And how would you do that?

There are times when I think that power or the thought of power goes to some peoples heads. Either that or they think they have a good idea and want to try and force someone else to comply with it, even when that someone else isn't under their power or jurisdiction.
BBC.

A UK industry regulator has called for the law to be changed to require pornography sites to carry out age checks before granting access.
Video-on-demand watchdog Atvod said the government must act to protect children from seeing graphic adult material.
It said credit and debit card operators would be forbidden from processing payments from British customers to sites that did not comply.
But one campaigner said the action would be a "worthless gesture".

OK, first things first, credit and debit card operators may not know (or care) if the site is a porn one, the porn industry were the ones who drove the initial payment online security issues in the first place and would appear to be past masters in the plain brown package approach of using innocuous names on a bill to avoid raised eyebrows from potentially offended partners.
Second, who the hell are these people who think that they have the right to tell other who or what we can spend our money on if it isn't a crime in the first place?
Thirdly, you don't need a credit card to access porn, the internet is bloody inundated with sites that are free and do not require a credit card.
Again and again it all for the children whilst forgetting that the biggest tool to keeping kids away from images that parents don't want seen are actually the parents themselves who can if they wish set up censoring and filtering on their own access points to prevent kids from seeing stuff.
This is simply a pointless gesture by someone who wants a few headlines on the forthcoming paedogeddon if we don't do as they say (and pretty much not as they do)

The 'should' word

You can spot an authoritatian by the language they use, they'll move from could, would or should directly to 'must' and drop in all sorts of reasons as to the where's and why's of it from 'for the sake of the children' to the ever perennial 'it's bad for you' something that's rolled out for everything from alcohol, salt, water, sugar, fatty foods etc.
Telegraph.

Sugar consumption should be halved to help reduce health problems such as obesity and tooth decay, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned.
The WHO set out draft guidance advising a dramatic reduction in sugar intake amid growing evidence that it contributes to chronic diseases.
The move follows calls by some leading scientists and campaigners for the current recommended daily limits on sugar intake to be halved to 5 per cent of an individual’s overall calorie consumption – the equivalent of six “level” teaspoons a day for the average adult.

It's almost like they use a template to make a move on any product they disapprove of or feel that people enjoy a little too much. Thing is your body needs sugar for quick release energy, granted there are problems with over-indulgence, but those ought to be dealt with by the person over-indulging once they realise they have a problem. It's the same principle with alcoholism, the alcoholic has to realise they have a problem and want to do something about it.
In the case of kids, it's the job of the parents to deal with healthy diet, that some parents don't is either down to laziness or economics, it's often far cheaper to buy the unhealthy processed food than something healthy due to the fact that processed foods require various items in them to prolong shelf life which means a lot of companies will look to their profits and not sell anything that won't spend a decent amount of time on the shelf.
Trying to force someone to comply is a regular trick of the state, education is the key here. Raising the price and hectoring people simply gets their backs up, expert warnings when read properly often aren't, they're simply the desire of the authoritarian to control people.
Until people are educated and want to do something about their diet, nothing will happen.

His masters voice...

Another day another U turn by the government. First it was plain packaging for cigarettes, now it's minimum alcohol pricing (Though only in England and Wales as the Scots have their own puritans to put up with) I'm sure there will be a lot of talk about why the measure was dropped, but the real reason is that Cameron's masters said no.
BBC.

The government has shelved plans to introduce a minimum price for a unit of alcohol in England and Wales.
Minister Jeremy Browne said the policy would remain "under consideration" but there were fears the change would hit responsible drinkers.
A ban on multi-buy promotions has been rejected but sales will not be allowed below the cost of alcohol duty and VAT.
Labour said the government had done a U-turn on a flagship policy that both the PM and home secretary had backed.
Mr Browne said problem drinking turned towns and cities into effective "no-go areas" for many people, was seen as instrumental in many violent attacks and cost the taxpayer £21bn a year in crime and health issues.

Usual bollocks by Labour, the real reason most people drink and get into bother is the fact that politicians have made us so bloody miserable. There are laws to deal with drunks and drunken behaviour, might make a change to actually apply them rather than dance around the edges.
Anyhoo... The real reason Cameron dropped the measure is that what was proposed was against EU laws and we all know despite what he says, Cameron is in love with the stinking corrupt edifice. So having been unable to find a way around EU law, he was forced to drop the measure. Not that I'd expect you to read that in the MSM but as far as I can tell that's the real reason.
That the measure was manifestly unfair to responsible drinkers made not one jot of difference to the control freaks who infest parliament and if you read the full article you can read the dribble they come out with though it is nausea inducing.
Interfering with freedom of choice is always a risky business for any organisation, unfortunately, politicians cannot seem to learn this lesson and find more and more ways to interfere.
Then they wonder why they lose power...

I`ll sthrceam and sthrceam till I`m thsick and I can too!

As intoned Violet Elizabeth Bott in the Just William novels when she couldn't get her own way. As do the so called health campaigners (aka killjoys) who believe that the UK government should ignore EU rules and voter preference on minimum alcohol pricing.
BBC.

Health campaigners have reacted angrily to reports that plans for minimum pricing of alcohol in England and Wales may be dropped.
Splits within the Conservatives have also emerged, with ministers who are said to no longer back the plans accused of "political manoeuvring".
The government had planned to introduce a 45p charge per unit, but this is said to be facing strong cabinet opposition.
The Home Office said it was considering responses to its 10-week consultation.

Political reality getting in the way of those who believe we should do as we are told and shut up in the process of being reamed.

Labour said dropping the plans would be a "humiliating climbdown" and accused the government of "weak leadership".

Because Labour have never met a repressive intrusive measure they didn't like.
If it is dropped it's good news for the majority of us who do drink responsibly and don't cause problems. It's also a poke in the eye for the authoritarian bansturbationists who believe that what they believe is good for us needs to be enforced by law and cost. These generally are the people who can easily afford to pay the extra, rather than those who can't but enjoy an occasional drink anyway to take their minds off what the health campaigners are up too now.
Most of us just want to be left alone, we don't like being badgered and hectored by people who don't live as we do and don't have to put up with the shit we have too. We don't like the government interfering in our lives and if pushed too far will vote them out for anyone who will reverse the change. We are also very aware that the government funds a lot of these so called  health campaigners from public funds to tell the government what they want to hear so they can tax us on it. Same process goes on with the environmental lobby too.
They keep pushing and pushing then wonder why people become divorced from the political process, sooner or later they'll keep pushing and we'll push back, though I don't think we've reached that stage yet. I don't think it will be drink either, more likely immigration.
Politicians would be much more popular if they learned the art of doing nothing and leaving us the hell alone.

Ah the inevitable must...

I don't think the boy Clegg has quite grasped this democracy thingy yet in that politicians are supposed to represent the views of their constituents (I know I know in an ideal world etc) But it does seem the lure of his pension overwhelms his responsibilities in a clear case of getting them wrong. Not that Lib Dems have such a great recent track record with democracy, I suspect it comes from taking in all those deluded socialists from the SDP demise.
Telegraph.

Nick Clegg has warned David Cameron that Britain must not back out of Europe and dismissed plans for a referendum on the country’s membership of the EU as “putting the cart before the horse”.
The Deputy Prime Minister made the intervention as his Coalition partner, under pressure from members of his own party, prepares to set out a new approach to the issue in a speech in the New Year.
The Prime Minister is widely expected to demand a repatriation of powers from Brussels as the price of agreeing financial reform of the eurozone, with the promise of a referendum in the 2015 Tory general election manifesto.
Mr Cameron has already promised Conservative MPs that the party will fight the election on a “clear Eurosceptic position”.
Meanwhile a poll today shows that most Britons now want to leave Europe, with 51% saying they would vote for an exit – in a marked hardening of eurosceptic attitudes.
But Mr Clegg argues in a newspaper interview today against offering a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU and says that Britain should instead be exercising its leadership role in Europe.

It's the usual tired old lies about Britain's leadership in the EU as Britain does not nor never will lead the EU short of conquering it. They tell us what to do and the people of Britain know this and whilst previously were prepared to put up with it or ignore it, attitudes are hardening and there is a small but definite trend towards getting out and sticking two fingers up to the corrupt bastards in charge there. Not that the EU can be trusted in any referendum (same as Cameron really) but it does look like most politicians at least are starting to read the writing on the (UKIP) wall and harden their attitudes at least towards the EU, even if they still think we should remain in (most of them do I suspect). However in Cleggy boys denial of democracy should such a referendum be held and return a massive slap in the face of the EU in a in/out referendum in insisting that we musn't back out regardless of what the people want, then we see the true colours of an EUphile revealed. The one that trots out the old hackneyed arguments about it being a disaster and we'd be on our own (despite being unable to prove it) whilst ignoring the success of such countries as Norway or Switzerland who have trade ties but no political ties and so can stick two fingers up to the meddlers if they interfere in national interests.
The UK can be a good trading partner with the EU without being part of the EU and that's what the EUphiles truly fear that in going alone we'd prove that the whole corrupt edifice is not necessary at all.

 

This is no victory

The Mail seems to believe that it's campaign to get the government to censor the internet for parents rather than parents doing it for themselves is a good thing. You'd think that by now people would have realised that giving any government control of something usually leads to unforeseen circumstances such as the government using the legislation in ways that no one ever anticipated.
Mail.

Children will be protected by a block on online pornography which parents will have to choose to have lifted, David Cameron vows today.
After weeks of confusion over the Government’s plans to protect youngsters, the Prime Minister makes clear that under the proposals, web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.
In an article for the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister says it is ‘utterly appalling’ that so many children have been exposed to the ‘darkest corners’ of the internet, adding: ‘A silent attack on innocence is under way in our country today and I am determined that we fight it with all we’ve got.’
He announces that Conservative MP Claire Perry, who has led the campaign for a broader, automatic block on adult material for all internet users, is to be appointed as his adviser on reversing the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.
She will be in charge of implementing the new web filter system, which will also require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls.

Anyone remember the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? Remember how we were told it was 'necessary' in the fight against terrorism to be used to monitor suspected terrorists? Remember also the use it was put too in checking litter bin use, peoples locations vis school catchment areas...
Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool all used RIPA powers to snoop on dog fouling, and Bolton used powers under the Act to investigate littering.
The most prolific user of the Act in 2008 was Durham County Council which used the legislation 131 times almost exclusively against traders suspected of selling counterfeit goods or suspected of selling age-restricted products to kids.
Anyone want to bet that as soon as the government can force ISP's to censor their content that the range of content that can actually be censored will increase to the point where any criticism of the government or anything they don't want us to see is included?
Think we'd discover about MP's expense scandals, Islamic grooming gangs, social services 'disasters' even mention of the family courts scandal?
Well we would, though we'd have to go via various unblocked sites (probably based abroad) to get it. It's not like the UK's attempt to block the Pirate Bay was terribly successful. I'm pretty sure that most bloggers and other net savvy individuals will find things out, but ordinary people???
Asking governments to take on powers it really ought not to have is a recipe of disaster because there is always mission creep and frankly politicians cannot be trusted, one government might initially behave itself but the next one?
The Mail may be crowing about victory, but this is no victory at all, they've just campaigned for the government to have the power to censor them.

Access denied, denied

Why do some people believe it's the job of the state to do everything for them? Take online porn, there are some people out there who actually believe that the government should get involved to block access to various sites so they don't have to do it themselves. It's the classic 'for the cheeeldren' meme that's so popular amongst the hard of thinking and the devoid of discipline that seems to permeate some areas of society...
Mail.

One of the most pressing anxieties of responsible parents is how to stop their children from accessing pornography on the internet.
Nearly three-quarters of nine to 16-year-olds in Britain go online daily. Growing numbers of three and four-year-old children are accessing the net.
So preventing them from stumbling across or even choosing to download internet porn is a very real problem.

If you're that bothered put a password on the pc and don't let your little darlings access it out of your sight... Simples.
Well apparently not, some people believe the government should do it for them...

There is cross-party support for tougher online controls, reflecting acute parental anxiety.
In a consultation exercise, half of parents said they wanted some content blocked automatically.
So the Government’s proposals, which were slipped out quietly a few days ago on the Department for Education website as if it didn’t want anyone to notice, have left many frankly baffled.
For it said that while access to internet porn would be banned in public places, no such ban would apply to private use.

Ooh apparently someone in the government actually gets it that what you do in your home is your responsibility. That includes monitoring what your kids actually see and do, rather than say simply letting them get on with it in an out of sight out of mind attitude that some parents believe is responsible parenting.
There are a host of programmes out there which can block access to porn (and other stuff) you just have to google it and it practically leaps out at you. Of course that means actually having to do it yourself which means that for some people it's not a good idea. they'd rather the nanny state did everything for us automatically.
These are the people who I believe think that the internet is some sort of babysitter bit like the tv, used to be (and possibly still is)
Perhaps these people ought to be examined to see if they are actually fit to be responsible parents, because if they want the state to do it for them, then clearly they are not...

Media madness

As the world goes on a twitter and MSM frenzy over two Australian DJ's, a hoax call and a dead nurse (why was she on switchboard duty anyway, don't we have proper jobs for them to do?) I suspect that a lot of bad news is being gratefully swept under the carpet government style as it was with the Savile case. There appear to have been a lot of good days to bury bad news recently. Not that this will come as any sort of comfort to the parents of Jacintha Saldanha who fell for the hoax and deserve some sympathy for their loss, but I do wonder how the hospital and the media + twitterati's pressure in keeping the case in the news led to her state of despair.
You see, it was a joke, yes a joke in bad taste, but still a joke, frankly I've heard of worse prank calls, listened to the odd few on local radio. But this one involved a 'royal' so we have massive media exposure and someone who made a mistake died as a consequence. However this is a godsend to the people pushing the Leveson recommendations to control the media ever more closely with draconian laws designed to keep the truth (along with other activities) away from the general public.
Mail.

New laws may be needed to ‘civilise the internet’, protect private lives and prevent ‘mob rule’, Lord Justice Leveson has suggested.
The judge, speaking in public for the first time since his 2,000-page report into the Press was published, launched a broadside against the prospect of people facing ‘trial by Twitter’.
Critics have suggested that the Leveson report’s recommendations risk shackling a shrinking print media while doing nothing to address a ‘Wild West’ online culture in which innocent people’s reputations are trashed every day.

I suppose the question that should be asked is who decides who is innocent? After all, such controls as posited by Leveson would also protect the guilty too. It's all about control, there have been any number of recent cases where the idiots of the ever repeating meme have fallen foul of those who believe silence is golden. What Leveson appears to be proposing though is some form of gossip regulation where speculation and rumour will be subject to ever tighter control. Anyone here willing to bet that any such legislation (and good luck trying to control the internet of the world) will immediately suffer from 'mission creep' after all, that's what happened with RIPA, indeed has happened with a few laws supposed to protect the rest of us from all sorts of dangers yet have been used to control us instead.
In the end, regulation will only be used to protect the 'guilty' not the innocent, it's how these people who legislate's mind work. They don't really care about the likes of Jacintha Saldanha, all they want to do is keep their foibles out of the public view. So they'll use the likes of the crass twitterati to justify their legislation, if it wasn't Jacintha Saldanha it would have been someone else eh Lord McAlpine?

Karmic balance...

Temperance, a strange sort of condition practiced by those who cannot cope with the effects of alcohol and meddling busybodies who wish to run our lives for us (for our own good, well that;'s what they say) it had its hay day in the declining days of the 19th century in this country, though hung on in the USA until it caused major issues with prohibition and the cycle of crime resulting from that madness.
Express.

THE owner of Britain’s last surviving Temperance bar has been banned from driving for 17 months after he admitted drink-driving.
Christopher Law, 52, owns the 122-year-old Fitzpatrick’s bar in Rawtenstall, Lancs, which has sold health remedies and non-alcoholic drinks such as sarsaparilla or dandelion and burdock since 1890.
Temperance bars originated in Lancashire in the late 19th century, opened by teetotal Methodists advocating abstinence from alcohol and often asking their patrons to sign a no-alcohol pledge.

Thing is, the temperance movement seems to have survived within the NHS and  the imaginary 'units' scheme someone plucked from thin air which decides whether you're a good or bad risk depending on which side of the line you're on. Doesn't matter that you're fit and healthy and have a greater tolerance for alcohol, nor that imbibing occasionally is good for you. No, if you drink, you're 'evil' and cost the NHS money, even when you don't.
I'm rapidly coming to the belief that only those who take out from the NHS in that they don't contribute to it via taxation should have to face any sort of questioning as to their lifestyle, the rest of us who do pay in ought to have the right to tell them to bugger off with the lifestyle questioning and just repair the damage. After all, whose money is it anyway?
What happens though is that these people never give up, even when proven time and time again that their guesses are just that, guesses. If they can find a way to interfere they'll grasp it with both hands and if necessary wrap their thighs around it too and simply will not let go no matter what. Not because they want to help, but because it means control, it justifies their petty existence and allows them to make someone's life a misery to boot.
In the end it's all about control and it won't stop until we put them up against the wall and shoot them.
Chances are though that will just clear the decks for the next generation of prodnoses.

Took them long enough to notice...

Most of us on the right of the blogging world are aware of the activities of a group called 'Common Purpose' whose stated aim of preparing people to take responsibility when called for seems to be at odds with their training up of what seems to be a hidden clique of authoritarian power brokers within the political establishment of the UK. With 'members' in all walks and branches of the UK establishment from police chiefs to senior civil servants, journalists and local government executives, their tangled web runs throughout all walks of our lives without a lot of people knowing. That their influence comes from the left is known, though not all who have passed through their hands are of the left, but their authoritarian nature is known along with parts of their agenda from various bloggers and internet sites who take an interest in such things...
Still, it seems as if the MSM might just have caught a whiff of what's actually going on, rather than what they think is going on.
Mail.
Sir David Bell's certainly a very busy bee. A greying, dishevelled figure in an ill-fitting suit, he appears to have been by far the most assiduous of the six 'assessors' appointed by the government to advise Lord Justice Leveson and his Inquiry.
Bell is an ideological bedmate of the aforesaid Julia Middleton — another very busy bee who has been described as the best-connected woman you've never heard of.
Public-spirited you may say. Except that an investigation by the Daily Mail raises serious questions about the suitability of Bell as an assessor and the impact this may have had on the objectivity and neutrality of the Inquiry itself.

• Bell is a trustee and a former chairman of a leadership training organisation called Common Purpose, whose thousands of 'graduates' have been described as the 'Left's answer to the old boys' network.' (though not all share the same political views). Their identities are well protected.
• Founded by Ms Middleton and registered as a charity, Common Purpose boasts a 'considerable reach' throughout senior positions in public life. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on sending public servants on its courses.
• Three of the six Leveson assessors have Common Purpose connections, either through direct participation or through senior colleagues within the organisations they lead or have led.
• Bell and Middleton set up the Media Standards Trust, a lobby group which presented a huge amount of evidence to the Inquiry. The Media Standards Trust, whose chairman was Bell, gave its 'prestigious' Orwell Prize for political writing to a journalist who turned out to have made up parts of his 'award-winning' articles.
• The Media Standards Trust established Hacked Off, the virulently anti-popular-press campaign group which has boasted of its role in significantly increasing the Inquiry's terms of reference. The Media Standards Trust shared the same headquarters address as Common Purpose. It then shared an address with Hacked Off, whose funding it controlled.
• Many of those who provided the most hostile anti-press evidence to Leveson are linked to senior figures at the Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off.
• The Media Standards Trust has strong links with Ofcom, the statutory media regulator which, despite its denials, some suspect has ambitions to regulate Britain's free press. Ofcom's ex-chairman Lord Currie is a Leveson assessor.
• Much of the financing of the Media Standards Trust comes from a charity of which Bell is a trustee — a practice that, while legal, would seem to many to be inappropriate.
• Despite being formed by the Media Standards Trust, which is campaigning for 'transparency and accountability in the news', Hacked Off refuses to make explicit the sources of its own funding.
• And, of course, Bell is a trustee of the now notorious Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has wreaked such damage on the BBC.

Thing is I've known about and suspected the true intent of Common Purpose for years. I was alerted to it by various bloggers including John Ward in Medway who has been gathering data on them for years. Though I suspect that those reading the article in the Mail are pretty much unaware of the invasive rot that Common Purpose has lodged in the public services and the body politic, some seem to believe that the Mail is trying to shift blame after the Leveson Inquiry which as far as I know hasn't reached any form of conclusion yet.
Yet the facts as the Mail has published them speak for themselves, it rather looks like Common Purpose intends to put a stranglehold on press reporting to remove their activities even further from the public view.
We are in danger of slipping incrementally into an authoritarian state with merely the trappings of a democracy around us. Organisations like Common Purpose have their own agenda and it isn't one in which personal freedoms including speech, religion and thought have any place.
The more exposure these dangerous people get the better, but I do fear some in the UK simply refuse to believe the evidence.

A breach of the peace.

Seems the states 'encouragement' of arresting people who might commit a crime is going a bit further than I thought.
This from the British freedom Party site...

By George Whale, 21:20 Monday
I have just received an urgent telephone call from British Freedom leader Paul Weston who has been arrested outside Wormwood Scrubs Prison.
Speaking from the back of a police van being driven to an unknown destination, Paul hurriedly informed me that he and a friend had travelled to the prison in West London this evening with the aim of visiting Tommy Robinson, or at least assuring themselves of his well-being.
Speaking through a glass panel they had asked officers at the prison to confirm that Tommy was being held there, but they refused to provide this information, citing the ‘Data Protection Act’. Paul and his friend again demanded to know where Tommy was being held, and at that point both were charged with breach of the peace, arrested and bundled into the police van.
Our conversation was cut off with Paul loudly remonstrating to an unidentified individual, “take your hands off me!”
We will update you on the situation as it unfolds.

Seems as even asking will get you arrested these days, providing of course you aren't islamic or a socialist...

Department of pre crime...

The English Defence league are not everyone's cup of tea (though they aren't quite what a lot of people believe them to be either) But by and large they attempt to protest within the letter of the law, liaising with police for their marches, self regulating themselves with stewarding and ejecting troublemakers from their demo's though often enough the troublemakers roots can be traced to the vile Unite Against fascism or other violent groups of the ugly left. The EDL are frequently maligned in the MSM too with accurate reporting being a bit of a joke and misleading headlines about arrests made (22 arrests at EDL demo, but 20 of them were UAF/Muslims) giving the impression that the EDL were/are at fault. Last year though on Remembrance day I witnessed a new tactic by the police, members of the EDL being arrested on suspicion that they 'might commit a crime' This has been followed up several times by the police who seem to believe that arresting people who might commit a crime particularly if they are a protest group is indeed a brilliant idea...
BBC.

Police have arrested 53 men, believed to be supporters of the English Defence League, who were heading to London.
The men were held on the M25 motorway near Heathrow Airport and Uxbridge and on the M3 near Bagshot, Surrey, on Saturday afternoon, police said.
The men were heading to a location in east London, but police have not revealed where they were due to gather.
All 53 were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, the Metropolitan Police said.
They have been bailed until a later date pending further inquiries.
A Met spokesman said: "This was part of an intelligence-led investigation into a planned disturbance in east London on that day (Saturday)".
One of the bail conditions imposed on the men bans them from entering east London to demonstrate for a stipulated period of time, police said.
The men were taken to police stations in central and south London.

One of the men arrested was Kevin Carroll who is standing for election to the police commissioner post in Berkshire, another is Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley Lennon) who is still under arrest and was at the time of writing still in incarceration.
Let me make this plain, no crime was committed and no crime was going to be committed, nor do the police need to be informed of a static demo. yet still, 53 innocent men were arrested, bailed and prevented from attending any demo's in East London based on 'intelligence' which strikes me as the same sort of intelligence which got 173 EDL arrested on Remembrance Day because some idiot put on facebook the EDL were going to march on the Occupy London gimps at St Paul's (no how, no way Occupy don't even register on the EDL's radar)
It seems as if our over zealous police (probably the higher ups) are under instruction to prevent the EDL from causing a fuss about islamic crimes and behaviour, it won't work, though any who take pleasure from such arrests ought to keep in mind Pastor Martin Niemöller's poem.
First they came for the EDL...

Amnesty

Why can politicians of the left never grasp the obvious? Is it some form of cognitive disfunction or some macabre plot to keep the rest of us off balance whilst they go about making wrecking the world in their own image?
BBC.

Salford and Eccles MP Hazel Blears has called for a gun amnesty following a spate of shootings in Salford.
Ms Blears attended a meeting with residents and senior police officers at The Height Methodist Church in Irlams o' th' Height on Friday.
She said she backed a resident's suggestion for a gun amnesty in which residents are given the chance to hand in illegal firearms at police stations.

Why the residents seem to feel that criminals might hand in their illegal weapons is beyond me, only the law abiding are likely to hand in great granddads old WW2 revolver (sans ammo). There are several reasons these gangs are armed from the poseur point of view to the fact that all the other gangs are armed too. I know this, the police know this and any call to hand in illegal weapons is only going to take such weapons away from the law abiding which has been government policy for decades now.
What really needs to be done is for the police to have the resources to take on and take down these gangs, perhaps we could persuade the SAS to have a go, after all they're the prime reason the IRA are now part of the peace process, not the politicians. Kill enough of them and the problem will go away.
Not that I expect such a simplistic policy ever to be adopted by the government. They are far too happy with ordinary people being scared of those who have guns, both the criminals and the government...

Lycra louts?

It would be difficult to find a Mail article with more generalisations in it than the one hoisted today by Petronella Wyatt
Mail.

How thuggish minority of cyclists are terrorising our roads with one elderly pensioner being hit twice in a month. On August 16, my mother was hit by a Lycra lout. She was crossing the road when a youth on a bicycle shot a red light, knocked her to the ground and left her with a broken arm. Yesterday, a friend telephoned to ask about her health. 'She would be feeling better,' I replied, 'if she hadn't been hit by another bicycle the other evening.' I could hear a convulsion in his voice. It sounded like stifled laughter. He could not repress a gurgling sound before he managed to compose himself to express sympathy and shock. 'Again? How awful!' If my mother had been hit twice by a car in a similar space of time, the general reaction would have been one of horror and outrage. The anti-car lobby has portrayed motorists as evil, greedy killers of the innocent and destroyers of the planet. But this halcyon haze enveloping cyclists hides a disturbing truth. The majority are safe – but not all. There are rogues: Lycra louts whose intentions are as low as the meanest hit-men. In 2012, I had my handbag stolen by a gang of youths on bikes. This is not to deny the guilt of many motorists who drive irresponsibly, and the fact that every year innocent cyclists lose their lives as a result. But the police have established, in conjunction with the Transport Research Laboratory, that half of all collisions between bicycles and cars are the fault of the cyclist.

The generalisations in the tale lead me to wonder just what the woman is rambling on about. A gang of feral youths on bikes hardly constitute lycra louts for one. The other is that some cyclists are dangerous on bikes, which suggests going after them rather than penalising all.Sadly that's not how the nanny state generation sees things, if there is a problem by a minority (and she admits it's a minority) then all must be punished. Not that I'm averse to cyclists being properly trained or carrying insurance, but before that happens there needs to be measures put into place to make roads safer for them to use and keep them off the pavements. That sadly is where the entire fantasy falls flat, the government won't spend the money and the way the UK's streets came to be (cattle runs to market mostly) happened in an age before the internal combustion engine came to power personal transport. Nor despite the earbashing that certain government departments and the lycra lobby give the UK public on moving away from their cars can I see any likelihood of people giving them anything but two fingers for their troubles.
The facts are, for the most part the UK's streets are clogged with traffic, this isn't going to stop unless fuel becomes way more expensive than it is now. People are not going to turn to cycling in any great numbers, not now or ever unless their places of work, leisure, play, shops, get a lot closer and the means to fit a full load of tools, shopping, kids, onto a bike or public transport becomes cheaper and more convenient for the majority.
There are always going to be bad cyclists in the same way there are always going to be bad drivers and careless pedestrians. That's life and trying to regulate it without dealing with the problems causing it is never going to work.
Rebuilding our cities and road network is never going to happen, accidents will though and no-one is going to be happy. Petronella Wyatt needs to realise this and simply try to find and prosecute the thugs who mowed her mum down rather than try to reinvent the wheel and put more people at the mercy of the state.

Can't see this working either...

Cardiff it seems has a cunning plan to deal with 'binge drinker' it's apparently decided to video them and show them the results at a later date.
Telegraph.

Revellers in Cardiff will be filmed entering the new city centre clinic, which is being opened on certain evenings to take pressure off accident and emergency departments.
Conrad Edymann, head of substance misuse strategy and development for Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, said drinkers who entered the clinic would be able to view it "when they have achieved a level of sobriety".
He added: “Our intention is that the vast majority of people will be surprised and hopefully concerned about the state of their behaviour.”
Nobody would be forced to watch it, he said, and all footage of a patient would be destroyed when they left the clinic. Patients would not be able to take footage away, he emphasised.
Mr Eydmann said that was important because they did not want drinkers misbehaving on purpose so they could have “a trophy item to put up on social networking sites”.

Well Mr Eydmann has already highlighted on reason it probably won't work in that those doing the binge drinking will either not give a damn or would simply not be bothered to watch it. The UK's culture of drinking is different to pretty much anywhere else's and so far all attempts to change it have faltered in the bloody minded intransigence of those who do it. This is mostly because the idiots who decide they can force change on the population are attempting to 'cure' the result, not the cause.
Raising prices simply meant people would tank up on cheap booze before they went out, or smuggle it in to places where they chose to go. The high price of a legal activity often meant that revellers would seek illegal highs in their determination to have a good time.
People work hard and play hard in the UK and you aren't going to make them change their ways by videoing them. Perhaps a look at just why people need to tank up in the first place would give them a better idea on how to cope rather than telling us what to do all the time.
Either way, this won't stop people drinking and it won't do anything about the causes behind it. It might even be a breach of their rights to film them without their permission.

Bansturbation

I'm not quite sure just what it is that makes people want to dress up in Nazi uniforms, other than the fact that they look way cooler than the rest of the WW2 regalia of the allies and others. I think it might have to do with the fact that they were designed by Hugo Boss whereas the rest all look like they were designed by the committee that designed the camel.
Still I do understand why certain Jewish groups would get upset when people do, though I don't believe they should attempt to stop it, merely avoid it. However I'm at a loss as to why anyone else would object, though naturally there are elements on the left who object to anything...
Mail.

War enthusiasts cause outrage after parading through streets in Nazi uniforms and flying swastika flags from their cars

• The incident happened at the Yanks festival in Uppermill near Manchester
• War enthusiasts donned Nazi uniforms and drove through in cars with Nazi flags attached
• Jewish and anti-fascism groups brand it offensive

A row has broken out after war enthusiasts took to the streets in Nazi uniforms and flying swastikas from their cars.
Jewish leaders and anti-fascism campaigners have berated festival-goers near Saddleworth, Greater Manchester, who went through the centre of the village of Uppermill proudly carrying the Nazi symbol.
Hundreds attended the Yanks festival last weekend, with many thrilled to dress up and re-create the 1940s for a few days.
But organisers say they cannot stop people wearing Nazi insignia on a public street and insist their own strict code of conduct bans them.
Although they said anyone spotted with anything Nazi-related trying to get into their event at Saddleworth School was asked to remove it.
But campaign group Unite Against Fascism called for the public to protest and said it was unacceptable.

Now, first off people ought to realise that there were two sides to WW2 (and any number of alliances) and that pretending the opposing side doesn't exist is just a tad silly, that includes all aspects of the opposing side too.
Also no-one is making the Jewish groups actually go there and witness the event, which is simply a historical re-enactment on a grand scale.
As for Unite Against Fascism, these are the people who would ban free speech, freedom of expression, frequently turn out when various groups whom they don't approve of legally protest and attempt to violently prevent this. So when looking at the UAF and comparing it to fascism, you'd be wondering just who exactly the fascists are, not that easy to tell them apart.
To most people, this is just a bit of fun, yes they realise just how terrible the Nazi's were, however seeing some people wandering around in Nazi uniforms is not going to turn them into Nazi's, no matter how hard the idiots on the left believe it might. I rather suspect that this is simply something that those groups who hate any form of freedom of expression love as it gives them a bit of free publicity.
A lot of people particularly those of an authoritarian bent seem to forget that freedom if it means anything should allow for views and opinions opposed to your own, including historical ones.

Ambiguity

What would you make of someone who objected to you using a premises for a purpose and deliberately lied in their objections? I suspect a visit from the compo fairy might be in order, however the complications could start if the objector was in fact a member of the police.
BBC.

Police have admitted that they do not have any evidence to support a claim that lap dancing clubs may contribute to sex offences.
Insp Ian Drummond-Smith, from Devon and Cornwall Police, made his claim in a letter to Cornwall Council in March.
He was objecting to an application to open a new lap dancing club in Newquay.
But, in response to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request for evidence, the force said there was "no recorded information held".
The application for a lap dancing licence at the Kiss nightclub was refused permission in May after the inspector's objections were received by the council's licensing committee.
The FoI request asked what evidence he had for a claim in the letter that "those leaving the premises having been subject to highly sexualised performances may be at greater risk of committing sexual offences". Mr Drummond-Smith said: "I cannot prove any link, nor did I claim to prove any link. "I said at the beginning of the hearing that we could not prove it.

Yet still the ban went ahead because of the police objections, despite the fact that there was no evidence other than the 'ambiguous' wording of a police inspector. Yes there was a higher-than-average number of sex offences in the area, though none of this could be laid at the door of the lap dancing club.

"I will concede that the letter was a bit ambiguous, but I still believe it is an inappropriate place to have a sex club in an area which already has a higher-than-average number of sex offences."
He said: "If I had had figures, I would have put them in, but it's still my view that it would have been inappropriate in a mixed area with houses, a shopping centre and churches."

Well that makes it all right then I suppose, despite the lack of any evidence on your part and merely the belief that such a club had no place where it was located.
Don't get me wrong here, I believe that everyone has the right to object, it's just that I believe the evidence provided by a lying Police Inspector might have carried far more weight than say something presented by you or I.
Perhaps a visit from the compo fairy is warranted after all, along with the sack for a lying Police Inspector...

Collective punishment

It's a favourite of those in authority. Can't be arsed to deal with a minor problem, opt for a blanket ban.
Telegraph.

A primary school has banned children from playing football at break-time during Euro 2012 to stop fights - and has asked them to play chess instead.
Pupils have been told kickabouts and all other ball games are off limits at playtime during the tournament.
Instead, staff at Hall Road Primary, in Orchard Park, Hull, hope pupils will skip and play with outdoor chess sets.
Deputy head teacher Kristina Frary said the ban was needed to prevent injuries and allow staff to get on with teaching.
She said: "Passions are running high, especially with the Euro 2012 football tournament. Potentially, that's why children are wound-up.
"We have had a sequence of fall-outs and they were all centred around football.
"It was only a small number of incidents - maybe half a dozen - but we have decided to have a break."

So instead of being prepared to deal with a half a dozen incidents, all the kids who want to play football have to suffer? Wouldn't it have just been easier to 'sin bin' the ones who can't control themselves and to let the rest enjoy the pleasure of kicking a ball about to let off steam?
I do wish the powers that be would just leave us alone, to see that in life as in sport there are winners and losers. To allow small disputes like these to be treated as a breach of the rules, rather than as an excuse for collective punishment.
Kids are competitive, kids fight, you punish the guilty, not the innocent.
What''s so bloody hard about that?

First name Mickey, surname Mouse

Plans are afoot to force mothers to name the father's of their children on the birth certificate. Though how they propose to make mothers tell the truth is another matter entirely.
Telegraph.

Fathers could be forced by law to be named on their baby’s birth certificate under plans being drawn up by ministers to boost their role in family life.
The controversial move is one of a range of options being considered by David Cameron, who is keen to help promote fathers’ feelings of responsibility for their infants.
At the moment, only the mother’s name must be officially registered. If there is no father’s name on the certificate, he will be described as “unknown”.
It is estimated that around 50,000 births are registered in Britain every year without the father’s name being recorded.
In an intervention to mark Fathers’ Day, coalition sources said enforcing the move by law was one of the options being studied, along with an alternative of tightening existing guidelines to “encourage” more fathers to sign birth certificates.

Now I'm all for fathers paying their way for their kids, however i can see a whole raft of problems coming from this proposed legislation including the main one of the mother not knowing who the father is, or simply lying in the case of possible infidelity. After all, that's what happened in the past with all those milkman kids.
Also disconcerting is the method they intend to make use of...

Sources said that the requirement for fathers to be named could be introduced using a law which was passed under Labour but never brought into effect.
The 2009 Welfare Reform Act contains a provision for requiring mothers to name fathers, threatening them with a £200 fine and seven days in prison for perjury if they gave a false answer.

Ah yes, how terribly apt that the coagulation should attempt an attack on the right to silence with a law introduced by the past masters of removing rights the Labour Party. Of course it will likely turn out that it's one rule for us and another rule for them...

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, did not sign the birth certificate when his son Daniel was born in 2009 – claiming he had been “too busy”. His duties at the time included attending a climate change summit in Copenhagen as energy secretary.

Climate change instead of proudly proclaiming you're the father of your son. Yes, that's Labour to the core as well.
This is simply another attack on our ancient rights by the powers that be. Instead of reducing the size of government, they seek to reduce their income by removing our rights.

If you can ban one thing you can ban anything

One of the things obvious about the governments attempts to ban hate speech was not who it was aimed at but who decided what was and wasn't hate speech. At the moment it is mostly used by the race industry to prevent often fair criticism, though no doubt if a group of pets falls out of favour it will be applied to them just as rigorously. The same goes with censorship, personally I believe the best person to censor me is me, if I don't want to look at something, I wont. However as ever the government is approaching the issue from a "for the children" mindset in getting an automatic block on all online porn unless you opt out.
Mail.

Internet users should automatically be blocked from accessing pornography at home to stop the surge in children seeing adult material, MPs will demand today.
Anyone wanting to view hardcore images online should have to ‘opt out’ of a special filter, according to the panel of MPs and peers looking into child protection.
Their report said that six out of ten children download adult material because their parents have not installed filters. The use of protective filters in homes has fallen from 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the last three years.
They concluded that parents were often outsmarted by their web-savvy children and felt unconfident in updating and downloading content filters. Many parents were ‘oblivious’ to the type of material available on the internet and were often shocked when they realised the content that children were accessing

Yes kids are quite internet savvy, but the fault for them looking at what they do lies with parents, letting a kid run unsupervised with a computer is a bit like leaving a loaded gun around the place, it's just something you should not do. But because some parents are irresponsible, they've given the government an opportunity to legislate for all. So, what the government is proposing is an opt out system, where you no doubt have to go through some process to clear a filter. I rather suspect a lot of parents might have to get their kids to do this for them.
The danger is of course once they've managed (assuming they do) get a system in place that works it will then be available for other purposes, anti-government websites, inconvenient bloggers and political movements being but a few of the options. After all, if we can't find it, how will we know it's there? Particularly if there is a secondary filter that cannot be over ridden for extreme sites...
The problem with anything like this is that at some stage it always ends up being abused by those in power who do not cope well with criticism and who do not like their motives and business being in the publics eye. Much easier to blame someone else if those who want to know can't find the evidence in the first place as it's hidden away from the publics view.
Don't say you haven't been warned...