Well, I wrote about John Reid's ridiculous proposals here, which included the idea that you could text people when their Visa was up, effectively asking them to leave the country.
According to Iain Dale here, no one told or even discussed this proposal with him first, and he had a "chat" with Liam Byrne afterwards, Liam saying that officials had signed it off.
It seems clear who is running the Home Office, and it isn't John Reid or his junior ministers.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Whitehall fails Environment
People everywhere are being encouraged to reduce their environmental impact, and quite right too. This year has been fairly easy, as the winter has been milder this year than last and I re insulated my hot water tank. As a result of this I have used two thirds of the gas that I used last year.
It appears government has not fared so well. Figures are not available for 2006/7 but they are for 2004/5 and 2005/6. They make some grim reading. (See The Sustainable Development Commission, and their report here)
Progress has been made in places. For example Whitehall is recycling 8% more. What is worrying is that it is at the same time sending more to landfill. So rather than working on reduce, reuse recycle they appear to be working on just the recycle bit.
What concerns me more though is that across Whitehall as a whole carbon emissions are up. That is not the fuel bill, but carbon emissions. For example in the Department for the Eradication of Farming and Rural Areas (DEFRA) run by David Milliband, carbon emissions are up by 10.2% since 1990, as opposed to a target of a reduction of 12.5% by 2010/11. This is in fact also an increase on the previous year. This is clearly the wrong direction of travel. Mind you the DTI seems to be doing quite well.
When there are now many ways of reducing carbon emissions like more efficient cars, traveling less, video conferencing and turning off the lights when no one is there.
One of the most shocking things I saw when Newsnight ran a report on this, was the number of offices in Whitehall where the lights were on well into the night when there was no one there. You have to wonder whether they were heated as well, and more importantly which nutter thinks it is OK to leave the lights on when there is no one there?
You can read the BBC report here, and more on the environment here.
It appears government has not fared so well. Figures are not available for 2006/7 but they are for 2004/5 and 2005/6. They make some grim reading. (See The Sustainable Development Commission, and their report here)
Progress has been made in places. For example Whitehall is recycling 8% more. What is worrying is that it is at the same time sending more to landfill. So rather than working on reduce, reuse recycle they appear to be working on just the recycle bit.
What concerns me more though is that across Whitehall as a whole carbon emissions are up. That is not the fuel bill, but carbon emissions. For example in the Department for the Eradication of Farming and Rural Areas (DEFRA) run by David Milliband, carbon emissions are up by 10.2% since 1990, as opposed to a target of a reduction of 12.5% by 2010/11. This is in fact also an increase on the previous year. This is clearly the wrong direction of travel. Mind you the DTI seems to be doing quite well.
When there are now many ways of reducing carbon emissions like more efficient cars, traveling less, video conferencing and turning off the lights when no one is there.
One of the most shocking things I saw when Newsnight ran a report on this, was the number of offices in Whitehall where the lights were on well into the night when there was no one there. You have to wonder whether they were heated as well, and more importantly which nutter thinks it is OK to leave the lights on when there is no one there?
You can read the BBC report here, and more on the environment here.
Friday, March 09, 2007
In Defence of Patrick Mercer
There seems to be much more heat and light on this issue which is a shame. The Times wrote this article about an interview with Patrick, which then led to his resignation from the front bench. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to find a complete transcript of the interview which is a shame, because I suspect putting the remarks in context would help.
In many ways his remarks left David Cameron with little option, but it seems some people are getting very hot under the collar about some the following remark:
For a start he said: "I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours." Well isn’t that nice? He might as well have used Ron Atkinson’s famous last words and said ‘they were lazy thick niggers’ because that’s what he is implying. Not only are ethnic minority officers in the Army lazy but they also use their race as cover! The cheek! No racial stereotyping of course.
So the question is what did Patrick Mercer mean, and was he saying a lot of ethnic minority soldiers are lazy and useless? I don't think so.
Hermes Trismegistus on politicalbetting.com puts it like this:
The problem with the turn of phrase used is not that it is wrong or racist (depending on where the comma is for example) but that it is very open to misinterpretation. Patrick has paid the price for that. Let us not however accuse him of racism because there is no evidence to support that.
There have been some glowing reports from his subordinates as well, for example the Daily Mail has this.
In many ways his remarks left David Cameron with little option, but it seems some people are getting very hot under the collar about some the following remark:
"I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours."He then went on with an example. Pickled Politics reports it thus (See here):
For a start he said: "I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours." Well isn’t that nice? He might as well have used Ron Atkinson’s famous last words and said ‘they were lazy thick niggers’ because that’s what he is implying. Not only are ethnic minority officers in the Army lazy but they also use their race as cover! The cheek! No racial stereotyping of course.
So the question is what did Patrick Mercer mean, and was he saying a lot of ethnic minority soldiers are lazy and useless? I don't think so.
Hermes Trismegistus on politicalbetting.com puts it like this:
Do you know the difference between a restrictive and non-restrictive relative clause in grammar? Suppose Mercer had used the following formation (note the comma before ‘who’):Or to put it another way he could well have been saying that whilst he ran into 100,000 ethnic minority soldiers (exaggeration for emphasis), of the 4 who were lazy and useless (the other 99,996 being excellent soldiers) 3 made accusations of racism when challenged over their behavior.
I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers, who were idle and useless.
In this case he would be saying that he came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers and - as a further point of fact - they were idle and useless. This is the non-restrictive formation.
In fact he was using a restrictive relative clause (signified by the absence of a comma before the ‘who’). This means he was talking about a particular sub-set of the ethnic minority soldiers he had met: namely those who were idle and useless. He then goes on to say of this sub-set that its members used racism as cover for their misdemeanours and so on. I think confusion accounts for the different interpretations of his statement we’re getting in the media. Who said punctuation isn’t important?
The problem with the turn of phrase used is not that it is wrong or racist (depending on where the comma is for example) but that it is very open to misinterpretation. Patrick has paid the price for that. Let us not however accuse him of racism because there is no evidence to support that.
There have been some glowing reports from his subordinates as well, for example the Daily Mail has this.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
NHS, Yet more chaos
This time concerning maternity services in Sussex. Apparently on Friday night Emma Mackrory-Jamieson went into labour. She got in touch with the local hospital's maternity unit at the Princess Royal to be told there were not enough beds. Brighton and Worthing also had no space so the Mackrory-Jamieson's had to drive to Eastbourne, some 45 minutes away.
Clearly this is ridiculous. The maternity unit at the Princess Royal is under threat as is the one in Eastbourne, (See here). If either or both close this will cause capacity problems in the county. If then someone had to go to Brighton and it turned out to be full, and Worthing also a pregnant woman could be faced with an uncomfortable hours drive to Hastings (assuming it to had space) in good driving conditions or much longer during rush hour.
Sometimes labour is quick. Very quick. It can be over in an hour or two. Clearly you would not want to spend most or all of that time chasing beds across the roads in Sussex.
This story follows hot on the heals of other stories of chaos in the NHS, like this one from Wales about Ambulances queuing (as has also happened at Redhill Hospital), an 8 year old boy having 3 ambulance transfers to get a broken arm treated here, and a rise of 21% in the maternity mortality rate (see here)
We arrive at this chaos after the most colossal amount of money has been spent on the NHS. Where has all the money gone?
For more articles on the NHS see here.
Clearly this is ridiculous. The maternity unit at the Princess Royal is under threat as is the one in Eastbourne, (See here). If either or both close this will cause capacity problems in the county. If then someone had to go to Brighton and it turned out to be full, and Worthing also a pregnant woman could be faced with an uncomfortable hours drive to Hastings (assuming it to had space) in good driving conditions or much longer during rush hour.
Sometimes labour is quick. Very quick. It can be over in an hour or two. Clearly you would not want to spend most or all of that time chasing beds across the roads in Sussex.
This story follows hot on the heals of other stories of chaos in the NHS, like this one from Wales about Ambulances queuing (as has also happened at Redhill Hospital), an 8 year old boy having 3 ambulance transfers to get a broken arm treated here, and a rise of 21% in the maternity mortality rate (see here)
We arrive at this chaos after the most colossal amount of money has been spent on the NHS. Where has all the money gone?
For more articles on the NHS see here.
Cash for Peerages, Lord Levy at nomination meetings
Today's Daily Mail carries two interesting stories in the cash for peerages affair.
In this article, the Daily Mail clearly states that Lord levy was at meetings which discussed nominations for peerages and other honours , and lobbied for people he thought should get peerages.
Now, that in and of itself is not actually a breech of the 1925 Honours, Prevention of Abuses act, because giving peerages because people have donated money to the party is not illegal. It would be illegal if a bargain had been struck, but this revelation does not add anything to that.
What might however, is if people questioned by the police had not been full and frank in their answers, and indeed tried to hide the involvement of Lord Levy. I do stress though that you DO NOT have to answer questions that are not asked.
It would be really quite funny and sad at the same time if someone went down for trying to cover up their part in something that whilst not politically acceptable was legal, perverting the course of justice along the way.
The other article the Mail carries is this one. It seems Sir Ian Blair, the gibbering idiot some clearly still see fit to hold any public office , sat at the same table at a large dinner and indeed conversed afterwards with a person suspected of a criminal offence, who is on police bail, Lord Levy. Dr John Reid, the clearly incompetent Home Secretary was at the same table, but not governed by police rules forbidding such contact.
It is shocking indeed that Sir Ian Blair seems to either not not or not care to obey the rules by which his subordinates must live. I doubt that will inspire much confidence in his force.
I have said before that Sir Ian Blair should resign. I suspect more calls will follow.
In this article, the Daily Mail clearly states that Lord levy was at meetings which discussed nominations for peerages and other honours , and lobbied for people he thought should get peerages.
Now, that in and of itself is not actually a breech of the 1925 Honours, Prevention of Abuses act, because giving peerages because people have donated money to the party is not illegal. It would be illegal if a bargain had been struck, but this revelation does not add anything to that.
What might however, is if people questioned by the police had not been full and frank in their answers, and indeed tried to hide the involvement of Lord Levy. I do stress though that you DO NOT have to answer questions that are not asked.
It would be really quite funny and sad at the same time if someone went down for trying to cover up their part in something that whilst not politically acceptable was legal, perverting the course of justice along the way.
The other article the Mail carries is this one. It seems Sir Ian Blair, the gibbering idiot some clearly still see fit to hold any public office , sat at the same table at a large dinner and indeed conversed afterwards with a person suspected of a criminal offence, who is on police bail, Lord Levy. Dr John Reid, the clearly incompetent Home Secretary was at the same table, but not governed by police rules forbidding such contact.
It is shocking indeed that Sir Ian Blair seems to either not not or not care to obey the rules by which his subordinates must live. I doubt that will inspire much confidence in his force.
I have said before that Sir Ian Blair should resign. I suspect more calls will follow.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
What was that Newsnight big story?
Well, on Newsnights website there was a strange comment about what their lead story would be (see here). It said:
LEAD STORY
I'm afraid we can't yet give you any details about the story we're leading the programme with tonight but it's a shocking story and it's well worth tuning in for.
Well, I was going to watch it any way, but it did arouse my interest!
Its about police brutality,
A black woman was pinned down by several police men and beaten by one when she appeared to be in no position to resist.
It is a reminiscent of that Rodney King incident.
Ridiculous.
Update 22:45
Having just watched the relevant part of the program, maybe not.
Firstly the officer concerned was clear that he used all the force at his disposal because the woman was not only resisting arrest, but as far as he could tell, trying to grab his genitals and bite.
His blows, he says were aimed at deadening her arm to reduce her resistance to being cuffed. had he been hitting her in the face there would have been much facial damage.
The only problem is that the woman is apparently an epileptic and subject to fits, which may explain her behavior. Difficult circumstances.
Update 01:36
You can see the Guardian's footage here, and read its take on it here, here comment here and a leader here.
LEAD STORY
I'm afraid we can't yet give you any details about the story we're leading the programme with tonight but it's a shocking story and it's well worth tuning in for.
Well, I was going to watch it any way, but it did arouse my interest!
Its about police brutality,
A black woman was pinned down by several police men and beaten by one when she appeared to be in no position to resist.
It is a reminiscent of that Rodney King incident.
Ridiculous.
Update 22:45
Having just watched the relevant part of the program, maybe not.
Firstly the officer concerned was clear that he used all the force at his disposal because the woman was not only resisting arrest, but as far as he could tell, trying to grab his genitals and bite.
His blows, he says were aimed at deadening her arm to reduce her resistance to being cuffed. had he been hitting her in the face there would have been much facial damage.
The only problem is that the woman is apparently an epileptic and subject to fits, which may explain her behavior. Difficult circumstances.
Update 01:36
You can see the Guardian's footage here, and read its take on it here, here comment here and a leader here.
Immigration, Reid promises more action
Regrettably not of it sensible. The bullet points of the announcement are these (from the BBC here):
Enforcement teams to track down bosses who employ illegal workers? Nice idea, though asking sure the DWP doesn't hand out National Insurance numbers with cornflakes would help. That said, clearly the IND does not have a combination of the right resource or leadership to do the job.
Compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals? Fantastic! So if they have no ID card does that mean they are not a foreign national? How is anyone supposed to tell?
Text alerts for people overstaying visas. You do have to laugh. That said I could not put it better than Damian Green the shadow immigration minister who said: "The idea that you are texting someone, saying that we are on your trail is just a joke. Do they have the mobile numbers of more than half a million illegal immigrants? No of course they don't." The thing is though, if someone comes here legally on a visa, and it runs out in 6 months, and you have their mobile phone number, how are you going to know they have not left the country on time? The borders are not watched, we don't know who has left the country. So we could end up sending harassing text messages to someone who has done nothing wrong!
Possible £20,000 fines for landlords housing illegal immigrants. I see. So when the police catch an illegal immigrant they can let them go, because the Immigration and Nationality Directorate can't deal with them, but private landlords have to become unpaid members of the IND. Brilliant! (See here and here)
Pilot schemes to use ID card data to ensure migrants pay for NHS care? I see. So we stop health tourism? Fine as far as it goes, but only if you have a clue who has a right to be here and who hasn't.
No matter what your view of immigration is, whether you think there is too much or too little, whether you think we should have the free movement of labour or not illegal immigration is bad. It undermines public confidence in the system and brings the law into disrepute. Not only that but it makes life much more difficult for legal immigrants.
The fact is that we do not need any new laws, nor do we need draconian measures. We just need to deal with the illegal immigrants the police already catch on a regular basis. This is nothing other than cheap headline grabbing rhetoric, and as Nick Clegg said: "If tough rhetoric and gimmicks were enough to sort out our immigration system, we would have the best in the world."
For more on immigration see here.
- 'Watch list' of people not entitled to public services
- Enforcement teams to track down bosses employing illegal workers
- Compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals
- Text alerts for people overstaying visas
- Possible £20,000 fines for landlords housing illegal immigrants
- Pilot schemes to use ID card data to ensure migrants pay for NHS care
Enforcement teams to track down bosses who employ illegal workers? Nice idea, though asking sure the DWP doesn't hand out National Insurance numbers with cornflakes would help. That said, clearly the IND does not have a combination of the right resource or leadership to do the job.
Compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals? Fantastic! So if they have no ID card does that mean they are not a foreign national? How is anyone supposed to tell?
Text alerts for people overstaying visas. You do have to laugh. That said I could not put it better than Damian Green the shadow immigration minister who said: "The idea that you are texting someone, saying that we are on your trail is just a joke. Do they have the mobile numbers of more than half a million illegal immigrants? No of course they don't." The thing is though, if someone comes here legally on a visa, and it runs out in 6 months, and you have their mobile phone number, how are you going to know they have not left the country on time? The borders are not watched, we don't know who has left the country. So we could end up sending harassing text messages to someone who has done nothing wrong!
Possible £20,000 fines for landlords housing illegal immigrants. I see. So when the police catch an illegal immigrant they can let them go, because the Immigration and Nationality Directorate can't deal with them, but private landlords have to become unpaid members of the IND. Brilliant! (See here and here)
Pilot schemes to use ID card data to ensure migrants pay for NHS care? I see. So we stop health tourism? Fine as far as it goes, but only if you have a clue who has a right to be here and who hasn't.
No matter what your view of immigration is, whether you think there is too much or too little, whether you think we should have the free movement of labour or not illegal immigration is bad. It undermines public confidence in the system and brings the law into disrepute. Not only that but it makes life much more difficult for legal immigrants.
The fact is that we do not need any new laws, nor do we need draconian measures. We just need to deal with the illegal immigrants the police already catch on a regular basis. This is nothing other than cheap headline grabbing rhetoric, and as Nick Clegg said: "If tough rhetoric and gimmicks were enough to sort out our immigration system, we would have the best in the world."
For more on immigration see here.
Cash for Peerages, The Guardian writes
Unsurprisingly the latest spat in the cash for peerages investigation has been all over the papers again today.
The Guardian has a front page report with the headline :
This can't really be much of a surprise to anyone, as I suspect that has been a key part of the investigation from day one. Though possibly the police may be interested to find out why getting this information has been like getting blood from a stone.
However one thing I would wish to make clear is this. If Lord Levy attended every meeting which discussed honours, and insisted people got homours because they had donated money, that does not prove that the 1925 Honours, prevention of abuses act. Giving a peerage because someone has given you money is not the same as agreeing to give a peerage if someone gives you money. There would need to be proof of soliciting money in return for an honour, or soliciting an honour in return for money.
That said there could be charges of perverting the course of justice.
The other interesting article is the leader by Alan Rusbridger which you can find here, which carries the headline "Damn us if you will", and is a defence of a free press and goes a little further in providing an explanation of how the Guardian beat the Attorney General.
Lastly, Alan, I know you will be reading this tomorrow, because of a security issue in your webmail, which I inadvertently looked at. Could I suggest you email me so I can put you in touch with a company who can do secure webmail systems?
The Guardian has a front page report with the headline :
Levy's presence at honours meetings now police focus
This can't really be much of a surprise to anyone, as I suspect that has been a key part of the investigation from day one. Though possibly the police may be interested to find out why getting this information has been like getting blood from a stone.
However one thing I would wish to make clear is this. If Lord Levy attended every meeting which discussed honours, and insisted people got homours because they had donated money, that does not prove that the 1925 Honours, prevention of abuses act. Giving a peerage because someone has given you money is not the same as agreeing to give a peerage if someone gives you money. There would need to be proof of soliciting money in return for an honour, or soliciting an honour in return for money.
That said there could be charges of perverting the course of justice.
The other interesting article is the leader by Alan Rusbridger which you can find here, which carries the headline "Damn us if you will", and is a defence of a free press and goes a little further in providing an explanation of how the Guardian beat the Attorney General.
Lastly, Alan, I know you will be reading this tomorrow, because of a security issue in your webmail, which I inadvertently looked at. Could I suggest you email me so I can put you in touch with a company who can do secure webmail systems?
The Independent's big lie on bio fuels
On Monday, as I was preparing to go the the Adam Smith Institute bash in London the Libdemograph, formerly the Independent, published a front page article with the headline "The Big Green Fuel Lie" and a leading article to accompany it, which is here.
I will deal with the trite nonsense published on the front page. It gives bio fuels a hard time, on 3 grounds.
Brazil produces its own from sugar cane, which involves burning off the cane in the field causing localised particulate air pollution.
Brazil may have cut down lots of rain forest to do so.
The vast sugar cane estates limit biodiversity.
Well, you don't need to do any of that to grow biofuels, so all we are arguing about is production methods.
The article then goes on to say:
However the leader makes some odd assertions as well. For example:
Actually not necessarily so. It gives people more chance of earning a living from farming, and a good agricultural economy is where most prosperity starts.
I will deal with the trite nonsense published on the front page. It gives bio fuels a hard time, on 3 grounds.
Brazil produces its own from sugar cane, which involves burning off the cane in the field causing localised particulate air pollution.
Brazil may have cut down lots of rain forest to do so.
The vast sugar cane estates limit biodiversity.
Well, you don't need to do any of that to grow biofuels, so all we are arguing about is production methods.
The article then goes on to say:
While Brazil's tropical climate allows it to source alcohol from its sugar crop, the US has turned to its industrialised corn belt for the raw material to substitute oil. The American economist Lester R Brown, from the Earth Policy Institute, is leading the warning voices: "The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its two billion poorest people who are simply trying to stay alive is emerging as an epic issue."This of course shows the utter ignorance of Independent journalists. They have not asked for example, what the role of dumping subsidised American and European agricultural crops on the third world has on food production there, and indeed whether or not it does in part cause poverty amongst agricultural classes. In short there is no money in farming in large parts of agriculture which is the sort of work that a lot of people can get. If the price of local produce were to rise, because we stopped dumping on them it would seriously help.
However the leader makes some odd assertions as well. For example:
Sadly, that's not enough. Ethanol may sound like the kind of "friendly" energy the world has been waiting for. But for ethanol production to rise to the levels Mr Bush is hoping for, huge amounts of the world's remaining forests will have to be cut down and turned over to corn or sugar cane.No, that is rubbish. For a start in the UK and indeed other parts of the Eu we are paying farmers set aside money, virtually not to farm, whilst countries like the Ukraine can feed itself and Europe to the west. There is no need to cut down anything more. However rationalising the Common agricultural policy is a must.
The existing hectarage devoted to agriculture will not be remotely large enough to produce the quantity of fuel needed. In other words, paradoxically, a growing reliance of renewable energy may accelerate the destruction of the rainforests we so desperately need to moderate the planet's temperature.Like above, it assumes we carry on growing rubbish we won't buy at taxpayers expense which then gets dumped in Africa making sure their farming does not work either. What is more it cites no studies or any other useful way of checking that nonsense.
Besides, according to the World Conservation Union, growing corn uses far more energy than the finished fuel produces.Sorry are they saying that a tractor uses more fuel working a field to get fuel from it, or is this an argument against using fossil fuel derived fertaliser to grow non fossil fuel? Clearly there is little point in doing the latter, whilst the former is rather obvious nonsense otherwise Brazil would be a
There is another downside to the ethanol boom. As demand rises, the price of the cereals from which it is partly made soars as well. Tortilla prices in Mexico are already surging as a result of ethanol demand in America. This threatens the precarious livelihoods of many of the world's poorest people.
Actually not necessarily so. It gives people more chance of earning a living from farming, and a good agricultural economy is where most prosperity starts.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Cash for Peerages, more on how the Guardian got away with it
I just watched an interview by John Snow, on Channel 4 news, of Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian.
Apparently the Attorney General started the process of getting an injunction around about 8 PM last night. Alan apparently made it clear that if they were shown the terms of the injunction, they would, for a time at least abide by it, looking to argue it the following day. However the Attorney General refused and spent the time arguing for a new one.
How silly. Still, the rest as they say is history.
Apparently the Attorney General started the process of getting an injunction around about 8 PM last night. Alan apparently made it clear that if they were shown the terms of the injunction, they would, for a time at least abide by it, looking to argue it the following day. However the Attorney General refused and spent the time arguing for a new one.
How silly. Still, the rest as they say is history.
Cash for Peerages, BBC Injunction lifted!
The injunction against the BBC barring it from reporting on the document written by Ruth Turner to Jonathan Powell about Lord Levy has been lifted.
The BBC has this here.
However it does not tell us much that we did not already know other than that the BBC has not actually seen the original document.
suspicion leading to those famous arrests for perverting the course of justice and Apparently Ruth Turner thinks Lord Levy expressed a version of events she believed to be untrue. In an of itself it does not tell us much as two people can have differing recollections of a series of events. It happens. Not enough to charge but more than enough to raise reasonableconspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
For more on the cash for peerages scandal see here.
The BBC has this here.
However it does not tell us much that we did not already know other than that the BBC has not actually seen the original document.
suspicion leading to those famous arrests for perverting the course of justice and Apparently Ruth Turner thinks Lord Levy expressed a version of events she believed to be untrue. In an of itself it does not tell us much as two people can have differing recollections of a series of events. It happens. Not enough to charge but more than enough to raise reasonableconspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
For more on the cash for peerages scandal see here.
That Adam Smith Institute bash
It was interesting, and the first time I have been invited to a blogging type event. Some interesting points were made and I met up with a few bloggers, some of whom you may have heard of, like Guido, Devil's Kitchen, Ellee Seymour and Croydonian. Dizzy alas was not there, but having looked at my picture on Ellee's blog said that I looked like a Perl programmer! Sheesh! Even asked if I wore sandals, the cheeky chap!
The event was about the impact of new media and its effect on both old media and politics. Opinions were divided. Bruce Anderson of the Independent was there as well, with some interesting comments.
I will have more later, as I have made some notes, but must dash.
The event was about the impact of new media and its effect on both old media and politics. Opinions were divided. Bruce Anderson of the Independent was there as well, with some interesting comments.
I will have more later, as I have made some notes, but must dash.
Cash for Peerages, How the Guardian got away with it
I listened to an interesting report on BBC Radio 4's Today program on how the Guardian got away with publishing what it did without getting slapped with an injunction.
In short they made sure the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, did not get his application heard until the presses were rolling and by the time the hearing was underway in fact the delivery trucks had left and were on their way. The Judge decided that it would not be proportionate to bring them back, so refused the injunction!
Fantastic!
Also Trumpeter Lanfried left this comment on the previous article:
Update 10:48
The BBC has this here.
In short they made sure the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, did not get his application heard until the presses were rolling and by the time the hearing was underway in fact the delivery trucks had left and were on their way. The Judge decided that it would not be proportionate to bring them back, so refused the injunction!
Fantastic!
Also Trumpeter Lanfried left this comment on the previous article:
The latest line is, Ruthie wrote but did not send the e-mail. That little twist in the story could surely only have come from Downing Street. But no, we are told they don't do leaks. Hmmm. As my young daughter used to say, "Chin rub, chin rub."It is getting murkier and murkier!
Update 10:48
The BBC has this here.
Cash for Peerages, Turner accuses Levy
Well, it has all blown up again! I though the injunction might hold for a couple of days like maybe till tomorrow when I was not on a jolly in London, but oh no, The Guardian and BBC now seem to be reporting much more detail.
Reading between the lines of the Guardian report here, and the BBC report here, it looks like there was an email from Ruth Turner to Jonathan Powell which has made the Guardian suggest that Lord Levy tried to get Ruth to present a certain set of evidence to the police which she might not have done otherwise, allegedly.
So there we have it. There may, or (after all the Attorney General, who has granted a limited lifting of the injunction, has refused to confirm that the injunction was about anything at all) may not have been an email (or possibly it was a memo or not as the case may be) from Ruth to Jonathan with Lord Levy's sticky fingers on it.
You can see why the Met are looking at conspiracy to pervert the course of justice now can't you?
The question is what can be proved in court, and surely the Met have already had words with Lord Levy about this. Lord Levy of course denies any wrong doing, and unless he is charged one should be careful not to besmirch his name (if indeed that is still possible).
I was having a conversation with a media lawyer earlier, and we both agreed that if charges had not been laid then the Attorney General should not have got his injunction, unless it was under a common law ruling from 1983, which could grant an injunction if charges were imminent.
All I can say is that I hope passport control is up to speed on flights to Tel Aviv.
Hat tip to an Anonymous comment for the Guardian link.
Reading between the lines of the Guardian report here, and the BBC report here, it looks like there was an email from Ruth Turner to Jonathan Powell which has made the Guardian suggest that Lord Levy tried to get Ruth to present a certain set of evidence to the police which she might not have done otherwise, allegedly.
So there we have it. There may, or (after all the Attorney General, who has granted a limited lifting of the injunction, has refused to confirm that the injunction was about anything at all) may not have been an email (or possibly it was a memo or not as the case may be) from Ruth to Jonathan with Lord Levy's sticky fingers on it.
You can see why the Met are looking at conspiracy to pervert the course of justice now can't you?
The question is what can be proved in court, and surely the Met have already had words with Lord Levy about this. Lord Levy of course denies any wrong doing, and unless he is charged one should be careful not to besmirch his name (if indeed that is still possible).
I was having a conversation with a media lawyer earlier, and we both agreed that if charges had not been laid then the Attorney General should not have got his injunction, unless it was under a common law ruling from 1983, which could grant an injunction if charges were imminent.
All I can say is that I hope passport control is up to speed on flights to Tel Aviv.
Hat tip to an Anonymous comment for the Guardian link.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Cash for Peerages, yet another gagging order!
ITN reports that the Attorney General has sought, and presumably obtained a gagging order against the Sun, preventing it publishing details of an email between senior aides at Number 10, possibly the same email that the BBC had, possibly a different one. Who knows!
The Times also carries a similar story here.
It seems gagging writs will be flying about like confetti. Combine that with speculation that Downing Street is leaking to spoil the inquiry and things are looking serious indeed.
I expect more arrests this week. I also expect charges this week as well! If they charge the right people, then they will get them to sing.
Hat tips to Songthrush and Yokel on politicalbetting.com for the links.
The Times also carries a similar story here.
It seems gagging writs will be flying about like confetti. Combine that with speculation that Downing Street is leaking to spoil the inquiry and things are looking serious indeed.
I expect more arrests this week. I also expect charges this week as well! If they charge the right people, then they will get them to sing.
Hat tips to Songthrush and Yokel on politicalbetting.com for the links.
Lib Dem Suicide note in the press!
I posted this on this subject here, and discussed how bad it would be for the Liberal Democrats to look like they would prop up Labour.
It does not matter, unfortunately, what was said or what was meant, but what the perception is. The Liberal Democrats do have form for cosying up to Labour particularly under Paddy Ashdown.
Well, Monday's press won't help to downplay the impression!
The Guardian has this, making it clear there will be no deal with the Conservatives, but could well be with Gordon Brown's Labour.
Monday's Daily Telegraph has this, saying Ming Campbell is ready to make a deal with Labour after the election.
The Times has this, which also makes it clear they are talking about a post election situation.
Whilst ITN bills it as Campbell hints at Labour Coalition.
It is perceptions that matter, and the perception that the Liberal Democrats will prop up Labour will cost them votes, and in spades.
Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the links.
It does not matter, unfortunately, what was said or what was meant, but what the perception is. The Liberal Democrats do have form for cosying up to Labour particularly under Paddy Ashdown.
Well, Monday's press won't help to downplay the impression!
The Guardian has this, making it clear there will be no deal with the Conservatives, but could well be with Gordon Brown's Labour.
Monday's Daily Telegraph has this, saying Ming Campbell is ready to make a deal with Labour after the election.
The Times has this, which also makes it clear they are talking about a post election situation.
Whilst ITN bills it as Campbell hints at Labour Coalition.
It is perceptions that matter, and the perception that the Liberal Democrats will prop up Labour will cost them votes, and in spades.
Hat tip to Witan on politicalbetting.com for the links.
End Postal Votes on demand now! End vote fraud!
Sometimes I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with almost every word spoken by George Galloway MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. However on this issue I agree. In fact I agreed with almost every word he said.
I read this article on Respects website, and watched the youtube video of his speech to parliament on the issue of fraudulently gained postal votes. He cited much shenanigans in Tower Hamlets. Here are some choice quotes:
There are two problems here. The first is vote fraud, as highlighted up and down the land, then there is the lack of enforced secrecy of the ballot. It is a huge mistake.
I read this article on Respects website, and watched the youtube video of his speech to parliament on the issue of fraudulently gained postal votes. He cited much shenanigans in Tower Hamlets. Here are some choice quotes:
"Listening to the Minister tonight, one would not think that in addition to welcoming Polish plumbers, builders, bus drivers and vegetable pickers, we should now be forced to welcome a Polish parliamentarian to investigate large-scale voting fraud here, in the mother of all Parliaments."Shocking isn't it, that our elections should be investigated for fraud by a country that was 18 years ago in the grip of tyranny?
When, hard on the heels of the Second Reform Act of 1867, Gladstone introduced the Ballot Act 1872 to enshrine that right in law, that was a vital step forward for democracy in Britain, but it is being recklessly tossed aside. The claimed justification for the changes to the postal voting system is that they will increase voter participation. Of that there is not one jot of evidence, but there is plenty of evidence of how wide open to corruption they have made the political system.Good turn of words. However one thing George did not hammer home in his speech is the nature of the secret ballot. Let us say for example that you live with a candidate for an election. You could tell them you are going to vote for them, right up until the point you go into the polling booth, and make your mark, vote for someone else, and then having cast your vote come and and say you voted for them. When you have a postal vote that becomes much harder. Peer or indeed parental pressure can get you to change your vote. It is wrong, and it is not secret. However George goes on to list many examples of potential fraud in his own seat at the council elections, and others. Here are some other quotes.
"Trade unions affiliated to new Labour sent out postal vote application forms by the hundreds of thousands to their members and others, and asked them to return the forms not to the town hall charged with managing the election, but to their trade union headquarters, to a post office box hundreds of miles away from the person filling in the form. There was no good reason for that, but there are plenty of bad reasons on which one could speculate. It is but a short step from that manipulation of the electoral process,which is none the less legal, to the fraudulent application for postal votes by people other than the voters themselves, with the instruction that the vote should be sent to an address other than the registered address of the voter.However what ought to concern everyone involved in politics the most is this:
In Tower Hamlets last May, we witnessed the most corrupt election held in Britain since 1872. Hundreds of votes were purloined by crooks applying for postal votes and getting them redirected to an address sometimes just doors away from the registered address of the voter. Whole blocks of flats woke up to discover that every one of their residents had applied for a postal vote to be redirected to another address without their knowledge. Some 2,800 postal vote applications were delivered to the town hall in Tower Hamlets in the last hours of the last day, and many were brought in by sitting councillors. A total of 18,732 postal votes were registered in Tower Hamlets: a vast increase on the vast increase that had occurred at the general election the year before. Almost 15 per cent. of those were delivered on the last afternoon. A total of 946 postal votes were redirected to addresses that were not the registered address of the voter, with considerably more as a percentage in the wards where new Labour councillors were under pressure."
"Like the Minister, I am a former Labour party official. I have been fighting elections for almost40 years, almost always on the winning side. I know about elections. Now, for the first time in my political life, people ask me, "How do we know that they are counting these votes fairly? How do we know they are not rigging the election?" I am not saying that that is happening, but there is a systematic undermining of confidence in the electoral process, caused largely by postal vote fraud."You can read the full text of the speech here, and indeed watch the video.
There are two problems here. The first is vote fraud, as highlighted up and down the land, then there is the lack of enforced secrecy of the ballot. It is a huge mistake.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
A Massive hat Tip to Julian!
If any one was wondering where I got that injunction story from, well, at the time he wanted to stay anonymous, now he is happy to be outed!
For the full story of how that story broke, from Julian's point of view, see here.
From mine, well, I had been out at a Conservative party branch meeting, but left before the full socialising had got under way to find some emails in by mail box. After a bit of consideration I blogged this, and the rest as they say is history!
Update 20:14
I forgot to add that if you have something you think needs breaking, or getting a wider audience, email me using the link on the right, or click here.
If you want a hat tip let me know.
For the full story of how that story broke, from Julian's point of view, see here.
From mine, well, I had been out at a Conservative party branch meeting, but left before the full socialising had got under way to find some emails in by mail box. After a bit of consideration I blogged this, and the rest as they say is history!
Update 20:14
I forgot to add that if you have something you think needs breaking, or getting a wider audience, email me using the link on the right, or click here.
If you want a hat tip let me know.
Lib Dems Announce Suicide!
I know there are some in the Liberal Democrats who are in favor of euthanasia, but I though that was only in the case of terminal illness, yet it seems that there are clear signals that if there is a hung parliament after the next general election, then the Liberal Democrats could well form a coalition with Labour.
The BBC has this here.
It seems that Menzies Campbell wants to bash David Cameron and the Conservative party, whilst making overtures to Gordon Brown.
There is a problem with this. Whilst I can see it as an attractive way of squeezing Labour votes in Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginals, it assumes, wrongly that all people who vote Liberal Democrat are Liberal Democrats, who will hang around whilst Ming reaches out to Gordon. They won't. Any party's voters are a broad coalition, normally more centrist can conservative with a small c than the party they are voting for.
Much Liberal Democrat support comes from disaffected Conservative voters put off by the perceived harshness of the Thatcher years, and squabbling of the major years. Cameron is attracting those back, slowly at first. If there is any danger of a Lib Lab pact, then I expect them to come back in their droves.
What is more there is the question that will be in voters minds, why vote Liberal Democrat if you are going to get a Labour government? Why not vote Labour instead?
lastly why would anyone want to get into bed with a corpse of a government? As I said in this post, Labour clearly has the stench of death about it.
The policy of keeping very quiet on the coalition question. Breaking that silence was a mistake.
It should be noted however that some senior Liberal Democrats are looking to down play the story and the BBC has edited it's story from the original. Maybe it's senior source went off message. However if the daily newspapers pick it up next week, and some will, then the damage will have been done. Next May's locals will be interesting indeed!
There is also more comment on politicalbetting.com here.
The BBC has this here.
It seems that Menzies Campbell wants to bash David Cameron and the Conservative party, whilst making overtures to Gordon Brown.
There is a problem with this. Whilst I can see it as an attractive way of squeezing Labour votes in Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginals, it assumes, wrongly that all people who vote Liberal Democrat are Liberal Democrats, who will hang around whilst Ming reaches out to Gordon. They won't. Any party's voters are a broad coalition, normally more centrist can conservative with a small c than the party they are voting for.
Much Liberal Democrat support comes from disaffected Conservative voters put off by the perceived harshness of the Thatcher years, and squabbling of the major years. Cameron is attracting those back, slowly at first. If there is any danger of a Lib Lab pact, then I expect them to come back in their droves.
What is more there is the question that will be in voters minds, why vote Liberal Democrat if you are going to get a Labour government? Why not vote Labour instead?
lastly why would anyone want to get into bed with a corpse of a government? As I said in this post, Labour clearly has the stench of death about it.
The policy of keeping very quiet on the coalition question. Breaking that silence was a mistake.
It should be noted however that some senior Liberal Democrats are looking to down play the story and the BBC has edited it's story from the original. Maybe it's senior source went off message. However if the daily newspapers pick it up next week, and some will, then the damage will have been done. Next May's locals will be interesting indeed!
There is also more comment on politicalbetting.com here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
