ‘torture intelligence’ – Times Online , we learn the MI5 chief’s position on complicity with torture:
The Director General of MI5 has issued a powerful defence of Britain’s co-operation with intelligence agencies in America and other countries accused of the abuse and torture of detainees, saying they had stopped “many attacks” in the aftermath of the September 11 strikes.
Speaking for the first time about charges of MI5 complicity in the abuse of suspects overseas, Jonathan Evans said Britain had had to get overseas help at the time of the strikes on New York’s World Trade Centre as its own knowledge of al Qaeda was inadequate and the terrorist network might have hit again “imminently”.
I am reminded of Pitt the Younger’s remarks in a 1783 speech to Parliament:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Conservative election poster
Via The Conservative Party | News | Taxman planning room-by-room inspections of family homes:
Caroline Spelman has responded to new evidence that emerged today of Gordon Brown’s secret plans for council tax hikes on family homes.
A new electronic Government tax handbook, complete with audio commentary, reveals how taxmen are being trained to conduct inspections of people’s homes and tax every home improvement and room.
Caroline Spelman MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government, said that Labour Ministers have been “caught red-handed” in training a “cadre of state snoopers” for a council tax revaluation in England.
“These new electronic learning tools blow out of the water any claims that the revaluation has been postponed, and proves the more tax hikes are on the cards for after the election if Gordon Brown clings to power”, she said.
Spelman added: “Families face being taxed for their sash windows and en-suite bathrooms. There is nothing that Gordon Brown won’t tax. State bureaucrats are being trained to measure up people’s homes and gardens and take intrusive photographs for a sinister Big Brother database.
These inspectors have alarming powers to enter people’s homes – and there is clear evidence that they now intend to exercise them. A Conservative Government will protect hard-working families from this home invasion; we will cancel the revaluation and abolish council tax inspectors’ right of entry.
Thankfully, last night I listened to David Cameron pledge to end this counterproductive nonsense:
Only two sane responses are possible to the Government’s new vetting and barring scheme for adults who volunteer to come into contact with children. One is rage, and the other despair. I incline to despair. But permit me a moment’s rage before I do.
…
The whole initiative is an ideal candidate for investigation by the RRAC (Risk and Responsibility Advisory Council), the nanny to nanny the nannies that Mr Brown set up a couple of years ago to act (it was fatuously claimed) as a counterweight to the Health and Safety Executive and other horrors of the meddling State.
When an authority fails too dismally in modern Britain, another authority is established to keep it up to scratch. When an authority succeeds too aggressively, another authority is established to keep it in check. When too many of these new supervisory authorities begin treading on each other’s toes, a new umbrella authority is set up to co-ordinate their activities.
via This stupid child protection law will turn us into outlaws | Matthew Parris – Times Online .
The BMA demand a resort to force:
A total ban on alcohol advertising must be introduced by the Government to halt an epidemic of problem drinking, doctors’ leaders said today.
A report from the British Medical Association (BMA) has called for a sea change in the approach to alcohol regulation to halt promotions including happy hours and sponsorship of music and sports events.
The move is necessary to stem the invidious ways it is promoted, particularly to young people, it said.
via Doctors demand ban on all alcohol advertising – Times Online.
There are who knows how many possible bad decisions in life; are we to resort to force to avert each one? Would anyone disagree with the assertion that over-consumption of alcohol is not only harmful in itself but leads to behaviour with harmful consequences? Of course people should drink in moderation — but where does the path of all-round compulsion lead? What else shall we protect people from?
What matters if we are to have a good society — a free and open society — is what lies within us: our values and beliefs, our thoughts and ideas, our emotions. This constant resort to compulsion will not deliver a healthy, happy society. It will create a destructive cycle of resentment, harmful actions and exhortation. Enough.
It is time for a change of heart. It is time for personal responsibility and freely-made good choices. That means letting people carry the consequences of their actions and punishing them when they trespass on the liberties of others. It means the government getting out of the education system permanently so that teachers can get on with delivering a good education to the satisfaction of parents. Maybe where parents and teachers do not know what good choices look like, special action will be unavoidable, but that is possible without resorting to the total state.
Via Britain leads world in police state survey • The Register:
A recent survey from internet security consultancy, Cryptohippie, suggests that the UK is setting the pace in at least one area – though being classified as the West’s most repressive regime when it comes to electronic surveillance might not be a title that this government is entirely happy to wear.
This result emerges from Cryptohippie’s recently published Electronic Police State 2008 (pdf). This is the first in what are intended to be a series of annual reports that will audit the “State use of electronic technologies to record, organize, search and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens”.
The audit focusses on 17 factors, ranging from requirement to produce documents on demand, through to the extent to which states force ISP’s and phone companies to retain data, the blurring of boundaries between police and intelligence work and ultimately the breakdown of the principles of habeas corpus.
Via The Conservative Party | News | The Blue Blog | The lessons that must be learned from my arrest :
Arresting an opposition politician for embarrassing the Government is the sort of thing that never happens in a democracy like Britain. It never used to, anyway.
THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.
The reduction , to be imposed as early as next year, will affect two thirds of the country’s road network. Drivers will still be able to reach 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways and 60mph on the safest A roads.
via Road speed limit cut to 50mph . But the safest speed for a road is the 85th percentile. More to follow…
Via Spy chief: We risk a police state – Telegraph:
Dame Stella [Rimington, ex-head of MI5,] accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists.
“Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper.
“It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state,” she said.
Dame Stella, 73, added: “The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification.” She said the British secret services were “no angels” but insisted they did not kill people.
And:
In a further blow to ministers, an international study by lawyers and judges accused countries such as Britain and America of “actively undermining” the law through the measures they have introduced to counter terrorism.
Via Henry Porter: Calling the police to account | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk :
Although I write as someone who has no particular axe to grind about the police, I am beginning to wonder whether we have a serious problem with a police force that believes it is entitled to monitor political activity. Set against the new law banning photographs of the police – which surely will be used by every policeman parked on a double yellow line or meting out the rough justice – there is increasing tendency of the police to photograph people in an aggressive fashion. It shows an innate lack of respect for the innocent citizen and the conventions of our free society, which is extremely disturbing.
Terror legislation has been increasingly used by this government, and sometimes brutally enforced by the police, to criminalise not only those who protest but also those who dare to give the oxygen of publicity to such dissent.
From Monday it will be an offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of the armed forces, intelligence services, or a police officer in Great Britain – it’s been an offence in Northern Ireland since 2000. It will also be an offence to publish such information.
Via Police chiefs body faces calls for review after cash revelations | Politics | The Guardian :
The Association of Chief Police Officers was yesterday facing calls for a “fundamental review” of the way it works, after reports emerged that the independent organisation is raising millions of pounds through commercial activities.
Acpo, which advises the government on national policing policy and describes itself as “the voice of the police service”, was made a limited company in 1997, but has received £32m from the Home Office over the last two years.
I will be attending The Convention on Modern Liberty in London. Speakers include Douglas Carswell MP, Shami Chakrabarti, Nick Clegg MP, David Davis MP, Andrew Dismore MP, Edward Garnier QC MP, Dominic Grieve QC MP and Lord Goldsmith.
If you think the debate is insufficiently measured, I suggest watching this:
There may be a regional convention in your area: check here.
The term ‘nanny state’ is not normally used as a compliment.
But public health expert Dr Alan Maryon Davis says we need more nannying, not less.
Via Police set to step up hacking of home PCs – Times Online – digg story:
THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.
The move, which follows a decision by the European Union’s council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives “a coach and horses” through privacy laws.
The hacking is known as “remote searching”. It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone’s PC at his home, office or hotel room.
“Without a warrant”! This measure should dismiss the notion that New Labour’s state values the citizen’s privacy. Of course sophisticated criminals must be fought effectively but not at the expense of a fundamental liberty.
As in the case of powers of entry, the law is in danger of being an unacceptable mess. There must be clarity, control and audit if our society is not to degenerate into a total surveillance state.
See also comments (digg story) from Sir Ken Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, on the proposed database of every call, text, email and web site visit:
This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information. It would be a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls.
What kind of society do we wish to live in?
From the Guardian:
Tanks rolling into neighbouring countries, the media back under state control and Kremlin policy shrouded in secrecy … Luke Harding reports on why Russia seems hellbent on reverting to its Soviet past.
…
“The Soviet Union had global ambitions. It believed in socialism and social justice. Now the main ideological idea is nationalism and anti-Americanism. There are no positive ideas any more, only negative ones,” Kryshtanovskaya [Russia's leading sociologist] says.
Thanks to the Jeremy Vine Show over lunch:
Spitting, swearing and aggressive behaviour will be BANNED from ‘Proud Preston’.
…
Anyone who flouts the tough new code could be arrested or fined by patrolling police officers or council enforcers.Council officers can fine people £75 for offences like littering, while police can give out fixed penalty notices of up to £80 for a range of offences.
Of course the target behaviour is unacceptable, but do we really want to replace personal responsibility with summary justice for minor misdemeanours? Callers to the show overwhelmingly thought so…
Surely we can do better?
From The Independent:
The vow by Commons Speaker Michael Martin to prevent “unauthorised” raids on MPs’ offices in the wake of the Damian Green affair was seriously undermined last night as it emerged that the Government is preparing new laws to allow investigators to mount parliamentary searches without a warrant.
…
Defending his position, Mr Martin last week pledged that no one would be allowed to search any parliamentary office until they had produced a warrant and obtained his personal permission. However, legislation included in the Queen’s Speech on the same day Mr Martin made his promise will make it simpler for officials to enter the House of Commons to carry out searches without the permission of parliamentary authorities.
…
The Political Parties and Elections Bill, aimed at tightening up the law on political donations, would extend the authority of Electoral Commission inspectors – or police on their behalf – to give them access to MPs’ offices as part of any investigation of alleged breaches of funding regulations. The only authorisation required would be a “disclosure notice” issued by the commission itself.
…
The Bill also permits the watchdog’s inspectors to enter the homes and offices of MPs and anyone who has donated to a political party, if there is a “reasonable suspicion” of a breach of the rules. A magistrate’s warrant is required but no prior notice will be given and parliamentary authorities would not be consulted in advance.
MPs have also pointed out that the infamous Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 allows covert surveillance of politicians in Parliament. We all ought to ask if our democracy is heading in a healthy direction. Many may be sick of politics and politicians but I hope and believe that the majority wish to live in a country where it is possible to oppose the government of the day, and to support financially opposition parties, without the threat of prosecution.
You can write to your MP here. If you live in a Labour constituency, or you know someone who does, I particularly recommend a letter.
With a hat tip to Graham:
SOURCES CLOSE to Alex Salmond last night accused Lord Mandelson of trying to “stack the deck” against those challenging the merger of HBOS with Lloyds TSB after they were threatened with huge legal bills unless they dropped their case.
Lawyers acting for Mandelson, the business and enterprise secretary, told the Merger Action Group (MAG) that unless it halted its legal fight, Mandelson would “pursue costs against each of the group’s identified members”.
However if the six-member group, which challenges the merger proposals at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London tomorrow, were to drop its case, Mandelson would “wholly exceptionally waive his claim for costs”.
…
[Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott] said last night: “The tribunal is meant to be a way for small business to challenge big government. It is wrong for the Labour government to be so heavy handed.”
Opinion from the FT:
The police are out of control. So is the government. We can only conjecture as to what possessed the senior officers who raided the homes and parliamentary office of Damian Green, the Conservative immigration spokesman. Yet their disdain for political process spoke eloquently to the authoritarian culture of our times.
From the Telegraph:
Roadside ‘greasy spoon’ vans will be forced to close unless they offer healthy alternatives like salads and low fat yogurts.
The snack vans, often found in busy lay-bys, must also limit the amount of mayonnaise served – because it has been branded a “very high fat product”.
Environmental health officers in Guildford, Surrey, will inspect menus during routine hygiene checks.
And traders who fail to meet the strict new standards, will be refused a street trader’s licence when it comes up for renewal each year.
Has our country come to this, that we approach compelling people to make the “right” choices on what they eat, as determined by authority?
Of course we all want to help our fellows. Of course we are all impatient with suffering and want to see less obesity and disease. But we must all be free to make these choices for ourselves if we are to claim we live in a free society.
The source of this well-intentioned authoritarianism is, of course, a QANGO: the Food Standards Authority. They have, for example, “a new vision for enforcement”: “The aim is to provide [local authorities] with flexible interventions for improving business compliance, enabling them to focus resources more effectively.” Whatever these moral busybodies may think, people are not victims: they are, and they must be, responsible for themselves.
To be fair to the particular council, their spokesman stated on the Vine show that they have no intention to close businesses over this, despite the Telegraph’s claims. But imagine the scene when the inspector turns up at the roadside van with a range of “flexible interventions” at his disposal.
A free society, an open society, a democracy, relies on persuasion. People who want to encourage healthy eating might consider persuasion before they resort to coercion. Perhaps they might separate persuasion and coercion. They might consider forming an educational charity, establishing a network of healthy eating vans and getting out there to make their case in the market, without forcing money out of everyone’s pockets to do it.
Well done the Director of Public Prosecutions:
Outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald warned that the expansion of technology by the state into everyday life could create a world future generations “can’t bear”.
In his wide-ranging speech, Sir Ken appeared to condemn a series of key Government policies, attacking terrorism proposals – including 42 day detention – identity card plans and the “paraphernalia of paranoia”.
Instead, he said, the Government should insist that “our rights are priceless” and that: “The best way to face down those threats is to strengthen our institutions rather than to degrade them.”
Completing the Political Compass Iconochasms quiz led me to a 2005 article in the Guardian:
George Churchill-Coleman, who headed Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist squad as they worked to counter the IRA during their mainland attacks in the late 1980s and early 1990s, said Mr Clarke’s proposals to extend powers, such as indefinite house arrest, were “not practical” and threatened to further marginalise minority communities.
Mr Churchill-Coleman told the Guardian: “I have a horrible feeling that we are sinking into a police state, and that’s not good for anybody. We live in a democracy and we should police on those standards.
I haven’t noticed a reversal of the trend in the past three years.
News feed