HMRC loses data

I note with interest that our servants, the Government, have shambolically lost private data relating to around 25 million people. These same people seem to think we buy their statement that the same would not be true of the data held for their ID card systems. Why should we believe that this bunch of incompetents would be able to hold anything private. It is for this very reason that I refuse to provide HMRC with my bank account details 'so that they can process refunds more expeditiously'. I assume they mean they would contrive to lose this detail as rapidly as possible so that the criminal elements around could make proper use of it.

What amuses me greatly is that the Chump of the Exchequer stands there and says, the data is lost but it is not likely to be in criminal hands. I only have one question for him: If this data is lost, then how can Mr Darling be certain where it isn't?

We all know the answer to that, so there is no prize for telling me he can't. Still it is one way to solve the debt problems of the Third World isn't it?

Jury Service

I had a call to do jury service a few weeks ago. Never having done it before I looked forward to particpating in the checks and balances which should make our legal system work well and in times past certainly gave it an international reputation for fairness which was second to none.

To be fair, I only sat on one case as a juror so this may not be representative, but the Crown's case seemed to me to be so shambolic as to be laughable. Police evidence was so inconsistent that you had to wonder what the problem was. Fingerprint evidence was not undertaken because it would have been 'too expensive'. On a split decision the defendant was found guilty and it seemed to me this was not based on the evidence but more on the supposition that he looked like a 'toe-rag' and was therefore probably guilty. A view I shared, but I was one of the dissidents who voted 'not guilty' purely because I felt the Crown had not proved its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

Was this a miscarriage of justice? Given the miscreant's history of convictions provided after the verdict makes it seem unlikely, but I can assure you I was not impressed at all. The evidence that was produced was so sketchy that I think you had to find the defendant not guilty because the burden of proof was not there. Any one of us might well have been found guilty by that jury on the evidence provided and my view is that in most cases that would be a miscarriage of justice.

Should we change the system? No. But we should expect the police and the Crown to make an effort to meet the requirements of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

That European Constitution, I mean Treaty

I saw in a newspaper report that President Sarkozy of France has said that we cannot have referendums for the new treaty in the various countries in Europe as the vote will be a 'no'. I had to read it twice to confirm that was what he said. So, we now have a politician saying we cannot give the public a democratic vote on this issue because they will say no and we wish to defy the will of our employers. If he was the CEO of a company this would be asking for a sacking. In this case I suggest the situation is even worse. This sounds like treason to me. If a politician can say he denying the will of the voters then he must surely be guilty of treason? No doubt Brown will be slightly smarter, he won't say why we won't have a referendum here, we just won't have one.

The Europe Debate

I have to confess that the current question about a referendum on the new European Treaty leaves me incandescent with rage. I shall ignore the fact that Labour's Election manifesto promised us a referendum, because I think there is a deeper issue here. When Ted heath took us into Europe in the 70s, it was to join the 'common market'. A place where trade was free and the movement of goods was not restricted. Quite clearly this has never been the case as Customs will stop and seize booze and fags above a certain quantity because it cannot be for 'own use'. Since when did the free movement of goods and free trade imply that it had to be for own use. Surely the backbone of capitalism is obtaining goods or services at the cheapest possible price and making a healthy profit on the market when these are resold.

Now, if we cannot even do what was originally implied by the name why should we accept fedarlism in the form of the latest treaty. I don't believe we gain anything economically from being in the European Union as it is now called that we could not get from outside. Do we really believe that what trade we currently have with our closest neighbours would cease if we left the union? I don't think so.

Give us our referendum now Mr. Brown. We want out!

Who says we can learn nothing from History?

Those who think there is nothing we can learn from history have a lot to think about. We have recently passed from the reign of King Canute who believed he could hold back the tides to the reign of Ethlread the Unready. Canute believed that no matter what nature ruled he could overrule it. so he sat on the beach and ordered the waves to recede. if only he had picked a moment when the tide was actually ebbing. Sound a bit like Phony Tony who thought he was always right even when most of us knew he was wrong? Always happy to take a decision even if he was wrong more often than he was right. Now we get Ethelread the Unready who might call an election, but might not call an election. Apparently not because he thought he might lose, but because he wants to show us how he might govern before we vote on him. Seems a bit of spin to me. If he thought he would win he would have the election to give himself the 5 years to put his vision to us. If he thinks he might not win then he thinks we might reject his vision. So no matter how he spins it, he backed off because he was unready.

Hard to tell which of the two is more preferable. The one who thinks he is always right or the one who thinks we think he is always wrong. Clearly Brown has some more tax ideas he would like to try to squeeze yet more of our hard earned cash from us and he is scared we might be wising up to his grab for our money. Canute thought he was right about everything and Ethelread thinks he knows best how to spend our money. Doesn't know much about anything else mind you. I wonder who will be next to remind us of our historic past?

War Is Murder

There was an article on the BBC News website conserning the death of a soldier in Afghanistan. A coroner in the UK had just found that his death was due to unlawful cause, in other words murder. That finding is nothing short of ludicrous. You invade a foreign country with your army and they fight back and you call any deaths that result on your side murder? No, it is war. Just possibly it is unlawful because you should not have invaded in the first place, in which case the culpable parties are the politicians who sent the troops there.

I sympathise with the troops sent to do this job and the families of the soldiers who have been killed as I would in any circumstances where troops have died doing their duty.

In this instance however, as with deaths of troops in Iraq you have to look at the politicians who have sent our troops off on these missions. If the deaths are indeed unlawful then the politcians (our politicians) are the ones who should be standing in the dock. Their failures are many, including the lack of proper materials provided to the troops and including the responsibilities for their deaths and injuries.

It is time we had an enquiry into our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. And not a whitewashing one like the previous ones set up by Phony Blair (or as I understand we should be addressing him, Miranda, or indeed Emily).

Bank Weakness

It has been a while since I last wrote. My ire has not really risen anough to rant on much, but the latest fumblings between the Treasury and the Bank of England have justcaused my dander to be well and truly up.

First they said they wouldn't help any banks, then they turned around and said they would. Then they bailed out Northern Rock and said 'any other bank would get similar assistance', then today they announce that any new deposits at Northern Rock would not get the unlimited guarantee, if made after midnight last night, because this would give unfair benefit to Northern Rock's competitors. However since they have already said they would give the same support to the competitors it means that in order to protect your depositors to the maximum you need to wait until the receivers are at the door befor e approaching the Bank for assistance, then you get it and after a week or so any new depositors would not be covered. SO, in effect ALL of Northern Rock's competitors now have an unfair advantage over northern Rock as they are not yet being bailed out and so can follow the argument above.

Who was it who said when the Tories get caught doing something stupid it usually has to do with sex and when Labour gets caught doing something stupid, it is usually to do with money?

It would be nice if between all of these people at the Treasury we could assemble enough material to form a single brain. Then if they could properly inform the Governor of the Bank of England of his role, then they might not all look the laughingstock they do this morning!

Detention Without Trial

Having lived through the dark days of the Apartheid regime in South Africa it saddens me to see Gordon taking Britain down this path. I am appalled that one of the chief proponents appears to be one Peter Hain, who must recall the South African experience with as much sadness as I do. Back in the 60's South Africa applied much the same rule of law and burden of proof that we until recently applied here in the UK. Then they went to 7 days detention without trial. After a while that was moved to 14 days and then after another period of time this went to 28 days and then to 90 days and 180 days. The 90 day and 180 periods arrived simultaneously as I recall with the 180 days limit applied in more 'serious' cases. Of couyrse the final step was obvious, Indefinite Detention Without Trial. The problem with all of this is not that it allows the police more time to prove their case, it is more that they don't have to prove their case as you extend the period to an indefinite one and just keep people locked up on the basis that it is believed they may be a threat to state security. You then end up with what the US has in Guantanamo.

A system that served Britain well for something like a thousand years is deemed to be more difficult to apply today because we need time to get the proof required is the argument used to advocate the need for extra time. I would argue that a thousand years ago when communications relied on men on horseback, it took more time to gather proof of wrongdoing than it should in today's world where we have electronic communication. let us not allow this descent into laziness merely because some politician feels we need to fight a threat. The principle of habeas corpus should not given up or discarded lightly and I fear our politicians are doing just that. Let us persuade them not to.

Gordon's Stalinist tendencies

Gordon has started to list all the changes he wants to make to give power back to the people and to re-awaken their interest in politics. I notice however that I am not the only sceptic around. The Sunday times yesterday referred to how the actions belie the words behoind his statements. He is actually giving very little back and much of what he states he wants to give back was never really the prerogative of the Prime Minister anyway. It would seem that the old accusations of Brown being more Stalinist than Stalin have some strong foundations. I suspect we will rapidly learn that this PM will take on more power than his predecessor. Bring on the next election soon because we need to be able to set the mandate for these power mad fools.

Bring the Troops home now!

With the weekend's news of attempted bombs in Glasgow and London is it not time for our new Prime Minister to do something positive about our exposure to War? He could bring our troops home now to avoid anymore of our troops being killed. We should not be trying to dictate to other people how they should live their lives, just as they should not be trying to dictate how we live ours. If they want Shia law in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is their prerogative. it is their homes after all. I don't want that for Britain and I also don't want our people killed fighting to impose some system that is not wanted elsewhere. it seems arrogant of us to assume that our way is best for everybody.

Trust Gordon Brown?

I see Gordon has as one of his main objectives the rebuilding of trust in politicians. I can assure him he does not need to bother. I already trust him to increase the tax burden. I trust him to continue the attack on civil liberties. I trust him to continue increasing the amount of control the state has on our lives. I trust him to continue building bureaucracy. That is more than enough trust in any human being, never mind in a politician!

The King is dead! Long live the King!

Tony Blair has departed from the government, but not before committing Britain to the revamped constitutional treaty for Europe. I haven't quite made up my mind whether he did this in the belief that it was right to or because he was lashing out at the public because he knows that by and large we despise him for his aquiesence to the invasion of Iraq and for involving our troops in this effort. What happened to the Referendum we were promised for such a treaty Tony?

Then we hear that Tony is to be the special envoy to the Middle East for the 'Quartet'. It strikes me that putting Tony in charge of peace initiatives for the Middle East is rather like recommending sexual intercourse as a way to promote virginity. Don't expect our boys home from the Crusades anytime soon then!.

As one leader departs into the setting sun we get saddled with his anointed successor, Gordon. Would that Brown shared some of the attributes of the man who shared his name, James Brown. What are we in for with Gordon? If anything he is worse in his assumption that he knows best for us what to do and therefore he will take all decision making to himself. It will not be long before he will be asking for more taxes becauses he believes he knows best how to spend our money. He will decide what we should do about education, health and all the rest and because James, sorry, Gordon, knows best we will just have to accept his wisdom.

The worst thing is that there is no real alternative to him either. Cameron is no better and Ming hasn't actually so much as lost the plot as never really had it in the first place.

They say you get the leaders you deserve. What have we done to deserve this lot?

Who would be a Christian?

I don't know whether I have been more amused or exasperated at the latest clashes within the Anglican Church. I start from the fact that I am an atheist and I just cannot believe what I see or hear. It seems that the church is going to split because of the issue of gay bishops and some member of the church finding this unacceptable. Presumably the same bunch of people who were anti the ordinatioon of women priests and who resist the appointment of women bishops. I just can't believe that a bunch of people who claim to be Christians can be so frankly unchristian about this. People are not made less able to be believers or faithful because they are gay, or indeed because they are women. In today's world I would be castigated (rightly so) for suggesting that because people belonged to other ethnic groups they were not entitled to be priests or bishops in the Anglican community. How then can it be Christian to exclude people because they are gay or women? Isn't it the Christians themselves who say that we are all God's children? Why then are some of us less deserving of hierarchical positions within the church? All I can say is, it is yet another reason for me to be glad to be an Atheist!