I don’t know about you, but when I heard that Bungle allegedly didn’t offer to resign, my first thought was that this was the first sign of Tony’s spin machine briefing against his colleagues again. He really can’t seem to make his mind up. First Bungle has his full support. then he leaves the Commons chamber as Bungle gets up to deliver his grovelling not-quite-apology. Then over the weekend he had to wait and see.

This is on top of the interesting re-defintion of ‘Ministerial responsibility’ – the more you screw things up, the greater your responsibility to stay on and clear up the mess.

Still, now the spin cycle has begun, I think we can safely assume that Bungle will soon be hung out to dry.

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Edward R. Murrow

I was much taken with notion of the Home Office Bungle. It did make me wonder about the rest of the cast of clowns. George would perhaps be Geoff Hoon (Lord Privy Seal? Sounds like a posh lavatory attendant – probably about the right mark for Buff, then).

Hmmm, works for me. Now what about Zippy? Tessa Jowell perhaps?

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

I realise that all countries have their share of nosey parkers and busybodies all too eager to keep an eye on and interfere in the lives of their neighbours, and that indeed there is a long and ignoble history of folk like this in the UK. But it has always been looked on by the vast majority of people with a mixture of disgust and contempt – a despicable habit, and the words used to describe it heavy with disappobation.

One of the most unpleasant aspects of the New Britain is the constant encouragement of this behaviour – the government, both at local and national level, is eager that we should all turn the unpaid informer, spy upon our fellow citizens and report to the authorities any suspicion of officially-forbidden behaviour. Not only that, but instead of feeling ashamed of our nosey-parkerish actions, we should instead feel a glow of pride in the accomplishment of our civic duty. After all the ultimate aim of any authoritarian state is to have the population police themselves – to atomize society, creating a non-community of mutually-suspicious individuals: don’t use that hose-pipe, you don’t know who may be watching. It’s nasty, it’s mean, it’s petty and it’s making Britain a more unpleasant place in which to live.

So what brought this on today? Following on from the Scottish smoking ban, we’ve just been sent a load of (temporary) signs to put up in all our premises. Not just ‘No Smoking’ signs, but ones which spell out that smoking (or allowing smoking) on the premises is an offence, and which have a telephone number to call to complain about anyone found smoking. So, instead of remonstrating with a smoker, people are asked to phone an informer line; instead of dealing with a situation on a personal level, it becomes a matter of state enforcement.

I could point out here that all our premises have been non-smoking areas for years anyway (decades in fact). They are museums, after all. But nothing must stand in the way of the need for the state to pry into every corner of our lives, to break down our personal relationships and reduce everything to a transaction betweeen the powerless individual and the all-powerful state…

Sorry about that. I’ll calm down now. What annoys more than anything about this sort of thing is the complete absence of any necessity for it. It’s not because they must; it’s certainly not because they ought; it’s simply because they can.

NB: I may have made a little change by adding the words ‘Informer Line’. And changing the phone number. By the way, in case anyone’s wondering, I don’t smoke.

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.
John Stuart Mill

Many other have already commented on this, but once more the Dear Leader speaks out on crime and civil liberties:

“I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact, I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country.”

So how about making a start with those who are suspected (on quite strong grounds, I might add) of having engaged in the organised selling of Honours (a criminal offence). Yeah, go on Tony – do us all a favour. Harry, hassle and hound yourself till you give up or leave the country. And while you’re at it could you arrange for the police to seize all the assets of the Labour Party until they can prove that they came by them honestly. Or is this just another set of proposals that apply to everyone except you?

This guy is supposed to be a trained lawyer – do you think Cherie did all his exams for him? He certainly seems to have only the vaguest grasp of the fundamental principles of British Law. And he still doesn’t know what civil liberties are.

Meanwhile the deeply unpleasant Charles Clarke continues to find new ways to appal. I was especially intrigued that in all the discussion (and this included the journalists) everyone involved managed to avoid the word ‘innocent’ – as if the mere fact of having been put on trial were somehow evidence of some form of guilt (‘no smoke without fire’, etc.). Can someone explain to me why ’21st century crime’ (whatever that means) has to be fought with 16th century methods? And where did ‘Not proven’ spring from? I’m sure he just makes stuff up on the hoof.

I’m increasingly of the opinion that one of the prize possesions in the National Archives in the next century will be the collection of envelopes on the back of which New Labour policy was developed.

“Having escaped restraint, they were, like some people we know of, afraid of their freedom, did not know what to do with it and seemed glad to get back into the old familiar bondage.”
John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra

25th March 2005
I won’t pretend that I don’t want to seem melodramatic. But I want to echo Thomas Paine and say these are the times that try men’s souls. I am here in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a state which is itself one of the fruits of early American imperialism. Yet when I consider developments in the UK and in the USA, it is surprising how often I am brought back to the writings of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the writers who inspired them.

It is all too tempting to see the American rebels as just that – American. Yet they based the justification of their revolt on the liberties and rights they felt they possessed as Britons. And in the face of those liberties and rights being ignored or overridden, they reacted as Britons would – they rebelled against the King’s Government.

So now we find ourselves in the USA faced with laws, in the form of the Patriot Act (and what a despicable give-away name that is), that are prima facie unconstitutional, yet somehow unchallenged as the pygmies who comprise the political elite fear to appear ‘weak’; and in the UK with laws that effectively strip away all the protections of the citizen against the might of the state apparatus, and laws that aim to enhance the power of the executive to a level unknown in the whole of British history.

In a sense it is impossible to be melodramatic about this – the reality outstrips any hyperbole I might attempt. But in defence of our liberty, for ourselves and for our children, we need to affirm, in Jefferson’s (still striking) words, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; that no government can have any legitimacy which seeks to undermine, limit or curtail these rights; and that whether these acts are motivated by ignorance or malice, we will be swift to condemn and slow to forgive.

We are a free people. The state should be our servant not our master. Britons, strike home!*

*Tim sums the reasons up as ever more thoroughly and intelligently than I ever can.

Update: I am now in California and Internet-connected again. In the meantime, the House of Lords appear to have fallen for a trick that a school-child would have seen through. It’s the database, you fools. Sigh.

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone
Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi

Just exactly how greedy are New Labour ministers? And why do so many of them (and their partners / spouses / significant others / hangers-on) seem to see political office as nothing more than a means of personal enrichment?

Thanks to A Logical Voice for the link.

[Edit] Forgot to add a quote :

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance.
Woodrow Wilson

So finally they admit it (while no doubt hoping to bury it) – rendition flights did land in the UK. And the careful language that was noted in the non-denial denials (‘”We have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or overseas territory since 11 September 2001,” said Mr Straw’) proves to be just as expected. Of course you found no evidence you devious cretin – you never looked for any. And as for “we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture”, I can only say that the egregious Mr Straw (and who says names are not destiny?) and the Foreign Office seem to have a very idiosyncratic conception of what those obligations are.

Meanwhile, surely this means that ‘Buff’ Hoon has been caught lying to Parliament? It’s hard to see how else you could categorise the statement (which as far as I can see was made to MPs) that “the government had since provided the full facts and had nothing to hide”.

So when the leaked memo said there ‘could be more’ than the 2 flights in 1998 they weren’t joking. At least 73 more in fact. I suppose it isn’t suprising that people who can overlook the odd extra £14 million in the accounts (or not notice that a £400,000 mortgage has been paid off) could easily miss 73 flights taking people off to be tortured abroad. Quite understandable.

Given the way this sort of thing tends to dribble out, it does make you wonder how many more than 73 there have really been.

‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’
- George Orwell (1903 – 1950)

It seems that not telling colleagues and partners about whacking great sums of money you’ve received (whether by gift, loan or bribe) is quite the pattern in the modern (how they love that word) Labour Party*. But peerages aren’t for sale, oh dear me, no. Of course not. And I am just back from a trip to Alpha Centauri.

Oh and by the way, isn’t there a bit of a contradiction between “Mr Blair also said that he wanted to renounce the right personally to nominate people for honours” and “Mr Blair would also retain the right to nominate a small number of peers“. Errrm, call me an old-fashioned logician, but I don’t see how you square that circle. Has he really reached the stage when he can’t even tell when he’s lying in public?

*It does make one wonder about Jack Dromey’s qualifications as party treasurer if he didn’t notice an extra £14 million in the accounts.

The king has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their substance.
U.S. Declaration of Independence

The Peter Hitchens programme on Channel 4 last night was interesting – it’s good to see this issues get some mainstream(-ish) airing – but not really anything new. It was instructive, for example, to see the the country’s chief law officer, the Lord Chancellor Charlie “any pal of Tony’s can get to be a minister” Falconer, is as ignorant of what is meant by civil liberties as his boss – or cares as little for them. His suggestion that restrictions on liberty were justified if they were at some point to bring to light evidence of a possible terrorist crime was frankly mind-boggling in its inanity. Is that honestly the best argument he’s got? Here’s a hint Charlie: destroying the centuries of legal tradition that lie at the root of our way of life on the basis of a hypothetical is at the very least pretty stupid. For a trained lawyer to do so amounts to professional incompetence on an epic scale. I thought the law was about evidence – pious hope is supposed to be the province of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps he’s in the wrong job.

The case studies that Hitchens used were disturbing:

• the train spotter harassed and searched in public (on a station platform) by transport police;
• the Christian couple reported by a council minion and then threatened with prosecution for ‘hate crime’ for their – admittedly unfashionable – beliefs;
• the student whose fingerprints were linked to a theft from a post box – because he had written and posted the letters which were part of the evidence – all because his prints were held on file even though he had never been charged with or convicted of any offence;
• the schoolboy arrested, DNA-swabbed, then released – all because he was a witness to a crime – and his DNA, of course, remains on file;
• the Labour peer (and former senior policeman) threatened by the North Wales police;
• and of course the woman convicted for reading a list of names by the Cenotaph.

These are merely the tip of the iceberg, and there is a case to be made that this sort of thing represents a serious and worrying change in the role of the police, from being the servant of the public charged with preventing and detecting crime, to agents of the state with a role in policing what people say and think. There is also a clear indication that there are many, both in public authorities and in the various police forces (the real plods and the pseudo-plods) who just like throwing their weight around. This, in itself is nothing new. What is new is the extent of the opportunities for such abuse, and the support which it receives from government; that we seem to have a government which is more and more concerned with overseeing and controlling citizens’ speech and thought, while leaving the victims of crime increasingly unprotected; and obsessed with monitoring and recording every movement, every transaction, of every one of us. In effect, that the role of the police is gradually becoming less and less one of protecting the citizens against criminals, and more and more about protecting the state. That should worry everybody.

Give me liberty to know, to think, to believe, and utter freely, according to conscience, above all other liberties.
John Milton

On further reflection, I am moved to wonder whether certain Labour bloggers (many of the denizens of Harry’s Place spring immediately to mind, amongst others) would have been as outspoken in their support of the mayor of London, if said mayor had happened to be a Tory?

Whatever, I still think it’s outrageous that a board explicitly set up to investigate corruption actually ends up doing stuff like this. Ourageous, but somehow unsurprising.

But the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts.
Edmund Burke, Letter to Sheriffs (II 249)